US Capitol Breached

[r16]

divisions in a country create an automatic control on the base of supporters . The failure on the 6th does not make it a non-coup or whatever and it will keep dividing America . Trump supporters by next week might even forget it ever happened , if Republicans decide to keep to the same direction .

 

[Traitorfish]

Latin America is our friend in this conceptual morass.

As someone already pointed out in this thread, it was a clear case of an attempted "autogolpe", an attempt at a "self-coup", as has been witnessed down south of the US on a number of occasions when a government eyes defeat and removal from power.

I disagree.

A self-coup is still an attempt to overthrow one regime and institute another in its place, with the caveat that the personnel of each regime are the [edit: same]. The furthest horizon of Wednesday's events were that they somehow did result in Trump pulling out some final ace which allowed him to remain president; this is not a coup, because no change of regime has occurred. The existence regime has been maintained, however diminished and discredited.

Trump overturning the election by legal means would have represented a "coup" only in a symbolic sense, in the final transfer of legitimacy away from institutions to personalities, the triumph of charismatic leadership over procedure. Perhaps that is something to be worried about, but Wednesday's events represent only a dramatisation of that conflict, they didn't change anything.

 

[The_J]

Freedom of speech?

Only bringing this up from a few pages back, since I haven't seen anyone giving the correct answer (I might have missed though, since I skipped over long parts, and will probably tune out of this thread soon):
- Freedom of speech means that the government cannot prosecute you for what you're saying, that the police cannot arrest you for your opinion. (with exceptions, like inciting violence, screaming fire in a random situation, hate speech, libel, etc; the list is actually quite extensive, if you want to interpret stuff in the most broad way)
- It does not mean that anyone is obligated to make other voices heard though (e.g. the media doesn't have to report about it)
- The other concept related is censorship. This again states that the government cannot blacklist any topics, all can be talked about
- It does not mean that anyone is obligated to give coverage to any topic or to listen to them
- Basically you can do anything, as long as someone supports you. In the worst case, you can always print flyers at home, and distribute them, because you don't need support for that. You can have your own website/blog whatever, if you find a host for it. You can express your opinion. It might not be heard though, and in how far there is pressure to not make it heard within legal boundaries, that might tell something about... not sure.
- In how far a generally hostile environment is not conductive to freedom of speech, that is a different problem, partially also related to the "Chilling Effect", which basically means that the environment puts pressure on people to not exercise their rights.

tl;dr: Private companies not supporting someone in expressing their opinion does not conflict with the concept of freedom of speech.

 

[uppi]

I disagree.

A self-coup is still an attempt to overthrow one regime and institute another in its place, with the caveat that the personnel of each regime are the case. The furthest horizon of Wednesday's events were that they somehow did result in Trump pulling out some final ace which allowed him to remain president; this is not a coup, because no change of regime has occurred. The existence regime has been maintained, however diminished and discredited.

Trump overturning the election by legal means would have represented a "coup" only in a symbolic sense, in the final transfer of legitimacy away from institutions to personalities, the triumph of charismatic leadership over procedure. Perhaps that is something to be worried about, but Wednesday's events represent only a dramatisation of that conflict, they didn't change anything.

I agree that it was not a coup, but only because it was far from successful enough to be called a coup. The intent to prevent the incoming government from taking office by force was clearly there, so it was an attempted coup. A very poor attempt, granted, but still an attempt.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Then and now

 

[Kyriakos]

I agree that it was not a coup, but only because it was far from successful enough to be called a coup. The intent to prevent the incoming government from taking office by force was clearly there, so it was an attempted coup. A very poor attempt, granted, but still an attempt.

I think this way of seeing things is witnessed in other US political goings-on. For example, at times if some nobody (who importantly lacks the means to carry out the threat) posts some "death-threat" on twitter against a US celebrity/politician, it may be taken seriously and there are calls for action. But one has to assume that after the fbi bags him/her/them, they assess that there was no threat in the first place.
If this "coup attempt" had a 110% chance of failing, it should be viewed the same, I think.

 

[GinandTonic]

The political status of DC is actually very material here, given the suggestions the federal government blocked the DC government from properly securing things.

This deserves to be read.

Whatever conclusion we arrive at some NATO intelligence agencies are briefing their governments that this was a coup attempt and that security had been deliberately gimped.

 

[Verbose]

I disagree.

A self-coup is still an attempt to overthrow one regime and institute another in its place, with the caveat that the personnel of each regime are the case. The furthest horizon of Wednesday's events were that they somehow did result in Trump pulling out some final ace which allowed him to remain president; this is not a coup, because no change of regime has occurred. The existence regime has been maintained, however diminished and discredited.

Trump overturning the election by legal means would have represented a "coup" only in a symbolic sense, in the final transfer of legitimacy away from institutions to personalities, the triumph of charismatic leadership over procedure. Perhaps that is something to be worried about, but Wednesday's events represent only a dramatisation of that conflict, they didn't change anything.

Ticks all the necessary boxes for a coup, kind of incontrovertibly if successful, I'd say. Which is why it was an attempt at a "self-coup", and it matters.

Not recognizing these moves, whether labeled "self-coup" or the workings of "illiberal democracy", for what they are is potentially very dangerous too.

These regimes are not diminished and discredited where it matters to them, in the retention of power. All of it is only a potential problem IF they balk at proceeding down that road once they have taken the first steps on it. Then they will look like right chumps, diminished and discredited indeed. But if they stick to their guns, they can win, and the power will be theirs do wield, and they tend to do so.

He's staggeringly incompetent. And a coward. And sad fantasist. It's a saving grace so far for the US, if not for Trump himself. But that doesn't change what he tried to pull here, half-assed as it were. Next time it might not be quite as badly conceived and executed.

 

[sherbz]

Then and now

This actually made me feel ill

 

[Kyriakos]

Ticks all the necessary boxes for a coup, kind of incontrovertibly if successful, I'd say. Which is why it was an attempt at a "self-coup", and it matters.

Not recognizing these moves, whether labeled "self-coup" or the workings of "illiberal democracy", for what they are is potentially very dangerous too.

These regimes are not diminished and discredited where it matters to them, in the retention of power. All of it is only a potential problem IF they balk at proceeding down that road once they have taken the first steps on it. Then they will look like right chumps, diminished and discredited indeed. But if they stick to their guns, they can win, and the power fill be theirs do wield.

He's staggeringly incompetent. And a coward. And sad fantasist. It's a saving grace so far for the US, if not for Trump himself. But that doesn't change what he tried to pull here, half-assed as it were. Next time it might not be quite as badly conceived and executed.

In what scenario could this motley crew of right-wing citizens actually force a coup?
Too few citizens.
No army.
No chance of success, surely?

Wouldn't the worst they could do be to harm (or let's also say kill) some representatives? How would that change the result of the election?
Struggling to see any way for this march/riot to lead to a coup.

 

[Arwon]

This deserves to be read.

Whatever conclusion we arrive at some NATO intelligence agencies are briefing their governments that this was a coup attempt and that security had been deliberately gimped.

Yeah it's... a bit of a thing

 

[SG-17]

A coup is an organised attempt to depose one regime and install another in its place. No such thing was evident in Wednesday's events.

The participants had a vague nation that by, obstructing the senate's ratification of the electoral college, they could buy time for their big beautiful president to play whatever last ace he had up his sleeve. This does not represent an attempt to depose the current regime, or to install a new regime in its place. Perhaps they would have supported such an attempt, if it occurred; but it did not. Many of the participants in last summer's demonstrations would probably have supported a revolution, had it occurred; but it did not, and it would be frivolous to claim that it was a failed revolution on such a basis.

This was not a coup. The reason that some claim it was a coup, the only reason, is that they have spent the last twelve months expecting a coup, had convinced themselves that such an event was inevitable, so when some sort of civil unrest occurred, it must have been the coup they had predicted. The alternative would be conceding that the elaborate story they had built for themselves, a story so-far fetched as to cast geriatric segregationist Joseph Biden as the saviour of American democracy, was hysterical nonsense, and nobody is quite prepared to let go of that just yet.

Self-coup, genius.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup

 

[Verbose]

This deserves to be read.

Whatever conclusion we arrive at some NATO intelligence agencies are briefing their governments that this was a coup attempt and that security had been deliberately gimped.

Exactly. Its just – as has been repeated by a number of public figures these last four years in the US about US politics under Trump that – "This is not normal" – except Trump has been VERY good at inuring everyone to his BS and lies and moves, and human beings are dangerously able to "normalize" almost any kind of aberrant situation.

And so now we are approaching a situation where Trump TRIED to incite a coup on behalf of himself and his administration – nullifying normal constitutional US democratic operations. But a lot of people have internalized Trump's BS to the extent that since it didn't turn out so bad, it wasn't so bad, and it didn't mean what it means...?

There also was a completely unelected private presidential representative allowed a public platform and a mass audience to call for "Trial by combat" over the recent US election result.

That's clearly also normal to in the US these days, for a certain value of "normal".

Trump should be impeachable over Giuliani alone on this score, even if he himself had just stayed at home and watched TV on the day. It might be less easy to pin it on him if it was JUST Giuliani pulling this. But then it wasn't just Giuliani, and the footage is there.

Haven't heard anything so far, but is curious of Giuialni isn't already in custody over this? He should be, at least to answer some questions to start with?

 

[Berzerker]

Its a lie because you're a liar and you're intentionally saying things that aren't true in self-service to your dishonest positions... Klan/nazi/fascist defending, for example.

So stop asking me to prove a negative, you liar. Yes I deny it, and I say again, that you're an effing liar, and you shame the dignity of MLK by mentioning his name... you liar. You are defending the people who attempted a coup, because you find common cause with them. They lost... you lost... and now you are desperate to deflect the discussion away from that. The bottom line... again... is... do you support the cause of the Jan 6 Capitol protesters or not?

Go ahead and squirm... you worm... the fact that you can't actually proudly claim your convictions just demonstrates cowardice. I support BLM, proudly. Do you support MAGA? Are you willing to at least put that in digital writing, you coward?

I dont think forum rules allow me to quote you, but here's the thread so you can relive how the riots were downplayed. Hopefully the mods will allow me to defend myself.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/george-floyd-and-protesting-while-black.658605/page-144

Several people were debating MLK and I took issue with a couple of his arguments, that riots are the voice or language of the unheard and his use of Jesus bringing a sword. You criticized me (#2873, 2916) so was I wrong to assume you supported MLK's arguments? Sure looked like it to me.

I defended the Klan's free speech and you accused me of defending the Klan. I asked if the Klan would be guilty of a violent crime if they torched an uninhabited black church (my position was yes) and you accused me of defending the Klan again. Manfred provided the rebuttal and you dodged him in #2983 but downplayed the riots with a quote from Malcolm X.

I dont support MAGA or BLM. Can I at least answer before you call me a coward for not answering a question you just asked? When did I defend the people who attacked the capitol? I accused them of vandalism and said they should be prosecuted. Did you do the same for the rioters last year?

 

[cardgame]

Haven't heard anything so far, but is curious of Giuialni isn't already in custody over this? He should be, at least to answer some questions to start with?

The grapevine tells me that Giuliani is "under protection" by police so that Trump won't flip a lid. No idea how accurate that is tho

 

[AmazonQueen]

I dont think forum rules allow me to quote you, but here's the thread so you can relive how the riots were downplayed. Hopefully the mods will allow me to defend myself.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/george-floyd-and-protesting-while-black.658605/page-144

Several people were debating MLK and I took issue with a couple of his arguments, that riots are the voice or language of the unheard and his use of Jesus bringing a sword. You criticized me (#2873, 2916) so was I wrong to assume you supported MLK's arguments? Sure looked like it to me.

I defended the Klan's free speech and you accused me of defending the Klan. I asked if the Klan would be guilty of a violent crime if they torched an uninhabited black church (my position was yes) and you accused me of defending the Klan again. Manfred provided the rebuttal and you dodged him in #2983 but downplayed the riots with a quote from Malcolm X.

I dont support MAGA or BLM. Can I at least answer before you call me a coward for not answering a question you just asked? When did I defend the people who attacked the capitol? I accused them of vandalism and said they should be prosecuted. Did you do the same for the rioters last year?

You're still downplaying it.
This wasn't just a bit of vandalism.
The President incited a riot causing the deaths of 5 people as part of his campaign to overturn the results of an election he lost.
A police officer died as a result of injuries he suffered doing his duty, a duty he took seriously despite being a Trump supporter himself and you dismiss what happened as vandalism.

 

[Grisu]

Only bringing this up from a few pages back, since I haven't seen anyone giving the correct answer (I might have missed though, since I skipped over long parts, and will probably tune out of this thread soon):
- Freedom of speech means that the government cannot prosecute you for what you're saying, that the police cannot arrest you for your opinion. (with exceptions, like inciting violence, screaming fire in a random situation, hate speech, libel, etc; the list is actually quite extensive, if you want to interpret stuff in the most broad way)
- It does not mean that anyone is obligated to make other voices heard though (e.g. the media doesn't have to report about it)
- The other concept related is censorship. This again states that the government cannot blacklist any topics, all can be talked about
- It does not mean that anyone is obligated to give coverage to any topic or to listen to them
- Basically you can do anything, as long as someone supports you. In the worst case, you can always print flyers at home, and distribute them, because you don't need support for that. You can have your own website/blog whatever, if you find a host for it. You can express your opinion. It might not be heard though, and in how far there is pressure to not make it heard within legal boundaries, that might tell something about... not sure.
- In how far a generally hostile environment is not conductive to freedom of speech, that is a different problem, partially also related to the "Chilling Effect", which basically means that the environment puts pressure on people to not exercise their rights.

tl;dr: Private companies not supporting someone in expressing their opinion does not conflict with the concept of freedom of speech.

or, in the words of xkcd:

 

[Verbose]

The grapevine tells me that Giuliani is "under protection" by police so that Trump won't flip a lid. No idea how accurate that is tho

Nice one, if true. Yet still more enabling of Trump and his delusions. But clearly everyone is just increasingly hoping to be able to coast to Jan 20 without any more blow-out.

In what scenario could this motley crew of right-wing citizens actually force a coup?
Too few citizens.
No army.
No chance of success, surely?

Wouldn't the worst they could do be to harm (or let's also say kill) some representatives? How would that change the result of the election?
Struggling to see any way for this march/riot to lead to a coup.

That's largely Trump being just to darn ignorant about how the US system works to be effective. He clearly literally thought Pence could just GIFT him the 2020 election on the 6th. And this crowd was intended to provide some street-theatre-backbone, i.e. a threat, since it seems to have gone through to Trump that Pence wasn't going to – only unclear if Trump understood Pence actually could not (he can't, and Pence really seems to have to tried to explain this), or just thought Pence would not. Given how Trump then played this, almost certainly the latter.

Now, allow for someone ambitious who does understand the US system, and what they could do from the position of POTUS...? Possibilities abound. (Give it to someone like Orban, and surely this kind of monkey-business would not go down. Instead the executive branch of power would determinedly and consistently start stripping first the legislative and then the judiciary branches of government of their independence. It's just fortunate Trump is SO damn limited he thought this could be accomplished simply by his say-so as President.)

But the intention by Trump here is pretty clear. Trump being a sad fantasist doesn't invalidate what he tried to do. He should be removed for it.

And in the mean time he still has the US nuclear codes and is the CiC.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I accused them of vandalism and said they should be prosecuted.

So if a thief entered your house and trashed it and stole several electronics like a laptop, cellphone, and TV... they are only guilty of vandalisim? Even if on your laptop and cellphone you have tones of personal info that you forgot to delete?
Not to mention several people are DEAD.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Now, allow for someone ambitious who does understand the US system, and what they could do from the position of POTUS...? Possibilities abound. (Give it to someone like Orban, and surely this kind of monkey-business would not go down. Instead the executive branch of power would determinedly and consistently start stripping first the legislative and then the judiciary branches of government of their independence. It's just fortunate Trump is SO damn limited he thought this could be accomplished simply by his say-so as President.)

But the intention by Trump here is pretty clear. Trump being a sad fantasist doesn't invalidate what he tried to do. He should be removed for it.

And in the mean time he still has the US nuclear codes and is the CiC.

Not only should he be removed, there should be dire consequences. Or more attempts will be made.

Those who aim for autocracy only have to succeed once. Those who aim for democracy have to succeed every single time.