Read 2972 times

Re: Troubling...
« Reply #60 on: April 20, 2021, 02:04:23 pm »
It flopped hard, but there was a passionate, deliberate, physical attempt to interfere with the change in power. :undecided:

I think that the disagreement here is that you're setting the bar for "attempted coup" too high in that you believe it needs even a remote chance to succeed to be considered as such, while others are arguing just that the technical requirements for considering it an attempted coup have been met.
But a coup isn't just about interference, it's about overthrow. If the goal of the protesters is to disrupt the proceedings for a few hours, make a stink, and then leave, then that isn't a coup. It's a protest. A coup has the aim of seizing the powers of government and placing someone in control. There is no evidence of that and without it, a coup it cannot be.


  • fka
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1091

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Troubling...
« Reply #61 on: April 20, 2021, 02:10:03 pm »
Quote
But seriously, while it didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding, had very few casualties, and has probably been laughed at by absolutely every single real revolutionary on the planet, one should endeavor to call a spade a spade. It flopped hard, but there was a passionate, deliberate, physical attempt to interfere with the change in power.

That's the thing that you're not acknowledging, Martino. The intent was to disrupt the democratic process and install the loser of an election. For a large number of the participants, it was a rally that spontaneously got out of control. For the people who brought weapons and spent days organizing an attempt to prevent Joe Biden from taking power, it was something else - something that would meet most definitions of a coup attempt. I agree that some of the rhetoric is overhyped, such as referring to everyone present as "insurrectionists", but you seem to be focusing on the aesthetics of it more than the intent. I think I've said this before, but if this happened in, say, Uganda, I doubt that you'd be so insistent that it wasn't a coup attempt.

Again, the loser of the election refused to concede, lied to his supporters about internal enemies rigging the election against him, waged a massive, multi-platform disinformation campaign, then held a rally in which he repeated those lies before encouraging the crowd to march on the building where elected officials were performing their constitutional duty to certify the winner of an election. That crowd, many members of which had brought weapons, decided to invade and vandalize the building while fighting with cops and screaming about how they were taking back control. It's very difficult to argue that this doesn't represent an attempt an "illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by an opposing political faction", which is one broadly accepted definition of a coup d'etat.

It was shoddy in many ways, but it wouldn't fail to meet standard criteria that define a coup attempt. You can focus on the yak hat if you feel it helps support your position, but I think the intention to prevent the certification of election results is more significant. I'm sure we could find examples from other countries of haphazard, sloppy and unsuccessful coup attempts. It doesn't mean that they should be defined otherwise, nor would that be "insulting to people who went through actual coup attempts."
« Last Edit: April 20, 2021, 02:21:36 pm by fka »


  • fka
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1091

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Troubling...
« Reply #62 on: April 20, 2021, 02:16:20 pm »
Sorry, I wrote that before I saw your last post.

Quote
A coup has the aim of seizing the powers of government and placing someone in control. There is no evidence of that and without it, a coup it cannot be.

Dude, that's exactly why many people were there. Were they planning to occupy the House and start making laws? No. Did some of them believe that their actions would result in Donald Trump staying in power? Yes. Did Donald Trump have any constitutional right to that power? No.


Re: Troubling...
« Reply #63 on: April 20, 2021, 02:33:48 pm »
For the people who brought weapons and spent days organizing an attempt to prevent Joe Biden from taking power, it was something else - something that would meet most definitions of a coup attempt.
Let me get this straight, these people spent days organizing a coup attempt and the weapons they brought were bear mace and zip ties and tasers?

Or maybe they brought those weapons because they figured there would be the usual dustup with counterprotesters? Did that thought ever occur to you?

Quote
I think I've said this before, but if this happened in, say, Uganda, I doubt that you'd be so insistent that it wasn't a coup attempt
What, an unruly mob storms parliament for a few hours before being booted out? Yeah, that would be called a protest or a riot. It wouldn't be called a coup.

(In stuffy British radio news voice)
"Supporters of President Trumpi stormed the nation's parliament yesterday afternoon before being driven out by police. There was some vandalism and injuries and a few possible deaths reported, though no serious outbreak of wider violence. Meanwhile, the nation continues preparing for the transition to President Bideni in a few weeks as President Trumpi called on his supporters to avoid violence while still denouncing the results"

Now here is what a coup actually sounds like
"There has been an attempted coup in Tropico. Late last night night a group of military and civilian leaders, backed by the Populists and elements of the military stormed the Presidential Palace. At 2AM the coup plotters issued a statement calling for calm and pledging a smooth transition while also imposing a curfew across the country..."

Sorry, but in Uganda it would be reported like what it was- An unruly protest, not a genuine coup attempt.

Quote
but it wouldn't fail to meet standard criteria that define a coup attempt
Just because it meets some of the definitions of a coup attempt, doesn't mean it meets all of the definitions. Say for example, during Bush v. Gore, during Gore's lawsuits, some lefties stormed the capital and chained themselves to the walls or something. Would that be a serious coup attempt? Or would it be what you and the media and everyone else would call it- A protest.

It was a violent protest, but it was not a coup. I say it's not a coup so that when it happens the other way around, and its leftists being accused by right-wingers of "staging a coup" that I will be able to defend them in good conscience and knowing I have been fair. This is as much about defending people on the left who do a dramatic, possibly somewhat violent protest without them being labeled coup plotters, insurrectionists, or seditionists. I may disagree with them, but they should not be labeled coup plotters and seditionists and have people calling for them to be drone-striked or hauled off to Gitmo. Come on.

I don't want to live in a country where a protest that gets out of hand is labeled in the worst possible terms and therefore provides an excuse for government to come in and do what governments do in that kind of situation.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2021, 02:39:16 pm by Mr.DeMartino »


Re: Troubling...
« Reply #64 on: April 20, 2021, 02:34:55 pm »
Sorry, I wrote that before I saw your last post.

Dude, that's exactly why many people were there. Were they planning to occupy the House and start making laws? No. Did some of them believe that their actions would result in Donald Trump staying in power? Yes. Did Donald Trump have any constitutional right to that power? No.
The fact that a few idiots believed that, doesn't make it a genuine coup.

I could run into into the White House, proclaim myself king and demand that all kneel trembling before me while waving a battleaxe and believe that this is my destiny and by reading my royal proclamation it will make me King of America. That doesn't make it a coup attempt. That makes me a nutjob.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2021, 02:37:52 pm by Mr.DeMartino »


  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • I am a geek!!

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: Troubling...
« Reply #65 on: April 20, 2021, 02:38:51 pm »
*Attempted coup.


Re: Troubling...
« Reply #66 on: April 20, 2021, 02:39:48 pm »
*Attempted coup.
What's the line between attempted coup and act of a lunatic/lunatics?

That's like labeling the Ghost Dance an invasion of America.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2021, 02:42:27 pm by Mr.DeMartino »


  • fka
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1091

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Troubling...
« Reply #67 on: April 20, 2021, 02:41:41 pm »
You're ignoring the fact that THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was a major force behind this. That marks a pretty major difference with a random lunatic.

Quote
I could run into into the White House, proclaim myself king and demand that all kneel trembling before me while waving a battleaxe and believe that this is my destiny and by reading my royal proclamation it will make me King of America. That doesn't make it a coup attempt. That makes me a nutjob.

If the most powerful person in the world stood outside, expressing sympathy with all of your claims to destiny, while commanding the deference of a significant portion of his political party, AND your anointment as King served his purposes, then it might be considered a coup attempt.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2021, 02:45:21 pm by fka »


Re: Troubling...
« Reply #68 on: April 20, 2021, 02:45:09 pm »
You're ignoring the fact that THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was a major force behind this. That marks a pretty major difference with a random lunatic.
Trump skirted but he never went over the line. He said the people should be peaceful. He didn't say "Take over the Capitol and overthrow the government."

And what substantively is the difference between that and casting doubt on the election because of Russia, which has about as much basis in fact as the voter fraud claims?

Sorry, but that line was already crossed. By the established rules, Trump was within his bounds- The loser of the American Presidential election can cast aspersions on, and raise questions about, the result using a baseless conspiracy theory.

Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that the people involved were NOT part of an actual coup attempt.


Re: Troubling...
« Reply #69 on: April 20, 2021, 02:47:11 pm »
You're ignoring the fact that THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was a major force behind this. That marks a pretty major difference with a random lunatic.

If the most powerful person in the world stood outside, expressing sympathy with all of your claims to destiny, while commanding the deference of a significant portion of his political party, AND your anointment as King served his purposes, then it might be considered a coup attempt.
Right up until he himself agreed that the police should haul your ass out and that he wanted nothing to do with you and he hadn't expected it to get that far.

To say nothing of the fact that you and him never spoke.


Re: Troubling...
« Reply #70 on: April 20, 2021, 02:48:32 pm »
How is this fka- Say these words: "You're right it wasn't a coup attempt, it was a violent political protest."

It won't hurt you. It won't change anything. And now you won't have to defend a ludicrous position that defies common sense.


  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • I am a geek!!

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: Troubling...
« Reply #71 on: April 20, 2021, 02:59:28 pm »
What's the line between attempted coup and act of a lunatic/lunatics?
Well, that's exactly what my previous comment was about, right? This argument is just different people drawing different lines. Dunno if it's really worth arguing about: we all agree on the facts, but disagree on how they apply to a definition.  :undecided:

It's like how when that brigade of half drunk Irish dudes staggered across the border and lit the White house on fire back in 1812. Was that a war? Well... people will tell you different things depending on the agenda they're trying to push.
 
  (Canada totally kicked American ass! 1 for 1! Whooo! Go Canucks!)


  • fka
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1091

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Troubling...
« Reply #72 on: April 20, 2021, 03:12:25 pm »
How is this fka- Say these words: "You're right it wasn't a coup attempt, it was a violent political protest."

It won't hurt you. It won't change anything. And now you won't have to defend a ludicrous position that defies common sense.

I'd prefer to use a simple logic test, rather than accepting your definition as the only one with any validity.

Premise 1: An "illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by an opposing political faction" would satisfy the definition of coup d'etat as it is commonly known and used.

Premise 2: Some people present in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021 attempted an "illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power" and represent an "opposing political faction" to the President being certified in the Capitol Building. 

Conclusion: Some people present in Washington, D.C.  on Jan. 6, 2021 attempted a coup d'etat.


Irrelevant factors: yak hat, Russia, cause of death of Brian Sicknik, actual danger level to most American citizens, presence of nonviolent protestors, type of weapons used, aesthetics of coups in other countries, success or failure of attempt, and number of people involved. 
« Last Edit: April 20, 2021, 03:16:11 pm by fka »


  • fka
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1091

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Troubling...
« Reply #73 on: April 20, 2021, 03:33:46 pm »
By the way, I think we're in agreement on certain points.

- Plenty of attendees don't deserve to be called "insurrectionists"
- Some people who did engage in violence or vandalism were probably more hyped on adrenaline than motivated by some sincere belief that they were going to seize power on behalf of Trump
- "Violent protest" is probably a better description of the actions of some participants
- Their efforts were a laughable failure

However, I don't think that you have the sole authority to define a coup.

So maybe you should say these words: "You're right, a small group of particularly committed extremists did attempt to disrupt the democratic process and seize power." It won't hurt you. It won't change anything. And now you won't have to defend your attempt to make everyone conform to your definition of a coup.

Better yet, you can just clearly state the definition of a coup that you would prefer to use. So far that's been very ambiguous, which allows you to continually shift position. If you don't agree with the definition I've provided, that's okay. Maybe we can just agree to disagree on that and move on. However, using the definition I've provided, the statement "Some people present in Washington, D.C.  on Jan. 6, 2021 attempted a coup d'etat" passes a simple logical test. We can't test your position because of your slippery definition, which seems to be based on a mix of aesthetics, pop culture and historical precedent.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2021, 04:13:18 pm by fka »


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 4993

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Troubling...
« Reply #74 on: April 21, 2021, 12:29:48 am »
Repeatedly saying it doesn't make it true.

Sayingbit was a coup attempt is an insult to people who went through actual coup attempts. It's what someone privileged would say because they want to pretend they are in extraordinary times and are fighting villains.
Repeatedly disagreeing doesn't make it false.

You are insulting the police and others who stood against the insurrection.