5 ms·

> fire up a mob and incite them to attempt to violently take over the seat of government of a country with nuclear weapons You know the buttons/switches/etc to

> fire up a mob and incite them to attempt to violently take over the seat of government of a country with nuclear weapons You know the buttons/switches/etc to launch missiles (nuclear or not) are not at the Speaker's podium in the House, right? In fact, "taking over the seat of government" here was literally just that.. a physical seat. The US government applies authority in people via roles not via seating position. Were they a bunch of assholes? Yes and they should be prosecuted as such. Was it a "violent take over"? Not a chance.

jariel 6y ago
"Was it a "violent take over"? Not a chance" Sure it was. This is how a 'coup' works - the objective is not to 'take control of the country' by force, but of the political system. If that violent mob was successful in 'stopping the count' - then it very seriously threatens the legitimacy of Biden being president. Why do you think that Congress reconvened right after the violence and very quickly pushed through the vote? And didn't wait a few days? If the vote confirmation doesn't take place, someone takes the case to SCOTUS wherein they might rule the process was not complete and 'now you have two Presidents' - and very ugly ambiguous situation that could spiral out of control very quickly. The fact that SCOTUS could have ruled 'incomplete process' may embolden millions of 'hard Constitutionalists' to one side. This stuff happens all over the world, all the time. These things are fragile. It was a nice little lesson in how actually fragile 'even the USA is' and that this is serious stuff.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  > 'now you have two Presidents' If you're going to imagine Constitutional crises, you should understand the rules we're working within. Check out the first section of the 20th Amendment and please report back how there could be two Presidents. Narrator: Turns out the system isn't that fragile. It continues on regardless because there are contingencies built in and improved upon over the years.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Obviously there wouldn't be '2 Presidents' by any reasonable application of a set of very clear rules. But those rules are not clear. One camp would believe, that Biden won a fair election, as stated by the DOJ, Homeland Security and the State Officals (it's their perogative), and that the preformative process of validating the results in Congress wasn't entirely necessary. The other claim would claim with 'the election was disputed' and that the failure to confirm the results in Congress was a 'fully legal act' that abnegates the possibility of Biden from taking office. AKA '2 Presidents' by virtue of you you interpret the outcomes of those events. The 20th Amendment does not help us clarify that situation. In these contentious scenarios, the credibility of institutions is stretched and populism starts to take hold. It would be major crisis. This is why institutions started to rally around 'one camp' as to facilitate a proper transfer of power. Since much of this debacle was based off of misinformation, it speaks directly to issues with 'truth' and 'freedom of expression'. I'm not sure if there is an obvious answer on the table, but there are definitely problems.
    - caseysoftware 6y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. I think your example is perfect: Your conspiracy theory is not based facts, law, or well-established interpretations of either and yet you're fully bought in and sharing it. I see how that could be dangerous, but I think silencing you would be worse for you personally and society as a whole. Just don't threaten violence and we're good.
      - jariel 6y ago
        Answer the question: 'Who would be President on Jan 20?' - if the vote to approve the electoral results on Jan 6th were not completed - or - if the results provided by the states were 'rejected' by a congressional vote. ? Bonus points if you can tell us how the 20th Amendment clarifies that for us. Also, irrespective of what the legal outcome might be, what would most US citizens actually believe? Would the losing faction have enough faith in the institutional decisions such that they do not revolt? After all, we just saw a fair election in which ~30% of the electorate 'do not believe' the results. You do see the 20 000 soldiers out there for inauguration? Why do you suppose they are there? Finally - here is some background material to help figure out who wins in the end [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempt...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > If that violent mob was successful in 'stopping the count' - then it very seriously threatens the legitimacy of Biden being president. If it just stopped the count, and Congress took no other relevant action thereafter, the Presidency and Vice Presidency would become vacant at noon on the 20th and Nancy Pelosi, by virtue of her office as Speaker of the House, would succeed to the Presidency. But supposed the Congress (or a sufficient subset to deny a quorum in either House) were detained, and Grassley and Pelosi were killed. Then, when Trump's term expired, Trump loyalist Mike Pompeo (while cabinet members traditionally submit their resignation at a change in administration, they don't automatically leave office) would be next in line of succession with vacancies in the Speaker and President Pro Tem positions. And, more likely the goal, what if Pence were killed (and probably Grassley, too) but then.Senators were released and a President Pro Tem amenable to exercising the arbitrary power Gohmert suggested the presiding officer would have in the electoral vote count were elected, and presided over the vote count as the Vice President was vacant? (I do think any scenario results in “two Presidents”, I do think several result in “one President (in some cases of dubious legitimacy) who isn't Joe Biden, and (in several scenarios) is either Trump or a Trump loyalist."

jariel 6y ago

"Was it a "violent take over"? Not a chance" Sure it was. This is how a 'coup' works - the objective is not to 'take control of the country' by force, but of the political system. If that violent mob was successful in 'stopping the count' - then it very seriously threatens the legitimacy of Biden being president. Why do you think that Congress reconvened right after the violence and very quickly pushed through the vote? And didn't wait a few days? If the vote confirmation doesn't take place, someone takes the case to SCOTUS wherein they might rule the process was not complete and 'now you have two Presidents' - and very ugly ambiguous situation that could spiral out of control very quickly. The fact that SCOTUS could have ruled 'incomplete process' may embolden millions of 'hard Constitutionalists' to one side. This stuff happens all over the world, all the time. These things are fragile. It was a nice little lesson in how actually fragile 'even the USA is' and that this is serious stuff.

caseysoftware 6y ago
> 'now you have two Presidents' If you're going to imagine Constitutional crises, you should understand the rules we're working within. Check out the first section of the 20th Amendment and please report back how there could be two Presidents. Narrator: Turns out the system isn't that fragile. It continues on regardless because there are contingencies built in and improved upon over the years.
- jariel 6y ago
  Obviously there wouldn't be '2 Presidents' by any reasonable application of a set of very clear rules. But those rules are not clear. One camp would believe, that Biden won a fair election, as stated by the DOJ, Homeland Security and the State Officals (it's their perogative), and that the preformative process of validating the results in Congress wasn't entirely necessary. The other claim would claim with 'the election was disputed' and that the failure to confirm the results in Congress was a 'fully legal act' that abnegates the possibility of Biden from taking office. AKA '2 Presidents' by virtue of you you interpret the outcomes of those events. The 20th Amendment does not help us clarify that situation. In these contentious scenarios, the credibility of institutions is stretched and populism starts to take hold. It would be major crisis. This is why institutions started to rally around 'one camp' as to facilitate a proper transfer of power. Since much of this debacle was based off of misinformation, it speaks directly to issues with 'truth' and 'freedom of expression'. I'm not sure if there is an obvious answer on the table, but there are definitely problems.
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. I think your example is perfect: Your conspiracy theory is not based facts, law, or well-established interpretations of either and yet you're fully bought in and sharing it. I see how that could be dangerous, but I think silencing you would be worse for you personally and society as a whole. Just don't threaten violence and we're good.
    - jariel 6y ago
      Answer the question: 'Who would be President on Jan 20?' - if the vote to approve the electoral results on Jan 6th were not completed - or - if the results provided by the states were 'rejected' by a congressional vote. ? Bonus points if you can tell us how the 20th Amendment clarifies that for us. Also, irrespective of what the legal outcome might be, what would most US citizens actually believe? Would the losing faction have enough faith in the institutional decisions such that they do not revolt? After all, we just saw a fair election in which ~30% of the electorate 'do not believe' the results. You do see the 20 000 soldiers out there for inauguration? Why do you suppose they are there? Finally - here is some background material to help figure out who wins in the end [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempt...
dragonwriter 6y ago
> If that violent mob was successful in 'stopping the count' - then it very seriously threatens the legitimacy of Biden being president. If it just stopped the count, and Congress took no other relevant action thereafter, the Presidency and Vice Presidency would become vacant at noon on the 20th and Nancy Pelosi, by virtue of her office as Speaker of the House, would succeed to the Presidency. But supposed the Congress (or a sufficient subset to deny a quorum in either House) were detained, and Grassley and Pelosi were killed. Then, when Trump's term expired, Trump loyalist Mike Pompeo (while cabinet members traditionally submit their resignation at a change in administration, they don't automatically leave office) would be next in line of succession with vacancies in the Speaker and President Pro Tem positions. And, more likely the goal, what if Pence were killed (and probably Grassley, too) but then.Senators were released and a President Pro Tem amenable to exercising the arbitrary power Gohmert suggested the presiding officer would have in the electoral vote count were elected, and presided over the vote count as the Vice President was vacant? (I do think any scenario results in “two Presidents”, I do think several result in “one President (in some cases of dubious legitimacy) who isn't Joe Biden, and (in several scenarios) is either Trump or a Trump loyalist."