3 ms·

> literally tried to stage a coup They did indeed! However, the results were mostly just pathetic. The unfortunate thing is that the President himself tried to

> literally tried to stage a coup They did indeed! However, the results were mostly just pathetic. The unfortunate thing is that the President himself tried to play along with it, and best chance for significant escalation would be if the President manages to be re-elected in three years' time — which is not the most likely outcome but is still actually distressingly credible — and does more to lay the groundwork during his term in office.

kadoban 5y ago
> However, the results were mostly just pathetic. It was closer to working than you'd think. It looks pathetic until it works. > The unfortunate thing is that the President himself tried to play along with it That's generous wording.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  I have doubts it was close to working! It was close to placing Congresspeople at risk of life and limb, and it was a little bit further from being a hostage situation. A standoff with the National Guard, or the military itself, following such a hostage-taking, would have been very unfortunate. But disrupting the continuity of government would take a good deal more than that. A real, non-sad coup attempt would have sent the military in there to support the crazies, or at the very least, a quasi-organized group of armed men who could set up some defensible position. Instead we saw mostly maniacs looting the speaker's podium. > That's generous wording. If you're assessing his intentions, yes, but while his act of "oh look I'm doing plausible deniability, I'm not organzing any coup" was weak, so was any organization he actually did. The risk is that next time people might learn from these mistakes. (The other risk is a counter-coup crackdown like Turkey, which cracks down on the opposition and purges them from both the public and private sphere, as enemies of the state. Our due-process is still a little too strong for that to work right now, fortunately, and any attempts to that end that may exist are pretty marginal.)
  - kadoban 5y ago
    > A real, non-sad coup would have sent the military in there to support the crazies, or at the very least, a quasi-organized counterforce which could set up some defensible position. Instead, we got maniacs looting the speaker's podium. That's not the only way to succeed. Occupying the Capitol alone would indeed not have done anything. If they had managed to prevent the certification of the vote, however, and thrown the question to the House, that's success. (unlike usual votes, the one for this is one-vote-per-state in the House, yes US democracy is organized fucking cray-cray).
- chrismcb 5y ago
  It wasn't closer to doing anything. If they had stopped the certification process, the election and changer still would have continued.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    If the election isn't certified, they could have pushed on states more to have some pretense of not counting the electors. Without 270 electors for Biden, it goes to the House for a one-vote-per-state vote.
UncleOxidant 5y ago
Jan 6 was practice. They know where the weaknesses are now and next time they'll more fully exploit them.
- warning26 5y ago
  - chrismcb 5y ago
    And thus kind of rhetoric is exactly why some people believe we are closer to a civil war.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Well, one section of the Republican party tried to do a coup d'etat, and the rest helped them get away with it by sweeping it under the rug and refusing to investigate, making them at the very least complicit. This kind of rhetoric is very on point, IMHO. That's the problem with the dual party system. There are certainly Republicans who disagree with the treasonous bunch, but they don't have a choice if they want the policies they want to be implemented (whatever they are), and the only other option is antithetical to them ( even if they might agree with some of their points). What are non-treasonous or climate change believing Republicans who want their gun or anti-abortion or fiscal responsibility or w/e demands listened to, to do ? At the moment they toe the party line.
  - rabuse 5y ago
    What would you personally feel like doing with those sed Republicans? Should we round them up?

kadoban 5y ago

> However, the results were mostly just pathetic. It was closer to working than you'd think. It looks pathetic until it works. > The unfortunate thing is that the President himself tried to play along with it That's generous wording.

fennecfoxen 5y ago
I have doubts it was close to working! It was close to placing Congresspeople at risk of life and limb, and it was a little bit further from being a hostage situation. A standoff with the National Guard, or the military itself, following such a hostage-taking, would have been very unfortunate. But disrupting the continuity of government would take a good deal more than that. A real, non-sad coup attempt would have sent the military in there to support the crazies, or at the very least, a quasi-organized group of armed men who could set up some defensible position. Instead we saw mostly maniacs looting the speaker's podium. > That's generous wording. If you're assessing his intentions, yes, but while his act of "oh look I'm doing plausible deniability, I'm not organzing any coup" was weak, so was any organization he actually did. The risk is that next time people might learn from these mistakes. (The other risk is a counter-coup crackdown like Turkey, which cracks down on the opposition and purges them from both the public and private sphere, as enemies of the state. Our due-process is still a little too strong for that to work right now, fortunately, and any attempts to that end that may exist are pretty marginal.)
- kadoban 5y ago
  > A real, non-sad coup would have sent the military in there to support the crazies, or at the very least, a quasi-organized counterforce which could set up some defensible position. Instead, we got maniacs looting the speaker's podium. That's not the only way to succeed. Occupying the Capitol alone would indeed not have done anything. If they had managed to prevent the certification of the vote, however, and thrown the question to the House, that's success. (unlike usual votes, the one for this is one-vote-per-state in the House, yes US democracy is organized fucking cray-cray).
chrismcb 5y ago
It wasn't closer to doing anything. If they had stopped the certification process, the election and changer still would have continued.
- kadoban 5y ago
  If the election isn't certified, they could have pushed on states more to have some pretense of not counting the electors. Without 270 electors for Biden, it goes to the House for a one-vote-per-state vote.

UncleOxidant 5y ago

Jan 6 was practice. They know where the weaknesses are now and next time they'll more fully exploit them.

warning26 5y ago
- chrismcb 5y ago
  And thus kind of rhetoric is exactly why some people believe we are closer to a civil war.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Well, one section of the Republican party tried to do a coup d'etat, and the rest helped them get away with it by sweeping it under the rug and refusing to investigate, making them at the very least complicit. This kind of rhetoric is very on point, IMHO. That's the problem with the dual party system. There are certainly Republicans who disagree with the treasonous bunch, but they don't have a choice if they want the policies they want to be implemented (whatever they are), and the only other option is antithetical to them ( even if they might agree with some of their points). What are non-treasonous or climate change believing Republicans who want their gun or anti-abortion or fiscal responsibility or w/e demands listened to, to do ? At the moment they toe the party line.
- rabuse 5y ago
  What would you personally feel like doing with those sed Republicans? Should we round them up?