We had an attempted coup already. That this case was directly related to. I don’t even mean the very public storming of Congress during the certification of electors, but multiple attempts by the then-President to subvert the election process.
The guy who did it’s probably about to be President again and just got a lot more legal cover.
Folks need to read up on how democracies fail. Shit’s getting real iffy here.
Which word do you take objection to? Considering he begins each rally with the January 6 "patriot" anthem, I stand by the "his" word. He clearly aligns with the folks who he considers "political prisoners" (his words not mine).
As far as "coup" - I'd say summoning thousands of folks to the Capitol, then not calling for dispersal once they have physically breached the perimeter of the building where the Congress and Vice President are assembled to certify the election results (where he lost), plus (arguably, more importantly) engaging in a campaign to establish networks of alternative electors in key swing states that do not match the popular votes in those states, then I'd say "coup" (granted, with a "attempted" modifier would be more accurate) would be a reasonable word to use for the events that transpired.
Don’t remember the “find votes” request or attempts to find a legal-enough-to-muck-things-up way to replace real electors with fake ones, or similar to throw the election to the House to decide, then?
Those have been charged. He’s in court for a bunch of other stuff, too, some of which was brewing before 2017 but his DOJ ruled they had to pause (including investigations, because you need to e.g. issue subpoenas for those to do their work) until he was out of office, and nobody tried to fight that, so it’s just now finally happening.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here? If someone is accused of committing three crimes, but only one is "serious", then the person should only be prosecuted on the one, but not the other two?
> And yet he left office on the appointed day and lost an election.
Trump would argue he didn't lose the election, and would still be in power if he had his way. I think we should be making it harder, not easier, for the democratic process to be subverted.
I have a difficult time reasoning about Trump in the age of constant hysteria. Trying to keep a clear head and an even keel has me discounting a lot of the "sky is falling" alarmism. It has me afraid that there are actual pieces of the sky falling that I'm filtering out.
All the "will you peacefully cede power" talk before the election sounded like alarmist clickbait, but he was weirdly resistive to admitting he lost, and there are a lot of batshit crazy people who seem to follow whatever he says (see also, Jan 6).
[edit] the score on this post proves its own point. Its vacillated between +4 and 0 since I posted it an hour ago, and there are plenty of hyperbolic people in the replies. Being "OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING" about everything just adds noise that makes it hard to identify truly bad things.
On a site that ostensibly has an ethos of "be curious, not ideological," it's sad to see so many people peering only through the lenses of ideology and panic.
> but he was weirdly resistive to admitting he lost
That is an understatement. His entire platform is that he won every state including Minnesota and New York. This is a personal revenge campaign made up around a lie.
He still says he didn’t lose and always qualifies his intent to accept the results of the next election with language that, given his not accepting the last one, amounts to “I’ll accept it if I win”.
Whatever else he did was fairly normal bad-president stuff. Like, pretty bad, but not the end of the Republic or anything. The attempts to overturn the election, and the utter failure of the state to swiftly punish same, are some real “this may not be the end, but you can see it from here” stuff.
Democratic states tend to vote in the person who ends them. It’s clear now that that’s a thing we’re very much at risk of doing. I don’t even necessarily mean a second Trump term, just anyone who follows his blueprint. The voters evidently don’t see that as disqualifying, and the system’s displayed an inability to respond to such attempts.
The sharks may or may not be circling yet, but there’s blood in the water.
There's trying to keep a clear head, and then there's being completely willingly ignorant of major, major events in the news cycle the last few years, including direct statements from the Trump administration and Trump himself which you seem to have very successfully achieved.
Not sure where you’re reading into that, but good for you for figuring out something nonsensical.
as to what I actually feel, I am stating that the parent comment (as sibling comments have pointed out as well) seems completely oblivious to Jan 6 and the subsequent criminal events/statements since then.
Hope that helps your reading/rage issue, have a good day.
If you want to know what Trump and his ilk are planning, just read it from their own website: https://www.project2025.org/
Highlights:
- The DoJ reports directly to the President
- No term limits for FBI head
- Arrest and prosecute DAs he doesn't agree with
- Use the military to enforce domestic laws on citizens
Worth noting that we’re 3-for-3 on recent-ish major Republican plans to do bad things being implemented at least in large part—the PNAC plan for Iraq and other issues from the ‘90s (W’s big contribution was carrying this out); the plan to execute a strategic focus of resources and follow-up with laws to attain practically unassailable dominance in states where Republicans should be losing pretty often, through gerrymandering and targeted vote suppression (enormous success, there, largely achieved during the ‘00s); and the Federalist Society plan to groom jurists and then get them placed to reshape the courts (Trump’s crowning achievement for the right in his first term—and not just the Supreme Court).
The guy who did it’s probably about to be President again and just got a lot more legal cover.
Folks need to read up on how democracies fail. Shit’s getting real iffy here.