YouGov poll: 43% of Republicans could imagine supporting a military coup in the United States

[Rotagilla]

3% of the colonists (actually fighting) was all it took to beat the best army in the world in 1776.

The British lost the war of Independence for the same reason Bush jr lost the Iraq war.

It was simply way too expensive to impose a military "peace" on a place that refused to be occupied by a foreign power.

Do you have a link to back up that claim?

not saying it's not true, but that was never covered in any history book I've read.

you could do the search and have the answer faster than I can find it and post it...I will anyway, though...hang on..

Derideo_Te
I can't find my original source, so my number is questionable...sorry...

but there's this excellent site...using these numbers you could extrapolate with the total population divided by 1/2 (women)...
Myths of the American Revolution | History | Smithsonian

Still, as debate continued, skeptics—especially within Britain’s army and navy—raised troubling questions. Could the Royal Navy blockade the 1,000-mile-long American coast? Couldn’t two million free colonists muster a force of 100,000 or so citizen-soldiers, nearly four times the size of Britain’s army in 1775? Might not an American army of this size replace its losses more easily than Britain? Was it possible to supply an army operating 3,000 miles from home? Could Britain subdue a rebellion across 13 colonies in an area some six times the size of England? Could the British Army operate deep in America’s interior, far from coastal supply bases? Would a protracted war bankrupt Britain? Would France and Spain, England’s age-old enemies, aid American rebels? Was Britain risking starting a broader war?

After the Continental Congress convened, King George III told his ministers that “blows must decide” whether the Americans “submit or triumph.”
Some 100,000 men served in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. Probably twice that number soldiered as militiamen, for the most part defending the home front, functioning as a police force and occasionally engaging in enemy surveillance. If a militia company was summoned to active duty and sent to the front lines to augment the Continentals, it usually remained mobilized for no more than 90 days.

 

[Two Thumbs]

wow, most dems would rather be serfs and peasants to the government than have a bunch of evul cons free them.

Your fascist conservative brand of "freedom" is way worse to live under than what we have today under the Constitution.

You have no grasp of freedom, fascism or the Constitution

Ironic coming from someone throwing around terms like serfs because he doesn't understand the basics of how this nation functions.

you have no grasp of what could happen and what will probably happen.

as long as the government is giving you what you want and is being mean to people you don't like, you support tyranny

and you don't even know it.

here's an image so you can practice the proper pose;

 

[Rotagilla]

3% of the colonists (actually fighting) was all it took to beat the best army in the world in 1776.

A foreign occupying force is no comparison to a small percent of domestic citizens.

41% of US citizens will kill the hell out of any of the 29% who dare attempt a coup.

..or if that many were dissatisfied with government...you'd see some real "change"

 

[RedTeamTex]

LOL, glass houses, Stat. I wouldn't crow about 20% myself...but either way, "imagine" is a broad enough word in this case as to be pointless. I can imagine space alien body snatchers taking over Washington, for example...

Ok, you get two points for that one. Indeed, "imagine" could mean a lot of things.

You are one smart new member.

And yes, 20% is also a little scary, if you ask me. Bad Dems, bad Dems!! Down boy, down!!!



My point is: where the fuck are we as a society when this kind of stuff becomes parlor talk?

Wow.

To answer your question, every civilization has (and always has had) a portion of folks for whom this is parlor talk...and every civilization should. Here is where we'll probably diverge on ideological lines, but the truth is war readiness is a responsibility, and that impels at least some to watch the grid. To those inclined to trust the government on such matters, it doesn't take a far look back to find good reasons not to for folks on any facet of the political spectrum. If politics implied the reliability of human virtue, we wouldn't need to care. But since it doesn't, those parlor talkers understand their function just like any other "squeaky wheel" minority interest---that the public at large need not fall asleep completely. So we end up with folks who seem to the rest of us relatively preoccupied with the improbable and we can easily impugn their character for it. But I say such a thought experiment is good, not the least of which because it's a good introspection of one's own values.

Do some lose a marble or two and dwell in an emotional morass of conspiracy theories or end of the world ideation? Sure. But many have a much less severe case of overestimating the chances. I believe the worse vice in this country is so many more civilians so coddled and spoiled that they have an even less realistic understanding of the nature of war and peace---so severely that they judge the existence of our military with suspicion at best and usually wanton freedom to disdain and insult. It doesn't take much perusing these boards to find ample examples.

I have a feeling that 43% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats are largely folks wearing a uniform to defend us, or the families and friends close to them. Do they wear the uniform in hopes of a military coup to improve their lot in life? Hardly. They're busy carrying a burden so far removed from the rest of us that it's spoiling us to an extreme far more opposite of the problem you perceive in this poll.

As for the 'militia' types who would see this question as the ever creeping reach of federal power into our lives...I think listening to their imagining is also entirely healthy.

Lastly, where's the poll asking if we can imagine ourselves supporting a socialist uprising and overthrow of the government? Let's see the party identification numbers on that one....

LOL, glass houses, Stat. I wouldn't crow about 20% myself...but either way, "imagine" is a broad enough word in this case as to be pointless. I can imagine space alien body snatchers taking over Washington, for example...

Nice try. But in polling words have their comminEnglish usage.

"Common sense"...most agree it exists, but I suspect if we tried to make an official list, no majority could agree on one. I respectfully suggest your firmness on the meaning of "imagine" here may have some ideological zeal behind it. In any case, using the very common semantic used by John Lennon, "imagine" at its most essential and common---we can't say this question is free from ambiguity.

Only desperate people would try to make a political point out of a poll that starts with "could you ever imagine yourself". Couldn't we conclude that the 57% of republicans and 71% of democrats who said no are lacking in imagination ?

In formal logic we define "logical possibility" by our ability to imagine it. A vivid imagination is a great start to a logical exploration....

 

[candycorn]

Leave it to a far left drone to find some obscure non scientific poll (from overseas at that) to try and make another pointless post..

We know the radical right. The poll is far from pointless.

From what I see here; I think the poll low balls it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ok, this is sad, this is just plain, old sad:

YouGov | Could a coup really happen in the United States?

Wow.

"One nation, under G-d, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".

Just to remind.

-Stat

I think the key is in the question... "Is there any situation".... you misrepresent the findings by not hilighting that key element. If the government were rounding up group XXXX and exterminating them, yes, I'd support a military coup to end that shit... wouldn't you?

 

[Derideo_Te]

3% of the colonists (actually fighting) was all it took to beat the best army in the world in 1776.

The British lost the war of Independence for the same reason Bush jr lost the Iraq war.

It was simply way too expensive to impose a military "peace" on a place that refused to be occupied by a foreign power.

Do you have a link to back up that claim?

not saying it's not true, but that was never covered in any history book I've read.

Probably because those history books were written before Bush jr's failed warmongering in Iraq.

The British were having wars with other nations at the same time. Subduing a population in an area as huge as America meant a massive commitment of troops and that included all of the logistical support that goes with it. On top of that they had already lost the "hearts and minds" of the rebels by waging war instead of negotiating a settlement.

The parallels are there in plain sight. It was a really dumb move for the Brits to wage war on a former ally. It was an even dumber move to believe that they could be subdued by military force. Invading America was no different to Napoleon and Germany invading Russia. It doesn't matter how big your army is and how strong it is if the enemy can simply disappear and then come back to ambush you whenever it wants.

The only successful suppression of that type that the Brits managed was in South Africa and it still took them two attempts because the Boers used "commandos" to attack the British forces. Eventually the Brists had to use scorched earth tactics and invented concentration camps. In the end they allowed self rule and lost the colony to independence because of the resentment the wars has created.

Stupidity and warmongering go hand and hand and just having the most powerful military doesn't guarantee success.

so the history books that told me that we had a very large area to retreat to was right and that your claim that it was money is just something that you assume.

and we won in Iraq, we toppled a ruthless dictator

Your ignorance regarding the cost of warmongering is your problem.

As far as Iraq goes if you "won" then how come ISIS is currently in charge over there?

Obviously you didn't and your silly kneejerk reaction will be to blame Obama instead.

 

[Derideo_Te]

stop going full moron.

Ironic!

 

[konradv]

Luckily for us, the US military is much more patriotic than 43% of Republicans!

 

[BluesLegend]

3% of the colonists (actually fighting) was all it took to beat the best army in the world in 1776.

The British lost the war of Independence for the same reason Bush jr lost the Iraq war.

It was simply way too expensive to impose a military "peace" on a place that refused to be occupied by a foreign power.

Do you have a link to back up that claim?

not saying it's not true, but that was never covered in any history book I've read.

Probably because those history books were written before Bush jr's failed warmongering in Iraq.

The British were having wars with other nations at the same time. Subduing a population in an area as huge as America meant a massive commitment of troops and that included all of the logistical support that goes with it. On top of that they had already lost the "hearts and minds" of the rebels by waging war instead of negotiating a settlement.

The parallels are there in plain sight. It was a really dumb move for the Brits to wage war on a former ally. It was an even dumber move to believe that they could be subdued by military force. Invading America was no different to Napoleon and Germany invading Russia. It doesn't matter how big your army is and how strong it is if the enemy can simply disappear and then come back to ambush you whenever it wants.

The only successful suppression of that type that the Brits managed was in South Africa and it still took them two attempts because the Boers used "commandos" to attack the British forces. Eventually the Brists had to use scorched earth tactics and invented concentration camps. In the end they allowed self rule and lost the colony to independence because of the resentment the wars has created.

Stupidity and warmongering go hand and hand and just having the most powerful military doesn't guarantee success.

so the history books that told me that we had a very large area to retreat to was right and that your claim that it was money is just something that you assume.

and we won in Iraq, we toppled a ruthless dictator

Your ignorance regarding the cost of warmongering is your problem.

As far as Iraq goes if you "won" then how come ISIS is currently in charge over there?

Obviously you didn't and your silly kneejerk reaction will be to blame Obama instead.

Bill Clinton attacked Iraq before Bush did...OUCH!

 

[Derideo_Te]

3% of the colonists (actually fighting) was all it took to beat the best army in the world in 1776.

The British lost the war of Independence for the same reason Bush jr lost the Iraq war.

It was simply way too expensive to impose a military "peace" on a place that refused to be occupied by a foreign power.

Do you have a link to back up that claim?

not saying it's not true, but that was never covered in any history book I've read.

you could do the search and have the answer faster than I can find it and post it...I will anyway, though...hang on..

Derideo_Te
I can't find my original source, so my number is questionable...sorry...

but there's this excellent site...using these numbers you could extrapolate with the total population divided by 1/2 (women)...
Myths of the American Revolution | History | Smithsonian

Still, as debate continued, skeptics—especially within Britain’s army and navy—raised troubling questions. Could the Royal Navy blockade the 1,000-mile-long American coast? Couldn’t two million free colonists muster a force of 100,000 or so citizen-soldiers, nearly four times the size of Britain’s army in 1775? Might not an American army of this size replace its losses more easily than Britain? Was it possible to supply an army operating 3,000 miles from home? Could Britain subdue a rebellion across 13 colonies in an area some six times the size of England? Could the British Army operate deep in America’s interior, far from coastal supply bases? Would a protracted war bankrupt Britain? Would France and Spain, England’s age-old enemies, aid American rebels? Was Britain risking starting a broader war?

After the Continental Congress convened, King George III told his ministers that “blows must decide” whether the Americans “submit or triumph.”
Some 100,000 men served in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. Probably twice that number soldiered as militiamen, for the most part defending the home front, functioning as a police force and occasionally engaging in enemy surveillance. If a militia company was summoned to active duty and sent to the front lines to augment the Continentals, it usually remained mobilized for no more than 90 days.

Great link!

Moreover, beginning in 1778, the New England states, and eventually all Northern states, enlisted African-Americans, a practice that Congress had initially forbidden. Ultimately, some 5,000 blacks bore arms for the United States, approximately 5 percent of the total number of men who served in the Continental Army. The African-American soldiers made an important contribution to America’s ultimate victory. In 1781, Baron Ludwig von Closen, a veteran officer in the French Army, remarked that the “best [regiment] under arms” in the Continental Army was one in which 75 percent of the soldiers were African-Americans.


For three-quarters of the war, few middle-class Americans bore arms in the Continental Army, although thousands did serve in militias.


Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter​

That sheds a whole new light on those "patriots", doesn't it?

And this says volumes about the militias.

Some Americans emerged from the war convinced that the militia had been largely ineffective. No one did more to sully its reputation than General Washington, who insisted that a decision to “place any dependence on Militia is assuredly resting on a broken staff.”


Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter​

 

[Derideo_Te]

The British lost the war of Independence for the same reason Bush jr lost the Iraq war.

It was simply way too expensive to impose a military "peace" on a place that refused to be occupied by a foreign power.

Do you have a link to back up that claim?

not saying it's not true, but that was never covered in any history book I've read.

Probably because those history books were written before Bush jr's failed warmongering in Iraq.

The British were having wars with other nations at the same time. Subduing a population in an area as huge as America meant a massive commitment of troops and that included all of the logistical support that goes with it. On top of that they had already lost the "hearts and minds" of the rebels by waging war instead of negotiating a settlement.

The parallels are there in plain sight. It was a really dumb move for the Brits to wage war on a former ally. It was an even dumber move to believe that they could be subdued by military force. Invading America was no different to Napoleon and Germany invading Russia. It doesn't matter how big your army is and how strong it is if the enemy can simply disappear and then come back to ambush you whenever it wants.

The only successful suppression of that type that the Brits managed was in South Africa and it still took them two attempts because the Boers used "commandos" to attack the British forces. Eventually the Brists had to use scorched earth tactics and invented concentration camps. In the end they allowed self rule and lost the colony to independence because of the resentment the wars has created.

Stupidity and warmongering go hand and hand and just having the most powerful military doesn't guarantee success.

so the history books that told me that we had a very large area to retreat to was right and that your claim that it was money is just something that you assume.

and we won in Iraq, we toppled a ruthless dictator

Your ignorance regarding the cost of warmongering is your problem.

As far as Iraq goes if you "won" then how come ISIS is currently in charge over there?

Obviously you didn't and your silly kneejerk reaction will be to blame Obama instead.

Bill Clinton attacked Iraq before Bush did...OUCH!

Bush sr went to war against Iraq or have you forgotten all about the first gulf war?

 

[BluesLegend]

Do you have a link to back up that claim?

not saying it's not true, but that was never covered in any history book I've read.

Probably because those history books were written before Bush jr's failed warmongering in Iraq.

The British were having wars with other nations at the same time. Subduing a population in an area as huge as America meant a massive commitment of troops and that included all of the logistical support that goes with it. On top of that they had already lost the "hearts and minds" of the rebels by waging war instead of negotiating a settlement.

The parallels are there in plain sight. It was a really dumb move for the Brits to wage war on a former ally. It was an even dumber move to believe that they could be subdued by military force. Invading America was no different to Napoleon and Germany invading Russia. It doesn't matter how big your army is and how strong it is if the enemy can simply disappear and then come back to ambush you whenever it wants.

The only successful suppression of that type that the Brits managed was in South Africa and it still took them two attempts because the Boers used "commandos" to attack the British forces. Eventually the Brists had to use scorched earth tactics and invented concentration camps. In the end they allowed self rule and lost the colony to independence because of the resentment the wars has created.

Stupidity and warmongering go hand and hand and just having the most powerful military doesn't guarantee success.

so the history books that told me that we had a very large area to retreat to was right and that your claim that it was money is just something that you assume.

and we won in Iraq, we toppled a ruthless dictator

Your ignorance regarding the cost of warmongering is your problem.

As far as Iraq goes if you "won" then how come ISIS is currently in charge over there?

Obviously you didn't and your silly kneejerk reaction will be to blame Obama instead.

Bill Clinton attacked Iraq before Bush did...OUCH!

Bush sr went to war against Iraq or have you forgotten all about the first gulf war?

I'm just mocking the left for pretending they had nothing to do with Bush going to war with Iraq and they themselves attacked Iraq for the same reasons Bush did. The left is an endless source of hilarity and contradictions. For example they claim Bush is a blithering idiot yet somehow he managed to convince the Democratic party to support the Iraq war lmao!

 

[IsaacNewton]

Ok, this is sad, this is just plain, old sad:

YouGov | Could a coup really happen in the United States?

Wow.

"One nation, under G-d, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".

Just to remind.

-Stat

A similar view prior to the civil war for the south.

Conservatives truly do not like American democracy. It works against them at every turn.

 

[Sallow]

3% of the colonists (actually fighting) was all it took to beat the best army in the world in 1776.

Forgot all about France, did ya?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Probably because those history books were written before Bush jr's failed warmongering in Iraq.

The British were having wars with other nations at the same time. Subduing a population in an area as huge as America meant a massive commitment of troops and that included all of the logistical support that goes with it. On top of that they had already lost the "hearts and minds" of the rebels by waging war instead of negotiating a settlement.

The parallels are there in plain sight. It was a really dumb move for the Brits to wage war on a former ally. It was an even dumber move to believe that they could be subdued by military force. Invading America was no different to Napoleon and Germany invading Russia. It doesn't matter how big your army is and how strong it is if the enemy can simply disappear and then come back to ambush you whenever it wants.

The only successful suppression of that type that the Brits managed was in South Africa and it still took them two attempts because the Boers used "commandos" to attack the British forces. Eventually the Brists had to use scorched earth tactics and invented concentration camps. In the end they allowed self rule and lost the colony to independence because of the resentment the wars has created.

Stupidity and warmongering go hand and hand and just having the most powerful military doesn't guarantee success.

so the history books that told me that we had a very large area to retreat to was right and that your claim that it was money is just something that you assume.

and we won in Iraq, we toppled a ruthless dictator

Your ignorance regarding the cost of warmongering is your problem.

As far as Iraq goes if you "won" then how come ISIS is currently in charge over there?

Obviously you didn't and your silly kneejerk reaction will be to blame Obama instead.

Bill Clinton attacked Iraq before Bush did...OUCH!

Bush sr went to war against Iraq or have you forgotten all about the first gulf war?

I'm just mocking the left for pretending they had nothing to do with Bush going to war with Iraq and they themselves attacked Iraq for the same reasons Bush did. The left is an endless source of hilarity and contradictions. For example they claim Bush is a blithering idiot yet somehow he managed to convince the Democratic party to support the Iraq war lmao!

Lying to the American people is nothing to be proud of but apparently you have no problem with that.

Lying to Congress is a felony but no one in the Bush jr regime was ever held accountable for doing so.

Probably because Congress was under the feckless control of the Republicans during that dark period in our history.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

As far as Iraq goes if you "won" then how come ISIS is currently in charge over there?

Because your resident Messiah fucked things all up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

3% of the colonists (actually fighting) was all it took to beat the best army in the world in 1776.

Forgot all about France, did ya?

 

[Derideo_Te]

As far as Iraq goes if you "won" then how come ISIS is currently in charge over there?

Because your resident Messiah fucked things all up.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

As far as Iraq goes if you "won" then how come ISIS is currently in charge over there?

Because your resident Messiah fucked things all up.

View attachment 49972

Nothing knee-jerk about it. The record stands.