Is This Insurrection?

[JohnDB]

What is the definition of it if this is not it?

Doesn't this mean that a "Deep State" exists as Trump has claimed?

Why in the world would they need to do such a thing?

 

[progressive hunter]

What is the definition of it if this is not it?

Doesn't this mean that a "Deep State" exists as Trump has claimed?

Why in the world would they need to do such a thing?

I dont think its an insurrection if democrats do it,,
I could be wrong,,

 

[shockedcanadian]

This would be defined essentially as a military coup.

 

[jwoodie]

This would be defined essentially as a military coup.

By whom?

 

[gipper]

Of course the deep state exists. It’s been around for decades. Long before dumb Don was potus. Only now many libs and Ds have accepted state controlled propaganda telling them it doesn’t exist, and they dutifully agree.

 

[eagle7-31]

What is the definition of it if this is not it?

Doesn't this mean that a "Deep State" exists as Trump has claimed?

Why in the world would they need to do such a thing?

It would but I am sure the dems and their low IQ minions on this board and else where believe otherwise.

 

[Coyote]

What is the definition of it if this is not it?

Doesn't this mean that a "Deep State" exists as Trump has claimed?

Why in the world would they need to do such a thing?

Because the Trump presidency has shown what happens when the only guard rails protecting our democratic institutions and values are a person’s decency.

Trump has raised fresh questions about his intentions if he regains power by putting forward a legal theory that a president would be free to do nearly anything with impunity — including assassinate political rivals — so long as Congress can’t muster the votes to impeach him and throw him out of office.

 

[Rigby5]

If we all get to vote, its not an insurrection.
Its when you no longer have a vote that counts, when you have an insurrection.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

This is more scare mongering by the Radical Left propaganda machine.
Trump is not going to use the military as a political weapon.
It's the Crazy Democrat Cult are who we need to worry about using our military as their political weapon.
They have already weaponized the FBI and DOJ.
The Crazy Democrat Cultists are the type of dangerous fanatics who would start rounding-up the dissenters.

 

[Hellokitty]

Sounds like they are already acknowledging TRUMP's going to win in 2024.

 

[Pete7469]

Because the Trump presidency has shown what happens when the only guard rails protecting our democratic institutions and values are a person’s decency.

Trump has raised fresh questions about his intentions if he regains power by putting forward a legal theory that a president would be free to do nearly anything with impunity — including assassinate political rivals — so long as Congress can’t muster the votes to impeach him and throw him out of office.

 

[Lumpy 1]

What is the definition of it if this is not it?

Doesn't this mean that a "Deep State" exists as Trump has claimed?

Why in the world would they need to do such a thing?

NBC has and always be a left wing Trump parasite for the Democrat Party,,

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Joe Biden is the only president who has threatened to use the military against American civilians.​

​

Biden says gun owners would need F-15s and nukes to take on the …​

Jun 24, 2021 · During a Wednesday press conference announcing his new gun crime prevention efforts, President Joe Biden said the Second Amendment has always had …

 

[Coyote]

This is more scare mongering by the Radical Left propaganda machine.
Trump is not going to use the military as a political weapon.
It's the Crazy Democrat Cult are who we need to worry about using our military as their political weapon.
They have already weaponized the FBI and DOJ.
The Crazy Democrat Cultists are the type of dangerous fanatics who would start rounding-up the dissenters.

Why would you think that when he has tried just that?

 

[Coyote]

View attachment 887961

Good graphic…even though it is misguided.

 

[shockedcanadian]

By whom?

If the military is not obeying the direction from the Executive Branch, is this not a passive coup?

There are multiple circumstances to consider. For instance, Biden attacked terrorists in Yemen without Congress approval, right? What if Trump wanted to do the same and they refused?

What if the military refused to defend the U.S border upon instruction?

The scenarios were covered often when Trump was in power. Ironic, since he didn't go to war anywhere. I completely understand the hesitancy of him in power, this is why I presumed, quite wrong again; that other leaders and politicians would take his ideas that were popular and successful and reject the rest.

Instead they wanted to wipe his existence from power, as if he never was president at all. Thus angering half of the country and many who didn't vote for him but who liked some of said policies.

The American Establishment didn't learn after Hillary lost. Ditto for most of the media. They are living in an entirely different country. The end result will be similar to the desperate vote that Argentinians took.

Military Coups and Administrative Elites

'Military Coups and Administrative Elites' published in 'Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance'

link.springer.com

Military coup can be defined as the successful or unsuccessful efforts by the military within the state apparatus in order to seize and hold power of the current regime, typically in unconstitutional means (Powell and Thyne 2011).

What are the chances that Donald Trump’s presidency could be brought to a halt by a military uprising? At first glance, it seems like a strange question, and the idea of a military coup in a developed and seemingly stable Western democracy feels far-fetched. But then again, memories are short: in May 1958, France faced a military revolt in Algeria that threatened to spread to the French mainland. Without it, General Charles de Gaulle would never have been president, and the Fifth Republic would never have been born.

From 2017, when the media was promoting such a prospect:

Thinking the unthinkable: could there be a military coup in the US?

What are the obstacles to a successful coup, and what opportunities are open to any would-be plotter?

theconversation.com

It may not be necessary to start preparing for military takeover in the US, but with American politics at their most unpredictable for years, the possibility of such a course of action has been mooted in the US mainstream since before Trump was even elected. As his presidency progresses, academics, bloggers and columnists are still mooting the idea.


Listen to the connotation provided by the author:

Constitution Check: Could the military disobey orders issued by a President Trump?​

Constitution Check: Could the military disobey orders issued by a President Trump? | Constitution Center

Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center's constitutional literacy adviser, looks at comments from retired Air Force General Michael Hayden about possible conflict between the military and a civilian President over controversial orders -a debate triggered by recent comments from GOP...

constitutioncenter.org

One can surmise that, even if Trump were to undertake such commands to his military subordinates, there would be many points of resistance within the government to going forward, well before military commanders might resort to open defiance. And one can imagine that a good measure of resistance would come from at least some congressional leaders.


But, assuming the worst-case scenario, is such insubordination out of the question?


Retired General Michael Hayden last week suggested that very possibility, relying on an argument that such resistance would have international law on its side. Perhaps the former leader of the National Security Agency and of the Central Intelligence Agency was trying to reassure himself that the modern development of international war crimes commissions for the punishment of outright violations of the law of nations is now making legitimate the acts of disobedience to orders to commit atrocities.


Although the general added that he was not talking about a coup by the military, his remarks had the rather scary sound of just such a maneuver. It was chilling precisely for constitutional reasons: it is not the function of the military to make a decision that the policy choices of civilian government leaders are outrageous, or even that they violate norms of international law. That is not a military function. It is simply well outside of any norm of constitutional understanding to pretend either that the military is capable of making legal judgments, or that it has been set up to be a player in checks-and-balances.

 

[Coyote]

This would be defined essentially as a military coup.

No, it wouldn’t.

 

[Pete7469]

Good graphic…even though it is misguided.

That's because you're viewing it from the wrong side.

 

[shockedcanadian]

No, it wouldn’t.

Maybe not in the most firm definition where guns are fired and governments overthrown. If you leave a leader without power since you refuse to act, you are in fact, nullifying an election and the Will of the People.

 

[jwoodie]

Trump has raised fresh questions about his intentions if he regains power by putting forward a legal theory that a president would be free to do nearly anything with impunity — including assassinate political rivals — so long as Congress can’t muster the votes to impeach him and throw him out of office.

Are these your thoughts or are you quoting someone else with severe TDS?