The Coming Coup?

Before there was QANON, there were Political Conservatives.

https://www.librarything.com/topic/22425

This year's Sturgis superspreader event had something like 460,000 biker attendees who were sick of being cooped up for months and wanted the freedumb of the road and to rub assholes to elbows together, spit, shout and sneeze all over each other and share drinks and cavort and they all descended on this little town in South Dakota at the invitation of Gov. Kristi Noem who like the dipshit president didn't believe in masks or protocols of any kind and when their party was over they fucked off home with their happy memories and maybe a little extra---and then a month or two later they had a somewhat smaller get together (300,000?) in the Ozarks.

Which is to say when a political party can't act with responsibility towards its broader population it shouldn't be in power. So the next question is--Is it just that Trump is stupid?--well he is stupid but no he's too pathologically narcissistic to really give a shit about anyone. How about Noem?--she's probably not dumb but it matters more to her to bask in the glow of popularity from her party and the approval of the POTUS than it does to kill some of her own citizens and certainly doesn't matter to her if citizens from other states get sick and die. The economy also played a part in this---they see $'s lost from Covid more than they see the 217,000 who have died.

#1--by the way I don't know what you're talking about. Ever since I blocked you your messages refuse to appear so I'm just taking a solo off your thread title.....but have a good day anyway.

Brilliant. The Juice Media does QAnon

Honest Government Ad | Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SoJI_KNV0Q

Didn't read past "Democrats and their ruling class masters openly talking about staging a coup." With all due respect to cook pots and excrement, what a croc.

>5 davidgn: Awankening. Nice!

>9 Earthling1: -- Earth to Earthling1, "What Planet Are You On?"

Read This: Civil War? It Will Be Caused by Right Wing Violence and Voter Suppression Activities by Their Militias

Let's be perfectly clear where any "coup" will originate. It won't be leftists, buck-o. It will be from the side of political spectrum you're cozied up to and advocate on behalf of and it is being instigated by your guy, the Orange Shitegibbon who you hail as president and the rest of us see is confirmed a TRAITOR.

Have you no shame?

Right-Wing Militia Groups ‘Pose A Serious Threat’ To Voters -- Researchers found that swing states are particularly vulnerable to militia activity around the 2020 election.

In a joint report from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) and MilitiaWatch, titled “Standing By: Right-Wing Militia Groups & The US Election,"

. . .authors wrote that there’s been “a major realignment” of U.S. militia activity. While these groups have traditionally been anti-government, several of them have largely rallied behind a single political leader: Donald Trump. The president has urged his supporters to go to polling sites during this election “and watch very carefully,” a directive likely to inspire far-right militia members, who see themselves as soldiers in a civil war. Asked to condemn the Proud Boys at a debate last month, Trump instead told them to “stand back and stand by,” a directive the neo-fascist group publicly interpreted as marching orders.

ACLED and MilitiaWatch. . .found that militia activity has been reported in at least 34 states and Washington, D.C., since May.

Militia activity is expected to be higher in competitive spaces like swing states, the report found, where armed groups. . .work to repress votes for Trump’s opponents.

Locations where militia members have friendly relationships with members of law enforcement are likely to see higher levels of militia activity. . .law enforcement officers were recorded on video handing water to a group of militia members and telling them, “We appreciate you guys, we really do,” shortly before 17-year-old vigilante Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two people. . .

. . .right-wing extremists have accounted for two-thirds of domestic terrorist attacks and plots, a counterterrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies found in a report also issued this week.

________________________________________

Right-Wing Militias Are Bracing for Civil War - The Atlantic

Paywall: Veterans Fortify the Ranks of Militias Aligned With Trump’s Views

Paywall: Police can’t control armed militias. Trump’s incitement makes it worse.

13 With Ties to Right-Wing Militias Charged in Plots to Kidnap Michigan Governor, Target Police

https://madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/powder-keg-right-wing-activi...

Far-right group celebrates after Trump refuses to condemn white supremacists and militias
Note the AfAm cop flashing supremacist sign in solidarity.

>8 Earthling1: Not only do I read, I read the full context. You don't.

Trump said "I… am… a… giraffe… sandwich… eat… my… bellhop." Don't you read?

Let the motherfucking Biden Dictatorship begin, goddamnit - I can't fucking wait. Education camps or death camps, whatever Uncle Joe wants to do.

What-the-fuck-ever: Democrats taking over and running things will fucking have to be better than the shit storm we live in now.

Like I tell my friends, when I absolutely KNOW that I myself could be a better President than the one we have now then fuck, what more evidence do we all need that the surface of the Earth in now the new Hell - no need to die to experience perdition, you are fucking there right now.

Biden 2020! - no more swimming in liquid shit/buzzard puke with the fucktarded right-wing demons. Let my people go! Let the judgment begin - may Joseph Biden, the Paraclete of the Holy Spirit of Socialism, smite the evil ones hip and thigh. A-Fucking-Men!

The republican party needs to come back towards the center. If they're not willing to at least do that all bets are off. They're forcing through another extreme right supreme court justice and I'll tell you what if the dems take back the Senate like I think they will I'd be doing a few things. Like no more filibuster and righting the supreme court balance right off--bringing in two new states--District of Columbia and Puerto Rico--which should have happened long ago anyway--and that's going to be 2 new Senators and a voting congressperson for DC (and they'll be democrats for sure) and two new Senators and 5 voting congresspersons for Puerto Rico (and the likelihood is they'll all be democrats too). That will give the Democrats an extra Senate cushion and considering 2022's Senate cycle is pretty much the same picture as the 2020 election cycle (as in 22 republican seats are up and 12 democratic seats) there's probably likely even going to be a bigger Senate cushion after 2022.

All the voter suppression shit then and gerrymandering of districts I would work to kill. No more electoral college. If the Republican party then continues to pander only to white people that's their issue--they either start competing for votes with all the races, religions, genders etc. or they can just commit political suicide. It's time to marginalize those who are always trying to game the system with less than voting pluralities.

If in the meantime the ACA has gone down--I'm not putting it back together either. This would be the time to go all the way for M4A.

>15 lriley:

It won't come back to the center. If Biden wins, the separation gets wider. I think >14 JGL53: is all you need to see to know why.

>15 lriley: I'm with you except how are you going to get rid of the electoral college? To change the Constitution you'd need to get 3/4ths of the states. And the smaller states will never go along regardless if they are red or blue.

>17 jjwilson61:

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-...

Something to consider, maybe a good briefer for those eager to place the nation that has freed the most people in the same boat as The rest.

>18 Cubby.R.S.:

That nation would be the one that freed the most people that itself enslaved, right?

>18 Cubby.R.S.: the nation that has freed the most people

I find that to be a very strange phrase (except in the sense that >19 Limelite: suggests, that it freed a lot of people whom it had itself enslaved). Was it a throwaway comment, perhaps a trope that might be familiar to the right wing, and which you would prefer us to ignore, or would you be willing to try to explain what you mean by it and what justification there is for it?

>20 Earthling1: I agree with you on that. The abuse of "education" and the death camps has to stop, which is part of the reasons so many Americans are voting for Joe Biden.

Most of >1 Earthling1: is nonsense, of course. The GOP is the ruling party, the one most in support of slave economics (which I guess is what you're eluding to with some of your word choices, but aimed at the opposition), and the one that's been advocating for an armed rebellion against the constitutional government if it can't sway Electors to reelect Donald Trump. Republicans have been clear in their fear of fair elections and a peaceful transfer of power.

Let's hope top military officials do what it's supposed to do instead of defects to support a take over by the dictatorial Trump family if/when Biden wins the presidency. ETA, for the people who aren't aware: "what it's supposed to do" is protect the lawful transfer of power and accept the newly elected president as Commander in Chief.

>24 Earthling1:,>25 Earthling1:

Typical right winger, 'Ling-'Ling. You hide your sources and obfuscate full disclosure. Trying to replicate one of the concealer authors (M.A.) whose books you rec?

Let's have a look at what you think is credible reading material. I chose to only investigate one item and extrapolate from there, feeling confident that I wouldn't be lax in my assumption about the uninvestigated title because I have your "reliable record" as a poster to back up the validity of making such an assumption.

The Stake Sadly, not a vampire fiction but marketed as non-fiction by its author, Michael Anton. Try not to laugh as Inskeep eviscerates him and Anton isn't even aware he's being sliced up and displaying himself for the nutjob he is.

Here's Wikipedia Mike's highlights. Michael Anton was Trump's former senior national security official.

He is best known for his right wing views, his conspiracy-theory orientation and his pseudonymous essays written during the 2016 presidential campaign.

He is a former speechwriter for Rupert Murdoch, Rudy Giuliani, and George W. Bush's National Security Council.

Anton resigned on April 8, 2018, the evening before new National Security Advisor John R. Bolton began his new position.

Anton wrote The Suit, a men's fashion book that parodies Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince, under the pseudonym "Nicholas Antongiavanni."

His pseudonymous September 2016 editorial "The Flight 93 Election" compared the prospect of conservatives letting Hillary Clinton win with passengers not charging the cockpit of the United Airlines aircraft hijacked by Al-Qaeda. Anton also decried the "ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners," and called for "no more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures."

Anton is also known as a critic of birthright citizenship in the United States.

Here's where 'Ling-'Ling gets his thread idea from and most of his political view, too, I surmise.

In September 2020, Anton wrote a conspiratorial essay, titled "The Coming Coup?" which suggested that Democrats, aided by George Soros, were actively planning a coup d'etat to take over the United States. In the essay, he referred to Joe Biden's comments as "the ravings of a dementia patient" . . .

You decide. Who sounds more like a demented madman -- Biden or this kook? Anton is at best a pseudo-(nymous) intellectual.

>26 Limelite: I don't know what Earthling1 said after me, as I haven't felt like looking yet, but I did go to the interview in the link.

I am now a completely - a red person by outlook. And one of the advantages I have as a red person is I know entirely what blue people think because they control every organ of the media and broadcast it in my face 24/7 at very high decibels.

... and I'm deeply confused why this Anton guy was interviewed on NPR.

WTF, really? He somehow plays, loudly, liberal-leaning (as I'm assuming he means by "blue") media day and night, every day, so he can claim to understand how all people in a liberals think. Entirely. How is that supposed to make sense?

I'm guessing this guy is very popular with FOX Entertainment, which, if he could be taken at his word, he doesn't watch.

By the way, I don't know for certain Earthling1 isn't Anton. That would explain a few things. We don't need to know; profile handles exist for good reasons. It just occurred to me that references to someone who might be an LT member in the Talk conversation while not out as the author makes for a strange scenario.

>23 Earthling1: not everyone wants freedom. They want security

Interesting comment, and there might be a half-truth in it if one looks at the hierarchy of human needs. Needs such as water, food, shelter and security are prior to things like freedom of association or thought. But nevertheless these needs are what people aspire to. It's not either/or (particularly in the richest country in the world) but a progression whereby once you have the basic survival needs (as everybody in the USA ought to, and it's a scandal that they haven't) you can then work towards the other needs.

Indeed one of the reasons people flee from poverty and oppression to countries such as the USA is in the hope of getting a comprehensive set of rights/needs. But often they are fleeing from regimes which put "security" above the needs and rights of the people. In many parts of the world, the word "security" is a dirty word which connotates the system which oppresses people. It is often invoked by those in power to maintain their own vested interests. Note that Biden isn't in power but Trump is, and he and/or some of his supporters are using the sort of language and tactics which are familiar to many who have experienced oppressive regimes. I've lived under three military dictatorships and two other authoritarian regimes, and I would not wish it on anyone.

Hillary Clinton declared publicly that Joe Biden should not concede the election “under any circumstances.”

You seem inordinately fond of quoting that—four times already—and always without any of the the context around it. You even whine about "the old English major in me" knowing what it means. I would suggest that, if you have an English major in you, he inclines toward dishonest, selective quotation.

>29 aspirit:

I choose to think it was an attempt by NPR to expose this charlatan "thinker," better, opinionator for what he is: empty-headed, bereft of any intellectual chops but chock full of "crackpot" conspiracies and maliciousness. Discredit his authorial personna on air and let the listeners decide whether to read the book as political philosophy or unintentional comedy, or not at all.

A brain is a terrible thing to waste, but in his case, one has to add, so was his college "education."

About once every month or so Hillary Clinton pops her head out to say something and the republicans are all over it---like it really means anything. I look at her as about as done as done can be--like Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush. She's not a power anymore and can like anyone else pretty much say anything she likes.

The democrats by the way are not the ones with the gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics. Why is that important? Because the republican party knows that as currently conceptualized they are a minority of voters and to win they have to suppress the vote and/or take it away from voters who are likely to vote against them however they can. They certainly aren't trying to appeal to certain racial, ethnic, religious or gender based groups because they'd have to throw away all their dog whistle cultural values crap and then they couldn't pander to their ever aging and decreasing in numbers base.

>36 Earthling1:

I don't believe I'm divining anything, simply commenting intelligently on a comment which you made. Neither am I "making power a criterion for voting". Nor am I commenting on who is or isn't corrupt, simply on who is in power.

> 20

Never watch SNL. Your big pumpkin head would fucking explode.

lol.

Three articles which might be of interest on this topic, two of them recent and one a broader paper published three years ago.

Resisting Stolen Elections: Lessons from the Philippines, Serbia, Ukraine, and Gambia (International Center for Nonviolent Conflict)

Discussion has grown for months about how the upcoming U.S. election results could be contested and possibly subverted. No one knows for certain what will happen, but there are precedents we can learn from about how attempts to overturn election results have been stopped. Four cases in recent decades—one in Southeast Asia, one in Africa and the other two in Eastern Europe—involved an incumbent president or party attempting to steal an election only to have it reversed through large-scale nonviolent direct action. This article looks at these cases, and identifies key lessons...

Is the U.S. Prepared to Resist a Coup? (The Progressive)

If Trump refuses to step down, we must be ready to not cooperate... President Donald Trump’s refusal to agree to a peaceful transfer of power has raised concerns that the Republicans may try to steal the 2020 Presidential Election. And while the courts may be insufficient to hinder a Trump coup—especially after the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett—a growing network of organizations is already preparing to launch a large-scale civil resistance movement to defend American democracy. But if Trump and his Republican allies attempt to invalidate the election results, would enough Americans be able to mobilize to stop it? Could they actually rise up in a massive unarmed insurrection that would enable the legitimate winner of the presidential race to assume office?...

Civil Resistance Against Coups: A Comparative and Historical Perspective (International Center for Nonviolent Conflict)

Executive Summary

Nations are not helpless if the military decides to stage a coup. On dozens of occasions in recent
decades, even in the face of intimidated political leaders and international indifference, civil society has
risen up to challenge putschists through large-scale nonviolent direct action and noncooperation. How
can an unarmed citizenry mobilize so quickly and defeat a powerful military committed to seizing control
of the government? What accounts for the success or failure of nonviolent resistance movements to
reverse coups and consolidate democratic gains?

This monograph presents in-depth case studies and analysis intended to improve our understanding
of the strategic utility of civil resistance against military takeovers; the nature of civil resistance mobilization
against coups; and the role of civil resistance against coups in countries’ subsequent democratization
efforts (or failure thereof). It offers key lessons for pro-democracy activists and societies vulnerable to
military usurpation of power; national civilian and military bureaucracies; external state and non-state
agencies supportive of democracy; and future scholarship on this subject.

Major gaps exist in bodies of knowledge that feed into each of the above constituencies’ understanding
of the civil resistance against coups phenomenon. For example, countries spend massive amounts of
resources to prepare for defensive and offensive wars against foreign enemies or suppression of domestic
terrorists, but not against the threat of a coup—historically a much greater tangible risk to societal and
democratic well-being of nations.

At the same time, the vast majority of the literature on military coups largely ignores the role of civil
society, nonviolent mobilization and civil resistance. Studies on coups have been dominated by top-down
assumptions of political power, focusing on palace intrigues, governing structures, geopolitical alliances,
personalities of leaders, and narrowly defi ned strategic considerations of key domestic and international
elite actors. This monograph attempts to address these gaps by offering a new analytical, category-based
and case study-enriched perspective on understanding how civil resistance against coups has worked.

A main practical finding of this monograph is that the goal of pro-democracy resistance against
coups should be about defending society, not a particular physical location. The defense of a society
threatened by a coup relies on widespread mobilization, building alliances, nonviolent discipline, and
refusal to recognize illegitimate authority.

Given that the vast majority of anti-coup mobilization cases examined in this monograph did
not have the benefit of extensive pre-planning, it raises the question of how many successful coups in
recent years could have been prevented or defeated quickly—providing an even greater boost to
postcoup democratization efforts—had the population been prepared and equipped with suitable
skills and knowledge of civil resistance...