Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I was responding to what someone else said.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do you call it when a sitting President tries to extend their term in office through illegitimate means?
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Mussolini also had support from the army, didn't he? The army probably didn't oppose him because they agreed with him.
It was similar with Hitler. The army could have stopped him early on if they wanted to, but as long as Hitler got rid of Ernst Rohm, the army was with him all the way - to the bitter end.
The U.S. military is similar to the permanent bureaucracy where they see Presidents come and go. As J. Edgar Hoover once put it, "They're just visitors to Washington. I'm a resident." They also take an oath to the Constitution, not to any President, King, Il Duce, or Fuhrer. They're not about to go along with any coup or install anyone as President For Life. And they wouldn't allow any kind of disorganized mob of fools to do it either.
Even if it's not all out of loyalty to the Constitution, the fact is, the military itself benefits from the current system as it stands. They have no reason to change it, and you can rest assured that they will defend it with all of the resources and manpower at their disposal.
In the case of Italy and Germany, both Mussolini and Hitler were fascist militarists - and in both countries, their militaries were small and somewhat neglected. Hitler promised to rearm the military, make them strong and powerful again - that would certainly be something their military leadership would want.
But in the U.S., the military already has everything they could possibly want under the present system and Constitution. The U.S. government pays the military a pretty penny to keep them happy, and they are armed to the teeth and proud of a long tradition of being the best fighting force in the world. They may be somewhat militaristic, and some may be warmongers. But that doesn't mean they would support a fascist dictatorship. If anything, they would be more subtle about it, using a bit more finesse. It would still have the same appearance and trappings of a liberal democracy, and the public would likely not even be aware that anything is different.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah and @Kathryn it is still not according to the thread title. Just because more than one person does it, doesn't mean it is relevant.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Just to clarify, you don't like my answer but that's OK. If you liked it, you wouldn't have responded.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, I don't like that you in a serious debate, just write what pops into your mind. But that is me and how I were taught to do it.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
A coup generally involves the military. Nearly always but not always. By the way, I don't care whether you like me or my style or not.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Whatever. I am not going Nth rounds with you this time and explain what @Estro Felino is about.
Or indded what I am about or ask you what you are about.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
A coup nearly always involves the military.
www.vocabulary.com
Coup - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms
A coup is a pretty major achievement, whether it involves taking over a government by force, or landing a major business contract.
www.vocabulary.com
Here is what your link says.A coup nearly always involves the military.
Coup - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms
A coup is a pretty major achievement, whether it involves taking over a government by force, or landing a major business contract.
“A coup is a pretty major achievement, whether it involves taking over a government by force, or landing a major business contract.”
Nowhere does it say “nearly always involves a military”. Where did you get that idea?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
From that and other sources. I just named the first one that popped up. Not going to name all the others, especially when I didn't say that a coup ALWAYS involves a military.
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
It wasn't for lack of Trump and his toadies from trying to bend the Generals to their scheme. In the end, the Generals won in defense of country.
Excerpt from a fascinating read:
www.newyorker.com
Excerpt from a fascinating read:
“The crazies have taken over,” Pompeo told him when they sat down at Milley’s kitchen table. Not only was Trump surrounded by the crazies; they were, in fact, ascendant in the White House and, as of that afternoon, inside the Pentagon itself. Just a few hours earlier, on the first workday after the election was called for Biden, Trump had finally fired Esper. Milley and Pompeo were alarmed that the Defense Secretary was being replaced by Christopher Miller, until recently an obscure mid-level counterterrorism official at Trump’s National Security Council, who had arrived at the Pentagon flanked by a team of what appeared to be Trump’s political minders.
For Milley, this was an ominous development. From the beginning, he understood that “if the idea was to seize power,” as he told his staff, “you are not going to do this without the military.” Milley had studied the history of coups. They invariably required the takeover of what he referred to as the “power ministries”—the military, the national police, and the interior forces.
As soon as he’d heard about Esper’s ouster, Milley had rushed upstairs to the Secretary’s office. “This is complete bull****,” he told Esper. Milley said that he would resign in protest. “You can’t,” Esper insisted. “You’re the only one left.” Once he cooled off, Milley agreed.
In the coming weeks, Milley would repeatedly convene the Joint Chiefs, to bolster their resolve to resist any dangerous political schemes from the White House now that Esper was out. He quoted Benjamin Franklin to them on the virtues of hanging together rather than hanging separately. He told his staff that, if need be, he and all the chiefs were prepared to “put on their uniforms and go across the river together”—to threaten to quit en masse—to prevent Trump from trying to use the military to stay in power illegally.
Inside the War Between Trump and His Generals
How Mark Milley and others in the Pentagon handled the national-security threat posed by their own Commander-in-Chief.
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
Anyone remember this in the days after Jan. 6?
What people need to remember is that Trump tried to use the military. He intended to use the military for his own army. He tried at least twice (that we know of) to use the Insurrection Act in office, and has threatened again to use it if he regains office.
America’s most senior general Mark Milley and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is comprised of the heads of each military branch, issued a statement Tuesday condemning the violent invasion of the US Capitol last week and reminding service members of their obligation to support and defend the Constitution and reject extremism.
Read the Joint Chief’s statement here:
What people need to remember is that Trump tried to use the military. He intended to use the military for his own army. He tried at least twice (that we know of) to use the Insurrection Act in office, and has threatened again to use it if he regains office.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Nope. Maybe go over the protections provided by the Constitution.Is there a word for that? Do you know what that is? I will give you a hint.
It rhymes with poo.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!www.dictionary.com
I was just reminded that some people on this board still don't know what a coup is. Even after nearly 4 years they still have not take the few seconds it would take to educate themselves.
So make no mistake. What Donald Trump did after the 2020 election was a self-coup, and auto-coup. that is what it was. There is no ambiguity. This is the dictionary definition. Trump tried to stay in office by declaring that the legitimate democratic election of his opponent was not legitimate. That is a coup.
Maybe it is not what you imagined it was, but that is the reality of what a coup is, and it is the reality of what Trump did
There is no way a coup can be successful unless you have the backing of a military or similarly strong authority that can take over by force and maintain said force.
That would be a coup. What we have is more closer to what the vast majority of people really describe as being an insurrection.
But if it makes you happy to call it a coup like some silly others here, I'd say knock yourself out and enjoy yourself.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
If that is how you think a government can effectively be taken over you are sadly mistaken.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Unless we are talking about a self-coup. There's more than one kind
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Got any examples of any self coups? I'd be interested in reading about them.
Read the definition. That is all I am going to say. Just read the definition.
a coup d'état performed by the current, legitimate government or a duly elected head of state to retain or extend control over government, through an additional term, an extension of term, an expansion of executive power, the dismantling of other government branches, or the declaration that an election won by an opponent is illegitimate.
And understand, I didn't write the definition, that is the definition. Words have meaning, that that is the meaning of the word "coup".
If you still don't understand, read the definition again.
a coup d'état performed by the current, legitimate government or a duly elected head of state to retain or extend control over government, through an additional term, an extension of term, an expansion of executive power, the dismantling of other government branches, or the declaration that an election won by an opponent is illegitimate.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
So how do you think a person can maintain control without the backing of a military or an authority?
Borrow a helmet with some horns attached from the shaman and put a spell on the nation?
Did you read the definition?
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Self-coup - Wikipedia
A self-coup, also called an autocoup (from Spanish autogolpe) or coup from the top, is a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power through legal means, stays in power through illegal means.[1] The leader may dissolve or render powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assume extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts, and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers.[2][3]
There's plenty of examples in the wiki if you'd like to learn more