10 ms·
People seem to think that: 1. Auto-coups don't exist 2. Coups require tanks on the street 3. Once a coup is started it will succeed. This is a an auto-coup, w
by tbatchelli 2y ago
People seem to think that:
1. Auto-coups don't exist
2. Coups require tanks on the street
3. Once a coup is started it will succeed.
This is a an auto-coup, where the president is trying to seize power that is not granted by elections, and trying to make the legal system irrelevant. All in the name of urgency and saving the country (we call them "salva patrias" in Spain for a reason). No one can vote for this. Voting a president does not make the president all powerful.
Also, this coup does not need to succeed. We saw this recently in South Korea. This will only succeed if people don't oppose it. Don't believe them when they make you feel like you already lost.
Finally, the game has changed for the supporters of democracy. This is no longer about writing stern worded letters, if you catch my drift.
(references: I was born in a dictatorship and I lived through a failed military coup)
- scarab92 2y ago[flagged]
- panarky 2y agoPeople also seem to think that an autocratic takeover can't happen if the autocrat was elected. In fact, most autocratic takeovers begin with a democratic election.
- scarab92 2y ago[flagged]
- kmos17 2y agoThe fog of propaganda is pretty deep to write those word to defend a man who did exactly that: tried to extend his power through illegal means. He failed last time, he is far more likely to succeed now. And yes his means are again illegal, we don’t elect kings, there are still rules to follow.
- 2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago[flagged]
- tommiegannert 2y ago"Auto" usually means "self," so this would be a coup coming from already elected officials.
- tim333 2y ago>what is an "auto-coup"? from wikipedia: >a form of coup d'état in which a political leader, having come to power through legal means, stays in power through illegal means through the actions of themselves and/or their supporters. So Trump trying to stay on in 2020 was an attempt at one. Trump delegating firing people to Musk isn't really. The current stuff doesn't seem illegal either - I think the US president is allowed to say find out who's unnecessary and fire them even if the people being fired shout 'coup', 'unfair' and the like. I'm not sure it's a good idea but that doesn't mean it's illegal.
- 2-3-7-43-1807 2y agopreparational activities for criminal goals are often decidedly legal. same for coups. you hollow out the defense of your opponents by legal means before you go for the guts.
- locopati 2y agoAccess to secure systems by people who have not been given access rights through proper channels is certainly problematic if not outright illegal. Congress has Constitutional vetting power over Presidential appointments. It's part of the checks&balances. That has not happened. The purpose of a department has been altered by an appointee who has not been vetted. Again, incredibly problematic if not outright illegal.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- normalaccess 2y agoI'm under the impression that trump is doing exactly what at least 51% of the population want him to do. He campaigned on dismantling the wheels of established power in DC. EDIT: To expand on that Idea there is the exact apposing view that Biden was doing the same thing by the people that voted Trump in. But as we all know the media prefers one candidate over the other. Trump is the grenade that is supposed to destroy the power structures (the so called Deep State or permanent bureaucracy) in DC.
- thejazzman 2y agoi agree in principle but it's not reality my moms lifelong friend recently told us her grandkids are all trumpers they're all on SSI. one had four abortions. and they LOVE trump. every group in america was promised whatever they want, despite the endless hypocrisies/lies with that, and none of them seem to care whatsoever?? for this reason i see no way out of this hell. it's simply beyond reason at this point. (this take is from pennsylvania)
- normalaccess 2y agoIf there is one thing about Trump everyone can agree on, it's that he is a devastatingly effective communicator. And when I say that I don't mean good or correct or proper, I mean effective. He has an innate ability (and if you watch old clips always has) to pull the conversation where he wants it.
- anon_shill 2y agoCorrection: 31% of the eligible voting population and ~50% of the popular vote. A lot of people did not vote.
- normalaccess 2y agoThank you, that is an important point. Voting numbers can only estimate the totals. I should have use the term *Electorate*. The collective people of a country, state, or electoral district who are entitled to vote.
- raxxorraxor 2y agoTo be fair, this is the modus operandi since early 2000 at least. Terrorism it was at that point. Broad surveillance and control policies were justified by a constant threat and there was always some threat and democracy had to take a backseat, even constitutional rights (I am not from the US, but developments were similar in my country). Trump might behave more colorfully here, but I have to be honest that this isn't at all unfamiliar. I think a lot of Trumps current power stems from pretty weak defenders of democracy. Not referring to the previous government and instead of the common sentiment of 21st century politics. It doesn't lend itself to give a convincing picture. Maybe that is a trap, but it just isn't that outrageous anymore in an overall outrageous context. Perhaps it is indeed worse, but I think a lot of damage was already done.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago> This is no longer about writing stern worded letters, if you catch my drift. I've been hoping the Pentagon would grow some balls, but that looks like it won't happen. Guillotines it is, then
- sxyuan 2y agoThe choice isn't just between talking and violence. Here's a helpful thread that gives some examples of intermediate options at the end: https://bsky.app/profile/chadloder.bsky.social/post/3lh5gch3mzk2h https://bsky.app/profile/chadloder.bsky.social/post/3lh5gch3... Link that should work without signin: https://skyview.social/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbsky.app%2Fprofile%2Fchadloder.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3lh5gch3mzk2h&viewtype=unroll https://skyview.social/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbsky.app%2Fprofile... If things escalate all the way to widespread violence, we've all collectively failed.
- epicureanideal 2y ago[flagged]
- defrost 2y agoAdvocating legal pushback and resistance. These do not imply violence.
- highasfcuk 2y ago[flagged]
- tbatchelli 2y agoYou are the only person advocating for violence here. Bringing my wife and kids here is very brave of you.
- epicureanideal 2y ago[flagged]
- highasfcuk 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Kim_Bruning 2y agoDoesn't require violence. See South Korea. And not all coups are violent. Eg. EU is putting up with Orban in Hungary at the moment. Poland was a narrow miss.
- red-iron-pine 2y agoBut it was going to be violent. The to-be-deposed SK president had plans to use the SK Army to seize power, and even had Special Forces sent to the SK Parliament -- they just didn't really know what was going on, and weren't keen on shooting at their own Congress
- zmgsabst 2y ago[flagged]
- archagon 2y ago[flagged]
- zmgsabst 2y ago[flagged]
- archagon 2y agoIt is just factually untrue that Democrats are the party of billionaires. The richest people in the world were sitting behind Trump at his inauguration. You are high on some serious right wing propaganda.
- throw310822 2y agoI think the point is not much that he's doing what he promised, but that he's doing it in two weeks and apparently without proper legal and democratic oversight. This is just week two, there's 206 more to go.
- scarab92 2y ago[flagged]
- kortex 2y agoWhat is undemocratic is suggesting that somehow the civil participation process just goes on hold between every election. People are seeing a trajectory even worse than anticipated and sounding the alarm. The Trump administration is blasting off executive orders that many feel are unconstitutional, and the populace wants to pump the brakes.
- scarab92 2y ago[flagged]
- pubby 2y agoWell, they won two branches democratically. The supreme court is a different matter.
- red-iron-pine 2y agoThey've been packing the court for decades now, a concerted push since the W Bush era. That's not even a discussion anymore. remember not the debacle that was Kavanaugh boofing, and being gropey as hell in the past, and crying? or Amy Comey Barret's complete lack of qualification in any way? Or how Chief Justice Roberts got appointed basically on the idea that he's going to approve and reinforce Hobby Lobby and Citizen's United?
- tbatchelli 2y agoIf they want to make budget cuts, they can get it approved by congress, which they control. So do that.
- scarab92 2y ago[flagged]
- Volundr 2y agoThis is factually untrue. The constitution gives Congress the exclusive power of the purse. The president does not have the authority to withhold funds approved by Congress (search for Nixon and Impoundment if you want a history lesson on that). There are sections of the budget that are discretionary spending that is controlled by the executive branch directly, but that is a small fraction of the federal budget.
- archagon 2y agoOh, the words are absolutely being used accurately. As a reminder, the president is an impeached felon and rapist who literally tried to steal the last election. His billionaire vizier gleefully used two Nazi salutes at the inauguration and backs far-right parties around the world. On day one, the administration announced that 30,000 migrants would be housed indefinitely at Gitmo, of all places. And now, our federal government is being infiltrated and ransacked by a rogue team with zero oversight or transparency. Historians will be baffled by how some people missed even these signs. I guess critical thinking is in terribly scarce supply these days.
- scarface_74 2y agoPeople aren’t opposing it. The legislation is letting Trump usurp their power. This is something that old school Republicans wouldn’t have let happen. But the Republican Party has been taking over by Trump. Also, why would the majority oppose it? What he is doing is affecting illegal immigrants (who can’t vote), the poorest people who those just one level up think they are “only temporarily poor”, minorities, trans - you notice that he only removed the T from LGBT while he is taking down “wokeness”. You also have to remember he has the evangelical Christian block in his pocket who literally believe he was sent by God to keep America from descending in hell fire. You can’t “reason” with devout religious people. Religion requires you to ignore logic and science (born and raised in the Bible Belt). You notice he isn’t disrupting farmers in red states with immigration raids? Also because of gerrymandering and how the Senate is designed. The low population red states have much more power than their population calls for.
- stogot 2y ago> You also have to remember he has the evangelical Christian block in his pocket who literally believe he was sent by God to keep America from descending in hell fire. You can’t “reason” with devout religious people. No not true. only a few people believe that. Most do not. Stop grouping religious people into the few who interview on tv. > Religion requires you to ignore logic and science (born and raised in the Bible Belt). Also wildly not true and you’re extending an experience you had to a whole population, which is a biased opinion. Many of us use science and logic daily, in conversations, and there are well received physicists who argue for an existence of a God using logic. The Bible says to use both wisdom and knowledge (logic and science).
- mafuy 2y agoThere does not exist a proper argument for the existence of God that does not require use of "God is above logic". I'll believe that many Christians do not see Trump as savior, though. Following true Christian values in these times is a great idea.
- deleted 2y ago