has Biden done a good job as president?

[Rev. Rye]

Just for the record, there’s a thing called a self-coup or an auto-coup: a leader who’s been democratically elected decides to seize power from the other branches of government and officially become a dictator. Some of the more well-known examples include the Coup of 18 Brumaire (wherein Napoleon seized power) and the Enabling Act which allowed mere Reichschancellor Adolf Hitler to become the Führer we know and hate today.

The term is fairly recent, but not “We Need a New Word To Describe What Trump Just Tried to Do” recent. It seems to have arisen in the wake of Juan Maria Bordaberry’s Coup d’etat in Uruguay in 1973, mostly in its Spanish form “autogolpe.” It’s not been terribly common in layman’s parlance, but that’s mainly because it’s not as common as it used to be. And Wikipedia’s had an article about the concept since 2004.

And on the off chance that you recognize the concept, even if the gallows was so rickety and shittily-designed that it’d collapse before you could get the noose around the victim’s neck, the mere act of building a gallows (especially during a riot where people were demanding that Mike Pence be hanged) is still a sign of intent. You might think there should be no points for trying and failing to do something, but in the real world, that’s not how the justice system sees crime.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Just for the record, there’s a thing called a self-coup or an auto-coup: a leader who’s been democratically elected decides to seize power from the other branches of government and officially become a dictator. Some of the more well-known examples include the Coup of 18 Brumaire (wherein Napoleon seized power) and  the Enabling Act which allowed mere Reichschancellor Adolf Hitler to become the Führer we know and hate today.

The term is fairly recent, but not “We Need a New Word To Describe What Trump Just Tried to Do” recent. It seems to have arisen in the wake of Juan Maria Bordaberry’s Coup d’etat in Uruguay in 1973, mostly in its Spanish form “autogolpe.” It’s not been terribly common in layman’s parlance, but that’s mainly because it’s not as common as it used to be. And Wikipedia’s had an article about the concept since 2004.

And on the off chance that you recognize the concept, even if the gallows was so rickety and shittily-designed that it’d collapse before you could get the noose around the victim’s neck, the mere act of building a gallows (especially during a riot where people were demanding that Mike Pence be hanged) is still a sign of intent. You might think there should be no points for trying and failing to do something, but in the real world, that’s not how the justice system sees crime.

OLB seems to think the President is the government 

---

If Donald Trump ordered 40 people to stormed the supreme court while they were ruling on a case and tried forcing them to rule in Trump's favor. That's an insurrection against the supreme court as they both have civil authority and are a branch of an established government. Even if it's carried out by another branch of the government.

[onlinebiker]

Just for the record, there’s a thing called a self-coup or an auto-coup: a leader who’s been democratically elected decides to seize power from the other branches of government and officially become a dictator. Some of the more well-known examples include the Coup of 18 Brumaire (wherein Napoleon seized power) and  the Enabling Act which allowed mere Reichschancellor Adolf Hitler to become the Führer we know and hate today.

The term is fairly recent, but not “We Need a New Word To Describe What Trump Just Tried to Do” recent. It seems to have arisen in the wake of Juan Maria Bordaberry’s Coup d’etat in Uruguay in 1973, mostly in its Spanish form “autogolpe.” It’s not been terribly common in layman’s parlance, but that’s mainly because it’s not as common as it used to be. And Wikipedia’s had an article about the concept since 2004.

And on the off chance that you recognize the concept, even if the gallows was so rickety and shittily-designed that it’d collapse before you could get the noose around the victim’s neck, the mere act of building a gallows (especially during a riot where people were demanding that Mike Pence be hanged) is still a sign of intent. You might think there should be no points for trying and failing to do something, but in the real world, that’s not how the justice system sees crime.

Just can' t admit you where wrong, huh?


That' s the true sign of a spoiled rotten kid.

Just like Trump.....

Hey - you can now tell everyone you' re presidential caliber.....

Functionally...

[Deesse23]

Okay, so perhaps it wasn't the most functional of designs but what I get from this is this "unplanned" raid on the capital included people who just happened to have the things necessary to build a gallows.  

It was obviously a symbol of intent if nothing else.

Given that he’s arguing that building a gallows on the site of a protest where people are demanding the hanging of the Vice-President (who is in a building right next to where the protest is) doesn’t really count,

Indeed the gallows may not be the best for actually hanging Pence. Indeed protesters against the nuclear armament race have brought pappmaché missles with them. Did the latter intened to actually launch a nuke during their protest? Most probably not.

The problem with denialism of the January insurrection is: The insurrectionists were inside the capitol actually looking for Mike Pence. But of course they only wanted to discuss with him, while sitting peacefully together on a makeshift gallows, right?

[Rev. Rye]

Another incident I didn't mention initially because it's likely even less likely to result in a viable hanging (the angle looks like they hung it from a really low branch):

At one point, a group of rioters attacked an Associated Press journalist (because they apparently thought the AP was the New York Times), forcing them to leave behind their equipment. Much of it was smashed, and some of the cable was salvaged... and turned into this noose. But, hey, it's like those anti-nuclear protests where the protesters get into such a frenzy they decide to actually try and make proper nuclear warheads, and maybe even scrambling around for the "1.5 KG OF PLUTONIUM MAKE A NUCLEAR BOMB." And if their worksmanship is too shit to actually make it work properly, well, in Biker's world, if a criminal is either too stupid to actually pull off their crime or they get stopped before they can pull it off, it shouldn't even count!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

insurrection (n): : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

Boru

Exactly.

Now.....


Since WHEN is the President ELECT the head of the government? Never? Not till he is sworn in?

...

WHO was the President during this "period of insurrection"?


This is no small point. And it' s not a " functional gallows".


President Trump cannot be charged with insurrection - unless you are charging that he conspired to have himself overthrown - AS HE WAS THE HEAD OF THE.GOVERNMENT AT THAT TIME.

Did he incite a riot? Arguably so. Is he a monumental asshat? Again - that' s an easy arguement to make. Did he attempt to nullify a legal election? Sure looks like it.

But - you are an idiot trying to redefine crimes by saying it was insurrection..

But the definition doesn't say 'trying to overthrow the head of government'. Read it again, paying special attention to the terms 'civil authority' and 'an established government'.

An attempt to nullify a legal election HAS to qualify as an attempt to overthrow an established government. Rioting on civilian government property is clearly a revolt against civil authority. And inciting an insurrection is legally the same as taking physical part in one:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

If just ONE of the 472 people arrested so far is convicted of insurrection, based on what Trump urged them to do, then Trump is guilty of insurrection.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

Just can' t admit you where wrong, huh?

He would actually have to be wrong to do that. He isn't wrong so he doesn't have to.

That' s the true sign of a spoiled rotten kid.

No, it's the sign of someone who won't lie.

Just like Trump.....

Nah that would be you. 

Hey - you can now tell everyone you' re presidential caliber.....

Again that would be you 

Functionally...

Again that would be you 


Dumbass

---

Exactly.

Now.....


Since WHEN is the President ELECT the head of the government? Never? Not till he is sworn in?

...

WHO was the President during this "period of insurrection"?


This is no small point. And it' s not a " functional gallows".


President Trump cannot be charged with insurrection - unless you are charging that he conspired to have himself overthrown - AS HE WAS THE HEAD OF THE.GOVERNMENT AT THAT TIME.

Did he incite a riot? Arguably so. Is he a monumental asshat? Again - that' s an easy arguement to make. Did he attempt to nullify a legal election? Sure looks like it.

But - you are an idiot trying to redefine crimes by saying it was insurrection..

But the definition doesn't say 'trying to overthrow the head of government'. Read it again, paying special attention to the terms 'civil authority' and 'an established government'.

An attempt to nullify a legal election HAS to qualify as an attempt to overthrow an established government. Rioting on civilian government property is clearly a revolt against civil authority. And inciting an insurrection is legally the same as taking physical part in one:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

If just ONE of the 472 people arrested so far is convicted of insurrection, based on what Trump urged them to do, then Trump is guilty of insurrection.

Boru

Not to mention as I pointed out trying to kill the VP of the administration in power is also an act of insurrection. But yeah the president sending a mob to interfere with congress and trying to override their power by force is an insurrection.

[onlinebiker]

Exactly.

Now.....


Since WHEN is the President ELECT the head of the government? Never? Not till he is sworn in?

...

WHO was the President during this "period of insurrection"?


This is no small point. And it' s not a " functional gallows".


President Trump cannot be charged with insurrection - unless you are charging that he conspired to have himself overthrown - AS HE WAS THE HEAD OF THE.GOVERNMENT AT THAT TIME.

Did he incite a riot? Arguably so. Is he a monumental asshat? Again - that' s an easy arguement to make. Did he attempt to nullify a legal election? Sure looks like it.

But - you are an idiot trying to redefine crimes by saying it was insurrection..

But the definition doesn't say 'trying to overthrow the head of government'. Read it again, paying special attention to the terms 'civil authority' and 'an established government'.

An attempt to nullify a legal election HAS to qualify as an attempt to overthrow an established government. Rioting on civilian government property is clearly a revolt against civil authority. And inciting an insurrection is legally the same as taking physical part in one:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

If just ONE of the 472 people arrested so far is convicted of insurrection, based on what Trump urged them to do, then Trump is guilty of insurrection.

Boru

Guilt by association....

How low you' ll go....

[The Architect Of Fate]

Guilt by association....

How low you' ll go....

He literally just gave you a legal justification. Inciting people to commit a crime is itself a crime and aiding criminals is also a crime.

Sorry you don't like that

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But the definition doesn't say 'trying to overthrow the head of government'. Read it again, paying special attention to the terms 'civil authority' and 'an established government'.

An attempt to nullify a legal election HAS to qualify as an attempt to overthrow an established government. Rioting on civilian government property is clearly a revolt against civil authority. And inciting an insurrection is legally the same as taking physical part in one:


If just ONE of the 472 people arrested so far is convicted of insurrection, based on what Trump urged them to do, then Trump is guilty of insurrection.

Boru

Guilt by association....

How low you' ll go....

It’s not me - that’s what the law says: someone who incites an insurrection is guilty of - wait for it - insurrection. There is no legal distinction between the two.

If you disagree, take it up with the US Code.

Boru