No way they would have effectively wielded power over the whole country but if the scheme was successful and the VP didn’t certify the election and SCOTUS backed that up there would have been absolute chaos which could have torn apart the union.
I agree it would have been absolute chaos for a short period, but I don’t think it would have lasted more than a few days at most, which means I disagree with the last part.
It would certainly throw all the Federal agencies into chaos, and there are plenty of fucking idiots in the military who would happily do Trump’s bidding.
After a few days who would have sorted it out?
This is a false premise so there is no reason to even argue over it. The scheme does not need to be successful or sustained (in the way you are defining success or otherwise) to be a threat to democratic institutions. And even a few days or weeks of chaos would have wide-ranging and lasting impacts of democratic institutions—we are seeing that now, even without the “success” you have outlined as necessary.
nymag.com
www.lawyerscommittee.org
www.pbs.org
www.bbc.com
www.americanprogress.org
It simply wouldn’t have had enough support or momentum to establish a footholding on power, so it would have sorted itself out.
There’s no inconsistency with what I’ve previously posted as I’m pretty sure I’ve never previously commented on the likelihood of the insurrection leading to a successful coup, which is distinct from whether I think a Trump in power would represent a real threat to those democratic institutions. It’s actually quite a narrow, theoretical point, so not sure why you’ve got so energised about it.This is a false premise so there is no reason to even argue over it. The scheme does not need to be successful or sustained (in the way you are defining success or otherwise) to be a threat to democratic institutions. And even a few days or weeks of chaos would have wide-ranging and lasting impacts of democratic institutions—we are seeing that now, even without the “success” you have outlined as necessary.
This is not just my position, it is the position of respected scholars, historians, journalists, political analysts, and prosecutors (including Jack Smith). Acute events are most often only an element of the degradation of political systems. To argue that because January 6th was destined to be ultimately unsuccessful it was not a threat to democratic institutions is like arguing the Beer Hall Putsch had nothing to do with the destruction of Germany’s democracy in the early 20th century.
It is very strange that someone like you, of all people, would entertain such a faulty premise in the first place, much less forcefully argue in favour of it.
And I have explained that we have covered this topic in this and other threads, over and over and over again. You and I have even discussed it and, in those previous exchanges I got the (apparently false) impression you understood the threats to democratic institutions posed by the mere attempt of subverting the election (and, in turn, the broader democratic system of governance). I have no obligation to you or anyone else to devote copious amounts of time and energy (far more limited a resource for me than you) to do it all again.
Honestly, your posts now are quite baffling given all of our discussions in the past and who I know you to be. I really don’t understand them—they seem wholly out of character.
If you are interested in the separate topic of why the flippancy toward the actions (and implications) of January 6th are a threat to democratic institutions in the US, I suggest these write ups, position papers, and interviews.
Americans’ Indifference About January 6 Is the Real Threat to Democracy
Polls show Donald Trump’s insurrection attempt isn’t a significant issue in the midterms. That shows just how broken our system has become.
January 6th Was an Attack on Democracy Itself | Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
(Washington, D.C.) — One year ago, on January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol Police officers faced a violent mob intent on interrupting the peaceful transfer of presidential power. They were driven by white supremacist rhetoric and intentional misinformation aimed at overturning the legitimate results of...
Exploring the threats to democracy that remain 2 years after Jan. 6
In the first general election after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, many of the most high-profile election deniers lost their races. But threats to democracy remain as extremist political factions remain emboldened, Trump’s presidential bid is built on lies and cities are reporting record...
January 6: The day that still divides America, three years on
To Trump, the Capitol riot was a "beautiful day". Biden cites it to emphasise Trump's threat.
Trump and His Allies Must Be Held Accountable for the January 6 Insurrection
Without full accountability for the events surrounding the unconstitutional plot to overturn the 2020 presidential election, U.S. democracy remains under substantial threat.
I think it is the false premise of your posts about the nature and implications of January 6th that I don’t understand in the context of all our discussions that have come before—and my general understanding of how you approach things, which in my experience has always been in a holistic and forward thinking manner—hence my response of confusion.
I’m not sure how that could happen. Trump’s presidential term would have ended on 20th January and there would have been no legal successor in place to take up the role. It would have been uncharted territory where anything could have happened. When there’s no widely recognised government I don’t see how anything could have been sorted out. The military may have had to step in but there’s no guarantee that the senior hierarchy would all want to do the same thing. It would have been a complete mess and would have caused a worldwide financial meltdown along with numerous other geopolitical consequences.