If they make Biden leave office is that a coup?

@wildgrass said
Why would he do that and why would she be happy?

Because he's senile and unfit for office, and it would make her the president.

@Kilroy70 said
"Obviously being "persuaded" to leave office doesn't amount to a coup unless there's some threat of force."

I didn't say or suggest a coup by threat of force. You are being disingenuous when you use the most severe definition of 'coup' and suggest this is what I meant.

Where do you see a threat of force involving bodily harm in THIS definition of "coup"? [2. a n ...[text shortened]... igious contract"]

And by the way, I'm not buying into your apparent ignorance as to who THEY are.

I don't see it in "an act of touching an armed enemy in battle as a deed of bravery, or an act of first touching an item of the enemy's in order to claim it." but when you use the English language words can have different meanings in different contexts. When referring to politics, the definition is:

"a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government:"

@Cliff-Mashburn said
Right, 81 million voters, when the people that came to his rallies wouldn't fill a phone booth.

FYI, the winner of the office of the president is not determined by rally attendance.

@no1marauder said
I don't see it in "an act of touching an armed enemy in battle as a deed of bravery, or an act of first touching an item of the enemy's in order to claim it." but when you use the English language words can have different meanings in different contexts. When referring to politics, the definition is:

"a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government:"

Your argument makes no sense.
"THEY" are the growing list of top Democratic leaders who are pressuring Biden to get out of the race, and stop campaigning for a second term. No one is suggesting these Democrats are engaged in "a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government:"

@no1marauder said
I don't see it in "an act of touching an armed enemy in battle as a deed of bravery, or an act of first touching an item of the enemy's in order to claim it." but when you use the English language words can have different meanings in different contexts. When referring to politics, the definition is:

"a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government:"

"a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government:"

So, if Trump were to do it gradually, over the next four years, let us say, by stacking federal judgeships, replacing the civil service with his hand-picked cronies, declaring martial law, and giving himself emergency powers for life, it wouldn‘t be a coup? It would be something else. Let‘s call it „Project 2025“ then.

@moonbus said
"a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government:"

So, if Trump were to do it gradually, over the next four years, let us say, by stacking federal judgeships, replacing the civil service with his hand-picked cronies, declaring martial law, and giving himself emergency powers for life, it wouldn‘t be a coup? It would be something else. Let‘s call it „Project 2025“ then.

If he gets the house and senate, with SCOTUS he probably could suspend future elections.

Then a coup would be required to get him and his silver spooned family out of there.

@wildgrass said
If he gets the house and senate, with SCOTUS he probably could suspend future elections.

Then a coup would be required to get him and his silver spooned family out of there.

Hmmm, would that be a counter-coup, or a restoration ?

@Kilroy70 said
Your argument makes no sense.
"THEY" are the growing list of top Democratic leaders who are pressuring Biden to get out of the race, and stop campaigning for a second term. No one is suggesting these Democrats are engaged in "a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government:"

The writer of the OP did apparently or he doesn't know what a "coup" means.

@wildgrass said
If he gets the house and senate, with SCOTUS he probably could suspend future elections.

Then a coup would be required to get him and his silver spooned family out of there.

That's a bit hysterical.

Four more years of Trump would undoubtedly be extremely unpleasant and damaging to the country, but the "end of democracy" hype is overstated. There are sufficient institutional safeguards to prevent this silly con man and his minions from dismantling 230+ years of Constitutional government in the US.

Democrats should simply run on Trump's failures and unpopular political positions rather than such histrionics.

@no1marauder said
That's a bit hysterical.

Four more years of Trump would undoubtedly be extremely unpleasant and damaging to the country, but the "end of democracy" hype is overstated. There are sufficient institutional safeguards to prevent this silly con man and his minions from dismantling 230+ years of Constitutional government in the US.

Democrats should simply run on Trump's failures and unpopular political positions rather than such histrionics.

End of democracy is your words not mine.

@moonbus said
Hmmm, would that be a counter-coup, or a restoration ?

if trump is given the power to overthrow the government by the people, then you can't call it a coup.

@wildgrass said
End of democracy is your words not mine.

"Suspend future elections" was yours.

Anyway, it's a fairly common Democratic talking point, one that it would be best to retire.

@wildgrass said
if trump is given the power to overthrow the government by the people, then you can't call it a coup.

If they're stupid enough to vote him in, they get what they deserve. He's lost the popular vote twice in a row already and I expect he will again. I'm more concerned that he'll get in by chicanery.

@no1marauder said
The writer of the OP did apparently or he doesn't know what a "coup" means.

it appears YOU are the one mistaken. There are different kinds of coup’s


you might want to look up bloodless coup, silent coup, soft coup.

YOU created a hard coup scenario then went on to argue from there. The OP is clear, that is not what they meant.

YOU do this often…shytweasel

@wildgrass said
Not running for another term is different from leaving office... Obviously

Well, the voting that has happened for the Democratic party has been cast already is not even being talked about, do you think those votes are being honored by those saying drop out now? Why do they want him to drop out, not because of his health, but because they think he cannot win which was the point of those votes in the first place. If he does drop out, will he even be allowed to complete his term by those who want him to quit? Wait and see, what are they doing now that they should have done when people were voting for the Democratic representative?