Biden Tracker (3 Viewers)

SaintForLife said:

I don't think that's accurate. It looks like it was a military coup because it was the Egyptian army chief that led the coup.

‘Egyptian society being crushed’ five years after military coup

Egypt faces abuses to a degree unseen in the Mubarak years since the 2013 coup, analysts say.

www.aljazeera.com

Click to expand...

The Egyptian coup of 2013 started out as mass protests. Then the military stepped in using that as justification. Basically al-Sisi stoked unrest and riots and protests, then demanded Morsi to fix it, and when he didn't, led a military coup. That's basically fits the scenario of a coup from below. Basically where it starts out with something other than senior military leaders seizing power... in this case civil unrest and riots, and then senior military leaders step in.

Taurus said:

Click to expand...

This was pretty funny and the reaction to it also very funny, but man, I miss boring politics.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

This was pretty funny and the reaction to it also very funny, but man, I miss boring politics.

Click to expand...

Yep. Used to pay about 1/10th the attention I do now. I want boring back.

bdb13 said:

As I said to you when you posted this previously, that article came out on the afternoon of January 6th and therefore could not properly factor in the behind the scenes details that were not publicly known at that point in time. That article is based upon a very incomplete picture of what was actually occurring.

Click to expand...

How many insurrections are unarmed?

UncleTrvlingJim said:

The Egyptian coup of 2013 started out as mass protests. Then the military stepped in using that as justification. Basically al-Sisi stoked unrest and riots and protests, then demanded Morsi to fix it, and when he didn't, led a military coup. That's basically fits the scenario of a coup from below. Basically where it starts out with something other than senior military leaders seizing power... in this case civil unrest and riots, and then senior military leaders step in.

Click to expand...

I disagree considering the military was involved.

It was a riot that got out of hand and turned violent. There was no coordination between anyone except for some Proud Boys. The military or any other parts of the government wasn't involved. The Capitol Police were opening doors and leading the people around the Capitol. The supposed insurrectionists didn't bring any guns into the Capitol.

SaintForLife said:

How many insurrections are unarmed?

Click to expand...

The military doesn’t need to be involved for an insurrection because I know you’re not saying that the Jan 6 mob was unarmed.

SaintForLife said:

The supposed insurrectionists didn't bring any guns into the Capitol.

Click to expand...

They were armed. You won’t hear about it, because you only get your news from biased sources.

“Trump said there were "no guns whatsoever" at the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and that "people with no guns" walked down to the Capitol.

Court records and news reports show that many insurrectionists were armed, and several were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds or stashed nearby while in Washington D.C. In addition, rioters had weapons other than firearms and used them during the attack.

We rate this claim False.”

interesting read
==========
........Today, polling suggests voters are worried that both Trump and Biden are too old for the job. Trump will be 78 on Election Day in November, and Biden will turn 82 later that month. Without being macabre, it’s worth knowing what would happen if, for whatever reason, either man was unable to continue with the race.

Replacing either man on the ballot – not that anyone is seriously talking about it – would be a messy and chaotic process that would uncover divisions and disagreements within the political parties. No one knows for sure what would happen if a candidate died or for some reason needed to withdraw from the race.

Here’s a look at the rules for Republicans and Democrats as they currently stand.

What happens if a candidate cannot continue his or her campaign?​

The process of replacing a presidential candidate very much depends on when the vacancy occurs – during the primary process and before the party convention; during the convention or after the convention; or before or after people vote in November.

What happens if a vacancy occurs during the primary process?​

While Trump and Biden are in total command of the respective races to be the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, that process will play out between now and June as states conduct primaries and caucuses and assign delegates based on the results.

If a vacancy on either side happens before most of those primaries were to occur, it’s possible that another candidate could emerge and rack up some delegates. But since filing deadlines have already passed for many primaries, it’s unlikely any single candidate, other than Trump or Biden, could rack up enough delegates to win the nomination before party conventions this summer.

It is, however, possible that states could decide to delay their primaries, according to Elaine Kamarck, a member of the Democratic National Committee rules committee and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who has studied the issue. Republicans will hold their convention in Milwaukee in July, and Democrats will hold theirs just to the south in Chicago in August.

Most delegates will have been awarded by the end of March. Biden has not faced serious opposition in the Democratic primary, has won every delegate at stake so far and needs to win at least 1,968 of 3,934 to secure the nomination on the first ballot of voting.

On the Republican side, Trump has won every contest so far and ultimately needs 1,215 of 2,429 delegates. His top rival, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, is far behind Trump in the delegate race.

What if a vacancy occurs after the primaries and before or during the convention?​

If the leading candidate was to drop out of the campaign after most primaries or even during the convention, individual delegates would likely decide the party’s nominee on the convention floor.

That would shine a spotlight on the normally niche question of who those actual delegates are.

There would be a messy political battle in every state over who would get to be a delegate (if the vacancy happened before many of those people were chosen) and then who they would ultimately support. Even people who did not run primary campaigns could ultimately be considered.

You can assume, for instance, that Vice President Kamala Harris would be a top contender to be on the ballot if, for some reason, Biden left the race. At the same time, given Haley’s weakness in primaries, it seems unlikely that Republicans would coalesce around her if Trump was unable to run.

On the Democratic side, there would also be another group to consider: the “superdelegates,” a group of about 700 senior party leaders and elected officials who are automatically delegates to the convention based on their position. Under normal party rules, they can’t vote on the first ballot if they could swing the nomination, but they’re free to vote on subsequent ballots.

Has anything like this ever happened before?​

The modern primary and caucus system evolved only in recent generations as voters demanded more involvement in the nominating process.

The election that sparked change was in 1968, when President Lyndon B. Johnson decided not to run after an embarrassing finish in New Hampshire’s primary. Johnson won, but just barely.

When he dropped out of the presidential race, it set off a chaotic dash to replace him. One candidate who jumped in the race, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, was assassinated in Los Angeles just after winning the California primary, creating the difficult question of who his delegates should support.

The ultimate Democratic winner that year, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, amassed his delegates in states that did not conduct primaries, securing enough support to win the nomination.

Violence on the streets of Chicago around the convention marred the event and helped inspire the system of primaries and caucuses we have today where voters pick presidential candidates through delegates bound to support a specific candidate.

What if a candidate left the race after the convention?​

It would take a drastic event for a candidate to leave the race in the few months between a party’s nominating convention in the summer and the general election in November.

Democrats and Republicans have slightly different methods of dealing with this possibility. You can imagine the end result would probably be that the running mate stepped up to be on the general election ballot, but that is not necessarily guaranteed.

Democrats – The Democratic National Committee is empowered to fill a vacancy on the national ticket after the convention under party rules, after the party chair consults with Democratic governors and congressional leadership.

Republicans – If a vacancy occurs on the Republican side, the Republican National Committee can either reconvene the national convention or select a new candidate itself.

Would the running mate automatically become the nominee?​

An in-depth Congressional Research Service memo also notes that if an incumbent president becomes incapacitated after winning the party’s nomination, the 25th Amendment would elevate the vice president to the presidency, but party rules would determine who rises to become the party’s nominee.

Neither party, according to CRS, requires that the presidential candidate’s running mate be elevated to the top of the ticket, but that would obviously be the most likely scenario...........

bdb13 said:

I've researched before but honestly can't remember the details without doing the research again as to why seditious conspiracy was what they went with.

Click to expand...

Because they knew they couldn't prove it was an insurrection in court.

And to say Trump participated in an insurrection would have had to claim Trump's constitutionally protected speech, where he said to be peaceful, was an incitement to violence.

bdb13 said:

I just know that on a basic level, what occurred on January 6th fits the exact dictionary definition of an insurrection. And therefore I am very comfortable in using that word.

Click to expand...

The dictionary definition of insurrection is vague and doesn't mean anything in regards to our legal system. Also, the BLM riots would qualify as an insurrection if we are going by the dictionary definition:

a violent uprising against an authority or government.

bdb13 said:

I'm sure there is that occurring on the left but it doesn't affect how I view things personally and to me the strongest cases are the couple that I mentioned that he's actually charged in.

There are inherent flaws built into the system for investigating and charging/convicting (high-level) politicians, I completely agree. That said, I believe Trump is only charged with the cover up related aspects in the classified documents case and unless you can point it out I'm unaware of an equivalency there within the Biden case. If you're making an argument to charge Biden and to additionally charge Trump with more crimes related to the retention and sharing of classified information then I could definitely understand that.

You might disagree but overall I generally believe that Trump probably would not have been charged with anything in that particular case had he cooperated.

Click to expand...

I do disagree especially when you consider the Biden DOJ and other Democrat prosecutors have been throwing everything they can at Trump.

This will have to be proven, but Trump's attorneys have said that Jack Smith is concealing evidence that shows coordination with the Biden White House, NARA, DOJ, FBI, and intelligence agencies.

SaintForLife said:

The dictionary definition of insurrection is vague and doesn't mean anything in regards to our legal system. Also, the BLM riots would qualify as an insurrection if we are going by the dictionary definition:

Click to expand...

We’ve posted the much better and more specific classifications of insurrections that academics who study such things use. But I know why you have ignored them to go this direction. Just wanted you to realize it’s very easy to see right through you.

What Trump attempted was a self-coup. Wiki definition:

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, tries to stay in power through illegal means.

MT15 said:

They were armed. You won’t hear about it, because you only get your news from biased sources.

“Trump said there were "no guns whatsoever" at the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and that "people with no guns" walked down to the Capitol.

Court records and news reports show that many insurrectionists were armed, and several were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds or stashed nearby while in Washington D.C. In addition, rioters had weapons other than firearms and used them during the attack.

We rate this claim False.”

Fact-check: Were Jan. 6 rioters armed?

President Donald Trump claimed on Fox News that there were no guns in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Court records and news reports show that many insurrectionists were armed, and several were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds or stashed nearby.

www.statesman.com

Click to expand...

Let me get this straight...the supposed insurrectionists left their guns in their cars.

SaintForLife said:

Let me get this straight...the supposed insurrectionists left their guns in their cars.

Click to expand...

Nope they didn’t. Some of them staged arsenals in their hotel rooms. Some of them carried their guns onto the grounds of the Capitol. It’s a lie that nobody had a gun in the mob.

The stashing of entire arsenals of weapons, the wearing of tactical gear, the sharpening of flag poles, the carrying bear spray and other weapons. This is how we know it wasn’t a riot that spontaneously got out of control. They came ready to do hand-to-hand combat, they were prepared to breach the Capitol.

But the pre-planned violence isn’t actually the main part of the coup. It was his last gasp effort. He worked on the self-coup for a good couple of months, and put the plans into motion when his legal efforts were exhausted.

Trump attempted a self-coup because he could not handle that he lost. The result would have been destruction of democracy which some do not seem to care about.

As for BLM? It was not an insurrection because it was not a revolt which implies a revolution. It did become a riot due to a small number of people engaging in violence which included outside RW agitators.

SaintForLife said:

How many insurrections are unarmed?

Click to expand...

This question is faulty for three reasons:

1. You don't define what "armed" means, though it seems you assume that armed means carrying firearms which is objectively false. If you mean carrying firearms, you need to say what you mean.
2. Many of the insurrectionists had and used weapons when they attacked the capitol on Jan 6th, and though there's no recorded use of firearms, there were insurrectionists who were spotted with firearms and charged with carrying firearms on that day.
3. No previously established or reasonable criteria for defining an insurrection requires the specific use of firearms.

SaintForLife said:

Let me get this straight...the supposed insurrectionists left their guns in their cars.

Click to expand...

Not all of them. Your narrative that nobody had guns is just a lie.

MT15 said:

Not all of them. Your narrative that nobody had guns is just a lie.

Click to expand...

It's hard for me to believe that video is accurate. If it's real why didn't police fire back? Why wasn't it plastered all over the news? Why are there no reports of no one in a shoulder to shoulder group of people being injured by the falling bullets?

I'm not saying it's not legitimate, just that I'm skeptical.

LA - L.A. said:

It's hard for me to believe that video is accurate. If it's real why didn't police fire back? Why wasn't it plastered all over the news? Why are there no reports of no one in a shoulder to shoulder group of people being injured by the falling bullets?

I'm not saying it's not legitimate, just that I'm skeptical.

Click to expand...

I believe it to be accurate. I think all the police were involved in hand-to-hand combat. I remember reading recently that this man was finally charged for firing his weapon like that.