• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If you truly believed a Presidential Election was stolen, would Revolution/Insurrection be Justified?

If you truly believed the Presidential Election was stolen, would a violent revolution be justified?

  • Yes, if I believed a Presidential Election was stolen, revolution/insurrection would be justified.

    Votes: 6 19.4%
  • No, even if I believed the election was stolen, better an unjust peace than a righteous revolution.

    Votes: 10 32.3%
  • It depends on who exactly the election was stolen from. Was it my candidate or the other side's?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I honestly cannot decide.

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • Obligatory "Other." Please explain.

    Votes: 14 45.2%

  • Total voters
    31
I'm reading the OP in a different way than perhaps other people are. I voted yes, which is not at all to say that what the insurrectionists did is forgivable since their standard of evidence is "Whatever trump told me" or "whatever the last thing that popped into my head was."

The way I read it is in how trump's incitement to violence was so meaningful, since the lie he, republican leaders and right wing media told their audience was so fantastically incendiary. And that's why it's such a miscarriage of justice that the insurrectionists are arrested while their leader gets off scott free.
I feel sorry for fools, but some fools get what they got coming, if they are THAT easily fooled.
 
And I call Daredevil. And I call Electra as my girlfriend and there's no Bullseye.

To review:

I'm a mix of Flash Gordon, Gandalf, the old guy from the original Red Dawn and Daredevil (but I can see), my girlfriend is Electra and Bullseye never existed. Top that.
 
you said IT WAS stolen, so revolution is justified, so I am waiting for you to show your manhood, don some horns, storm a government building, steal a laptop, and pose for selfies so the FBI can find you, OR are you saying you want OTHERS the to do revolting for you?

View attachment 67318752
Pretty revolting post.

I wanted to go. Trump supporters were hunted at the last DC rally. Wife wouldn't let me, flew over DC rather than drove on the 6th. You don't want to see when revolution is the only resort.
 
Pretty revolting post.

I wanted to go. Trump supporters were hunted at the last DC rally. Wife wouldn't let me, flew over DC rather than drove on the 6th. You don't want to see when revolution is the only resort.
well if you plan to be at the next revolution, let me know, I will get out the popcorn and beer.
 
well if you plan to be at the next revolution, let me know, I will get out the popcorn and beer.
The next "revolution" won't last a few hours. Your going to want to prep. Beer and popcorn shouldn't be high on your list.
 
And Gandalf. I call him too. I'd totally be like Gandalf except the demon thing wouldn't drag me down for a while.
Now there's a dude who aged well.
 
OTHER

If there were actual proof I think the courts would step in and make things right. That didn't happen in 2020 because there wasn't any proof. Violent overthrow our government can never be the solution and I don't think it could ever happen
Never say never. It almost did happen, despite the complete absence of proof. What happened on January 6 was an attempt of a violent overthrow of our government. If the next one to attempt it is a more competent and stronger leader than Trump, which is not really all that hard to imagine, he or she might well succeed where Trump failed.
 
Pretty revolting post.

I wanted to go. Trump supporters were hunted at the last DC rally. Wife wouldn't let me, flew over DC rather than drove on the 6th. You don't want to see when revolution is the only resort.
Waaahhh, my wife wouldn't let me! 😭 What a warrior! :ROFLMAO: Rambo you are not. :LOL:
 
WHAT I AM NOT ASKING: I am not asking to relitigate the 2020 Presidential Election. This is purely a philosophical discussion of what you think would be justified if you believed a Presidential election was stolen.

If the election was stolen, it wouldn't be an insurrection/revolution. It would countering a coup.
And sure, if there was a coup, it would be the obligation of all citizens to help counter it, by whatever means necessary.

However, before I started blowing people up, I would insist on a substantial body of evidence. Nor would I ever consider it the obligation of the winning party to prove it didn't cheat. Rather, it would be the obligation of the loser to prove that they did.
But in the end, there is not anything that keeps the people from taking up arms and start killing their neighbours. If the justification for a state is that it is run for, by, and of the people, then everything else is secondary to that, including the law.

Of course if you care in the slightest what kind of world you leave behind for your descendants, I would heartily recommend developing a strong set of morals, logical skills, and healthy paranoia towards whomever tries to recruit you for their cause. "Saviours of the people" frequently turn out to be psychopathic ***holes much worse than the ones they replace.
 
The events of January 6, 2021 are what have spurred me to ask this question, what would be justified if a political party managed to do the seemingly-impossible? If you believed* that a political party of either persuasion connived to undermine our state and national electoral processes to the point where they were able to steal a Presidential election for their candidate, with the apparent collusion of the Courts, would a revolution against the illegitimately-elected (or indeed, unelected) government be justified? Especially if you believed that this political party might have the ability to cheat again in the future, and never be able to legitimately lose an election at the local, state and federal level. But this of course would be done with the understanding that such a revolution might lead to the irreversible breakdown of the country and a civil war that could cost the lives of untold thousands of fellow citizens. Would you nevertheless be driven to revolt?

WHAT I AM NOT ASKING: I am not asking to relitigate the 2020 Presidential Election. This is purely a philosophical discussion of what you think would be justified if you believed a Presidential election was stolen.

*When I say "belief," I mean that you have proof necessary to cause you to believe that the election was stolen.


Our election process was over before this

I'm just waiting for people like you
 
Waaahhh, my wife wouldn't let me! 😭 What a warrior! :ROFLMAO: Rambo you are not. :LOL:

I, like 99.9% of those that attended did not go to fight. We went to support our country, our president. Violence was inevitable based on history with "counter protests". (Are you proud of that?)

Rambo I am not. I am though happily married to a wonderful woman 40 years together. As much as I would have liked to jump in a car and drive 3500 miles to hear Trump out of respect for her I did not. Turns out my wife was more attuned than those in charge of security for the Capitol.
 
I, like 99.9% of those that attended did not go to fight. We went to support our country, our president. Violence was inevitable based on history with "counter protests". (Are you proud of that?)

Rambo I am not. I am though happily married to a wonderful woman 40 years together. As much as I would have liked to jump in a car and drive 3500 miles to hear Trump out of respect for her I did not. Turns out my wife was more attuned than those in charge of security for the Capitol.

What, if anything, would influence you to lose that urge?

I make no secret of my belief attraction to Trump is irresistible; IOW, for most, it is not a choice. I support this with :

Tracking all of President Trump's false or misleading ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/
In four years, President Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims The Fact Checker's database of the false or misleading claims made by President Trump while in office. Updated Jan. 20, 2021 ...

Jan. 6. 2021
TrumpUSAtodayRigged.jpg


Trump Lost 59 Election Cases Before Electoral College Vote
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-election-court-losses-electoral-college
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump had another brutal weekend in court, with the US Supreme Court and other judges across the country rejecting his latest efforts to overturn his loss to President-elect Joe Biden..

Marty Baron Regrets the Washington Post’s Reluctance to Call Out Trump’s ‘Lies’ From ‘Very Beginning’
By Reed Richardson Feb 10th, 2021
....
Marty Baron Considers His Time at the Washington Post
The soon-to-retire executive editor defends the idea of journalistic objectivity. “It’s not neutrality, it’s not both-sides-ism, it’s not so-called balance,” he says.
Feb. 7, 2021 - By Isaac Chotiner
"... Less than a year after Baron arrived at the Post, it was bought by the Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who invested significant resources in the paper. ..

...Why do you think Bezos decided to buy the Post?
...Well, first of all—I realize that people are going to roll their eyes at these sorts of things—but I think, and I think this has been proved, that he actually believes in the mission of journalism; that he thinks it’s really important for a democracy; that he believes in democracy quite firmly; ..How often do you talk to him? I participate in the meetings that we have. That’s typically once every two weeks, three weeks, or something like that. Sometimes we go for a while without any meetings. It’s not as regular as perhaps it once was, but every few weeks we have a meeting. And I’m not the only one there.
Was there a different editorial process for Amazon stories? None. Zero. None. There’s just no different process. ..He hasn’t interfered in any way whatsoever with our coverage..."

Martin Baron's contributions to American journalism ...
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/05/martin-barons-contributions-to-american-journalism/
Under the private ownership of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Baron has had the dollars to expand his newsroom and to launch deep investigations of Trump's finances and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, investigations that have merited Pulitzer Prizes and shout-outs to Baron.

Amazon: How CEO Jeff Bezos Reacted to 'Negative' Wash Post ...
https://fortune.com/2017/10/27/amazon-jeff-bezos-washington-post/
Donald Trump has called it the "Amazon Washington Post" after Jeff Bezos bought the newspaper. Here's what Amazon's CEO really does there.
 
The events of January 6, 2021 are what have spurred me to ask this question, what would be justified if a political party managed to do the seemingly-impossible? If you believed* that a political party of either persuasion connived to undermine our state and national electoral processes to the point where they were able to steal a Presidential election for their candidate, with the apparent collusion of the Courts, would a revolution against the illegitimately-elected (or indeed, unelected) government be justified? Especially if you believed that this political party might have the ability to cheat again in the future, and never be able to legitimately lose an election at the local, state and federal level. But this of course would be done with the understanding that such a revolution might lead to the irreversible breakdown of the country and a civil war that could cost the lives of untold thousands of fellow citizens. Would you nevertheless be driven to revolt?

WHAT I AM NOT ASKING: I am not asking to relitigate the 2020 Presidential Election. This is purely a philosophical discussion of what you think would be justified if you believed a Presidential election was stolen.

*When I say "belief," I mean that you have proof necessary to cause you to believe that the election was stolen.
Much more than belief would be required, there must be absolute proof. I'm not sure what would constitute absolute proof, I guess it would be like
the old standard for pornography, I would know it when I see it.
 
So I'm guessing no one has topped my Red Dawn Flash Gordon Gandalf Daredevil (with girlfriend Electra) hero saving the country and the whole world. Have they?

Well, things just got tougher. I'm adding Spider Man.
 
I am asking this question with the presumption that you have the proof you would need to truly believe it was stolen.
Perhaps the poll question should have been worded a little differently, to make it clear that the election was stolen as opposed to a belief.
 
The problem is that each opposing side always believes they are on the right side of the argument. It's how things deteriorate to the point of war. Each side believes they have the moral high ground, each side believes they are justified.

This makes me think of the election of 1960. It was claimed that JFK won because the Dems stuffed the ballot boxes in Cook County. But for the sake of the country, Nixon conceded.

The Republicans had a solid case, however, later, some Republicans said they did the same thing down state, but the Dems just did it better.

So the bottom line is that such things go on on both sides. No one's hands are clean. The peaceful transfer of power is essential for a democracy to survive. If cheating is exposed, it should be fixed so it can't happen again. A violent revolt over the results is no guarantee that democracy will survive.
 
The election is stolen every four years from the people through the corrupt and coercive state of the primary system. They can’t change the votes of the people, so they limit the choices to the ones they want. That way, no matter who wins the status quo persists.
 
When you say "the government" what do you mean? Because in the scenario I present, the government would have been undemocratically taken over by an illegitimate President. Do you mean another branch of the Federal government (such as the legislature), or the state/local governments?
In your scenario, are the legislature and the courts willing participants, or are they an available remedy? Is the military involved?
 
Maybe I would, can't really say but would have to be a better organized plan.

I don't think the people I associate with have the privilege to just go balls out and storm the Capital without dozen of Ashli Babbitts happening.
 
Only justified if the election was truly stolen, not just because one believes it was stolen.
 
i'm too busy and old to revolution. plus, i don't really like being in close proximity to that many people. i'll tell you what i will do, though. i'll sit around on message boards in my spare minutes and make fun of the whole thing in ways that make me laugh.
Me too. I'm old, out of shape, and have a couple medical issues, so I really don.t see me down in the trenches, fighting the good fight.
They would however have my moral support.
 
This makes me think of the election of 1960. It was claimed that JFK won because the Dems stuffed the ballot boxes in Cook County. But for the sake of the country, Nixon conceded.

The Republicans had a solid case, however, later, some Republicans said they did the same thing down state, but the Dems just did it better.

So the bottom line is that such things go on on both sides. No one's hands are clean. The peaceful transfer of power is essential for a democracy to survive. If cheating is exposed, it should be fixed so it can't happen again. A violent revolt over the results is no guarantee that democracy will survive.

1960? The model of putting country before partisan ambition was presented in 2000. Why do you think Trump was so open about why he was "ramming through" the appointment of Judge Barrett? Trump did not have the legacy "hooks" of the sort that got Bush '43 into Yale, his father's and Reagan's supportive SCOTUS nominations, or his brother's rigging of the eligible vote (at the very least of Jeb's interference), just as Jared lacked such a hook.

JebBushPolitifactHillaryAccusationVoterPurge.jpg


I believe ex-felons deserve right to vote Florida
https://www.news-press.com/story/op...felons-deserve-right-vote-florida/1039584001/
Florida is one of three states in the nation that permanently bars ex-felons from voting... My rights were restored in 1998 by then Governor Lawton Chiles. In the ...

How Sandra Day O'Connor's Swing Vote Decided the 2000 Election - HISTORY
https://www.history.com/news/sandra-day-oconnor-swing-vote-bush-gore-election
..Bush v. Gore was no ordinary lawsuit and it was the vote cast by the first woman to serve as a Supreme Court justice that would ...

Letter: Preserve peaceful transition - The Columbian
https://www.columbian.com/news/2021/jan/06/letter-preserve-peaceful-transition/
Both the Gore and Clinton elections were followed by disbelief and questioning of the results, but the republic was preserved by the peaceful transition of power.

The Story Behind Jared Kushner's Curious Acceptance Into ...
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-story-behind-jared-kushners-curious-acceptance-into-harvard
..Charles Kushner had pledged $2.5 million to Harvard University in 1998, not long before his son Jared was admitted to the prestigious Ivy League...

Trump's Supreme Court comments put Barrett in a bind | Newsday
https://www.newsday.com/opinion/commentary/donald-trump-supreme-court-barrett-1.50059120
Trump chose Barrett with the explicit intent that she judge his cause in the election battle he expected to wage at the Supreme Court....

Trump says Amy Coney Barrett can vote in SCOTUS election ...
https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/trump-says-amy-coney-barrett-can-vote-in-scotus-election-dispute/
Oct 15, 2020 President Trump said on Thursday during a combative NBC News "town hall" event that his Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has no conflict of interest and should be able to vote "for or...

One Murdoch "property, NY Post, is later contradicted by "the flagship":
Media insisted Amy Coney Barrett would back Trump on ...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/media-insisted-acb-back-trump-overturning-election
..on a once-popular liberal talking point that Justice Amy Coney Barrett would back President Trump's efforts to overturn the election when the court...
 
No. The 2000 election was stolen and gore was the rightful winner, but he still conceded for the good of the country. I supported that because even though it led to the worst presidency in US history(Now it has been surpassed by trump) it is still better than an insurrection.
 
Pretty revolting post.

I wanted to go. Trump supporters were hunted at the last DC rally. Wife wouldn't let me, flew over DC rather than drove on the 6th. You don't want to see when revolution is the only resort.
So then you are a revolutionary, and a believer in the cause, but your wife held you back? Glad the founders didn't have that problem.
 
So then you are a revolutionary, and a believer in the cause, but your wife held you back? Glad the founders didn't have that problem.

What I have consistently said is that revolution is the last resort. The threat of revolution is one of the checks and balances of our founding codified in the second ammendment. Taking to the streets routinely, looting, burning pillaging defacing in the name of "peaceful " protest is what Democrats do.

When there is no recourse at the ballot box that will be the time to overthrow the government. Our elected officials should be more afraid of the people than the people are of government.
 
Back
Top Bottom