• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
76,582
Reaction score
56,360
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
If you woke up right now from a two-month coma and read Eriech's post, you would have no idea that extremist right wingers staged a violent and deadly insurrection against the US Capitol at the behest of the President just last month.
 

Eriech

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
831
If you woke up right now from a two-month coma and read Eriech's post, you would have no idea that extremist right wingers staged a violent and deadly insurrection against the US Capitol at the behest of the President just last month.
You must be in a coma to believe that.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
76,582
Reaction score
56,360
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
14,018
Reaction score
12,079
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
Maybe folks should channel that energy into setting up a system whereby presidential elections are decided by the people.
 

mrjurrs

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
7,996
Reaction score
2,826
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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?
If it's only Article 2 the govt hasn't been taken over. See 2016-2020.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
18,357
Reaction score
11,943
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
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?
Oh, good grief. Biden winning 2020 was not "impossible."

Anyway. From a moral and practical perspective, the proper response to a real stolen election -- like in Myanmar -- is PEACEFUL protest and NON-VIOLENT attempts to change the regime.

In the modern world, violent uprisings rarely work. In the cases where they do succeed, the subsequent regimes are less likely to keep a democratic government, and more likely to lapse back into violence, as the older regime is terrified of violent retribution.

Civil disobedience doesn't always work, but it has a significantly better track record than violent protest.

I highly recommend you read Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict which reviews the evidence in depth.
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
7,764
Reaction score
7,661
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh, good grief. Biden winning 2020 was not "impossible."
Biden winning in 2020 was not impossible. But I believe that Biden, or any other presidential candidate, truly stealing an election would be nearly-impossible because it would require a massive, corrupt coordination of electioneering fraud (whether ballot-stuffing, miscounting, or ballot destruction). And it would have to be done across multiple states with the collusion of multiple state and local election officials (of both parties in many cases), numbering in the hundreds of individuals at the very least along with the cooperation of the Courts. And every single member would have to be sworn to secrecy, and willing to be silent as the grave. It would basically require a level of secrecy that 9/11 Truthers believe the government is capable of when enacting a massive conspiracy against the American people, except on an even larger scale. That is why I say it is impossible, or at the very least extraordinarily improbable.
 
Last edited:

Vadinho

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
5,449
Reaction score
2,620
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I feel sorry for fools, but some fools get what they got coming, if they are THAT easily fooled.
So here is the bottom line on this issue, in 2000 we all knew Florida was stolen from Gore but we did not invade the Capitol or try to kill the Supremes or Governor Bush, nope. We accepted defeat and moved on. That is the difference between one group of Americans who believe in our system right or wrong and another set who really don't believe in our system unless they win.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,817
Reaction score
9,622
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.
What I feel comfortable saying is that there are absolutely scenarios in which a revolution or insurrection would absolutely be warranted and justified due to cheating or the theft of an election. This is a serious enough topic that I feel a caveat of every different scenario would need examination before I could determine if an insurrection would be warranted in my opinion, but I feel certain that it could be justified in certain scenarios.
 

Atomic Kid

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
13,478
Reaction score
4,772
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
3500 miles? Where the heck do you live? Mexico? And sorry but supporting Trump can no longer be synonymous with supporting your country seeing as though instead of defending the Constitution as he pledged to do he instead basically took a big fat dump on it with his attempted coup. Also trying to equate an attack on our government by a sitting President attempting to overturn the results of a free and fair election with people protesting against social injustice, of which over 90% were peaceful and in which a significant portion of the relative few that did turn violent can be attributed to hyper-aggressive police tactics and militarization, is a shameless patently false equivocation. You were probably right to listen to your wife. She likely has more commonsense than to get suckered into trying to prop a big fat lie with a bunch of white nationalists, QAnon/conspiracy theory lovers and what was probably largest collection of idiots ever to be assembled in a single geographical location.
 

Eriech

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
831
3500 miles? Where the heck do you live? Mexico? And sorry but supporting Trump can no longer be synonymous with supporting your country seeing as though instead of defending the Constitution as he pledged to do he instead basically took a big fat dump on it with his attempted coup. Also trying to equate an attack on our government by a sitting President attempting to overturn the results of a free and fair election with people protesting against social injustice, of which over 90% were peaceful and in which a significant portion of the relative few that did turn violent can be attributed to hyper-aggressive police tactics and militarization, is a shameless patently false equivocation. You were probably right to listen to your wife. She likely has more commonsense than to get suckered into trying to prop a big fat lie with a bunch of white nationalists, QAnon/conspiracy theory lovers and what was probably largest collection of idiots ever to be assembled in a single geographical location.
Not Mexico, but 3500 miles round trip. I flew over DC instead of driving to the free state of Florida. DC is on the way. The coup occurred on November 4th.
 

Atomic Kid

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
13,478
Reaction score
4,772
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
Total poppycock. The 2nd Amendment was about the fear of government tyranny. It represents more or less a compromise between the federalists and the non-federalists. Our founding fathers were all too familiar with the European history of monarchs and despots employing the standing armies they had assembled to repress the people who dared to rise up against them with those people having really no chance in being able to successfully oppose such well trained, disciplined and equipped troops. The non-federalists were very wary about allowing for a central government to form a permanent standing army as they feared that European history would repeat itself here one day.

They wanted the states to have their own respective independent militias with the theory being that at a time of national crisis they could be collectively convened to defend the nation. The states having at least an equal, or actually the larger share of power and control was essentially the basis for the Articles of Confederation. Strong states rights and powers and relatively weak central/federal government powers. But in the opening years of the Revolutionary War it became painfully clear that our relatively poorly trained, disciplined and equipped state militias were no match for the British regulars and if we didn't form a national/continental army under the control and direction of the central government the war was going to over with for us very soon. That was what formed the impetus for discarding the Articles of Confederation and forming a convention to draft a constitution that would form a stronger central/federal government able to defend the nation from it's enemies by allowing for permanent standing army to be kept even in times of peace and ensure domestic tranquility in settling disputes between the states.

The anti-federalists feared Congress would use it's constitutional power of organizing and arming the militia by failing to keep the militia men equipped with adequate arms. So James Madison proposed the 2nd Amendment as way to empower these state militias even if it didn't fully address the anti-federalist concerns about the federal government having too much power by establishing the principle, held by both the federalists and anti-federalists, that the government did not have the authority to disarm citizens.

And before you start up up again with this romantic image you're harboring that a collection of ad hoc state or loosely formed civilian militias would ever be able to stand up against and defeat a government hell bent on repression and tyranny. You better think again. That wasn't even true in 1787 and it's by far less true now. If a government with a military machine as powerful as the US government has now were ever to unleash the full force of it's military to put down an internal rebellion it would be an absolute slaughter. Remember that the state has an monopoly on violence. So be careful what you wish for.
 
Last edited:

Atomic Kid

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
13,478
Reaction score
4,772
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Not Mexico, but 3500 miles round trip. I flew over DC instead of driving to the free state of Florida. DC is on the way. The coup occurred on November 4th.
So you were going on a flight to some kind of vacation or business in Florida that just so happened to take you over DC? So that was the totality of your commitment to the cause there, Che Guevara? Wow! How badass is that? Couldn't even open a window to drop leaflets, could ya?

On November 4th the American people resoundingly and unequivocally rejected Trump to be their President for another 4 years, as per the Constitution. The sooner you embrace and accept that stark reality the better off you will be.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
25,586
Reaction score
12,241
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
There are other options to try and remedy the situation, strikes/protests/legal actions/mass protests/longer strikes and then maybe a non-violent civil disobedience action. But a violent insurrection is never the answer unless your government was taken over by a foreign nation or an enemy of the US.
 

post

Lady of the house wonderin' where it's gonna stop
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
2,834
Reaction score
675
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are other options to try and remedy the situation, strikes/protests/legal actions/mass protests/longer strikes and then maybe a non-violent civil disobedience action. But a violent insurrection is never the answer unless your government was taken over by a foreign nation or an enemy of the US.

Trump defends Putin over Russia killings allegations - BBC ...
www.bbc.com › news › world-us-canada-38872328

Feb 5, 2017 — President Trump suggests the US is not "so innocent" when asked about political killings in Russia.

' "I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said after specifically saying that Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats was among those who have told him Russia was involved.

Most of the eight Republican members of Indiana's congressional delegation were quick to come to the defense of Coats, a former senator from Indiana. "I’ll take the word of a Hoosier over Vladimir Putin any day," said Rep. Jim Banks, who represents Coats' former House seat in northeast Indiana. Rep. Susan Brooks, R-Carmel, said she believes the "credible claims" that the intelligence community, led by Coats, has made about Russia's involvement.

"As DNI Dan Coats reaffirmed this week, it is undeniable Russia interfered in our election and seeks to undermine our democracy," said Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Jimtown. But none of the five Republicans who issued statements backing that conclusion criticized Trump for suggesting otherwise." '

".. Putin worked as a KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, before resigning in 1991 to begin a political career in Saint Petersburg. He later moved to Moscow in 1996 to join the administration of President Boris Yeltsin. He briefly served as Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB) and Secretary of the Security Council, before being appointed as Prime Minister in August 1999.."
Editorial: Did Trump use FBI to silence Sen. Burr? :: WRAL.com
www.wral.com › editorial-did-trump-use-fbi-to-silence-...

Jan 26, 2021 — Richard Burr's Senate Intelligence Committee might take in its inquiry ... hours before Donald Trump's term as president was ending – the FBI ...
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2021/01/26/editorial-did-trump-use-the-fbi-to-silence-burr/
 
Top Bottom