Legally, failure to act is in fact a coup. They are constitutionally mandated to act to protect the republic. By definition, stopping a coup is not a coup. Though you seem intent to a accept your MSM programming to the contrary.
I believe the distance between us is well understood. Your position is equally established by MSM propaganda outlets. I hope you find that as concerning as I do.
They are constitutionally mandated to act to protect the republic.
I'd like to learn were you are seeing this.
Please don't insult me by such an insinuation. I am very open to hearing your ideas, unless you go full Q on me.
I didn't insult you. I pointed out your position is assigned to you by MSM. Which is, if the military stops a coup, is itself a coup. Which you took as a insult. Though perhaps rightly so.
Is it your position, that with incontrovertible evidence of a civilian coup (such is in abundance), the military is required to ignore their constitutional mandate and allow it? Yes or no? If they allow a coup, are they complicit, thereby participants in a coup? Yes or no? Is the military protecting the lawful government a coup? Yes or no?
Your position seems to align with MSM. None of it aligns with the constitution or law.
At this point, this should provide enough for you to think about and research if so inclined.
I asked where you are sourcing this constitutional mandate from.
(post is archived)