The article could be improved by focusing more on the coup in Sri Lanka. Draw closer parallels to what's happening there and in the US. Maybe throw in some link

The article could be improved by focusing more on the coup in Sri Lanka. Draw closer parallels to what's happening there and in the US. Maybe throw in some links for curious readers. The links I found all talk about the US, not Sri Lanka. Instead, the article focuses too much on interpreting events in the US for the reader. That's not going to change anyone's mind at this point. For example: > What else do you call Donald Trump refusing to leave, consolidating control of the military, and spreading lies across the media? That, my friends, is just a coup. ... > refusing to leave He has not done that. He's not required to concede. He's not required to do so. Al Gore didn't concede until December 13th (after having withdrawn a previous concession). The concession custom has been observed for about a century, so he is breaking with convention but not the law. > consolidating control of the military There has been a shakeup, but the Constitution gives him the title Commander in Chief. He took office office in control of the military. Previous presidents have demonstrated time and again how ineffective congressional oversight on military deployment is. > and spreading lies across the media This has been going on for a long time now, across many administrations - D and R. I'm not trying to draw an equivalence here. What I'm saying is that the author could do a better job of illustrating the true nature of coups. Of how they start off like clown shows and end up in shambles. There is no big aha moment. Everybody just gets boiled alive as the temperature rises. The article starts out promising to reveal a new perspective on coups, and then veers off course.