3 ms·

I think you could make the argument it wasn't a coup, but you'd have a hard time making any meaningful points. To say that "people trespassed and vandalized, b

by shlant 6y ago

I think you could make the argument it wasn't a coup, but you'd have a hard time making any meaningful points. To say that "people trespassed and vandalized, but that is about it" however, is a gross mischaracterization. Here are some things that constitute WAY more than what you described: - Planting of explosive devises - Proud Boys in organized and coordinated groups with zip ties and walkie talkies (charged with conspiracy for allegedly staging planned missions in the Capitol) - The general goal of preventing a democratic process from taking place in order to overturn an election - 5 people dead including a police officer - SEVERAL Secret‑level laptops were stolen I don't think you are providing a good-faith interpretation of the events.

ThomPete 6y ago
thats not a coup, thats obstruction of procedure and didny have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding. Calling it a coup is bad-faith interpretation of the event.
- 8b16380d 6y ago
  Careful, you’re committing wrongthink
  - BrianOnHN 6y ago
    > wrongthink What is this, the new "fake news" battle cry of the degenerates? I realize software devs make for an interesting, and even intellectual sort of degenerate, but still degenerate.
- danaris 6y ago
  When the "procedure" involved is the certification of votes for the new President, then yeah, that's an attempted coup. And something doesn't have to have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding at its illegal and seditious aims to remain illegal and seditious.
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    An attempted coup would be to actually attempt at a coup with plans on how to seize power and hold it and ensure you had enough military power to hold down the fort. To interfere with a procedure they didn't have any chance of interfering with isn't a coup no matter how much you would like to stretch the definition.
    - loopz 6y ago
      The intent, plan and execution was geared toward changing the official election outcome, using violence and force to disrupt the constitutional process.
      - ThomPete 6y ago
        This was neither an attempt of taking over the power nor was it a successful move. You are politicizing this.
        loopz 6y ago
        Not really. I am actually accusing the previous President of the United States of criminal conduct and neglect (ref. the many cases against this person).
concordDance 6y ago
Almost all of your bullet points are misleading and also not in good faith. A pair of devices (which are not described as being able to kill) likely planted by a single individual isn't indicative of the intent of the much larger majority. Theft is extremely common in large disorgamized events like this and is, again, not indicative of some greater plan by the majority. Mentioning 5 dead is very misleading, given two died of natural causes, one of accidental trampling (common in dense disorganized crowds) and one was shot by capitol police. Only the policeman and the shot women are indicative of anything coup-like. The proportion of invaders seriously going to attempt to forcefully take control of the government was likely pretty small. I believe those would also hold they were attempting to ensure the legitimate president continued power (e.g. they believed they were trying to uphold the "real" election results, rather than overturn an election). Is it a coup if the people doing it don't believe it's a coup? And aren't attempting violence (for the 99%)?
- snicksnak 6y ago
  > Only the policeman and the shot women are indicative of anything coup-like. We still don't know what was the Officer's cause of death. But after weeks of fake news stories about him being beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, this probably doesn't matter. Also that the "Proud boys organized and coordinated groups with zip ties" is an additional misleading point. Those arrested for possessing zip ties, didn't bring them to capitol hill, they picked them up there after the law enforcement dropped them, the prosecution has admitted this itself.
  - BrianOnHN 6y ago
    Have you seen what some of the people were wearing? And the improvised weapons? They might as well have had pitch forks. And they definitely had gallows.

by shlant 6y ago

ThomPete 6y ago

thats not a coup, thats obstruction of procedure and didny have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding. Calling it a coup is bad-faith interpretation of the event.

8b16380d 6y ago
Careful, you’re committing wrongthink
- BrianOnHN 6y ago
  > wrongthink What is this, the new "fake news" battle cry of the degenerates? I realize software devs make for an interesting, and even intellectual sort of degenerate, but still degenerate.
danaris 6y ago
When the "procedure" involved is the certification of votes for the new President, then yeah, that's an attempted coup. And something doesn't have to have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding at its illegal and seditious aims to remain illegal and seditious.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  An attempted coup would be to actually attempt at a coup with plans on how to seize power and hold it and ensure you had enough military power to hold down the fort. To interfere with a procedure they didn't have any chance of interfering with isn't a coup no matter how much you would like to stretch the definition.
  - loopz 6y ago
    The intent, plan and execution was geared toward changing the official election outcome, using violence and force to disrupt the constitutional process.
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      This was neither an attempt of taking over the power nor was it a successful move. You are politicizing this.
      - loopz 6y ago
        Not really. I am actually accusing the previous President of the United States of criminal conduct and neglect (ref. the many cases against this person).

concordDance 6y ago

Almost all of your bullet points are misleading and also not in good faith. A pair of devices (which are not described as being able to kill) likely planted by a single individual isn't indicative of the intent of the much larger majority. Theft is extremely common in large disorgamized events like this and is, again, not indicative of some greater plan by the majority. Mentioning 5 dead is very misleading, given two died of natural causes, one of accidental trampling (common in dense disorganized crowds) and one was shot by capitol police. Only the policeman and the shot women are indicative of anything coup-like. The proportion of invaders seriously going to attempt to forcefully take control of the government was likely pretty small. I believe those would also hold they were attempting to ensure the legitimate president continued power (e.g. they believed they were trying to uphold the "real" election results, rather than overturn an election). Is it a coup if the people doing it don't believe it's a coup? And aren't attempting violence (for the 99%)?

snicksnak 6y ago
> Only the policeman and the shot women are indicative of anything coup-like. We still don't know what was the Officer's cause of death. But after weeks of fake news stories about him being beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, this probably doesn't matter. Also that the "Proud boys organized and coordinated groups with zip ties" is an additional misleading point. Those arrested for possessing zip ties, didn't bring them to capitol hill, they picked them up there after the law enforcement dropped them, the prosecution has admitted this itself.
- BrianOnHN 6y ago
  Have you seen what some of the people were wearing? And the improvised weapons? They might as well have had pitch forks. And they definitely had gallows.