4 ms·

> I think it’s fascinating that you actually believe a coup is even remotely possible, much less the actual intent. Once again, are you not aware of Jan 6? Wha

> I think it’s fascinating that you actually believe a coup is even remotely possible, much less the actual intent. Once again, are you not aware of Jan 6? What do you think happens in a third-world coups? Do you think its tanks protecting the coup-master like some blockbuster movie? No. Most coups are subtle - simply by a narcissist not letting go of their seat. Once that happens and people inevitably come to revolt, they call on to their own supporters to protect "freedom" - causing riots or even a civil war - a war caused not for any good but only for that one tyrant's own narcissism. This was America on Jan 6, 2021. We'll see how the next one transition fares.

frumplestlatz 1y ago
Have you watched any of the videos from January 6th? All I saw were a bunch of clueless morons behaving badly, but not violently, in the capital building while Trump literally told them to go home. Embarrassing, ridiculous, stupid, and wrong — but not a coup.
- tehnoble 1y ago
  They were breaking down the doors of the capitol building to stop certification of a presidential election, blocking the peaceful transition of power. Took 3 hours for Trump to politely ask supporters to stop. What are you talking about it being non violent?
  - frumplestlatz 1y ago
    You can’t stop the certification of a presidential election that way. And they didn’t. Violence would’ve involved more than people wandering around the building being idiots after both being let in and forcing some doors. We’ve seen groups of all shades, stripes, and colors occupy public buildings of all types. There’s a lot of things I could call it, but an attempted coup would not be one of them.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > You can’t stop the certification of a presidential election that way. You absolutely can stop it that way, though they only succeeded in delaying it because they missed, by seconds, gaining access to the people involved. Their intent was to change the outcome by intimidating and/or murdering those unwilling to act in the manner they preferred, including especially the VP since there was belief (because a number of prominent figures, notably the President, had endorsed the idea that this could and should be done by the VP or an alternate presiding officer) that the presiding officer could (and a different one would) simply unilaterally decide not to present certain votes in the first place. > Violence would’ve involved more than people wandering around the building being idiots after both being let in and forcing some doors. They weren't just walking around being idiots; a number were armed and body armored, carried restraints for dealing with the people they sought to capture, coerce, and punish for non-cooperation. The thing that stopped their from being more violence is that they were successfully prevented from reaching their targets, including by a large crowd breaking into the Speakers lobby seconds behind a group of legislators and staff departing being stopped by thefirst person through the breach being shot dead.
      - frumplestlatz 1y ago
        “First person through the breach” being an unarmed veteran. To reiterate, what I find most interesting about this isn’t the event. It’s the framing of the event afterwards, and how remarkably bifurcated American’s views are on ostensibly objective facts. When you compare it to the framing around violent protests more aligned with the mainstream left’s political agenda, the issue becomes even more stark in my mind. The CNN “Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests” chyron being a top-of-mind example of how substantially different that framing can be. From my own perspective, I would expect the party that owns the majority of guns to actually bring some to bear if their goal was an actual coup. Especially given that they have “weapons of war” readily at their disposal. Add to that the fact that the only person that died that day was an unarmed protester. In that light, the accusations ring quite hollow — and self-serving.
        nine_zeros 1y ago
- nine_zeros 1y ago
  > Have you watched any of the videos from January 6th? All I saw were a bunch of clueless morons behaving badly, but not violently, in the capital building while Trump literally told them to go home. Ok, I will give you evidence that it was violent. But will you change your mind or still try to convince yourself by dancing around the edges? https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeTikToks/comments/1oasyyt/this_is_actual_footage_from_jan_6th_it_was_not/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeTikToks/comments/1oasyyt/this...
  - frumplestlatz 1y ago
    I see a some violent protesters, but I don’t see a violent coup. You’re welcome to call that distinction without a difference, but it’s really not. We’ve had years of violent protest, that’s not what a coup is. The videos of inside the capital show the majority of people wandering around being idiots. If you wanna keep re-litigating this for the next three years of Trump’s presidency, you’re welcome to do so, but it’s not going change anything, and clearly the American people weren’t too concerned about it when they voted him in.
    - nine_zeros 1y ago
      > I see a some violent protesters, but I don’t see a violent coup. You’re welcome to call that distinction without a difference, but it’s really not. We’ve had years of violent protest, that’s not what a coup is. A violent protest could have happened at the National Mall, National Monument, White House, outside the Capitol. Why did they storm and go in at that exact time upon the egging of Trump? Of course to prevent the certification. The motive matters - in this case, the motive was to prevent certification - an attempted coup. You can't keep trying to brush around the edges when the motive itself was to prevent certification. > The videos of inside the capital show the majority of people wandering around being idiots. And why are you talking about a handful of clips inside the capitol when the link I posted show exactly how they destroyed barriers from the outside and stormed in? Could it be that your mind is unwilling to accept the reality? >If you wanna keep re-litigating this for the next three years of Trump’s presidency, you’re welcome to do so, but it’s not going change anything, and clearly the American people weren’t too concerned about it when they voted him in. I am not interested in re-litigating. However, I love the country enough to call out attempted coups. Coups are unacceptable. And I don't care what brainwashed people think either - because history is littered with stories of brainwashed populace willing themselves into wars and crises - see: Nazis.

frumplestlatz 1y ago

Have you watched any of the videos from January 6th? All I saw were a bunch of clueless morons behaving badly, but not violently, in the capital building while Trump literally told them to go home. Embarrassing, ridiculous, stupid, and wrong — but not a coup.

tehnoble 1y ago
They were breaking down the doors of the capitol building to stop certification of a presidential election, blocking the peaceful transition of power. Took 3 hours for Trump to politely ask supporters to stop. What are you talking about it being non violent?
- frumplestlatz 1y ago
  You can’t stop the certification of a presidential election that way. And they didn’t. Violence would’ve involved more than people wandering around the building being idiots after both being let in and forcing some doors. We’ve seen groups of all shades, stripes, and colors occupy public buildings of all types. There’s a lot of things I could call it, but an attempted coup would not be one of them.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > You can’t stop the certification of a presidential election that way. You absolutely can stop it that way, though they only succeeded in delaying it because they missed, by seconds, gaining access to the people involved. Their intent was to change the outcome by intimidating and/or murdering those unwilling to act in the manner they preferred, including especially the VP since there was belief (because a number of prominent figures, notably the President, had endorsed the idea that this could and should be done by the VP or an alternate presiding officer) that the presiding officer could (and a different one would) simply unilaterally decide not to present certain votes in the first place. > Violence would’ve involved more than people wandering around the building being idiots after both being let in and forcing some doors. They weren't just walking around being idiots; a number were armed and body armored, carried restraints for dealing with the people they sought to capture, coerce, and punish for non-cooperation. The thing that stopped their from being more violence is that they were successfully prevented from reaching their targets, including by a large crowd breaking into the Speakers lobby seconds behind a group of legislators and staff departing being stopped by thefirst person through the breach being shot dead.
    - frumplestlatz 1y ago
      “First person through the breach” being an unarmed veteran. To reiterate, what I find most interesting about this isn’t the event. It’s the framing of the event afterwards, and how remarkably bifurcated American’s views are on ostensibly objective facts. When you compare it to the framing around violent protests more aligned with the mainstream left’s political agenda, the issue becomes even more stark in my mind. The CNN “Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests” chyron being a top-of-mind example of how substantially different that framing can be. From my own perspective, I would expect the party that owns the majority of guns to actually bring some to bear if their goal was an actual coup. Especially given that they have “weapons of war” readily at their disposal. Add to that the fact that the only person that died that day was an unarmed protester. In that light, the accusations ring quite hollow — and self-serving.
      - nine_zeros 1y ago
nine_zeros 1y ago
> Have you watched any of the videos from January 6th? All I saw were a bunch of clueless morons behaving badly, but not violently, in the capital building while Trump literally told them to go home. Ok, I will give you evidence that it was violent. But will you change your mind or still try to convince yourself by dancing around the edges? https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeTikToks/comments/1oasyyt/this_is_actual_footage_from_jan_6th_it_was_not/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeTikToks/comments/1oasyyt/this...
- frumplestlatz 1y ago
  I see a some violent protesters, but I don’t see a violent coup. You’re welcome to call that distinction without a difference, but it’s really not. We’ve had years of violent protest, that’s not what a coup is. The videos of inside the capital show the majority of people wandering around being idiots. If you wanna keep re-litigating this for the next three years of Trump’s presidency, you’re welcome to do so, but it’s not going change anything, and clearly the American people weren’t too concerned about it when they voted him in.
  - nine_zeros 1y ago
    > I see a some violent protesters, but I don’t see a violent coup. You’re welcome to call that distinction without a difference, but it’s really not. We’ve had years of violent protest, that’s not what a coup is. A violent protest could have happened at the National Mall, National Monument, White House, outside the Capitol. Why did they storm and go in at that exact time upon the egging of Trump? Of course to prevent the certification. The motive matters - in this case, the motive was to prevent certification - an attempted coup. You can't keep trying to brush around the edges when the motive itself was to prevent certification. > The videos of inside the capital show the majority of people wandering around being idiots. And why are you talking about a handful of clips inside the capitol when the link I posted show exactly how they destroyed barriers from the outside and stormed in? Could it be that your mind is unwilling to accept the reality? >If you wanna keep re-litigating this for the next three years of Trump’s presidency, you’re welcome to do so, but it’s not going change anything, and clearly the American people weren’t too concerned about it when they voted him in. I am not interested in re-litigating. However, I love the country enough to call out attempted coups. Coups are unacceptable. And I don't care what brainwashed people think either - because history is littered with stories of brainwashed populace willing themselves into wars and crises - see: Nazis.