|
|
|
|
|
by jcims
1992 days ago
|
|
In my opinion this was a sloppy mob that bum rushed reprehensible security and got farther than they ever expected. People die in riots all of the time, I don't really see what elevates this to anything beyond that...the process got stalled for a few hours and then proceeded. If you want to call it a coup attempt be my guest, I just think it's histrionic. |
|
A sloppy mob sacked the U.S. capitol, and occupied it for a few hours.
If this exact same thing happened to the White House, would you call it a coup attempt?
Do you remember last month's attempted kidnapping of the Michigan governor that was foiled? Are you aware their backup plan, if they couldn't find the governor, was to lock themselves in with the legislature and start executing them? That's certainly violent, and the legislators are certainly where power is held in a democracy. Executing them would definitely be the violent overthrow of that government, quite a lot more so than the executive. Not least in terms of numbers, the greater difficult of replacing them, in contrast the straightforward presidential succession process.
You knew that the Vice President was with the legislators in the capitol when this transpired, as was the Speaker of the House. Right? The #2 and #3 in the order of presidential succession?
In my opinion, your position looks timid, lacks imagination and awareness. Perhaps you're not American and have no attachment or pride in the the U.S. capitol being sacked by a sloppy mob that included white supremacists, neo-Nazis, Trump flag waiving cultists and Confederate battle flag waiving losers.
Does their incompetency make it less serious of a problem? You really have no imagination at all for how very differently things might look had it been more sophisticated?