[nahkoots]

Don't forget that we very nearly had a successful coup, which would have spelled the end of American democracy. Are we on the verge of becoming a Stalinist state? No, not really. Could it happen? Absolutely, and we need to recognize that possibility to avoid becoming the next one.

[ipaddr]

Please forget whatever idea you came up with. America was never under a coup attempt. Hard to even attempt to call it a coup without weapons. Don't worry America is safe from farmers rallying at the white house.

[mojzu]

The 'without weapons' implies it wasn't violent, which seems a stretch to me when a police officer was beaten to death and plenty of others were injured

[mpalczewski]

First I'm hearing of this, do you have a source about the officer being beaten to death?

[webstrand]

They're probably referring to this: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/us/brian-sicknick-police-...

[mpalczewski]

oh looks like fake news, even the ny times article says.

"New information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police."

Wikipedia says

"The cause of Sicknick's death was first thought to be from injuries, but months later the medical examiner reported there were none."

"The District of Columbia chief medical examiner found that Sicknick had died from stroke, classifying his death as natural"

The original commenter said some officer was beaten to death. Maybe another officer, or were they just mistaken?

[StanislavPetrov]

>The 'without weapons' implies it wasn't violent

There is no such implication at all. "Without weapons" means "without weapons". The vast majority of people at that riot were gun owners, and none of them were armed or fired a shot. I can assure you, people who own guns and are committed to violently overthrowing the government bring those guns and shoot them. For evidence see any of the numerous coups that occur in countries around the world.

[Forgeties79]

That’s a lot of talk about guns considering - which you pointed out - there weren’t guns (that we know of) used by the insurrectionists.

Do you acknowledge it was violent?

[StanislavPetrov]

Of course it was violent, all riots are violent by definition. It is absurd hyperbole to call this an insurrection just like it would have been absurd to call the far more violent riots during the Trump inauguration an insurrection.

[Forgeties79]

I was personally at trump’s inauguration filming the protests and I can assure you they were not nearly as destructive as the January 6th insurrectionists trying to overturn an election. A few smashed windows and some flipped over trashcans is not a mob attacking the capitol chanting “HANG MIKE PENCE.”

[edm0nd]

>when a police officer was beaten to death

Not single LEO was beaten to death on Jan 6th. You are literally spreading misinformation and fake news lol. SCP Officer Brian Sicknick died after having two strokes aka natural causes.

[Forgeties79]

>America was never under a coup attempt

Oh come now. "Hang Mike Pence." "Stop the steal." The former president calling election officials telling them to "find the votes." I don't care what your politics are, what we saw this last election was like nothing we've ever seen before in this country. It was a failed attempt to overturn a democratic election on the basis of a lie.

[coliveira]

From your words, it seems that history rewriting is in full swing right now.

[whateveracct]

Maybe they're referring to the attempts to invalidate the 2020 election? No weapons, but what is a better word for a coordinated attempt to undermine the government?

[hackerfromthefu]

How about 'attempt to undermine the government'? That is much more accurate than coup.

Words have meanings, and using the words inaccurate/the wrong meanings is saying one thing but meaning another, and the word for that is lying.

[jetpks]

This is the same verbal gymnastics confederate sympathizers use when trying to say that the civil war was about "states rights." All you have to do is follow the logic to its conclusion.

What was the civil war about? States rights. What rights, specifically? The right of states to allow their citizens to practice slavery. Therefore, the civil war was about slavery.

What was jan 6 about? It was about an attempt to undermine the government. An attempt to undermine what, specifically? The election process. Why did they seek to undermine the election process? So that the mob could extra-judicially install a leader of their preference. Another word for this is coup d'etat.

[StanislavPetrov]

>What was jan 6 about?

Jan 6th was about a small number of ignorant people who bought into a bunch of lies. A protest that got out of control. One that was far, far less violent, with far fewer casualties than dozens of protests that happened around the country the prior year. All mobs are bad, all riots are bad. Unfortunately different partisans have been trying to blow up the implications of one riot while downplaying all the others.

[krapp]

People involved have already been charged with seditious conspiracy. Sympathizers were found among the Capitol Police, members of the government openly supported a coup. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas may either be impeached or have to resign over his wife's pro-insurrectionist texts to Trump's chief of staff. There were plans. There were conspiracies. We have the receipts.

And stuff is still coming out about Trump. A mysterious seven hour gap in the White House communications logs. A Federal judge ruling that it's "more likely than not" that Trump "corruptly attempted to obstruct Congress" attempting to overturn the election results. He called it a "coup in search of a legal theory." Yes, that's not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but it's also not nothing.

You're right that it was far less violent, and had far fewer casualties, but it wasn't just a riot, nor were there just a small number of ignorant people involved. To think that at this point, or to dismiss all concerns as partisan hyperbole, is kind of ridiculous.

[whateveracct]

It was a little more than some randos protesting. That was a sideshow. There were actual members of our government trying to overturn election results.

[Forgeties79]

> All mobs are bad, all riots are bad.

Yet the GOP is sidelining and smearing the few among them who actually want to hold the insurrectionists accountable.

[hackerfromthefu]

I can see where you're coming from.

AFAIK, in common use the word coup involves the military taking control of the government.

[dragonwriter]

> AFAIK, in common use the word coup involves the military taking control of the government.

That is one common kind of coup, but distinguished from the broader category. That's why the phrase “military coup” exists to distinguish the kind of coup where the military (or some part of it) is the main actor in seizing control outside of normal bounds.

[ashtonkem]

You’re using a much more narrow definition of what a coup d’état means.

> The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.

Or to use Wikipedia’s definition

> A coup d'état (French for "blow of state"), often shortened to coup in English (also known as an overthrow), is a seizure and removal of a government and its powers. Typically, it is an illegal seizure of power by a political faction, rebel group, military, or a dictator. Many scholars consider a coup successful when the usurpers seize and hold power for at least seven days.

Yes, the military can be involved in a coup, but the essential definition does not require their involvement. Different terms might be applied if the military is involved, and based on whether or not the military is the primary driver (as in Myanmar) or is backing one side.

[dragonwriter]

> How about 'attempt to undermine the government'? That is much more accurate than coup.

No, attempted coup (specifically, attempted self-coup) is much more accurate.

> Words have meanings

Yes, they do. And the precise political science terms for the coordinated attempts by the 45th President and his allies to extend his powers beyond their lawful duration by extralegal means is “self-coup” or “auto-coup” (in the original French, “autogolpe”), which is a form of coup carried out by or on behalf of the existing leader.

> and using the words inaccurate/the wrong meanings is saying one thing but meaning another, and the word for that is lying.

Yes, that is exactly what you are doing when you explicitly refuse to use the correct term in attempt to minimize the act.

[verve_rat]

Just because it wasn't a very good or well organised coup attempt doesn't mean it wasn't a coup attempt.

[AnimalMuppet]

An attempt to overturn the results of the election? Yes. A coup? Not really; doesn't fit the definition, though it was far closer than I thought I would ever see. "Very nearly successful"? No.

[coliveira]

A failed coup, since "overturn the results of the election" is pretty much what we may call a coup.

[AnimalMuppet]

Hmm. I went to dictionary.com, looked up coup d'état, and it said:

> a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.

So, I stand corrected. It does meet the definition of "attempted coup".

[coliveira]

Yes, many people are under the impression that a coup is only the result of military or generalized revolt. In fact most modern coups are staged as a political mechanism to avoid the results of the democratic norm.