[dragonwriter]

> 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]

“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]

Lots of wrong assumptions.

- If you think the other side isn't armed, you are foolish.

- The number of deaths doesn't define a failed coup attempt.

- The accusations are not accusations once you see the violence: https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeTikToks/comments/1oasyyt/this...

The only reason this coup attempt looks comical is because it was unplanned and led by Trump who is incompetent. It could have easily turned even worse - more deaths, more congress people running around, a traitor VP etc. Mike Pence truly saved the country by breaking ranks with Republicans.

[frumplestlatz]

I didn’t say the other side doesn’t have guns, and that isn’t the point.

I see 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.

From what you said, it was unplanned, but also run by the president of the United States of America. Who is incompetent, but who also secured the presidency not just once, but twice.

Either way, it doesn’t matter. He won again, with the majority of the vote. It doesn’t seem like the American people believe there was a coup attempt — or they don’t care. He’ll serve out his term, and the same arguments with different actors will play out all over again in 2028.

JD Vance will probably be the Republican nominee, and he’ll be called the next Hitler. We’ll be told that fascism is on the ballot. People will either care or they won’t. Emotion-driven messaging will drive the election. No matter who wins, the country will probably not fall apart.

[nine_zeros]

> I see 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 motive and the location of the protest matters. They motive was to stop certification, but storming inside and blocking the certifiers - that is what separates a protest from a coup.

> From what you said, it was unplanned, but also run by the president of the United States of America. Who is incompetent, but who also secured the presidency not just once, but twice.

None of this takes away from the attempted coup.

> Either way, it doesn’t matter. He won again, with the majority of the vote. It doesn’t seem like the American people believe there was a coup attempt — or they don’t care. He’ll serve out his term, and the same arguments with different actors will play out all over again in 2028.

It matters. Why? Because the narcissist man has demonstrated that he is willing to egg people on to storm elected representatives to get his way. This is how Erdogan, Putin, Maduro operate. It might not matter to you - but maybe you care more about having Trump in office than the constitution. But this is not how a large number of people feel. You can keep pointing at election results as a definitive verdict of the people but elections are about the opposition too - not just about the person. The coup was about the person.

Anyway, I can't convince someone who can delude themselves when evidence is staring right at the face. But like someone else pointed out, this country is truly broken when 2 people look at the same video and cannot agree on the truth.