>> coup attempt
> it was neither a coup nor a coup attempt. i have a hard time fathoming the combination of ignorance and privilege that would lead a serious, thinking person to make this claim.
I would take the opposite approach here. Trump replaced SecDef after the election. He was working on scuttling the post office and proper vote counting before the election. They tried to rig the election. When their efforts didn't give the results they wanted, they tried to overturn the results with violence. He incited the violence, helped direct it, refused to stop it, and cheered it on, as his own VP was asking for help.
I'm not sure what combination of ignorance and privilege would label this "trespassing" rather than an attempted "coup".
> you might as well call any whitehouse trespasser a coup.
> context matters. they were political rioters, not a replacement government.
The goal of the prior administration was to remain in power. The folks who stormed the capital weren't the replacement government, they were the brownshirts.
I would take the opposite approach here. Trump replaced SecDef after the election. He was working on scuttling the post office and proper vote counting before the election. They tried to rig the election. When their efforts didn't give the results they wanted, they tried to overturn the results with violence. He incited the violence, helped direct it, refused to stop it, and cheered it on, as his own VP was asking for help.
I'm not sure what combination of ignorance and privilege would label this "trespassing" rather than an attempted "coup".
> you might as well call any whitehouse trespasser a coup. > context matters. they were political rioters, not a replacement government.
The goal of the prior administration was to remain in power. The folks who stormed the capital weren't the replacement government, they were the brownshirts.