Hacker News Reader

Comment by kukx | Hacker News Reader

I do not think there was a coup. Yes people trespassed and vandalized, but that is about it. There was no plan or effort to take power, as far as I know. Of course any vandalism is bad and we have seen too much of it recently.

The praise of censorship on the Dems side is not new. And it will only get worse, especially as the govt abuses economy by giving away massive amounts of money and getting into even bigger debt.

View on HN

I think you could make the argument it wasn't a coup, but you'd have a hard time making any meaningful points.

To say that "people trespassed and vandalized, but that is about it" however, is a gross mischaracterization.

Here are some things that constitute WAY more than what you described:

- Planting of explosive devises

- Proud Boys in organized and coordinated groups with zip ties and walkie talkies (charged with conspiracy for allegedly staging planned missions in the Capitol)

- The general goal of preventing a democratic process from taking place in order to overturn an election

- 5 people dead including a police officer

- SEVERAL Secret‑level laptops were stolen

I don't think you are providing a good-faith interpretation of the events.

thats not a coup, thats obstruction of procedure and didny have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding. Calling it a coup is bad-faith interpretation of the event.

When the "procedure" involved is the certification of votes for the new President, then yeah, that's an attempted coup.

And something doesn't have to have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding at its illegal and seditious aims to remain illegal and seditious.

An attempted coup would be to actually attempt at a coup with plans on how to seize power and hold it and ensure you had enough military power to hold down the fort.

To interfere with a procedure they didn't have any chance of interfering with isn't a coup no matter how much you would like to stretch the definition.

The intent, plan and execution was geared toward changing the official election outcome, using violence and force to disrupt the constitutional process.

This was neither an attempt of taking over the power nor was it a successful move.

You are politicizing this.

Not really. I am actually accusing the previous President of the United States of criminal conduct and neglect (ref. the many cases against this person).

The organisation was abysmal, people were led astray and lied to. But the threat and originating intent to forcibly change the election outcome was real.

They did think they were affirming the correct outcome rather than changing it. Whatever else you can say, most of those people genuinely believed Trump won the election.

Yes, after months of grooming, even before the election was conducted.

If people knew there were problems beforehand, why did the people in charge fail to do preventative measures?

Merits of that leadership: Failing to improve the election process, even attempting sabotaging Postal Services, and then crying crocodile tears after grooming millions to a false attack.

Trump seemed fairly determined to change the election outcome, presumably by getting some votes overturned. The fact that the plan was kind of disorganised and hopeless doesn't mean it didn't exist.

>"The vice-president has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors,” Mr Trump wrote on Twitter.

> “I hope that our great vice-president . . . comes through for us,” Mr Trump told the rally. (https://www.ft.com/content/6ff4a677-eb2e-438e-ac48-bb5da5a0e...)

Sounded like he wanted to use the rally to pressure Pence to "reject fraudulently chosen electors" and hence change the election outcome. Not sure if you call that a coup attempt or not but some people don't really buy the fraudulently chosen electors bit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com