There were 2-3 guys with pistols between congress and the mob. It only would have taken a minimally organized armed group, or even one person with an AR-15 to inflict casualties on congress and/or take it hostage.
> Many scholars consider a coup d'état successful when the usurpers seize and hold power for at least seven days.
They didn't seize and hold power for any time whatsoever. They had no plan. They had no organization. They did not execute a plot in any way. They were rioters. There was nothing close to what could be constituted as overthrowing of the government.
Not interested in a pedantic argument. The initial comment implied an overreaction to this incident. The president incited a mob to attack Congress. The mob was beyond anyone's control for several hours and there very easily could have been bloodshed. The president declined to condemn the mob (or did so with obvious winks and nods).
What am I missing? Are you suggesting there was no reason for alarm?
I'm saying that the phrase "people literally overthrowing the democratically elected government of the US." is hysterics. That is not what happened.
Also there was bloodshed.
I don't care about what this president does because he's a repulsive child.
Is there reason for alarm? Sure. The Capitol Police were negligent in planning and performing their duties. There was not a sufficient lockdown and security protocol for the physical items. Probably all sorts of other things. These people committed felonies and should be punished.
But this was not a revolution. Our government was not overthrown.
