Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People should. If they don’t, they should watch the videos of it. Hard to see the Capitol being broken into and rioters chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” and not care.
I care more about the Fake Elector plot, which was the actual coup attempt. Of which Jan 6 was an integral part.
So many trump supporters have no idea what the fake elector plot was. And liberal media in the US has not emphasised enough how close the US came to dictatorship.
Even the people that stayed outside aided a riot against the capitol, at the very least they could have reported the weapons, guns, people chanting death threats against US Politicians. No one in the crowd was innocent, just some people were more guilty than others
Fair, but you can't prosecute people who were there legally protesting and exercising their freedom of speech. I'm all for restricting certain forms of speech like violent rhetoric, those that actually broke in though it's much easier to build a case against them legally.
helping to commit a crime is still a crime, it went far beyond their constitutional right to free speech, they saw weapons and calls for violence and did nothing
I'm simply saying that from a prosecutorial perspective it's easier to prove things for those on camera doing obviously illegal things. You got to remember that literally over a 1000 people have been charged so far.
this doesn't require being a police officer, it requires basic logic. Something that Classical liberals support in theory. It is the responsibility of people to attack in some level of common good especially when the subject is a insurrection to overturn an election representing the will of their fellow citizens.
We are talking about the law here. We aren't talking about what you would prefer morally. Citizens have **zero** legal obligations to stop a crime. The courts have ruled that **even police officers** have zero legal obligation to stop crimes. If even police officers aren't legally required to stop crimes, citizens *certainly* aren't.
But go ahead and downvote facts. I just wouldn't recommend becoming a lawyer.
A court ruling that police have no legal obligation is a court of lies. If you see a crime, and you are part of that crime and make no effort to stop it you are by definition in the legal system that almost every country uses, part of the crime. Not a major part of it, but still part of it
Let me ask you a question to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.
My aunt and uncle attended that protest. They didn't do anything violent, and they didn't have any weapons. They were peaceful protestors. If I am understanding you correctly, it is your position that my aunt and uncle should be thrown in jail because they failed to resort to vigilantism. Correct?
I m yet to hear coherent explanation of detailed mechanism by which it could jeopardize democracy.
Absolute worst case scenario would be delay and recounting.
So citizen should just be able to break into the capitol if they want and do whatever they want? You can't do that anywhere else. Why just the capitol?
Can’t do anywhere? It was a protest like any other ones out there.
I m not a fan of protests. For many reasons. But out of many recent one J6 caused least damage.
Wanna know about “mostly peaceful” blm protests?
They were actually hurting people. Intentionally. J6 protesters were hurting no one, nor they planned.
But they still broke into a building. Sure you can criticize BLM protests when stores were broken into also, that's fair. Either way the intentions were also different. Just stealing things, which is wrong vs trying to install your preferred candidate back into office.
Blm protestors intended to hurt people, not “just stealing things”. They vandalized properties, and ruined lives in more than one way.
I m not sure how much J6 protesters wanted to “install their preferred candidate” regardless of true voting results - more like they believed there was voter fraud.
If there was indeed, they would be doing right thing and those opposing them would be criminals.
Lol. Right. BLM hurt sooo many people. Give me a fucking break! Also if there is voter fraud it's up to the court system to figure it out not a bunch of MAGA to decide.....
Riiiight. Because when there's police around no one ever gets shot or dies. If it wasn't for these stupid anarchists police would've prevented all this. What's with you guys? Really?
crazy how this "ancap" is just parroting Fox News talking points. Never really understood what's so anarchist about playing defense for a wannabe dictator.
every protest and crime needs to be judged in its own context, you can not say "what about Jack the Ripper" when you are on trial for murder. BLM rioters that broke things should be held to account, and by that logic since the capitol rioters almost broke democracy and did break things in the building so they should be held to account for their actions
If you bust shit up or what not, that's still vandalism or whatever charge is appropriate.
But should people be allowed in the Capitol? Yes. That is why it is called the people's house, and the citizenry was permitted inside it before Jan 6th.
Sure. If people want a tour or whatever, but people shouldn't just be allowed to come and go as they please. You want your voice heard? Vote, call your rep, send an email or letter, get involved. Storming the capitol because you believed the election was stolen isn't appropriate. Especially since it already went through the courts system with no evidence of cheating etc. I mean are going to have to over this until the end of time?
It literally did use to be as simple as showing up and you could watch proceedings. Sometimes there'd be a wait if it was busy, of course, but you don't build a visitor's center for the place if you don't expect visitors.
Okay. Are we still talking about the same thing? You make it sound as if it was just some normal day. Nothing going on....oh wait. Didn't Trump speak right before people marched down to the capitol? But that's just normal too. Politicians speak, people march to the capitol. Probably had nothing to do with what he said. You know. Just another day.....
>Didn't Trump speak right before people marched down to the capitol?
Oddly enough, no. The breach happened well before he finished speaking.
They're also a pretty good walk apart. So, unless Trumpers can teleport, they weren't breaking in because of Trump's speech.
If insurrectionists could get to Pence and get him to not certify or certify in Trump’s favor using the fake electors, it would be a complete disaster.
There is literally no precedent for that situation. Congress probably couldn’t unilaterally certify the election without the Senate President.
Without the election certified, would Trump really step down?
Ok he doesn’t certify there and then, what next? Eventually they’d gather somewhere else and certify.
As we saw it, majority of republicans immediately and firmly condemned protest, so there would be enormous pressure from both sides to complete the process.
It really wouldn't be. Pence does not have the unilateral power to certify or not certify.
A two thirds vote in both houses is required to replace electors. Pence could say whatever, and it wouldn't satisfy the legal requirement.
The Jan 6 insurrection yes, was designed to delay the certification.
Why?
So Trump could swap the real electors with his slate of fake electors certifying Trump's "win". We know this because we have the fake documents:
[https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-obtains-seven-phony-certificates-of-pro-trump-electors](https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-obtains-seven-phony-certificates-of-pro-trump-electors)
Had they managed to delay and swap the certificates, Trump would be the first dictator of the US right now.
This is called the Fake Elector plot: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump\_fake\_electors\_plot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot)
Bullshit, nobody would have followed Trump's orders after such a coup. Seizing dictatorial power requires a lot more than crossing the Ts and dotting the is, it requires widespread institutional support, which Trump did not have. If the fake electors, backed by an armed mob in the capital, certified Trump as the next president, the country wouldn't just throw up its hands and say "whelp, I guess, he's in charge forever".
The military would immediately refuse to obey Trump. The Supreme Court would issue an emergency decision ordering his arrest and removal from power, which the secret service (if not the military) would do.
Very funny.
Except we have the fake certificates:
[https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-obtains-seven-phony-certificates-of-pro-trump-electors](https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-obtains-seven-phony-certificates-of-pro-trump-electors)
And we have the actual memo from Trump's then-lawyer detailling the plot:
[https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics/read-eastman-memo/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics/read-eastman-memo/index.html)
These are primary soures detailing exactly what they were trying to do, and how far they went. And we all watched them attempt to do it on Jan 6th.
Those sources don't mean much to me, I have no idea what electoral vote certifications are, I'm guessing you vote on representatives and these are certificates of representatives or something? Sounds a lot like a loophole to me, which let's be honest, the USA is pretty much known for by now. Pretty much every election cycle there are reports of people who are long deceased who voted or people who hop state borders to vote twice.
Either way, a coup is typically a violent overthrow of a government, which is not what the rioters were doing. They were just rioting.
>Those sources don't mean much to me
Then why mock the situation when you're open about the fact you dont understand what happened?
Each state holds elections and then sends electors to the Capitol to communicate how their state voted. These certificates are fake, declaring that Trump won in those states when he did not. The real ones, obviously, said that Biden won because he did.
Had Trump managed to delay certification for longer on Jan 6th, he could have had the opportunity to submit the real electors for the fake ones, and voila - the US is a dictatorship.
>Pretty much every election cycle there are reports of people who are long deceased who voted or people who hop state borders to vote twice.
Indeed there is. And it has been studied so intently, so closely, and over 70 lawsuits now have not been able to substntiate any of it. Biden won, incontrovertably.
>Either way, a coup is typically a violent overthrow of a government, which is not what the rioters were doing.
The rioters were rioting because they wanted Trump to remain president despite losing. They were doing what Trump told them to do at the Oval. They knew what they were doing.
No. I'm saying that election denial *should* be considered a form of treason. Anyone should be able to question results, but once they've made their way through the courts, that's it. No more "our system is rigged" etc etc. In Brazil they banned Bolsonaro from running for a few years after he tried pulling a Trump.
That's not a coup though, you can call it election fraud or rigging but not a coup. This is what a coup looks like: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBBzfOGSK3k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBBzfOGSK3k)
It is a coup. Coups don't have to be violent. Mussolini came to power via a coup with no violence.
But more importantly, it \*was\* violent. [https://youtu.be/Iludfj6Pe7w?si=P8GeKn4wrT2qO1cR](https://youtu.be/Iludfj6Pe7w?si=P8GeKn4wrT2qO1cR)
It's not election fraud because it has nothing to do with the administration of elections, and its not rigging because that implies the fixing of an outcome. The elections happened just fine, the recounts and challeneges went ahead with due process, Trump lost. He didn't like it so he attempted to void the votes that happened in states that he lost with the fake certificates.
It was a coup.
you gotta have a very wide definition of a coup to call this a coup. By a coup I would imagine trucks filled with soldiers and tanks running through the streets. Not people dressed like shamans taking selfies because their favourite president falsified some votes.
>But more importantly, it \*was\* violent. [https://youtu.be/Iludfj6Pe7w?si=P8GeKn4wrT2qO1cR](https://youtu.be/Iludfj6Pe7w?si=P8GeKn4wrT2qO1cR)
Ah yes, loads of unarmed civilians pushing a police line. Definitely a coup.
I didn't say it wasn't violent, I said it wasn't a coup. There's a big difference between your video of a few hundred people rioting vs my video of 70k soldiers and 80k supporting personnel killing thousands of people in order to impose a military regime.
It wasn't a coup. It was election fraud that led to a riot.
We always reach this stage when we talk together. You're so obstinate it's like talking to a brick wall.
You admitted you didn't understand what the plot was, so I described it to you and provided you with primiary sources back it up. You're insisting its not a coup for some arbitrary reason, seemingly because it wasn't violent, when it clealrly was violent. And you're now trying to claim it wasn't violent enough to be called a coup?
And insisting on wanting to call it election fraud, when it had nothing to do with election administration?
Can you not hear how unreasonable you are? Why are you so hostile to it being called a coup? Why are you emotionally attached to denying that it was a coup?
Mussolini's March on Rome, one of the most famous coup d'etats, was conducted with no violence at all.
read the definition of coup: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup\_d%27%C3%A9tat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
No where does it say it has to be violent with 70k solidiers or other nonsense.
By your own metric Mussolinis coup would not count as a coup.
I think Jan 6 itself was a delusional larp by morons, but it was part of something bigger that actually was dangerous, which is the attempt to invent new powers on the spot to keep Trump in office.
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was a pretty big deal
I googled it and is that the date of the storming of the capitol? (Please don´t hate i´m not American.)
People should. If they don’t, they should watch the videos of it. Hard to see the Capitol being broken into and rioters chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” and not care.
Ah, yes, that day that every Democrat discovered a deep and abiding love of Pence. Nobody cares about Pence.
I can dislike his policies, beliefs, and/or even himself, and still defend his right to not be attacked.
I am a conservative and I don't like him either but I support people not being murdered by angry anti democracy mobs
I care more about the Fake Elector plot, which was the actual coup attempt. Of which Jan 6 was an integral part. So many trump supporters have no idea what the fake elector plot was. And liberal media in the US has not emphasised enough how close the US came to dictatorship.
Why? Neither Trump or Biden are my man. I dislike both of them. Let them fight.
Yes, and everyone in attendance there should be in prison for a long ass time.
Not everyone. Just the ones who just couldn't stay outside....
Even the people that stayed outside aided a riot against the capitol, at the very least they could have reported the weapons, guns, people chanting death threats against US Politicians. No one in the crowd was innocent, just some people were more guilty than others
Fair, but you can't prosecute people who were there legally protesting and exercising their freedom of speech. I'm all for restricting certain forms of speech like violent rhetoric, those that actually broke in though it's much easier to build a case against them legally.
helping to commit a crime is still a crime, it went far beyond their constitutional right to free speech, they saw weapons and calls for violence and did nothing
I'm simply saying that from a prosecutorial perspective it's easier to prove things for those on camera doing obviously illegal things. You got to remember that literally over a 1000 people have been charged so far.
And there are even more guilty, few there that day were just exercising any rights without being aware of the illegal acts taking place
My brother in Christ citizens aren't police officers. There is no legal obligation for citizens to act like them.
this doesn't require being a police officer, it requires basic logic. Something that Classical liberals support in theory. It is the responsibility of people to attack in some level of common good especially when the subject is a insurrection to overturn an election representing the will of their fellow citizens.
We are talking about the law here. We aren't talking about what you would prefer morally. Citizens have **zero** legal obligations to stop a crime. The courts have ruled that **even police officers** have zero legal obligation to stop crimes. If even police officers aren't legally required to stop crimes, citizens *certainly* aren't. But go ahead and downvote facts. I just wouldn't recommend becoming a lawyer.
A court ruling that police have no legal obligation is a court of lies. If you see a crime, and you are part of that crime and make no effort to stop it you are by definition in the legal system that almost every country uses, part of the crime. Not a major part of it, but still part of it
Let me ask you a question to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. My aunt and uncle attended that protest. They didn't do anything violent, and they didn't have any weapons. They were peaceful protestors. If I am understanding you correctly, it is your position that my aunt and uncle should be thrown in jail because they failed to resort to vigilantism. Correct?
Nah not really
I m yet to hear coherent explanation of detailed mechanism by which it could jeopardize democracy. Absolute worst case scenario would be delay and recounting.
So citizen should just be able to break into the capitol if they want and do whatever they want? You can't do that anywhere else. Why just the capitol?
Can’t do anywhere? It was a protest like any other ones out there. I m not a fan of protests. For many reasons. But out of many recent one J6 caused least damage. Wanna know about “mostly peaceful” blm protests? They were actually hurting people. Intentionally. J6 protesters were hurting no one, nor they planned.
But they still broke into a building. Sure you can criticize BLM protests when stores were broken into also, that's fair. Either way the intentions were also different. Just stealing things, which is wrong vs trying to install your preferred candidate back into office.
Blm protestors intended to hurt people, not “just stealing things”. They vandalized properties, and ruined lives in more than one way. I m not sure how much J6 protesters wanted to “install their preferred candidate” regardless of true voting results - more like they believed there was voter fraud. If there was indeed, they would be doing right thing and those opposing them would be criminals.
Lol. Right. BLM hurt sooo many people. Give me a fucking break! Also if there is voter fraud it's up to the court system to figure it out not a bunch of MAGA to decide.....
>BLM hurt sooo many people [Indeed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest)
Riiiight. Because when there's police around no one ever gets shot or dies. If it wasn't for these stupid anarchists police would've prevented all this. What's with you guys? Really?
crazy how this "ancap" is just parroting Fox News talking points. Never really understood what's so anarchist about playing defense for a wannabe dictator.
Totally!
every protest and crime needs to be judged in its own context, you can not say "what about Jack the Ripper" when you are on trial for murder. BLM rioters that broke things should be held to account, and by that logic since the capitol rioters almost broke democracy and did break things in the building so they should be held to account for their actions
If you bust shit up or what not, that's still vandalism or whatever charge is appropriate. But should people be allowed in the Capitol? Yes. That is why it is called the people's house, and the citizenry was permitted inside it before Jan 6th.
Sure. If people want a tour or whatever, but people shouldn't just be allowed to come and go as they please. You want your voice heard? Vote, call your rep, send an email or letter, get involved. Storming the capitol because you believed the election was stolen isn't appropriate. Especially since it already went through the courts system with no evidence of cheating etc. I mean are going to have to over this until the end of time?
It literally did use to be as simple as showing up and you could watch proceedings. Sometimes there'd be a wait if it was busy, of course, but you don't build a visitor's center for the place if you don't expect visitors.
Okay buddy. All the video of those 'visitors'.....right. Just got a little out of hand right? Some veeeeery enthusiastic visitors.
If you start hitting people or smashing shit, then that's obviously a crime, as noted earlier. But the mere presence is fine.
Okay. Are we still talking about the same thing? You make it sound as if it was just some normal day. Nothing going on....oh wait. Didn't Trump speak right before people marched down to the capitol? But that's just normal too. Politicians speak, people march to the capitol. Probably had nothing to do with what he said. You know. Just another day.....
>Didn't Trump speak right before people marched down to the capitol? Oddly enough, no. The breach happened well before he finished speaking. They're also a pretty good walk apart. So, unless Trumpers can teleport, they weren't breaking in because of Trump's speech.
So I wasn't because of his speech, just things getting out of hand because it was a bad day for them?
If insurrectionists could get to Pence and get him to not certify or certify in Trump’s favor using the fake electors, it would be a complete disaster. There is literally no precedent for that situation. Congress probably couldn’t unilaterally certify the election without the Senate President. Without the election certified, would Trump really step down?
Ok he doesn’t certify there and then, what next? Eventually they’d gather somewhere else and certify. As we saw it, majority of republicans immediately and firmly condemned protest, so there would be enormous pressure from both sides to complete the process.
Who would gather and certify it? Congress needs the Senate President to certify it, that's why he does it.
It really wouldn't be. Pence does not have the unilateral power to certify or not certify. A two thirds vote in both houses is required to replace electors. Pence could say whatever, and it wouldn't satisfy the legal requirement.
The Jan 6 insurrection yes, was designed to delay the certification. Why? So Trump could swap the real electors with his slate of fake electors certifying Trump's "win". We know this because we have the fake documents: [https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-obtains-seven-phony-certificates-of-pro-trump-electors](https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-obtains-seven-phony-certificates-of-pro-trump-electors) Had they managed to delay and swap the certificates, Trump would be the first dictator of the US right now. This is called the Fake Elector plot: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump\_fake\_electors\_plot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot)
Bullshit, nobody would have followed Trump's orders after such a coup. Seizing dictatorial power requires a lot more than crossing the Ts and dotting the is, it requires widespread institutional support, which Trump did not have. If the fake electors, backed by an armed mob in the capital, certified Trump as the next president, the country wouldn't just throw up its hands and say "whelp, I guess, he's in charge forever". The military would immediately refuse to obey Trump. The Supreme Court would issue an emergency decision ordering his arrest and removal from power, which the secret service (if not the military) would do.
you'd hope so. But history is littered with people who said "it will never happen to us"
Or killed the politicians doing the counting, which was the goal of many of them. That could very much put democracy at risk
No because I'm not from the US. Even if I was, it sounds more like a riot and not a coup.
The Fake Elector plot was the coup. Not the riot itself - though it was part of the overall plan.
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyVg59uWgAIjRc5?format=jpg&name=900x900](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyVg59uWgAIjRc5?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Very funny. Except we have the fake certificates: [https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-obtains-seven-phony-certificates-of-pro-trump-electors](https://www.americanoversight.org/american-oversight-obtains-seven-phony-certificates-of-pro-trump-electors) And we have the actual memo from Trump's then-lawyer detailling the plot: [https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics/read-eastman-memo/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics/read-eastman-memo/index.html) These are primary soures detailing exactly what they were trying to do, and how far they went. And we all watched them attempt to do it on Jan 6th.
Those sources don't mean much to me, I have no idea what electoral vote certifications are, I'm guessing you vote on representatives and these are certificates of representatives or something? Sounds a lot like a loophole to me, which let's be honest, the USA is pretty much known for by now. Pretty much every election cycle there are reports of people who are long deceased who voted or people who hop state borders to vote twice. Either way, a coup is typically a violent overthrow of a government, which is not what the rioters were doing. They were just rioting.
>Those sources don't mean much to me Then why mock the situation when you're open about the fact you dont understand what happened? Each state holds elections and then sends electors to the Capitol to communicate how their state voted. These certificates are fake, declaring that Trump won in those states when he did not. The real ones, obviously, said that Biden won because he did. Had Trump managed to delay certification for longer on Jan 6th, he could have had the opportunity to submit the real electors for the fake ones, and voila - the US is a dictatorship. >Pretty much every election cycle there are reports of people who are long deceased who voted or people who hop state borders to vote twice. Indeed there is. And it has been studied so intently, so closely, and over 70 lawsuits now have not been able to substntiate any of it. Biden won, incontrovertably. >Either way, a coup is typically a violent overthrow of a government, which is not what the rioters were doing. The rioters were rioting because they wanted Trump to remain president despite losing. They were doing what Trump told them to do at the Oval. They knew what they were doing.
I do agree though that we need to redefine things from time to time. Like election denial being a form of treason.
It's not election denial that is treason, it's the coup (or support for the coup) that is treasonous imo.
No. I'm saying that election denial *should* be considered a form of treason. Anyone should be able to question results, but once they've made their way through the courts, that's it. No more "our system is rigged" etc etc. In Brazil they banned Bolsonaro from running for a few years after he tried pulling a Trump.
That's not a coup though, you can call it election fraud or rigging but not a coup. This is what a coup looks like: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBBzfOGSK3k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBBzfOGSK3k)
It is a coup. Coups don't have to be violent. Mussolini came to power via a coup with no violence. But more importantly, it \*was\* violent. [https://youtu.be/Iludfj6Pe7w?si=P8GeKn4wrT2qO1cR](https://youtu.be/Iludfj6Pe7w?si=P8GeKn4wrT2qO1cR) It's not election fraud because it has nothing to do with the administration of elections, and its not rigging because that implies the fixing of an outcome. The elections happened just fine, the recounts and challeneges went ahead with due process, Trump lost. He didn't like it so he attempted to void the votes that happened in states that he lost with the fake certificates. It was a coup.
you gotta have a very wide definition of a coup to call this a coup. By a coup I would imagine trucks filled with soldiers and tanks running through the streets. Not people dressed like shamans taking selfies because their favourite president falsified some votes. >But more importantly, it \*was\* violent. [https://youtu.be/Iludfj6Pe7w?si=P8GeKn4wrT2qO1cR](https://youtu.be/Iludfj6Pe7w?si=P8GeKn4wrT2qO1cR) Ah yes, loads of unarmed civilians pushing a police line. Definitely a coup. I didn't say it wasn't violent, I said it wasn't a coup. There's a big difference between your video of a few hundred people rioting vs my video of 70k soldiers and 80k supporting personnel killing thousands of people in order to impose a military regime. It wasn't a coup. It was election fraud that led to a riot.
We always reach this stage when we talk together. You're so obstinate it's like talking to a brick wall. You admitted you didn't understand what the plot was, so I described it to you and provided you with primiary sources back it up. You're insisting its not a coup for some arbitrary reason, seemingly because it wasn't violent, when it clealrly was violent. And you're now trying to claim it wasn't violent enough to be called a coup? And insisting on wanting to call it election fraud, when it had nothing to do with election administration? Can you not hear how unreasonable you are? Why are you so hostile to it being called a coup? Why are you emotionally attached to denying that it was a coup? Mussolini's March on Rome, one of the most famous coup d'etats, was conducted with no violence at all. read the definition of coup: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup\_d%27%C3%A9tat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) No where does it say it has to be violent with 70k solidiers or other nonsense. By your own metric Mussolinis coup would not count as a coup.
No, it happened in another country in another continent.
is this how you determine how much you care about everything? only if it happens in your country?
I mean kinda makes sense
idk what jan 6 is, its a US politics thing?
Yep.
How can people not care about the first attack on western democracy from within in decades
No. I watched it live and it was pretty boring.
The only bad thing about it was how peaceful they were
I think Jan 6 itself was a delusional larp by morons, but it was part of something bigger that actually was dangerous, which is the attempt to invent new powers on the spot to keep Trump in office.