You know what’s funny here is you down playing the insurrection, downplaying the actions of the outgoing president, downplaying the actions of the congressmen, downplaying the actions of a mainly white republican mob.

You whole stance is, meh no big deal but hey how about the BLM riots, man I’m surprised you haven’t tried to make a correlation to the 1st nations protest that were in Canada.Did you see they occupied the provincial parliament buildings, they burned pallets on the railroad line...terrorist. The capital insurrection...naw just a bunch of guys out for a walk, they were invited in the building, nothing serious at all.

I get it though, your real issue is that you can’t do and say things that were once acceptable, you’re a part of the alt right victim society, and it shows.

So in your words, “your tell is showing and it’s kinda funny.”
- Makita

Speech that you hate isn't hate speech.

I've never once said, "hey no big deal". I have said the media is making a bigger deal out of it then it actually was.

I've never said it was justified (I have however said multiple times that the blm riots were justified).

Google Myanmar coup, Egypt coup, take a history lesson, it wasn't a "coup", that doesn't mean that I support them, it means that trying to drive a frenzy by using triggering language to make a mountain out of a mole hill is stupid and I'll point that fact out.

In this specific case, I call the woman an idiot and point out the fact that she wasn't charged with anything violent and in fact was only charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct. Am I wrong? No, I'm not. But, You seem so programed that my stating that simple fact means that I'm alt right. Way to be progressive, dude, you're so progressive you're turning into a bigot. Triggering, perhaps but read the definition, you just accused me of being alt right because you believe that I belong to a right wing political group, text book bigotry.

You're so fake woke you can't even see the truth when it's spelled out to you in basic English. Remember, if someone disagrees with you, they must be the enemy, poop is black and white, don't think!

Sad really, you're smarter then this and I don't believe you are actuallya bigot, but your language is fully bigoted.

Speech that you hate isn't hate speech.

I've never once said, "hey no big deal". I have said the media is making a bigger deal out of it then it actually was.

I've never said it was justified (I have however said multiple times that the blm riots were justified).

Google Myanmar coup, Egypt coup, take a history lesson, it wasn't a "coup", that doesn't mean that I support them, it means that trying to drive a frenzy by using triggering language to make a mountain out of a mole hill is stupid and I'll point that fact out.

In this specific case, I call the woman an idiot and point out the fact that she wasn't charged with anything violent and in fact was only charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct. Am I wrong? No, I'm not. But, You seem so programed that my stating that simple fact means that I'm alt right. Way to be progressive, dude, you're so progressive you're turning into a bigot. Triggering, perhaps but read the definition, you just accused me of being alt right because you believe that I belong to a right wing political group, text book bigotry.

You're so fake woke you can't even see the truth when it's spelled out to you in basic English. Remember, if someone disagrees with you, they must be the enemy, poop is black and white, don't think!

Sad really, you're smarter then this and I don't believe you are actuallya bigot, but your language is fully bigoted.
- Pres.cup

stop with the stupidity.

stop with the stupidity.
- RealityChecker

Sorry, I'll call out text book bigotry whenever it appears.

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Because I don't think it was a coup. I am called alt right. The reason is bigoted is the fact the despite not supporting the coup is
It's assumed that I must because it's assumed that I'm a Trumpist. Because I believe the response to Corona virus is being driven by some false data, I'm a Trumpist. Because I don't think the capital riots where very violent compared to other riots that have happened this year, I'm anti BLM, despite multiple times staying my support of that movement over the past year.

The unreasonable, obstinate and false assumption of my political beliefs, opinions and attachments to group and organization(alt right, Trumpist) based on my membership to a group of people who disagree about several simple facts (riot or coup, c19 vaccine being experimental) despite my explaining exactly where and why my opinions and attachments lie (contradictory to said groups and organizations) is the very definition of bigoted.

You, personally have not engaged in such pigeonholing but others have. Makita, by calling me alt right, is in fact being bigoted. Marwood, by calling me a Trumpist, is in fact being bigoted.
Those are facts based on actual actions.

Sorry if they're offensive facts but stating that the woman in question is an idiot but that she was only charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct and no violent offenses shouldn't be triggering anyone into making bigoted remarks. Bigotry isn't only a right or left thing, it deserves to be called out.

Sorry, I'll call out text book bigotry whenever it appears.
- Pres.cup

lol - you keep using words that don't mean what you think they mean.

but sure, keep calling things out. it actually makes you look worse but it fills your self--identity needs.

lol - you keep using words that don't mean what you think they mean.

but sure, keep calling things out. it actually makes you look worse but it fills your self--identity needs.
- RealityChecker

See below for the definition. Bigotry means exactly what I imply it means but go on, keep supporting bigotry, it's very progressive of you.

Not a left or right thing, liberals and progressive can be bigots to.

I copy pasted the definition....

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Elysium

Hark Hark
My dear friends
Do you hear
The ghosts of kristallnacht
Screaming in the wind?
As the jackboots of tyranny
Are fast approaching,
Do you hear the
Shattering of glass
Strewn across
The cobblestones
Of our dreams?
As the virus of conformity
Ends the illusion
Of a precious freedom
That we never really had,
For we have become
Six foot prisoners of our own folly
And wardens of
Of our own insanity
And now the oligarchs of
The new order
Are reporting for duty,
Bringing with them
New ordinances
Of fear and loathing
Cancelling culture
While extracting
More blood wages
From the already stained
Parchment pages of history,
Destroying all joy
And wonder
In the great mystery
That winks
At us from oblivion,
As Urizen’s Angels
Issue their cruel directives
Driving loved ones
Asunder
Humiliated by an
Officially tarnished
Ancestral legacy
Where in this wasteland
Of the ‘free’
The agony of our love
Turned blue
shadow dances
With the dream
Of some mythical
Utopia of total equality,
For silicon ghouls
Now rampage through minds
Struck with
Lightning algorithms
Hurled from Mount Google,
The road to Elysium
Is filling with refugees
Escaping the nets
Of science and reason
That have reduced
Our dreams to ashes
Elysium! My fair Elysium
How I hunger for thy
Fair pastoral meadows
That nourish my essence
Feeding my tortured soul
With the finest vintage squeezed
From the grapes of our wrath,
Where from the seeds
Of our suffering
We have found
Love’s true path!
Do not despair
My friend Sancho,
March on down the road
Fighting those
Evil windmills
Of a new tyranny
That has sucked
The joy out of living,
Stealing the passion
From our loving adventure
Isolating the virus human
From Mother Earth,
Look now
To the rising sun
Each day
That Promises a new Birth
Even to the strains of
That solemn dirge at
The end of the day.

See above for the definition. Bigotry means exactly what I imply it means but go on, keep supporting bigotry, it's very progressive of you.

Not a left or right thing, liberals and progressive can be bigots to.

I copy pasted the definition....

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
- Pres.cup

- you've posted enough for us to get a sense of what you know and what you don't.

(btw - stop quoting lyrics. you're not a teenager who needs to express themselves through music lyrics ffs.)

- you've posted enough for us to get a sense of what you know and what you don't.

(btw - stop quoting lyrics. you're not a teenager who needs to express themselves through music lyrics ffs.)
- RealityChecker

That's the catch 22 isn't it, assuming a belief or position based on what someone is expected to believe rather then asking and hearing what they actually believe, that's textbook bigotry. (I don't think that mar or mak are a bigot, but they are currently acting in that fashion, very progressive of them).

What have I posted that makes me alt right?
My support of BLM, ACAB?
My stating that in a two party system the actual policy changes are slight?
That the capital riots weren't a coup?
That that lady was an idiot but still a non violent offender?
That the vaccine is still experimental and if you're not in an art risk group you should be hesitant to take it?
That I'm opposed to mandatory vaccinations(illegal in Canada)?
That Trump is a goof but I feel hillary would have had the US in a sitting war in the Ukraine?
That China is a fascist state that is engaged in ethnic genocide?

All but a handful of those are facts, the rest are opinions. None of those make me alt right or a trump supporter. To assume that I am despite my stating bluntly that I am not, is textbook bigotry by definition.

(BTW. Most of the poetry/lyrics that I post are things that I've written myself, I write poetry as a pass time.)

That's the catch 22 isn't it, assuming a belief or position based on what someone is expected to believe rather then asking and hearing what they actually believe, that's textbook bigotry. (I don't think that mar or mak are a bigot, but they are currently acting in that fashion, very progressive of them).

What have I posted that makes me alt right?
My support of BLM, ACAB?
My stating that in a two party system the actual policy changes are slight?
That the capital riots weren't a coup?
That that lady was an idiot but still a non violent offender?
That the vaccine is still experimental and if you're not in an art risk group you should be hesitant to take it?
That I'm opposed to mandatory vaccinations(illegal in Canada)?
That Trump is a goof but I feel hillary would have had the US in a sitting war in the Ukraine?
That China is a fascist state that is engaged in ethnic genocide?

All but a handful of those are facts, the rest are opinions. None of those make me alt right or a trump supporter. To assume that I am despite my stating bluntly that I am not, is textbook bigotry by definition.

(BTW. Most of the poetry/lyrics that I post are things that I've written myself, I write poetry as a pass time.)
- Pres.cup

you ever just go back a few days and read some of the things you write? perhaps you should.

btw, i've tried to correct some of the things you write but it's a never ending job.

some of things you think are facts are bullsh!t. some of the opinions you have are just absurd. some things i agree with.

mostly, i think you don't have enough of a knowledge base to understand a lot of things you write about.

that's a very arrogant position i take. i admit it. i'll agree with people who say that i'm arrogant or come across as a know-it-all. i know that about myself. but i'm honest with who i am and how i come across. all i'm saying is that you should do the same.

you ever just go back a few days and read some of the things you write? perhaps you should.

btw, i've tried to correct some of the things you write but it's a never ending job.

some of things you think are facts are bullsh!t. some of the opinions you have are just absurd. some things i agree with.

mostly, i think you don't have enough of a knowledge base to understand a lot of things you write about.

that's a very arrogant position i take. i admit it. i'll agree with people who say that i'm arrogant or come across as a know-it-all. i know that about myself. but i'm honest with who i am and how i come across. all i'm saying is that you should do the same.
- RealityChecker

This recent argument was regarding that lady who wants to go to Mexico while waiting for court.

I called her an idiot and pointed out that her charges were non violent trespassing and disorderly conduct.

I never said the charges were bullpoop or that she was justified. I called her an idiot and mocked the hyperbole in the article which used language like attempted coup (I've pointed out my problem with provocative language before). Disagreeing with the use of rhetoric isn't the same as defending the initial action, some people, yourself included at times, seem to forget that.

Facts are facts, not opinions, there was a riot is a fact, it being a dangerous and violent coup attempt is an opinion, which ones do I get wrong?

This recent argument was regarding that lady who wants to go to Mexico while waiting for court.

I called her an idiot and pointed out that her charges were non violent trespassing and disorderly conduct.

I never said the charges were bullpoop or that she was justified. I called her an idiot and mocked the hyperbole in the article which used language like attempted coup (I've pointed out my problem with provocative language before). Disagreeing with the use of rhetoric isn't the same as defending the initial action, some people, yourself included at times, seem to forget that.

Facts are facts, not opinions, there was a riot is a fact, it being a dangerous and violent coup attempt is an opinion, which ones do I get wrong?
- Pres.cup

it was an attempted coup. you want to say that it wasn't based on the inability to succeed. if you want to go by definition, that makes it a coup.

that is definition. fact. there you go. btw, i've said before, correcting you is tiring. sometimes, it entertains me. most times not so much.

and the fact (i use that word purposely if only for comedic effect) that you blur the line between fact and opinion is funny at times.

it was an attempted coup. you want to say that it wasn't based on the inability to succeed. if you want to go by definition, that makes it a coup.

that is definition. fact. there you go. btw, i've said before, correcting you is tiring. sometimes, it entertains me. most times not so much.

and the fact (i use that word purposely if only for comedic effect) that you blur the line between fact and opinion is funny at times.
- RealityChecker

Quick question, were any of the participants in the riot itself charged with an attempted coup? Because a charge of disorderly conduct and trespassing are not that?
Facts, an inconvenience at times.
That lady was not charged with an attempted coup which makes saying she was involved in one a little problematic, no?

Speech that you hate isn't hate speech.

I've never once said, "hey no big deal". I have said the media is making a bigger deal out of it then it actually was.

I've never said it was justified (I have however said multiple times that the blm riots were justified).

Google Myanmar coup, Egypt coup, take a history lesson, it wasn't a "coup", that doesn't mean that I support them, it means that trying to drive a frenzy by using triggering language to make a mountain out of a mole hill is stupid and I'll point that fact out.

In this specific case, I call the woman an idiot and point out the fact that she wasn't charged with anything violent and in fact was only charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct. Am I wrong? No, I'm not. But, You seem so programed that my stating that simple fact means that I'm alt right. Way to be progressive, dude, you're so progressive you're turning into a bigot. Triggering, perhaps but read the definition, you just accused me of being alt right because you believe that I belong to a right wing political group, text book bigotry.

You're so fake woke you can't even see the truth when it's spelled out to you in basic English. Remember, if someone disagrees with you, they must be the enemy, poop is black and white, don't think!

Sad really, you're smarter then this and I don't believe you are actuallya bigot, but your language is fully bigoted.
- Pres.cup

Clearly, you are nothing more than an assshole looking for an endless argument.
"Fake woke", take a f*cking look at yourself!!

And if you haven't already figured it out, I don't care what anyone thinks of me.

Quick question, were any of the participants in the riot itself charged with an attempted coup? Because a charge of disorderly conduct and trespassing are not that?
Facts, an inconvenience at times.
That lady was not charged with an attempted coup which makes saying she was involved in one a little problematic, no?
- Pres.cup

lol at you thinking that there is a charge of "attempted coup." this is the kind of stuff i was talking about earlier.

all the charges have not been meted out and the most serious charges (conspiracy and sedition) will probably come at the end. why? because they are the hardest to prove and so until all the facts/evidence is in, those serious charges won't be brought.


Michael Sherwin, the top US prosecutor in Washington, said in a news conference Tuesday.
"Sedition, among other charges, is "what we're trying to build toward," Sherwin said."
"Sherwin said prosecutors are building toward charging Capitol riot defendants with sedition, as well as looking groups from various states who coordinated coming to the Capitol and in other long-term planning."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/...ot-arrests-150/index.html

btw, sedition is attempting to overthrow the government.

lol at you thinking that there is a charge of "attempted coup." this is the kind of stuff i was talking about earlier.

all the charges have not been meted out and the most serious charges (conspiracy and insurrection) will probably come at the end. why? because they are the hardest to prove and so until all the facts/evidence is in, those serious charges won't be brought.


Michael Sherwin, the top US prosecutor in Washington, said in a news conference Tuesday.
"Sedition, among other charges, is "what we're trying to build toward," Sherwin said."
"Sherwin said prosecutors are building toward charging Capitol riot defendants with sedition, as well as looking groups from various states who coordinated coming to the Capitol and in other long-term planning."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/...ot-arrests-150/index.html

btw, sedition is attempting to overthrow the government.
- RealityChecker

Yes, I can agree with this. Some of the organizers may be charged with sedition. Since of the participants may even be charged with sedition. I would say that the vast majority of people will not be, including this woman.
If this women is never charged with sedition, would it not stand to reason that she participated in a riot and not a coup?

Intent is everything, did the participant actually believe they'd seize power or just disrupt things and draw attention to their cause?

I don't know about you but my understanding is without the military becoming involved, the chance of that riot actually ending in a seizure of power was slim to none.

Until there is an actual charge of sedition proven in a court of law, I'll call it a riot. If the participant are not charged or are charged (with attempted sedition) and found innocent, will you retract your claim that it was a coup? If they're found guilty of it, I know that I will. But until then it's an opinion that it was a coup, not a fact. semantics indeed.

(Btw, writing whilst playing with a 2yo, sorry for not using the correct legalize, if there is no such thing as a charge for attempting a coup, perhaps people should stop calling it an attempted coup and instead call it sedition or treason)

Clearly, you are nothing more than an assshole looking for an endless argument.
"Fake woke", take a f*cking look at yourself!!

And if you haven't already figured it out, I don't care what anyone thinks of me.
- Marwood

Aww, triggered buttercup?
You're clearly spiraling downward from something, you used to be much more articulate, now you just virtue signal. Sad really. Look in a mirror, progressive used to mean something, think for yourself, you're just regurgitating words without thinking about what they mean.

Yes, I can agree with this. Some of the organizers may be charged with sedition. Since of the participants may even be charged with sedition. I would say that the vast majority of people will not be, including this woman.
If this women is never charged with sedition, would it not stand to reason that she participated in a riot and not a coup?

Intent is everything, did the participant actually believe they'd seize power or just disrupt things and draw attention to their cause?

I don't know about you but my understanding is without the military becoming involved, the chance of that riot actually ending in a seizure of power was slim to none.

Until there is an actual charge of sedition proven in a court of law, I'll call it a riot. If the participant are not charged or are charged (with attempted sedition) and found innocent, will you retract your claim that it was a coup? If they're found guilty of it, I know that I will. But until then it's an opinion that it was a coup, not a fact. semantics indeed.

(Btw, writing whilst playing with a 2yo, sorry for not using the correct legalize, if there is no such thing as a charge for attempting a coup, perhaps people should stop calling it an attempted coup and instead call it sedition or treason)
- Pres.cup

this is what i was talking about earlier. to explain why and when the terms are used is tiring.

quickly, they can be used synonymously in an informal context but when bringing it with respect to legalities (charges etc.) you should use the correct terms. btw, this was a point lost on you when we discussed "conspiracy" and you brought up the civil definition of conspiracy. it's just exhaustive to have to explain what and why for every word.

btw, until someone is proven guilty, you won't call it that?

does that go for every crime? OJ got away with it. i guess that means that there was no double murder that occurred, huh? can't call it a murder. it was just a double knife incident gone wrong.

this is what i was talking about earlier. to explain why and when the terms are used is tiring.

quickly, they can be used synonymously in an informal context but when bringing it with respect to legalities (charges etc.) you should use the correct terms. btw, this was a point lost on you when we discussed "conspiracy" and you brought up the civil definition of conspiracy. it's just exhaustive to have to explain what and why for every word.

btw, until someone is proven guilty, you won't call it that?

does that go for every crime? OJ got away with it. i guess that means that there was no double murder that occurred, huh? can't call it a murder. it was just a double knife incident gone wrong.
- RealityChecker

You are right in that, I should have used the correct terminology.


I think OJ is a murderer. If I state "OJ is a murderer publication, I could be sued for slander(maybe not the correct term) right?

I still think the capital rioters are a bunch of idiots and I do not support what they did, I just don't believe that the majority of the participants intention was to overthrow the government.
That's what makes it an opinion I guess.

I believe that you're the only one who articulates these things correctly, I don't think any of the others do.

You are right in that, I should have used the correct terminology.


I think OJ is a murderer. If I state "OJ is a murderer publication, I could be sued for slander(maybe not the correct term) right?

I still think the capital rioters are a bunch of idiots and I do not support what they did, I just don't believe that the majority of the participants intention was to overthrow the government.
That's what makes it an opinion I guess.

I believe that you're the only one who articulates these things correctly, I don't think any of the others do.
- Pres.cup

i was unclear.

the act is the act regardless if anyone was convicted or not.

in the oj example, 2 people were murdered. noone was convicted. the act of 2 people dying was and still is a murder. the person who was charged but ultimately acquitted has no bearing on what the "incident" was. 2 murders still occurred.

the riot was an insurrection/coup regardless if anyone is convicted of it or not.... and irrespective of whether they had any chance of succeeding.

i was unclear.

the act is the act regardless if anyone was convicted or not.

in the oj example, 2 people were murdered. noone was convicted. the act of 2 people dying was and still is a murder. the person who was charged but ultimately acquitted has no bearing on what the "incident" was. 2 murders still occurred.

the riot was an insurrection/coup regardless if anyone is convicted of it or not.... and irrespective of whether they had any chance of succeeding.
- RealityChecker

The murder occurred, but there was no murderer, by the same logic if nobody is proven guilty of sedition(different then a coup, sorry but they aren't the same thing), then there would be no sedition having been found to have taken place. It's not the same as an unrecorded murder. The parties involved are well recorded participants, the oj murders is a bad example, I expect better from you.

Good article on the subject of sedition charges and their historical use.

https://www.google.com/am...ys-a-terrible-idea/%3famp

If you're defining sedition as using force to impede the lawful execution of laws, as it's currently defined, then yes the capital riots could be considered seditious.

On the same token, by legal definition, the BLM protest in Portland exceed the threshold of sedition. There was a courthouse that was attacked over the course of days if not weeks plus there was a violent overthrowing of the municipal government, would you not have to also consider that a seditious uprising with the CHAD experiment being a coup?

I don't, but then again I don't consider either of them a coup or sedition (although they both met the definition, one being far more violent and righteous then the other).

Question:
Regardless of the righteousness of either cause, can two events which mimic both their use of violence to intimidate and to delay lawful laws from being carried out, be seen under the law as different? Quick answer is yes, but I'm curious as to your take.

For the record, again, I do not support the capital riots, bunch of goofs, just don't think it was a coup (unlike a murder, there's no body). I do support the BLM riots and don't think it was seditious either(even if it exceeds the legal requirements). I'm just tired of the hypocrisy, if they do it it's an attempted coup, if we do it it's a civilisation rights movement.

The murder occurred, but there was no murderer,t.
- Pres.cup

Lol - you really miss the point. There is a murderer just not one who is convicted. The action that is defined as murder occurred. A murder does not need a conviction to be labelled murder.

Every unsolved crime or acquittal does not mean that the crime did not occur.

The only reason why treason or sedition charges would not be brought is because they are difficult crimes to prove. Prosecutors may choose to go with easier charges to ensure convictions. This doesn't prove that it wasn't sedition or treason.

You can't nor want to see the point I'm making.

The murder occurred, but there was no murderer, by the same logic if nobody is proven guilty of sedition(different then a coup, sorry but they aren't the same thing), then there would be no sedition having been found to have taken place. It's not the same as an unrecorded murder. The parties involved are well recorded participants, the oj murders is a bad example, I expect better from you.

Good article on the subject of sedition charges and their historical use.

https://www.google.com/am...ys-a-terrible-idea/%3famp

If you're defining sedition as using force to impede the lawful execution of laws, as it's currently defined, then yes the capital riots could be considered seditious.

On the same token, by legal definition, the BLM protest in Portland exceed the threshold of sedition. There was a courthouse that was attacked over the course of days if not weeks plus there was a violent overthrowing of the municipal government, would you not have to also consider that a seditious uprising with the CHAD experiment being a coup?

I don't, but then again I don't consider either of them a coup or sedition (although they both met the definition, one being far more violent and righteous then the other).

Question:
Regardless of the righteousness of either cause, can two events which mimic both their use of violence to intimidate and to delay lawful laws from being carried out, be seen under the law as different? Quick answer is yes, but I'm curious as to your take.

For the record, again, I do not support the capital riots, bunch of goofs, just don't think it was a coup (unlike a murder, there's no body). I do support the BLM riots and don't think it was seditious either(even if it exceeds the legal requirements). I'm just tired of the hypocrisy, if they do it it's an attempted coup, if we do it it's a civilisation rights movement.
- Pres.cup

I've answered why the two are different when we originally discussed this. You don't want to see it. We're just rehashing the same argument.

I reiterate what I posted earlier today. My opinions about our discussions haven't changed. You are not the Truth seeker/teller you think you are.

I've answered why the two are different when we originally discussed this. You don't want to see it. We're just rehashing the same argument.

I reiterate what I posted earlier today. My opinions about our discussions haven't changed. You are not the Truth seeker/teller you think you are.
- RealityChecker

Like I said, I'm posting a question, not an opinion.

If violently occupying a courthouse can be righteous and not seditious and violently occupying the capital can be seditious and not righteous, then it's merely a matter of personal opinion and not fact by definition.

Here is the Britannica dictionary definition of a coup. I bolded the part that makes the capital riots not worthy of being called a coup

Coup d'état, also called coup, the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements.

That's why I don't and will not consider it a coup, it's stupid to otherwise, unless you define a coup differently, which I don't.

Like I said, I'm posting a question, not an opinion.

If violently occupying a courthouse can be righteous and not seditious and violently occupying the capital can be seditious and not righteous, then it's merely a matter of personal opinion and not fact by definition.

Here is the Britannica dictionary definition of a coup. I bolded the part that makes the capital riots not worthy of being called a coup

Coup d'état, also called coup, the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements.

That's why I don't and will not consider it a coup, it's stupid to otherwise, unless you define a coup differently, which I don't.
- Pres.cup

The prerequisite is the aim of the violence and the coordination/planning.

We're going in circles. Like I said, you neither see nor want to see. If you want to understand the difference, keep an eye out for the reporting in the next few months about the coordination of what happened at the Capitol.

In any event, I'm sure the false equivalency will continue.

The prerequisite is the aim of the violence and the coordination/planning.

We're going in circles. Like I said, you neither see nor want to see. If you want to understand the difference, keep an eye out for the reporting in the next few months about the coordination of what happened at the Capitol.

In any event, I'm sure the false equivalency will continue.
- RealityChecker

Coup d'état, also called coup, the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements.

Not a single chief prerequisite for a coup is met. There was zero control of the armed forces, police or other military elements. The crowd of protesters, who gained physical access to the capital, did not attempt to have control over any of the military elements. Didn't matter that the protest was violent or was planned and coordinated to delay governance, it was not a coup attempt, by definition. Full stop.

I will conceed that you could call some people actions seditious, but could you please stop calling it a coup, attempted or otherwise. I don't write encyclopedias so I'm not going to debate against the definition.

It could however be portrayed as an attempted revolution, based on that definition...