Okay, January 6th.

The one where a) there is video of Capitol police guiding people into the Capitol building, and b) once there...

... the intruders, trespassers at best...

...took selfies.

Ohhh, the humanity!

Let us look AWAY from the BLM riots, that cost millions and killed dozens! They were MOSTLY PEACEFUL, burning out businesses and looting! Shriek!

Behind every double standard is an unconfessed single standard.

Radwaste, An example for your list. Horn hat wearing shaman walked into Capitol building Jan. 6, 2021, had photos taken, was put on trial very quickly, received 41 months prison time for obstruction. Antifa guy attacks U.S. Marshals with four pound sledgehammer during siege of federal court house in late summer of 2020 finally sentenced to 46 months. One of those sentences seems a bit excessive.

I can't decide if I believe this is just a side effect of the internet, in which a certain degree of anonymity turns people into assholes, or if there's something more sinister going on.

Because sometimes it really seems like someone's behind this, like someone's pulling strings.

Let's just say if Russia or China is behind this and it is a psy-ops they are brilliant.

Let's just say if Russia or China is behind this and it is a psy-ops they are brilliant.

NicoleK at December 19, 2021 8:35 AM

The Democratic Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of foreign, anti democratic interests.

The entire article is divisive. Then, I'd expect no less from The Daily Beast.

========================================

After all, the leader of the failed coup.... ~ from the Daily Beast article linked

Coup? Has an impartial arbiter determined that this was a actually a coup and not a bunch of idiots out wandering around?

We have Liz Cheney reading emails in which Republican "leaders" are urging the president to tell the people illegally inside the Capitol to go home. This, as she's distorting the timeline to imply that over three hours passed from the onset of said incursion to the president issuing a plea for the rioters to go home.

In contrast, we have video of Capitol police officers opening and holding the doors for the supposed "coup" attempt.

In fact, the only person killed by violence during this "coup" was a rioter who was shot by a Capitol police officer. Said officer then publicly held himself up as a profile in courage.

All this outrage is coming from politicians who were silent, even supportive, as rioters, conveniently far away from them, tore apart American cities, killed people, destroyed businesses, and attacked federal buildings. Once the rioters got close, however, rioting became a personal attack against them and deserving of the most vicious imprecations.

Sorry Charlie, but the Left lost all right to point fingers and complain about riots, coups, and attacks on people when it not only ignored, but cheered on, violent riots in American cities.

The current vice president even urged people to contribute to a fund established to post bail for jailed rioters.

Complicit media outlets called the riots "mostly peaceful," even while broadcasting segment from in front of burning buildings.

========================================

...his anti-democratic lies about the 2020 election.... ~ from the Daily Beast article linked

As for "lies about the 2020 election," I'll give them that. Even as we have every reason to complain there were shenanigans in several vote counts - and there were - the states certified their vote results and sent their Electors to Washington.

Normally, the Congressional tabulation of votes is what the New York Times calls a "perfunctory confirmation of the Electoral College vote."

Lawmakers can object to any state's results, but the bar for rejection of those results is high. Objections must be cosigned by a member of both chambers.

Several Democratic congressmen objected to the election results during the 2017 tabulation, but failed to get a Senate cosigner, so their objections were quickly rejected.

Several objections were lodged by Republicans in the 2020 tabulation, but the Capitol riot

Several objections were lodged by Republicans in the 2020 tabulation, but the Capitol riot ~ Conan the Grammarian at December 19, 2021 9:30 AM

Posted before finished. here's the finish:

Several objections were lodged by Republicans in the 2020 tabulation, but the Capitol riot caused several of them to withdraw their objections. In that, the Capitol riot was counterproductive, as most riots are.

Conan Says:

"Coup? Has an impartial arbiter determined that this was a actually a coup and not a bunch of idiots out wandering around?"

It is entirely possible for a bunch of idiots wandering around to be involved in a failed coup.

In fact, a bunch of wandering idiots are the individuals most likely to fail at a coup.

We should be happy that they were idiots... had they been more intelligent they would have been less likely to fail at their stated goals to subvert the constitution.

Weren't they planning on lynching Mitch McConnell?

Weren't they planning on lynching Mitch McConnell?

NicoleK at December 20, 2021 6:34 AM

Anyone been charged with that? Asking for a friend.

I don't know about any coup, but I do know when you doctor evidence you aren't legitimate.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/15/during-january-6-hearing-schiff-doctored-text-messages-between-mark-meadows-and-rep-jim-jordan/

Weren't they planning on lynching Mitch McConnell? ~ NicoleK at December 20, 2021 6:34 AM

Planning on? Or screaming about? Kinda like screaming "I'll kill him" with no actual plan or intent to carry out said murder.

Crowd: "Let's hang him in effigy!"
Coach: "The hell with that. Let's hang him right here in Boston."

Planning on? Or screaming about? Kinda like screaming "I'll kill him" with no actual plan or intent to carry out said murder.

Crowd: "Let's hang him in effigy!"
Coach: "The hell with that. Let's hang him right here in Boston."

Conan the Grammarian at December 20, 2021 11:43 AM

Yea, some people need to read up on the required legal elements to prove a conspiracy. It is a lot tougher than most people think. Requires a lot more than yelling *fucking A* every time some instigator screams some inflammatory bullshit.

It is entirely possible for a bunch of idiots wandering around to be involved in a failed coup. ~ Artemis at December 20, 2021 12:23 AM

Accidental coups - i.e., coups orchestrated and carried out by idiots out wandering around - are very rare. Even Mali's 2012 purported accidental overthrow of Amadou Toumani Touré was carried out with organization and planning. Fueled by the military's dissatisfaction with the government's conduct opposing the Tuareg rebellion, the intent of the putsch was to alter the government's conduct.

The January 6 incursion into the Capitol was not carried out with any organization or planning. No seat of power was seized, except to be sat on for selfies. It did, however, obstruct the government in carrying out its lawful duties. As such the punishment should fit the actual crime and not the hyperbole of insurrection.

In that spirit, let's punish these rioters to the same degree that we punished the ones who, on a nightly basis, tried to burn down the federal courthouse in Portland, launching firebombs at the building and concrete milkshakes at federal officers. Or the ones who actually burned down a police precinct in Minneapolis. You know, the ones Kamala Harris and other lefties urged us to help bail out of jail.

"a bunch of wandering idiots"

Sounds like the title to a Renaissance Faire lilt about Congress.

A Bunch Of Wandering Idiots Were They

Lyrics, anyone?

A Bunch Of Wandering Idiots Were They ~ Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 20, 2021 12:35 PM

My original description, "idiots out wandering around," was a tongue-in-cheek reference to a Midwestern joke about what the "IOWA" on that state's license plates stands for.

Conan Says:

"Accidental coups - i.e., coups orchestrated and carried out by idiots out wandering around - are very rare."

You are spending a great deal of time trying to append additional qualifiers.

The people who broke into the capitol building during the counting of the electoral votes with an intention to disrupt a constitutionally defined procedure did not end up there by accident.

They travelled to DC on purpose... they marched to the capitol on purpose... they entered the capitol building on purpose.

None of that was just a bunch of random accidental events.

It is entirely possible for a collection of idiots to purposefully break into the capitol building in an effort to disrupt a constitutional process and to fail.

If you want to call it a failed coup orchestrated by idiots that is fine.

However, it is inappropriate to restrict the usage of the word coup only to successful bids to overthrow a government or to attempts that you believe are well planned and organized.

Attempted murder by a moron who fails to kill their target is still attempted murder.

"Planning on? Or screaming about? Kinda like screaming "I'll kill him" with no actual plan or intent to carry out said murder."

What would you think of someone who broke into your home ranting and raving about how they were going to drag you out and murder you if they managed to find you?

Would you accept their defense that they were drunk and never actually killed you as a legitimate defense that they hadn't actually planned to kill you?

I would say that you would be fully justified saying that this hypothetical moron attempted to kill you in such a scenario.

I certainly wouldn't play strange games trying to define how well planned out the attempt was... or point out that since you are still alive somehow that discredits the idea that an attempt on your life was in play.

I get that you don't like the fact that folks on the political right (including elected officials on the political right) were involved in an attempt to subvert the constitution... but that's the world we live in and you are going to have to come to terms with that somehow.

Isab Says:

"Yea, some people need to read up on the required legal elements to prove a conspiracy. It is a lot tougher than most people think. Requires a lot more than yelling *fucking A* every time some instigator screams some inflammatory bullshit."

It isn't necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that something was a failed coup in order to describe something as a failed coup.

If you disagree with that statement, I will point out that no one has successfully met the legal elements to prove that such comments by the author are defamatory.

Hence by your own standard they are free to make such declarations up to the point that their statements have been demonstrated to be inappropriate in a court of law.

Basically, your perspective fails on logical grounds either way.

However, it is inappropriate to restrict the usage of the word coup only to successful bids to overthrow a government or to attempts that you believe are well planned and organized

Not really.

"Coup" is not limited to successful overthrows but, to be a coup attempt, it does have to start out as an attempt to overthrow the government, not simply disrupt one aspect of it.

Wikipedia defines a coup as "A coup d'état (...French for "blow of state"), usually shortened to coup, (also known as an overthrow) is a seizure and removal of a government and its powers. Typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, military, or a dictator."

The ingredients for a coup simply are not present in this. As much as you desperately want to see right-wing politicians hauled off to jail as traitors and left-wing political operatives heralded as defenders of democracy, it ain't gonna happen outside your own fantasies.

========================================

I get that you don't like the fact that folks on the political right (including elected officials on the political right) were involved in an attempt to subvert the constitution... but that's the world we live in and you are going to have to come to terms with that somehow. ~ Artemis at December 20, 2021 2:29 PM

You "get" very little about me Artie. Almost nothing, in fact.

========================================

It isn't necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that something was a failed coup in order to describe something as a failed coup. ~ Artemis at December 20, 2021 2:36 PM

Providing some means of dispelling doubt is necessary if you're trying to convince the country that the people you're accusing of treason actually committed or backed it. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

By the way, Artie, that was a pretty weak defense of why you get to call it a failed coup without actually offering a solid argument or any evidence that it was, in fact, even an attempted coup; that you simply want to call it that.

The "evidence" of a coup being presented by the January 6 committee, a committee populated almost entirely by virulently anti-Trump people, is so far a joke. Schiff has been caught selectively editing texts while Cheney is falsifying timelines.

No verdict by a jury so biased would be allowed to stand on appeal. No evidence so doctored would be presented at an actual trial, that is if the prosecutor were at all competent. However, Pelosi populated this particular kangaroo court with politicians she knew would return her foregone conclusion and excluded those who would not.

"Shoot straight, you bastards!" ~ "Breaker" Morant

So far, all this committee has proven is that very few "folks on the political right (including elected officials on the political right)" supported an incursion into the Capitol or any attempt to disrupt the vote certification.

Conan Says:

""Coup" is not limited to successful overthrows but, to be a coup attempt, it does have to start out as an attempt to overthrow the government, not simply disrupt one aspect of it."

The aspect that was being disrupted was the mechanism by which we select the leader of the executive branch of government.

They weren't acting in an effort to "simply disrupt" some easily forgettable vote in a subcommittee.

"Wikipedia defines..."

You've criticized usage of wikipedia articles as useless before when they don't serve your purposes... therefore I don't really care if you choose to quote them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that jazz.

In any event, I am aware of what a coup is... and in this particular case we had a group of violent and politically radicalized individuals invade the capitol building with the stated goal of subverting a constitutional process because they wanted a different result in the presidential election.

Stupid and disorganized as they might have been, they had a goal to subvert the democratic will of the people and install their own preferred executive branch of government.

If the coup fits...

"Providing some means of dispelling doubt is necessary if you're trying to convince the country that the people you're accusing of treason actually committed or backed it."

One only need dispel the doubts of reasonable actors.

Unreasonable actors will by definition never be convinced of anything.

For example, it is not necessary to convince Donald Trump or many of his sycophantic followers that he lost the 2020 election for him to have actually lost.

Conspiracy theory nut balls do not have reasonable doubts and hence I am not the least bit concerned about convincing them of anything.

It is a waste of effort... just like I'm not here to convince you of anything either. I'm speaking to hypothetical reasonable third parties that may come across this discussion in the future.

You've criticized usage of wikipedia [sic] articles as useless before.... ~ Artemis at December 20, 2021 6:18 PM

As a publicly-edited forum, I generally find Wikipedia to be a less-than-optimal source for technical information and subject-matter expertise. However, for general information, I have, in the past, used and accepted wikipedia as a source.

========================================

I'm speaking to hypothetical reasonable third parties that may come across this discussion in the future. ~ Artemis at December 20, 2021 6:18 PM

Oh yeah, you're the one "reasonable third parties" in the future will look to for sanity.

Artie, the Capitol incursion was a reprehensible action and deserving of condign imprecation, but to call it a coup is to stretch the meaning of "coup" as well as the intent and capability of the rioters. Punish them for what they did. They deserve it - as do the rioters who attacked American cities claiming they were fighting for racial justice, all while burning down small businesses and turning their cities into war zones.

Those rioters were bailed out by progressives because they occupied the "correct" side of the political divide. I remember you defending the rioters as "mostly peaceful" protestors, too, Artie.

To paraphrase a Maggie McNeil tweet, "If your belief in criminal justice varies with who's on the throne and whose neck the noose is around, you are both a hypocrite and a fool."

Conan Says:

"As a publicly-edited forum, I generally find Wikipedia to be a less-than-optimal source for technical information and subject-matter expertise. However, for general information, I have, in the past, used and accepted wikipedia as a source."

I see no reason to accept you as an expert arbiter in terms of which information from wikipedia is useful as a source and which information is to be rejected.

The conditions of your use are only self-serving.

Basically, it is either in or it is out... it certainly isn't a reliable source when you say so and isn't reliable when you say it isn't.

In any event, several scholars have described what happened on January 6th as an attempted "autocoup" or an attempted "self-coup", which is distinct from a "coup d'état".

Both of these are shorthanded as a "coup" in casual conversation.

Next I'm sure you'll describe how you know all about autocoups instead of acknowledging that your understanding of the conversation isn't quite as complete as you thought it was.

Here is an article from the Brookings institute on the subject written by a professor with expertise in the area of political science:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/01/08/no-its-not-a-coup-its-a-failed-self-coup-that-will-undermine-us-leadership-and-democracy-worldwide/

When such individuals feel comfortable using terminology associated with autocoups we are all in good company if we choose to do the same.

Conan, I appreciate your efforts but what we have here is a high functioning autistic pedantic troll afflicted with a serious case of religious leftism masquerading as science.

The only defense is to starve it.

Atterbury,

Have you considered the possibility that folks on the far political right are not really capable of having conversations with people with a differing perspective?

I could cite several examples where I have made an attempt to bring facts to light on this blog that have met with unrealistic resistance.

The 2018 and 2020 elections are two such examples... the pandemic is another... climate change is a fourth.

It is almost as if many folks here cannot deal with facts and realities that don't align with their political beliefs.

In any event, several scholars have described what happened on January 6th as an attempted "autocoup" or an attempted "self-coup", which is distinct from a "coup d'état".

Several scholars, eh? Weasel words, Artie. Nothing specific, but an appeal to unseen authority.

Your designation of this incursion as an autogolpe or "self-coup" implies that the executive was in charge of the effort to gut the power of the other branches of government. So far, no evidence of Trump directing or being in control of the rioters has been presented. In fact, no actual control over the rioters has been uncovered. It was not a coup, but a mob.

While Trump did urge state officials and, later, federal officials to overturn what he insisted were illegally cast or counted ballots, none of those officials, even Republican ones, acceded to his demands. So much for that conspiracy.

As for this incursion being an actual coup, of any type, it was a mob from the beginning. This has all the hallmarks of a protest that quickly got out of hand. Perhaps those who rioted were spurred by Trump's exhortations to "stop the steal." Perhaps they were spurred by other causes, other hatreds. Perhaps they were spurred by the riots in other cities, riots in which the rioters were defended and even bailed out of jail by leading political and cultural figures.

When you've let mobs get away with violence and intimidation before, you should not be shocked when the mob eventually comes for you.

The violence both inside and outside the Capitol is reprehensible, and criminal; the people who instigated it and participated in it should face legal repercussions - to the extent of their involvement.

As should those who threw concrete milkshakes and explosive devices at law enforcement officials or torched federal buildings and private businesses during riots far from Washington, DC. You know, the ones your fellow progressives defended and helped to bail out of jail.

On a side note, Trump's demands for personal loyalty always struck me as a bit too mafia-like in a US president, even at times exceeding Nixon's paranoia. A holdover from his Queens upbringing and marination in the cauldron of New York construction, perhaps, but unseemly in a president nonetheless.

========================================

I see no reason to accept you as an expert arbiter in terms of which information from wikipedia is useful as a source and which information is to be rejected.

Well, if you see no reason, then I guess the matter is settled.

Or not, since we certainly cannot accept you as the expert arbiter of acceptable information sources. Your sourcing of arguments from partisan think tanks and their easily debunked "studies" is now legendary on this forum.

========================================

Conan, I appreciate your efforts but what we have here is a high functioning autistic pedantic troll afflicted with a serious case of religious leftism masquerading as science. ~ Atterbury at December 21, 2021 11:59 AM

While I've had my doubts about the autism part, thinking he showed too much ego to be autistic, I do wonder now if what we're seeing is ego or the characteristic lack of self-awareness common in autistic individuals.

You'll get no pushback from me on the troll part; nor about his religious leftism.

========================================

I could cite several examples where I have made an attempt to bring facts to light on this blog that have met with unrealistic resistance. ~ Artemis at December 21, 2021 1:39 PM

You see, Atterbury, Artie is the light-bringer. Only he has the intellectual acuity to discern fact from fantasy. He is never wrong or mistaken. Only he can enlighten the benighted masses. He is the hope of all mankind, the modern Prometheus.

Conan Says:

"Several scholars, eh? Weasel words, Artie. Nothing specific, but an appeal to unseen authority."

I provided you a link to one of the articles that references the exact characterization I am talking about.

That is as specific as it gets on a blog where you cannot put multiple links per post.

You just don't like the fact that there are recognized experts in the field that don't agree with you.

The author of that particular article is Charles Call, a professor at American University.

This is what I love about you... you will cite wikipedia as an authoritative source if and only if you believe the information supports whatever your position happens to be... then reject it otherwise.

Then you will also disregard any experts who hold different opinions than you.

This isn't about an appeal to some "unseen authority"... it is about recognizing that you are not an authority on any subject at all.

Charles Call as just one example knows far more than you do about this topic and he feels comfortable describing what occurred as an autocoup.

As a result it is entirely reasonable for people to use similar terminology even if you happen not to like it.

Your personal layperson's opinion on this topic is not and should not be convincing to anyone of substance.

"Your designation of this incursion as an autogolpe or "self-coup" implies that the executive was in charge of the effort to gut the power of the other branches of government."

Not my designation... it is a description chosen by political science experts.

Charles Call is just one example... you are more than welcome to do your own homework to find other examples as there are many just a google search away.

If you are too lazy or inept to perform a simply google search then you are beyond my assistance.

"Well, if you see no reason, then I guess the matter is settled."

Yes Conan, the matter is settled that just because you want to be the authority that determines what information from wikipedia is credible and what information isn't doesn't carry any weight.

The source is either in or it is out... I'm not the least bit interested in leaving this as a matter of your personal judgement.

"You see, Atterbury, Artie is the light-bringer. Only he has the intellectual acuity to discern fact from fantasy. He is never wrong or mistaken. Only he can enlighten the benighted masses. He is the hope of all mankind, the modern Prometheus."

Oh fuck off with this nonsense.

None of this is about me.

You reject all facts and evidence and information from experts that doesn't align with what you already believe or want to believe.

I just linked to an entire article and you didn't even bother to respond to any of the content of the article.

Instead you pretended that I didn't even give you anything specific to look at.

Conan,

Since you haven't demonstrated much skill doing google searches, I'll give you one last bit of assistance.

https://clinecenter.illinois.edu/coup-detat-project-cdp/statement_jan.27.2021

"Using the Cline Center’s Coup D’état Project definitions, the storming of the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 was an attempted coup d’état: an organized, illegal attempt to intervene in the presidential transition by displacing the power of the Congress to certify the election. Specifically, at the time of this writing, we classify it as an attempted dissident coup."

Or is the Cline Center for Advanced Social Research also a "partisan institute"?

As I've said before... you reject any and all information that doesn't agree with what you want to believe.

The reality is that experts in this particular field of study do not share your opinion. They know more than you do.

As a result, it is very reasonable to describe what happened as a coup despite your ranting and raving.

No one who matters cares what some random dude named Conan has to say on the subject in some random corner of the internet.

People do care what political science experts have to say on the other hand.

This doesn't mean you aren't entitled to your uneducated opinion on the matter, you are also free to believe the earth is flat... but no one need take you seriously on either topic.

"Or is the Cline Center for Advanced Social Research also a "partisan institute"?" ~Arty

Umm . . . yes. I mean that isn't even hard to figure out.

"People do care what political science experts have to say on the other hand." ~Arty

Are you sure about that? Can you name these people?

You be you, Artie.

Ben Says:

"Umm . . . yes. I mean that isn't even hard to figure out."

It is a center associated with a state university in Illinois.

You live in a bizarre world where apparently all universities are "partisan".

The fundamental problem with folks like you and Conan are that you apply the partisan label after you discover what was said.

Additionally, if those so-called "partisan" experts ever happen to agree with your perspective on anything you are more than happy to quote them.

"Are you sure about that? Can you name these people?"

I already did... you guys are a joke.

Ok Arty. I mean it isn't even hard to tell Cline is a left wing propaganda group. Forget about the coup nonsense, just look at the other articles they publish on their own website. They aren't even trying to hide it.

When they are this obvious about it why can't you see it?

Next I'm sure you'll describe how you know all about autocoups instead of acknowledging that your understanding of the conversation isn't quite as complete as you thought it was. ~ Artemis at December 21, 2021 11:02 AM

Artie, you love to do this. You introduce some tangential quasi-relevant topic and when someone says they already knew that, you claim they're lying because they didn't introduce it themselves.

You did this with the airplane bullet holes and survivor bias. Artie, I've studied World War II in great detail. In the numerous books and articles I've read and collected over the years on that topic are several references to Wald and survivor bias. I've studied it in business management and statistics classes as well.

But, because I did not specifically mention it by name to you, you insist I couldn't have known about it until you enlightened me.

========================================

Charles Call as just one example knows far more than you do about this topic and he feels comfortable describing what occurred as an autocoup. ... you are more than welcome to do your own homework to find other examples as there are many just a google search away. ~ Artemis at December 21, 2021 10:04 PM

What thank you, Artie. Now that I have your permission to Google this, I will. /sarcasm

Naunihal Singh, as just one example, knows far more than either of us, perhaps both of us, about this topic and he feels comfortable describing what occurred as not a coup. Singh, a professor at the US Naval War College, authored a book on the subject of coups in 2014, Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups.

Even the normally left-leaning New York Times opined, "the violent, anti-democratic attack on the Capitol doesn’t fit the technical definition of a coup even though the president incited and encouraged it."

The Times went on to cite Singh, "'Although some of the people that stormed the Capitol were armed, they do not appear to be part of any organized military or rebel organization. And while Mr. Trump encouraged his loyalists in his capacity as a leader of their movement, he did not try to call the military to their aid, or otherwise use the formal powers of the presidency to help them,' said Naunihal Singh, a professor at the Naval War College whose research focuses on coups."

The Times piece then went on to say that, even though this was not a coup, it was a dangerous anti-democratic action that could prove to be more dangerous in the long run than an actual coup.

While I might disagree with some of the Times' specific points in this piece, I do concur with the general assessment.

However, I would add that left-wing politicians accepting and cheering on violent riots in American cities that are not the capital will also have the long-term effect of eroding the rule of law that is a foundational underpinning of democracy and will produce dangerous anti-democratic repercussions down the road.

Today, politicians of both parties are engaged in activities designed to delegitimize any duly elected government of the other party - even ones no longer in power. As such, democracy in America is in danger of being slowly being eroded by the effects of this partisan scorched earth warfare being practiced by both parties.

So, you see, Artie, one can be appalled by the Capitol incursion and still believe it not to be a coup attempt. This is the type of nuance that you never seem to grasp.

Ben,

Flat earthers have serious issues with every astronomy department and NASA... that doesn't mean there is a vast conspiracy.

Most often academics converge on the same general idea or theme because the data supports those conclusions.

In terms of the work they have done:

"2018 SBSRI Grant: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence to Document Uses of Lethal Force by Law Enforcement in Nearly Real Time"

Okay... so they want to collect data associated with police shootings and analyze it... that is the kind of thing social science researchers do.

Proposing to collect data to study an issue isn't "partisan" any more than it is "partisan" to perform research related to coronavirus.

"The Coup D'Etat Project (CDP)"

I'll note that this project started in 2017... 3 years in advance of what happened on Janurary 6th 2020. So what you are arguing is that a "partisan" group of academics sought to study Coup's across the globe with a secret goal of declaring that one happened in the US 3 years later?

That is aluminum foil hat level conspiracy thinking.

They didn't create this project *after* January 6th as a "partisan" response... they were doing this work for years prior with no idea what was going to occur in the future. I am sure they were as shocked by what happened as most of us were.

"Domestic Perspectives on Contemporary Democracy (Democracy, Free Enterprise, and the Rule)"

Okay... another typical social science study surrounding Democracy. This isn't the least bit unusual.

The point is that all of the items they study fall well under what we might expect social scientists to collect data on and study.

Now in terms of publications:

journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0081175015581378

Here they study civil strife.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002713503809

Here they study how environmental disasters create civil unrest.

Journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/668543

Here they study the rule of law and how it has been implemented over the last ~150 years.

None of these things should raise alarm bells or red flags for reasonable people.

Conan Says:

"So, you see, Artie, one can be appalled by the Capitol incursion and still believe it not to be a coup attempt. This is the type of nuance that you never seem to grasp."

Don't be daft Conan.

The only one here lacking nuance is you... big surprise.

There are two items that are possible:

1 - It is possible to be appalled by the events of January 6th and still believe it was not a coup attempt.

2 - It is possible to be appalled by the events of January 6th and believe that it was a coup attempt.

See that... it is possible for *BOTH* of these to be true.

I'm not objecting to your opinion that you land in category 1... I am objecting to your immediate rejection of folks who land in category 2.

That is always the entire premise of your discussion on this subject.

You dismiss people in group 2 out of hand and then pitch a fit about how people aren't respecting your right to hold to position 1.

You've got things backwards.

You have difficulty with people holding opinions that differ from your own.

This particular issue isn't like acknowledging that the earth goes around the sun.

My point about bringing in experts who have a different opinion than you do is to demonstrate that people far more informed in this area than you are do not share your opinion.

That isn't to demonstrate that you need to shift from option 1 to 2... but you should be able to recognize that educated and reasonable people disagree with you.

Can you do that Conan... are you prepared to admit that educated and reasonable people describe the events of January 6th as a coup and they just have a difference in opinion as compared to you?

Or are you going to insist they are "wrong" and that only people who agree with you are reasonable?

The bee stuff doesn't raise any bells with you, Arty? Good to know I guess.

But hey, you get accused of bringing up fringe partisan groups and in rebuttal you bring up an obvious partisan group. Odd choice but you do you.

Can you do that Conan... are you prepared to admit that educated and reasonable people describe the events of January 6th as a coup and they just have a difference in opinion as compared to you? ~ Artemis at December 22, 2021 2:43 PM

You're projecting again, Artie.

Can you accept that educated and reasonable people describe the events of January 6th as not a coup and they just have a difference in opinion as compared to you?

You, Artie, are the one who cannot admit that educated and reasonable people can see the same situation and have a difference of opinion. Of course, you'll respond by saying that no one on this blog, but you, is educated and reasonable, "This blog ... has since devolved into an echo chamber of drooling morons."

You were the one who accused me, in the immediate aftermath of 6-Jan, of blindly putting party over country because I did not agree with you that it was an insurrection, "You should want the same thing and stop prioritizing 'team red'... country over party Conan... it isn't that difficult." [Poor use of eclipses there BTW, Artie]

Artie, you were also the one who leaped in to accuse the right-wing mob of murder before there was any evidence that the mob had caused the death, "They murdered a police officer." Turns, out he was felled by multiple strokes and showed no sign of blunt force trauma.

In the same thread, you defended a left-wing mob that I opined had murdered a retired police chief, "...he was murdered by one guy." There were seven people looting the pawn shop Dorn was trying to defend. There were 25 arrests made that night and 55+ businesses reporting theft and/or property damage. I'll stand by my use of "mob" for that situation.

Had the fire extinguisher you insisted the right-wing mob used to murder Brian Sicknick proved to be an actual murder weapon, it would have been wielded by "one guy." Would you have accepted the argument that Sicknick was "murdered by one guy," then? Unlikely.

And Artie, if you defended the riots that tore apart several American cities and even helped fund the rioters' bail, you don't get to take the moral high ground about the Capitol incursion, just because, this time, you don't agree with the mob's stated reason for rioting.

Conan Says:

"You, Artie, are the one who cannot admit that educated and reasonable people can see the same situation and have a difference of opinion."

Since your memory seems foggy let me remind you of how you started off in this thread:

"Coup? Has an impartial arbiter determined that this was a actually a coup and not a bunch of idiots out wandering around?"

These are not the words of someone who believes that educated and reasonable people can hold a different opinion than you.

You've demanded an "impartial arbiter" to determine whether or not they can even hold such a position.

In other words, they cannot even say such things unless a third party you approve of gives them the thumbs up.

You did not present this as a simple difference of opinion upon which two educated and reasonable people could disagree... you have not even acknowledged that their position is the least bit reasonable at all.

My objection to your stance has always been about how hard line you are about your position.

Now let's contrast this with my initial statement:

"It is entirely possible for a bunch of idiots wandering around to be involved in a failed coup."

I am simply arguing for the possibility that your perspective is in error.

I am arguing that people who disagree with your perspective should not be dismissed out of hand.

I'm not projecting Conan... I've called it for what it is.

Conan,

Since you want to dig into history here... why don't we do it properly:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2021/01/linkpeckerhead.html#comments

"You imagine this as an attempted coup, Artie. It was not." - Conan the Grammarian at January 7, 2021 6:11 AM

"The real result of this nonsense will be that lefties will claim the Trump Republicans attempted a coup. They will use that as an excuse to impose left-wing governance on the country and demonize the opposition party." - Conan the Grammarian at January 7, 2021 6:11 AM

Now keep in mind that I hadn't even mentioned the word Coup and you were already accusing me of "imagining" things and saying that the *real* problem was the political left... and their response to people storming the capitol with the stated intent of murdering government officials.

Now here was my response:

"Sure Conan... when a bunch of BLM protestors spray painted a building you were ready to hang them high... but when a bunch of right-wing Trump supporters breach the capitol building during the electoral vote count causing every member of Congress to have to be evacuated... it's not an attempted coup." - Artemis at January 7, 2021 10:51 AM

So let's compare... you preemptively assert I am in some sense delusional if I hold a different opinion than you do... and my response is to explain how your perspective on this event was in stark contrast to your previously stated positions on less serious issues like spray paint vandalism.

One need not have an overactive imagination to conclude that what occurred on January 6th was an attempted Coup Conan.

From day 1 you had your conclusion, and no other opinions were acceptable.

Differences in opinion were cast as the silly thoughts of someone whose imagination got away from them.

You have a bad habit of setting your opinion up as the default position and anyone who disagrees needs to have a court backed opinion in order to have a seat at the table.

I know I never placed you in such a seat of authority... and based on your poor track record you don't deserve one.

You're just going to have to get used to walking around in the muck with the rest of us.

Let's look at what I said, in full this time, "You imagine this as an attempted coup, Artie. It was not. This was a bunch of undersexed, under-educated morons demanding to be heard, but with nothing to say. They'd elevated Trump to mythical status and were angry that their superhero was no longer president. Once inside the Capitol, the mob took selfies - like a dog running into a room and forgetting why he'd gone in there."

In that thread, the word "coup" had been used already. Not by you, but the topic was on the table. Your subsequent posts on the subject validated my opinion of your view of the mob action at the Capitol. You used terms like "traitorous scum" and "seditious traitors" to describe the mob in the Capitol.

Nor did you protest, at that time, my use of "coup" as not in line with your thinking then; you accepted my characterization of your thinking.

...and my response is to explain how your perspective on this event was in stark contrast to your previously stated positions on less serious issues like spray paint vandalism. ~ Artemis at December 22, 2021 7:40 PM

Your response is to mischaracterize my issue with the BLM protests.

My issue, then and now, with "BLM protestors" was not with protests or simple vandalism; not their spray painting a building, but their attempts to burn several of them down. It was with the violence that accompanied BLM's "mostly peaceful" protests. Burning buildings, blocked traffic, violence, attempted murder, concrete milkshakes, and more were the hallmarks of these "mostly peaceful" protests you kept defending, even to the point of excusing the violence as being committed by "outsiders." Outsider agitators BLM never seemed to exclude or assist the police in identifying.

You have demonstrated a habit, Artie, of deciding what you want my argument to be instead of paying attention to what my argument actually is. The right to protest is enshrined in the Constitution. The right to burn down buildings and steal from stores is not. My issue is, and was, with the latter, not the former. I disagree with BLM's assertions about American policing and its stated reasons for protesting, but not with their right to protest whatever cause motivates them.

As for my opinion that the left would use 6-Jan as a pretext to increase its own power, along with accusing Republicans of treason, the left is currently demanding:

• an end to what it designates as "hate speech"
• the replacement of impartial employment and college admission standards with race-based quotas
• more justices to ensure a Supreme Court biased toward left-wing jurisprudence (i.e., Court packing)
• replacement of teachers and professors who do not toe their line in curriculum and subject matter
• regulation of what it alone designates "misinformation" in the media
• censorship of media outlets with which it does not agree
• an end to the Electoral College
• and end to the Senate filibuster
• statehood for territories and federal districts that it believes are likely to vote left-wing candidates
• federal control over state elections
• federal mask and vaccine mandates

These demands and more represent a desire for an extension of federal control over powers that were reserved for the states in the Constitution; federal control in the hands of fellow travelers.

These, Artie, are the priorities and policies of an authoritarian-minded political movement, not a party dedicated to the protection of the Constitution. The authoritarian-minded right is not the only threat degrading democracy here.

Conan Says:

"In that thread, the word "coup" had been used already. Not by you, but the topic was on the table."

It is kind of relevant that you were busy dismissing a position I never even stated on the basis that someone else entirely was talking about the word "coup".

"Nor did you protest, at that time, my use of "coup" as not in line with your thinking then; you accepted my characterization of your thinking."

What sort of nonsense is this?

You are free to ascribe any position you like to me and unless I specifically object then you presume that I take ownership of it?

That isn't how reasonable discussion works.

How would you like me just ascribing all sorts of positions to you... arguing against them while suggesting you are foolish for holding those positions... and then asserting that unless you specifically object to those games that those are in fact my positions and your preemptive nonsense was valid from the start.

You're an asshole Conan... decent and reasonable people don't hold conversations that way.

Decent and reasonable people find out what other people think... they don't shove words into their mouths.

You're an asshole Conan... ~ Artemis at December 23, 2021 11:30 AM

As Lee Marvin said in The Professionals: "Yes sir. In my case an accident of birth. But you sir, you're a self-made man."

Merry Christmas, Artie.

And, for crying out loud, Artie, learn how to use ellipses.

Conan,

I'll simply note that for all your bloviating you haven't managed to acknowledge that you were busy doing damage control for the political perception of the events of January 6th within 24 hours of its occurrence.

Ever since you have pitched a fit whenever you have imagined that anyone might suggest that the individuals involved were a politically motivated group of people who sought to overturn the presidential election through violent and illegal means.

Your primary concern has always the negative perception this might cast upon your preferred political movement. This is why you are always policing the kinds of language others are permitted to use.

Poling has shown that more than half of the American public is comfortable describing the events of that day as a Coup (including ~33% of registered Republicans).

You can rant and rave and object all you like, but all your foot stomping will not change reality.

Your perspective is in the minority and yet you still presume you have the right to tell anyone who disagrees with you to be silent and adjust their language to suit your personal preferences.

It would be helpful for you to realize that no one really cares if you give them permission to describe it as a Coup or any other terminology you personally object to.

Conan,

Just as an FYI... your perspective on the events of January 6th becomes more and more ridiculous as time goes on:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/new-york-man-pleads-guilty-conspiracy-and-obstruction-charges-related-jan-6-capitol

"According to court documents, Matthew Greene, 34, of Syracuse, conspired with fellow members of the Proud Boys, a self-described “pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world; aka Western Chauvinists.” Greene pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of obstruction of an official proceeding this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."

As of this very week we already have one person pleading guilty to conspiring with members of an organization to disrupt the constitutional process of our federal government.

That individual is going to now be working with law enforcement as they handle criminal prosecution of other members of that group.

Tell me Conan... does it mean anything to you at all that someone has plead guilty to a conspiracy to interfere with the electoral college vote that determines the next president of the United States?

Does the fact that this took place in a court of law hold any meaning for you?

Is that independent enough?... or will you now define the criminal justice system now a partisan outlet as well?