The buffoons were a distraction. There is evidence coming out that there was reconnaissance being aided by sitting officials. The DC police were intentionally left to fend for themselves, National Guard was not only not ordered but offers of assistance were declined. A laptop was stolen, and who knows what other national security issues were breached. It wasn’t a “coup” because it wasn’t successful. It was certainly sedition and insurrection, if not outright treason.
Sure, but only because those people wouldn’t vote for him.
Every one of Trump’s beliefs is purely transnational. If a group of people is useful to him he likes them if they aren’t he doesn’t. Of course there is definitely a level of general disdain for non-whites that existed before he entered politics, but I don’t think it was race war level hatred that exists among his base. It was more probably due to an egoist belief that the more someone resembles Trump the more superior they are.
? “transactional”?
Both work, given he isn’t going to do a transaction solely because it’s in the US’s interests, ala his dealings with Putin. So, yes, transnational and transactional. 
There’s something called a bloodless coup. So violence is not necessary.
But if that’s what people were waiting for, they got their wish.
The second type is the self-coup — known in Spanish as an autogolpe — in which a government that came to power through democratic means gradually erodes a country’s democratic institutions to keep itself in power permanently. The Peruvian autogolpe of 1992, in which President Alberto Fujimori dissolved Congress with the help of the military, is a classic example. Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Russia’s Boris Yeltsin have also been accused of instituting slow-motion self-coups. The “deep state” operated by the Pakistani military and security apparatus is arguably a type of perpetual self-coup as well.
Bloodless coups almost always have the threat of violence involved somehow. They just are so one sided that no one is actually killed.
It was an attempted coup. Conspiring to use extra-legal means to overthrow the government. That it wasn’t successful doesn’t change what they were trying to do.
Calling it anything else just muddies the water. Providing cover for the reptiles to get away.
Exactly, it just feeds in to the alibi they established for themselves
The threat of violence has been an integral part of Trump’s movement all along. That’s what the “second amendment solutions” and other right wing rhetoric has been about.
So the violence is there if you want it. But it is absolutely unnecessary to calling this an attempted coup. Those who are arguing this point are just trying to minimize the threat of what has happened and what is still happening. This isn’t over.
And it is right there in your “almost always.” Your weasel words give you away.
a) I was addressing the contention that bloodless coups invalidate the definition of a coup including the condition “violent”
b) People died, so the events on the 6th were not bloodless
c) I am much more likely be pendantic and say it was a putsch encouraged to provide cover for an attemped autogolpe then say it wasn’t a coup attempt.
How is this different from a coup attempt in any reasonably useful way? It seems all you’re doing is contortions to narrow the definition of coup for … what socially or politically useful reasons? The only thing I’m seeing here is to object to its being called a coup to minimize the gravity of what happened.
I am really failing to communicate here. A putsch and an autogolpe are just more specific terms for types of coups. What the ex-POTUS was attempting behind the scenes was a autogolpe or coup by the group currently holding power. What the small group of organised and prepared insurrectionists had planned was a putsch or a sudden violent coup that has to happen very quickly to succeed.
To be 100% clear, I think we are not taking this seriously enough. Fascist take overs don’t always succeed on the first try and pretending that a single set back will prevent another, more effective attempt is the kind of folly that destroys democracies.
In no way has @Strassis said this is not a coup; rather the opposite. I think you need to go back and reread the posts.
It was a specific type of coup. And that is why it is important to bring up. If the American public is convinced the only thing they need to worry about is Army troops marching on the Capitol in formation to seize control then we may be shocked to wake up one morning to find our government quietly changed to a dictatorship without them seeing it coming.
For historical perspective, look at the Beer Hall Putsch, which failed spectacularly:
This was seen as a laughable failure and the perpetrators were treated with kid gloves and given a platform to make their position known. Hitler was able to write his book while in a fancy jail (literally a converted castle) where he had complete freedom of activity and plenty of leisure time. He came out more popular and in position to attempt to use the election to get his foot in the door by winning a significant number of seats in the legislature, which let him make a deal with the conservatives in power to form a coalition against the socialists and communists. Then came the Reichstag Fire, which was likely set by Nazis, and an excuse for the legally appointed (not elected) Hitler to seize more power. It was a relatively slow and gradual take over at that point, ending with Hitler declaring himself the sole ruler after the death of the German President in 1934. Slow motion coup by a minority party who seized key positions and leveraged disasters, that they probably caused, to completely take over the government over the course of about 2 years, 10 years after they failed to quickly seize power by force as outsiders.
Yes, you don’t actually need violence to stage a coup.
A coup typically involves the threat of violence, but not necessarily violence outright.
“Pedantic”.
I think pendantic is when you hang on every word looking for something to nitpick.
That’s what I get for trusting the spell check on my phone. Not quite sure why it let that through. Well, I guess you hang that one around my neck.
It’ll make a lovely pendant there.