Talk:2021 U.S. coup attempt

	This United States politics related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Renaming?

It's been renamed on Wikipedia to "2021 United States Capitol attack". While we don't follow what Wikipedia does, the name for this article was decided pretty shortly after the attack occured. It may be useful to evaluate how our sources describe this incident and rename the article accordingly. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm a fan of describing it as an 'insurrection'.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think riot works. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 20:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Article is propaganda

Uh-oh!

Mario's looking pretty upset at this discussion.
Your mileage may vary, but you'll quickly find unpleasantness down here!

Noone was killed in the horribly violent terrorist white supremacist insurrection except one of the rioters (an idiot Qanon nut who was unarmed).

Nobody was killed and nobody was armed with guns (2nd amendment), the rioters weren't even attempting to murder any elected officials.

People who think this was anything more than a riot that got out of control are fools. Stop playing into the hands of the deep state elitists (the people who said Iraq had WMD and Trump colluded with Russia). ^{— Unsigned, by: 158.222.160.238 / talk}

I'm sure they just wanted to metaphorically hang Mike Pence, just for funsies... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

More seriously, you're the one spouting propaganda here. You're the one subscribing to conspiracies. Your the one talking out of his ass. Fucking grow up. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It's fascinating to see how many idiots peremptorily wade in with "Trump didn't collude with Russia" when the investigations found that he very much did. I almost wonder if drive-by tripe like this isn't really about the article but about trying to more firmly plant the idea that Trump had no Russian ties. His adminstration trying to get out ahead of the Mueller report and lie about what it said took some brass neck, and I don't know whether there really are people so stupid that they believed it or whether it's just part of their inauthentic performance. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

No doubt the riot was a shitstorm of yahoos, and many of the rioters were indeed dumb propaganda fueled yahoos and nothing more. But the revealed details behind the Oath Keepers "seditious conspiracy" charge alone should put to rest any "just a riot that got out of control" narrative. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"nobody was armed with guns" That's just straight up false. Pence and Pelosi were also explicit targets.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A common theme on this website seems to be rabid partisanship and detachment from reality. Do you really believe Trump (who IMO is a buffoon and voted against him twice) colluded with Russia? This is from the 2019 Mueller Report itself "we stated in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". Also from reliable source thehill.com debunking the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory "Special counsel Robert Mueller said in his highly anticipated report that Russia sought to help President Trump win the 2016 presidential election, but that the Trump campaign did not directly assist in that process." Also here is the very well-respected Robert Mueller lying about WMD in Iraq. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4740652/user-clip-mueller-wmd-21103 The corrupt deep state is real, not a conspiracy, many ppl across the political spectrum are aware of this fact and are waking up to the reality including radical right-wingers like Dennis Kucinich and Glenn Greenwald. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/after-the-deep-state-sabotaged-his. Kucinich on the U.S. deep state: "The political process of the United States of America [is] under attack by intelligence agencies and individuals in those agencies...You have politicization of agencies that is resulting in leaks from anonymous, unknown people and the intention is to take down a president...Now this is very dangerous to America. It's a threat to our republic, it constitutes a clear and present danger to our way of life". Don't believe what you hear and read in mainstream corporate U.S. media, they lie and have corrupt elitist agendas. 158.222.160.238 (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

sigh --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That's interesting. We shouldn't believe what we hear in corporate media. Then how do we get information on international affairs? Subscribe to Glenn Greenwald, the Russophile? We know that Trump is a very stupid man, who is unable to read more than a few sentences at a time, from the reports of his own staff. I wonder why you care about Trump and his followers? They are all truly fucked.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

OMG how dare someone be a Russophile (you sound like a xenophobe, or maybe you are even worse, maybe you are a "racist" and you should be banned because rationalwiki loves labeling everyone who has right-of-center views on racial issues a "racist" or "white supremacist"). You don't have to believe what i'm saying about the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, just read the words of the people who put out the report that prove no collusion/conspiracy between Trump and Russia occurred e.g. "Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election" and "Russia sought to help Trump win but did not collude with 2016 campaign".https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/439544-mueller-russia-sought-to-help-trump-win-2016-election-but-did-not A lot of people on this website are clueless if they think no military-industrial complex/deep state exists in the U.S (btw most ppl outside of U.S. know this massive corruption exists). Anyway like i mentioned previously they are the same power elite behind the WMD in Iraq lies in 2002/2003.158.222.160.238 (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The report makes it very, very clear that tacit collusion (in the common sense, rather than the technical legal standards the report had to work to) occurred. The military-industrial complex - the 'power elite' in your weird parlance - is indeed very corrupt. It's also the same side that benefited from Trump/Russia. By downplaying the interference, you're doing their work for them, you muppet. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@158.222.160.238 To the accusation of partisanship, has ever occured to you that A) the GOP might be based off of the whims of nutjobs and con men and B) some us might not like the Dems either? To think of politics purely in a partisan binary is to retard one's faculties. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, this BoN did call Glenn Greenwald a "radical right winger", which IMHO is pretty idiotic. (IMHO he's more of a Chicken Little doom-and-gloom sensationalist type than anything else.) Trump's a dummy overall, but for some reason he's able to attract a lot of ass-kissing yes men who are happy to do his dirty work for him. "The Trump campaign colluded with Russia" is fair enough shorthand, IMHO, for what was (more or less) willing support from Trump's stooges to wink and nudge at Russia's efforts at interfering with the 2016 election and beyond. Yes, this interference didn't quite reach the level of a coordinated conspiracy -- which allows for the Trump-friendly side to wiggle their finger and say, "it wasn't a collusion!" and the other side to say "it was!". (Never mind that there is no official crime of "collusion", so making a big deal about this particular word is moot). It's pretty clear, though, that Trump stooges like Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone were a wee bit too comfortable talking to Russian stooges and hackers. Nothing obviously illegal to bring about election conspiracy charges, but unethical enough for them to feel the need to make false statements about it to official investigators (and ending up getting dinged for that). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This BoN has nothing batter to do I see. I'm surprised he hasn't tried to vandalize the Mueller Report article.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as Greenwald being a radical right-winger, that's called "irony". It's also the same side that benefited from Trump/Russia - but wouldn't Russia be against the U.S. military-industrial-complex? I'm confused by your sentence what are you trying to get at? 158.222.160.238 (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It's the US right that's tightest with the military-industrial complex. It's the Republicans that push military spending through the roof when they can, much moreso than the Democrats. The Russians don't give two shits about US hawkishness because there's no realistic prospect of an all-out war, and proxy wars benefit both the Kremlin and the US hawks. The entire point of the military-industrial complex is that it benefits from both war and the threat of war, win, lose or draw. Russia's motivation in helping Trump get elected is obvious: few things could damage their greatest rival more than being led by an incompetent clown with the attention span of a mayfly. Trump never was an outsider in any meaningful sense; he was the swamp he claimed he wanted to drain. As so often is the case with the right wing, his waffle about the 'deep state' was projection; nobody benefitted more from unaccountable backroom horse-trading than he did; he pretended it was his opponents doing it to try and pre-empt any examination of his own actions. You need to learn that 'military-industrial complex' and 'GOP' are close to interchangeable. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that's why i hate the GOP and Trump (also their economic stance is too pro-wealthy and social issues e.g. i'm very much pro-choice and pro-LGBT). But do people here really think politicians like Biden (who supported the illegal Iraq war in 2003) or Clinton or Democrat elitists aren't also big fans of the deep state? Look at what Biden is doing now with Russia. To be clear i don't like autocrats like Putin but is this Ukraine thing really worth it for U.S. to get involved? 158.222.160.238 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The error in all 'deep state' hypotheses is in assuming there exists a centrally-controlled organisation operating to some plan, which people are either a part of or not. The reality is there's just a bunch of rich, amoral assholes serving their own interests piecemeal. Some politicians are similarly amoral and have no problems with mutual back-scratching, others accept that they have to deal with that reality and imagine themselves pragmatists. There's no 'deep state' to be a fan of, in reality. The root problem is corporate capture of politics in general in the US; military companies are just the biggest dogs in the pound. I'm a firm believer that corporate entities should be banned from making political donations, and that personal donations should be capped low, maybe $1k a year. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

proud boys 6MWE shirt was taken somewhere else

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boy-6mwe/ the photo was captured in DC but took place in 2020 so its unrelated to the riot. ^{— Unsigned, by: Meltedfire / talk / contribs}

Coup

Given the preponderance of evidence (J6 Committee hearings, etc.) that this event was planned and desired by certain elements, I think that it's well past time to rename this page "2021 U.S. coup attempt", leaving a redirect behind. Bongolian (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. If anyone has a problem with this, feel free to leave a comment on the talk page. Vee (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bongolian There was a subpage I missed. Do you know what it was? I need to change the double redirect. Vee (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I thought there was a list of participants that was transcluded before being deleted, but it may have just been deleted. Bongolian (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh please, really? We’re gonna get mocked for being hysterical about this. It was a riot and it should be called such. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Guys, you don't understand, unless we call the attempted and purposeful push to overturn the results of a democratic election a non political word like "Riot", normies will think we're weird. Please, God, shut up. This was an attempt to subvert democracy, it is objectively a coup attempt. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Here we have the Cato Institute,[1] tRump's former Senior Director for Europe and Russia of the National Security Council (Fiona Hill),[2] and the January 6 Committee[3] calling it an attempted coup. I don't see what the problem is. Bongolian (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. It’s a fair title, but I’m still concerned it comes of as hysterical. I won’t do anything to oppose the rename though. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

RW has always been known to piss people off for being blunt. I don't see what the difference is here. Vee (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Here in NZ we call it the 2021 Omni-Shambled Cluster-Fuck. We could change it to that? Aceⁱ⁹ 23:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Nah, Duce, the term I think at this point is correct. Technically, I think the riot best fits the category of "attempted self-coup" instead of it being a full-blown "traditional" coup (with military involvement etc.), but that's a subset of the coup category, so it fits. It would only merely be a riot or insurrection if Donald Trump and his associates had little involvement in the actions of the rioters, but at this point it's pretty clear that Trump was doing everything he could to stay in power regardless of legality, and had large influence on the rioters' actions. 72.184.99.135 (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Aren't clusterfucks omnishambolic by definition? Bongolian (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

BON, there's also the issue of brevity in our titles. Vee (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

coup attempt, definitely 100%. FairDinkum (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

not asking to take the piss, genuine question, but what's the difference between calling it a coup and an insurrection, from our perspective? Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 00:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The difference is technical, but a coup at least as far as I can tell is an attempt by those already in power or desiring power to take over government. Honestly it's a matter of semantics, but I think if we call it an "insurrection" it gives off the impression that this was a grassroots affair, and not the (poorly) orchestrated attempted power grab it really was. It absolves the plotters of responsibility. Vee (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

i see now Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 00:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think insurrection is a better descriptor, but I welcome the change to be more precise with this title.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there also a numbers element as well, and possibly a timeframe (the main drama of a coup happens over a relatively short timeframe, and an insurrection is more diffuse and longer). Anna Livia (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the kind of unnecessary partisan aggrandizing that leads to people not taking the site seriously-Hastur! (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Nah, the general Internets are too busy on their Tiktoks to care about old small Wikis in the first place. :) For the political Internets anyways, I think only butthurt Trump simps would truly care about this name change... they can go cry in Breitbart for all I care, and continue to do what they are doing (which right now, it's... complaining about Mitch McConnell. Oy.) Even one of those columnist for that "oh-so-leftie" (/s) National Review has referred to the event as an auto-coup. 72.184.99.135 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Similar cases

Since someone added the 6 February 1934 crisis, should we also add the Beer Hall Putsch to the article? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

let's consider renaming the section

this section reads like a lengthy "see also" section. it's a massive red herring that interrupts the flow of the article and borders on irrelevant. the least we could do is rename the section to something like "comparison with other countries." that way, these cases at least somewhat relate to the subject of the article. The G (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)