> We have the closest thing to a democracy that any country has.

Your overall point is reasonable, but this is a reach there are many countries now that are at least as democratic as the US by any reasonable definition, and some pretty supportable arguments that some of them are meaningfully more democratic.

It's not that interesting to argue about I think though, because the differences are pretty small, and there is a huge gulf between all of the democratic countries and the non-democratic ones.

>very nearly did succeed in overthrowing the government

Is there any historical precedent for such a weakly armed group of people[1] overthrowing a heavily armed government?

Seems like hyperbole suggest they almost succeeded in overthrowing the most heavily armed government in the world.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706437

Not by themselves. In coordinating with politicians who absolutely were trying to overthrow the government, yes. They were all part of the same movement.

I agree theres a lot of people who want to overthrow the government, and that politicians are trying to incite them to do so, and that we me yet see a real attempt to do so.

But its naive to think the most heavily armed and powerful government in the world was nearly overthrown by a mob of people armed with fire extinguishers, zip ties, pepper spray, and little to no guns.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706437

Here is the scenario I’m thinking of: suppose the violence scared enough legislators into going along with the efforts to throw out electoral slates from those five states. That seems like something that very well could have happened.

> An armed mob very nearly did succeed in overthrowing the government

No they didn't. Ransacking a building isn't overthrowing a government.

> We have the closest thing to a democracy that any country has.

Ha ha ha -- good joke, I could do with a laugh

> I'm not going to split hairs about what a "real" democracy is.

It's one where the government does what the people want.

> we, the people, (barely) stopped a fascist leader

Trump isn't a fascist. To be a fascist he would have to be more intelligent and have more coherent beliefs.

> despite his very sincere desire to hold on to that power

Nor does Trump want power. He wants attention -- narcissistic supply.

Trump's actually to lazy to exercise power (as well as being too stupid); that's why he refuses to read memos more than a page long.

Two party system the closest thing to a democracy... Perhaps you should re-evaluate and study other democracies.

LOL - That crowd wasn't anywhere near "overthrowing the government." Don't be ridiculous. And armed insurrection or coup looks very, very different than that. More guns and explosives. Fewer selfies.

To be fair here, they didn't come anywhere near overthrowing anything. One woman protestor got shot by a CP officer. Three had medical emergencies (e.g. heart attacks). A CP officer died from a heart attack after getting hit in the head. A tragedy, yes, that never should have happened, but it wasn't organized enough to take over anything.

Five minutes difference and they could have captured or killed half of congress.

Then it becomes martial law time, with Trump retaining power.

How close is that?

They could have just talked to half of congress as well. Do you have any proof they were planning to hurt any members of congress?

They were chanting about hanging Mike Pence and several were carrying flexicuffs. But I'm sure they were just planning to peacefully air their grievances.

I think it was hyperbolic about Pence betraying Trump. I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any proof that any of them were planning on hurting congress.

They were literally chanting "Where's Pelosi" and "Where's Pence". They were carrying flexicuffs. They made a beeline for the Speaker and Majority Whip's unmarked offices. They broke windows, barricades, and one of them got shot trying to enter a hallway not a minute before was filled with Congresspeople.

What in the hell do you think would have happened if they had caught up to any member of Congress? Seriously. Even if you foolishly assume the most charitable and peaceful of intentions, the size of the mob and physical violence on display going through the halls of the Capitol should make it painfully obvious that any Democratic member of Congress they happened upon would have ended up seriously injured. The mob beat a cop to death.

There's simply no way a rational person could come to the conclusion that the mob wouldn't have injured or killed Congresspeople. If you can't see the mob's intent you're either being willfully obtuse or disastrously ignorant. There's not a charitable middle ground as these people documented themselves during the riot and months leading up to it.

I am not saying that the rioters would not have done violence towards congress people. I am saying I would like to see evidence they were intending to do violence. It is possible most were being hyperbolic with their words.

Do you believe that BLM rioters who chanted at politicians and cops and had various weapons intended to murder them? BLM rioters broke through barricades and smashed windows as well. Some BLM rioters killed multiple cops as well.

If I saw a BLM riot break into a building with politicians I would hold the same view I hold with these people. They may do violence, but we don't know for sure.

When people broke into the Wisconsin capital years ago over act 10 I didn't assume they were going to murder people.

I don't like to assume entire groups are going to do violence. When some individuals do violence in a group I don't assume the entire group wants to do violence.

Your right. Carrying zip ties, knives, guns and planting pipe bombs is how you start a peaceful dialog.

I mean after you beat numerous police officers and murder one.

Can you show me any proof any of them had guns? Also, we don't know who planted the bombs.

One person killing a cop doesn't mean the whole group was going to use violence.

Now you are denying the large number of photos of heavily armed insurrectionists there?

And they weren’t stopping their co-“protestors” from beating cops, there were more assaulted.

And we know who planted the bombs, they already arrested multiple individuals who were armed, had pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails and who were photographed at the building.

First, I am not denying they were armed with various weapons, but asking about guns that was claimed.

I agree that people who attacked cops and watched it happen were willing to do violence. They should be in jail. They appear to be a minority of the rioters. That is all I was trying to say.

There was a van that had some molotov cocktails and bombs. These appear to belong to the rioters. I am talking about the bombs placed at the capital and at the RNC headquarters. Just because someone has a bomb doesn't mean they planted bombs nearby. I don't like assuming things like that.

Can you show any proof that the mob was armed?