https://twitter.com/USA_Polling/status/1552006668514369536

Two-thirds of respondents (67.2%, 95% CI 66.1%, 68.4%) perceived “a serious threat to our democracy,” but more than 40% agreed that “having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy” and that “in America, native-born white people are being replaced by immigrants.” Half (50.1%) agreed that “in the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States.”

I've seen a coup staged firsthand, directly experienced it happening in a country I lived in, watched the tanks rolling down the road to the government district which they proceeded to occupy, and everything that came before and after.

In the US there are a lot of people with loony opinions out there, but fundamentally there's a military which is on the side of the elected government. There's an elections process which is too distributed to suspend or corrupt nationally (sure it can get screwed up locally and does). There's also a free media and Internet. These are the pillars that hold up both the good and bad democracies around the world.

People with a lot of anxiety will poke holes in all of those statements, they will list the ways the US is messed up because that's what they know. But it's just not the same as a country where the elected government actually falls. US institutions today are all vastly healthier today than the countries where that happens.

I think it's good to have some degree of anxiety because it pushes us to solve problems but the US just isn't having a civil war or having its civilian government replaced any time soon, I'd stake everything I own on it.

Here, have a podcast about the subject: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-it-could-happen-here-307...

The US has always been fascist when it comes to international politics. First its reach was mostly limited to the Americas, but after World War 2 and the start of the Cold War, its fascist control spread across the globe.

It would be more of a surprise if the fascism they display internationally would never make it back to the US. After all, it is the same people making the decisions internationally and domestically, and the disappearance of the call logs from January 6th show that there are parts of the military open to negotiations.

No one knew whether or not the rioters were armed or not. Therefore, the assumption had to be that they were, or that there were those that were hidden in the crowd.

Until they were cleared from the Capitol buildings, they controlled the electoral process and disabled the counting of the electoral college votes. That delayed the part of the transfer of power between one POTUS and the next.

Ever heard of secret services? Even the FBI has admitted they had undercover agents among the participants.

> they controlled the electoral process and disabled the counting of the electoral college votes

So what? It would never have lasted more than a day until security or the army took over. There was no risk at all of a coup d'etat or something.

Ok so then they were considered to be a legitimate threat?

> So what? It would never have lasted more than a day until security or the army took over.

The history of domestic standoffs does not support this claim.

> There was no risk at all of a coup d'etat or something.

The military was deliberately held back from responding. There absolutely was a risk and this is exactly how such an attempt would look.

You put informants to know what's happening. They knew they did not carry weapons (only very few did).

> The history of domestic standoffs does not support this claim.

Oh yeah? When was the country taken over by a small group of people in the past?

> There absolutely was a risk (of a coup d'etat)

Please explain me how things would have turned after more than a day, and how the country would have been run by a bunch of guys with viking hats with 300 million other people not doing anything about it.

The United States of America has a very real and very well understood domestic terrorism problem. These are not all cartoon characters wearing dumb costumes.

I mentioned Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma city. In case you are unaware Ruby Ride and Waco were both standoffs between the Federal Government and anti-government groups they went sideways and innocent people died. This motivated two men to build a bomb in a truck and blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City killing 168 people. This was in 1995.

Ruby Ridge and Waco are often cited in militia circles as examples of why our government can’t be trusted.

More recently than Oklahoma City there was the Malheur standoff where some tax dodgers occupied a federal building for 40 days. In the end one of them was killed resisting arrest. The leader in that standoff was Ammon Bundy, who has also led other standoffs and the armed mob I mentioned in the Idaho Capitol building.

There is a delicate peace between the US and these terrorists. An event like taking over a state or national capitol or especially a military response to such a takeover could easily trigger a revolution.

You don’t appear to be an American. I encourage you to look into the domestic militia movement. Especially post-Oklahoma City. This is a very real threat.

Again I fail to see how occupying a building ends up being a take-over. Even if someone captures the White House, it does not make them the president of the US unless everyone else agrees with it.

There's also an element of symbolism that could embolden similar groups to take over other seats of power.

This isn't about taking over the US Government as it is currently. It is an existential threat to the current paradigm. There's no natural law that says the US must be a federal democratic republic. It could easily be a military dictatorship.

This is all elementary revolutionary stuff.

This isn't some random building, it's literally the Capitol, with Congress in attendance. This was also not an isolated incident.

In 2020 Ammon Bundy of Malheur standoff fame led an armed mob which forced its way past the State Patrol into a session of the Idaho State House of Representatives. After occupying the gallery above the House they were "allowed" to stay and observe the session, with their guns.

On January 6th itself an armed mob forced its way past the gate at the governors house in Washington state.

Also on January 6th attempts were made to enter the capitols in California, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Oregon. Some of these involved armed mobs and gallows.

On January 9th an armed mob showed up outside the Kentucky State Capitol.

Consider the connection between Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City to see how this escalates.

> And worst case, you send the military and the crisis is over in a few hours.

That worst case involves the mob actually reaching the representatives, killing them and claiming power. In that case the military can't just magically set everything right. If hostages are involved nothing is getting done "in a few hours". The military isn't going to undo any damage.

A successful attack on Congress that incapacitated, killed, or persuaded enough representatives absolutely could lead to control of the country.

> If you believe that this was an insurrection, that was the most peaceful insurrection ever in History.

A woman was killed by the Secret Service after breaching a barricade in pursuit of the Vice President. Members of the mob used chemical weapons on police. Call it whatever you want but it wasn't peaceful and it wasn't innocent.

Even if that did happen, that would not be enough to take over the country. You'd elect new representatives after the crisis. A small group of people would never be able to resist the power of the US Military for very long.

> A woman was killed by the Secret Service after breaching a barricade in pursuit of the Vice President. Members of the mob used chemical weapons on police. Call it whatever you want but it wasn't peaceful and it wasn't innocent.

"Most peaceful" does not mean there were no incidents. In the history of actual insurrections, that was the most peaceful one ever, if you even consider it one. Insurrections cause massive death of civilians and police/authorities, and this was clearly not it.

That assumes the next system is a democracy. Since the mob had been convinced election results were not trustworthy I see no reason that would be a requirement.

> A small group of people would never be able to resist the power of the US Military for very long.

How do you think that plays out? Is the capitol building even serviceable at that point? How many people die? I very clearly explained that this is more than a small group, and how escalation plays out.

> "Most peaceful" does not mean there were no incidents. In the history of actual insurrections, that was the most peaceful one ever, if you even consider it one. Insurrections cause massive death of civilians and police/authorities, and this was clearly not it.

You are the only person using the word “insurrection”.

My assertion is that the reason we didn’t see a bigger body count as a result of January 6th is that the mob failed. The potential was absolutely there and success was worryingly close.

There was obvious collusion and conspiracy to cause the properly cast and certified electoral college votes to be questioned.

There was also obvious collusion and conspiracy to a) riot, and b) attempt to occupy the Capitol, and c) stop the actual process of counting the electoral college votes, both real and fake.

So there were two different, but intertwined, especially at the top, conspiracies to stop the process of the transfer of power.