During the pandemic and through the BLM unrest, Democrats were buying guns in record numbers to protect themselves from....other Democrats.

DiabloWags said:

---

And Trumpers were ranting and whining about how BIDEN was gonna take their guns away!!!

Remember when there was a MASSIVE run on ammo and MAGA was hoarding ammo?

And now it turns out that the Orange Buffoon and his FBI Director don't even have a clue what the 2nd Amendment says.

"You cant have guns. You cant walk in with guns"

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

NRA Clashes With Trump Over Gun Rights After MN Shooting | TIME

Buyer's remorse?

https://share.google/IB4QUDdH5DLisNR3S

---

What does that have to do with the recent video released?

Pretti was not coincidentally running into ICE on multiple occasions. It was premeditated obstruction. It's coordinated. They are tracking ICE and sending people to obstruct the enforcement of the law.

In other words, this is a conspiracy to obstruct the enforcement of federal law, which is one of the legal definitions of an insurrection, and opens the door for the invocation of the Insurrection Act.

NEW: Liam Conejo Ramos, the 5-year-old who ICE agents in Minneapolis nabbed last week and shipped off to a Texas detention facility with his dad, is now in poor health, his school superintendent told me today https://t.co/2BxRnQRWre

— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) January 28, 2026

Rep. Castro said Liam's father described his son as "depressed" since arriving at Dilley. Castro said he was concerned that Liam appeared lethargic and that he hadn't been eating well. Reports indicate that food served to families at Dilley, including young children, has… https://t.co/chCFZ3yTD4

— Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) January 28, 2026

sycasey said:

---

NEW: Liam Conejo Ramos, the 5-year-old who ICE agents in Minneapolis nabbed last week and shipped off to a Texas detention facility with his dad, is now in poor health, his school superintendent told me today https://t.co/2BxRnQRWre

— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) January 28, 2026

Rep. Castro said Liam's father described his son as "depressed" since arriving at Dilley. Castro said he was concerned that Liam appeared lethargic and that he hadn't been eating well. Reports indicate that food served to families at Dilley, including young children, has… https://t.co/chCFZ3yTD4

— Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) January 28, 2026

---

What is the diagnosis?

sucks, imo, un-amurican ice sucks, big time.

59% of Americans (including 71% of independents) say ICE deportation efforts are too aggressive.

That’s a +10 increase overall and a +22 increase among independents.

👉🏻 https://t.co/FvN7Yk7Ptd pic.twitter.com/W80StMwbwO

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) January 29, 2026

smh said:

---

sucks, imo, un-amurican ice sucks, big time.

---

We've seen so many lies pedaled by the left that it is hard to conclude that the child actually has any somewhat serious illness.

> 59% of Americans (including 71% of independents) say ICE deportation efforts are too aggressive.
^ on a farking Fox network news station!

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NEW: Liam Conejo Ramos, the 5-year-old who ICE agents in Minneapolis nabbed last week and shipped off to a Texas detention facility with his dad, is now in poor health, his school superintendent told me today https://t.co/2BxRnQRWre

— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) January 28, 2026

Rep. Castro said Liam's father described his son as "depressed" since arriving at Dilley. Castro said he was concerned that Liam appeared lethargic and that he hadn't been eating well. Reports indicate that food served to families at Dilley, including young children, has… https://t.co/chCFZ3yTD4

— Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) January 28, 2026

---

What is the diagnosis?

---

Depression from losing his normalcy. It's very sad illegals put their children in these positions.

smh said:

---

sucks, imo, un-amurican ice sucks, big time.

---

Would you have preferred we separated him from his father? Seriously, what should have been that would have made you happy?

"AssauIt me, motherfcker!!!" - Alex Pretti on January 13th trying to get injured by federal officers pic.twitter.com/33PBDIiJxN

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) January 29, 2026

BearlySane88 said:

---

smh said:

---

sucks, imo, un-amurican ice sucks, big time.

---

<yada yada noise> ..have made you happy?

---

seriously, back atcha BS, top of my personal list..
1) first get global warming under control, and then 2) reverse engineer warming back a ways
# don't hold your breathe // nothing more important matters // ain't gonna happen (on purpose)
oh, and thought of another thing, whenever, would much rather die in my own bed, at home, smiling

Zippergate said:

---

Big C said:

---

Zippergate, what exactly is your point?

We can all acknowledge that Alex Pretti wouldn't have gotten shot had he a) not been carrying a firearm... and/or... b) not put himself between the "officers" and another protester.

But are you validating his killing because of that?

---

Not validating it, calling it what it is: a regrettable incident that never would have happened if Pretti hadn't intentionally put himself in such a dangerous situation. Want to be a woke warrior and resist arrest? Fine, just be prepared to do the time and most importantly, don't put law enforcement officers, yourself, and others in danger by carrying your weapon. Isn't this pure common sense? I mean, it's so obvious that one has to wonder what Pretti's intent was given his state of mind. Personally, I think he intended to be a martyr because he knew how the Left and the MSM would treat his death.

Do I think the ICE agent should have fired? I don't know, probably not, but who am I to judge these things? Every law organization has procedures for handling these kinds of incidents. And we have courts. If the ICE agent acted unlawfully, he will be tried in court as is right and just. How soon we forget Saint Floyd. His killer, Chauvin, was tried, convicted and sentenced to a long prison term, much longer than a typical criminal serves for even worse crimes and was allowed to be mercilessly beaten in prison. (and I should add that Chauvin may not have even acted unlawfully but merely followed his training which would make him and his fellow officers not guilty.) This is our justice system. It's not perfect, but it's how we settle these kinds of things.

So what am I against here? I'm against the weaponization of this incident. I'm against calling the ICE agent a murderer. The guy is a human being who is doing a job and trying to get home to his family every night. Put yourself in his shoes for just a moment and ask yourself how you would react having to wrestle a deranged man with a gun on his body. But Pretti didn't use the gun, you say? Doesn't matter. Think about it. Another officer, following procedure, shouts, "Gun!", what's your first instinct? For most people, it is self-preservation. He has a right to defend himself. It's the law and rightfully so. And in the fog of war, unexpected things happen. Whether he and his fellow agents acted appropriately in this particular situation is for the judicial process to decide, but IT AIN'T MURDER. Do words have meaning anymore? Anyone calling this murder is fanning the flames of hate and encouraging more violence. Everything is being reduced to an ends-justify-the-means calculus. Is this really what we have become? Anything to stop Hitler?

I'm afraid that the radical Left looks at cases like Laken Riley and says, "See, the Right weaponizes tragedy so it's okay if we do the same." To that I say, good grief, think deeply about the details of these two cases. They are not the same. If you are outraged by what happened to Pretti and not by what happened to Riley (including all the conditions that were allowed to happen leading up to it), I don't know what to say; it shocks me that an intelligent, decent person could come to that conclusion.

---

How does Pretti's action compare to the actions of the J6 mob who physically whacked and attacked law enforcement?

I'm asking because so many claimed they were "peaceful protesters".

smh said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

smh said:

---

sucks, imo, un-amurican ice sucks, big time.

---

<yada yada noise> ..have made you happy?

---

seriously, back atcha BS, top of my personal list..
1) first get global warming under control, and then 2) reverse engineer warming back a ways
# don't hold your breathe // nothing more important matters // ain't gonna happen (on purpose)
oh, and thought of another thing, whenever, would much rather die in my own bed, at home, smiling

---

I meant what would have made you happy with the child and his father but alrighty then.

Good thing for you, global warming trends are consistent with history and there's no proof man has made any impact on that.

I hope the second thing happens for you but not anytime soon.

concordtom said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Big C said:

---

Zippergate, what exactly is your point?

We can all acknowledge that Alex Pretti wouldn't have gotten shot had he a) not been carrying a firearm... and/or... b) not put himself between the "officers" and another protester.

But are you validating his killing because of that?

---

Not validating it, calling it what it is: a regrettable incident that never would have happened if Pretti hadn't intentionally put himself in such a dangerous situation. Want to be a woke warrior and resist arrest? Fine, just be prepared to do the time and most importantly, don't put law enforcement officers, yourself, and others in danger by carrying your weapon. Isn't this pure common sense? I mean, it's so obvious that one has to wonder what Pretti's intent was given his state of mind. Personally, I think he intended to be a martyr because he knew how the Left and the MSM would treat his death.

Do I think the ICE agent should have fired? I don't know, probably not, but who am I to judge these things? Every law organization has procedures for handling these kinds of incidents. And we have courts. If the ICE agent acted unlawfully, he will be tried in court as is right and just. How soon we forget Saint Floyd. His killer, Chauvin, was tried, convicted and sentenced to a long prison term, much longer than a typical criminal serves for even worse crimes and was allowed to be mercilessly beaten in prison. (and I should add that Chauvin may not have even acted unlawfully but merely followed his training which would make him and his fellow officers not guilty.) This is our justice system. It's not perfect, but it's how we settle these kinds of things.

So what am I against here? I'm against the weaponization of this incident. I'm against calling the ICE agent a murderer. The guy is a human being who is doing a job and trying to get home to his family every night. Put yourself in his shoes for just a moment and ask yourself how you would react having to wrestle a deranged man with a gun on his body. But Pretti didn't use the gun, you say? Doesn't matter. Think about it. Another officer, following procedure, shouts, "Gun!", what's your first instinct? For most people, it is self-preservation. He has a right to defend himself. It's the law and rightfully so. And in the fog of war, unexpected things happen. Whether he and his fellow agents acted appropriately in this particular situation is for the judicial process to decide, but IT AIN'T MURDER. Do words have meaning anymore? Anyone calling this murder is fanning the flames of hate and encouraging more violence. Everything is being reduced to an ends-justify-the-means calculus. Is this really what we have become? Anything to stop Hitler?

I'm afraid that the radical Left looks at cases like Laken Riley and says, "See, the Right weaponizes tragedy so it's okay if we do the same." To that I say, good grief, think deeply about the details of these two cases. They are not the same. If you are outraged by what happened to Pretti and not by what happened to Riley (including all the conditions that were allowed to happen leading up to it), I don't know what to say; it shocks me that an intelligent, decent person could come to that conclusion.

---

How does Pretti's action compare to the actions of the J6 mob who physically whacked and attacked law enforcement?

I'm asking because so many claimed they were "peaceful protesters".

---

Many on here have condemned the violent portion of that group, myself included. 90% of them were peaceful though and literally just walked in the building. Some even escorted around by Capital officers.

#BREAKING: Mass arrests ongoing as agitators fail to disperse in Minneapolis.

— Insider Wire (@InsiderWire) January 29, 2026

concordtom said:

---

How does Pretti's action compare to the actions of the J6 mob who physically whacked and attacked law enforcement?

I'm asking because so many claimed they were "peaceful protesters".

---

Year after year you play dumb because you choose too.

Stay confused, no one is going to help you.

My kids had AR-15s pointed at them because I was charged with misdemeanors over J6

— J Caplinger (@CaplingerMi) January 29, 2026

Jeffrey Dahmer was an Army medic.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

NEW: Liam Conejo Ramos, the 5-year-old who ICE agents in Minneapolis nabbed last week and shipped off to a Texas detention facility with his dad, is now in poor health, his school superintendent told me today https://t.co/2BxRnQRWre

— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) January 28, 2026

Rep. Castro said Liam's father described his son as "depressed" since arriving at Dilley. Castro said he was concerned that Liam appeared lethargic and that he hadn't been eating well. Reports indicate that food served to families at Dilley, including young children, has… https://t.co/chCFZ3yTD4

— Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) January 28, 2026

---

What is the diagnosis?

---

elephantiasis

DiabloWags said:

---

ICE AGENTS ENTER ECUADORIAN EMBASSY IN MINNEAPOLIS.

I KNOW GUYS THAT MAKE PIZZA FOR A LIVING THAT WOULDNT MAKE THIS MISTAKE.

MAYBE NEXT TIME TRY GOOGLE MAPS GUYS!

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!

---

They ought to lure ICE into the Saudi consulate!

Alex Pretti looks like the unhinged type

MinotStateBeav said:

---

---

While wearing $50,000 worth of clothing.

Obama, Bush, Clinton never faced media backlash for deportations.

BearlySane88 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Big C said:

---

Zippergate, what exactly is your point?

We can all acknowledge that Alex Pretti wouldn't have gotten shot had he a) not been carrying a firearm... and/or... b) not put himself between the "officers" and another protester.

But are you validating his killing because of that?

---

Not validating it, calling it what it is: a regrettable incident that never would have happened if Pretti hadn't intentionally put himself in such a dangerous situation. Want to be a woke warrior and resist arrest? Fine, just be prepared to do the time and most importantly, don't put law enforcement officers, yourself, and others in danger by carrying your weapon. Isn't this pure common sense? I mean, it's so obvious that one has to wonder what Pretti's intent was given his state of mind. Personally, I think he intended to be a martyr because he knew how the Left and the MSM would treat his death.

Do I think the ICE agent should have fired? I don't know, probably not, but who am I to judge these things? Every law organization has procedures for handling these kinds of incidents. And we have courts. If the ICE agent acted unlawfully, he will be tried in court as is right and just. How soon we forget Saint Floyd. His killer, Chauvin, was tried, convicted and sentenced to a long prison term, much longer than a typical criminal serves for even worse crimes and was allowed to be mercilessly beaten in prison. (and I should add that Chauvin may not have even acted unlawfully but merely followed his training which would make him and his fellow officers not guilty.) This is our justice system. It's not perfect, but it's how we settle these kinds of things.

So what am I against here? I'm against the weaponization of this incident. I'm against calling the ICE agent a murderer. The guy is a human being who is doing a job and trying to get home to his family every night. Put yourself in his shoes for just a moment and ask yourself how you would react having to wrestle a deranged man with a gun on his body. But Pretti didn't use the gun, you say? Doesn't matter. Think about it. Another officer, following procedure, shouts, "Gun!", what's your first instinct? For most people, it is self-preservation. He has a right to defend himself. It's the law and rightfully so. And in the fog of war, unexpected things happen. Whether he and his fellow agents acted appropriately in this particular situation is for the judicial process to decide, but IT AIN'T MURDER. Do words have meaning anymore? Anyone calling this murder is fanning the flames of hate and encouraging more violence. Everything is being reduced to an ends-justify-the-means calculus. Is this really what we have become? Anything to stop Hitler?

I'm afraid that the radical Left looks at cases like Laken Riley and says, "See, the Right weaponizes tragedy so it's okay if we do the same." To that I say, good grief, think deeply about the details of these two cases. They are not the same. If you are outraged by what happened to Pretti and not by what happened to Riley (including all the conditions that were allowed to happen leading up to it), I don't know what to say; it shocks me that an intelligent, decent person could come to that conclusion.

---

How does Pretti's action compare to the actions of the J6 mob who physically whacked and attacked law enforcement?

I'm asking because so many claimed they were "peaceful protesters".

---

Many on here have condemned the violent portion of that group, myself included. 90% of them were peaceful though and literally just walked in the building. Some even escorted around by Capital officers.

---

I will start by recognizing that you said, and I will quote:

Quote:

---

Many on here have condemned the violent portion of that group, myself included.

---

I feel that is progress!!!



The eternal quandary, though, as yet unanswered:

Why do y'all excuse the "10%", if you want to agree on that number, and not call the day precisely what it was???

I mean, come on, it's so obvious, and I've spelled it out time and again for you.

To review:

1) Trump never conceded.
2) Trump concocted every excuse imaginable, yet lost all 60 of his attempts in court.
3) Trump persisted and spoke publicly to rally a belief in his conspiracy theories, unfounded as they were.
4) Trump organized a rally on the mall on the day of the acceptance of the losing electoral college count with plans to march to the capitol
5) …to put pressure on lawmakers WHOM WERE IN CAHOOTS with this "Green Bay Sweep" plan, which Peter Navarro so stupidly bragged about with Ari Melber on live tv.

I won't re-explain how Trump devised to remain in power in this way, but I will say again - that is a Coup d'Etat attempt.

I summon ChatGPT:

Quote:

---

Definition of coup d etat and does it have to be violent


A coup d'tat (French for "stroke of state") is:

The sudden and illegal seizure of power from a government by a small group, typically insiders such as military leaders, security forces, or political elites.

Does it have to be violent?

No violence is common, but not required.

Coups fall on a spectrum:

Violent coups
Armed forces overthrow the government
Bloodshed, arrests, or executions
Tanks-in-the-streets kind of thing

Non-violent or "bloodless" coups
Power taken through coercion, threats, or institutional manipulation
Leaders forced to resign
Courts, legislatures, or security forces used as leverage
Minimal or no physical violence, at least at the moment of takeover

What does define a coup?

Three core elements:
1. Illegality it violates the constitutional process
2. Speed happens suddenly, not gradually like erosion or reform
3. Elite actors carried out by people already inside the power structure

What is not a coup?
Elections, even disputed ones (unless power is seized outside the law)
Popular revolutions with broad mass participation (often called uprisings)
Impeachments or lawful removals, even if politically ugly

That said, people argue about edge cases all the time especially when legal tools are used in bad-faith or coercive ways. Political scientists sometimes call those "soft coups" or "constitutional coups."

---

And again:

Quote:

---

January 6 sure looks like a failed soft coup to me!


You're not alone in that view a lot of scholars and analysts describe January 6 as fitting many features of a failed or attempted "soft coup." Others dispute the label, but the debate itself is very real.

Here's why people make that argument, point by point:

Why it looks like a coup attempt to many experts

Using the standard criteria:

1. Illegality
The goal was to prevent or overturn the lawful certification of an election.
Pressure campaigns targeted the vice president, Congress, state officials, and courts to act outside their legal authority.

2. Elite involvement
Not just a mob: there were insiders involved elected officials, campaign lawyers, and parts of the political apparatus.
The plan depended on institutional actors (VP, state legislatures, Congress) cooperating.

3. Speed and timing
The action was concentrated on a single constitutional choke point: January 6.
That "now-or-never" timing is classic coup logic.

4. Mixed methods
Violence was present, but it wasn't a traditional military takeover.
The strategy relied heavily on procedural disruption, intimidation, and legal pretexts hallmarks of what political scientists call soft or constitutional coups.

Why some people reject the term "coup"

Critics argue:
There was no unified command or military leadership
The institutions ultimately held
The participants were disorganized and unlikely to succeed

Those points explain why it failed, but they don't necessarily negate intent.

A useful framing many scholars use

"An attempted self-coup that failed because institutions and enough individuals refused to comply."

That phrasing avoids hyperbole while still being precise.

So your instinct isn't fringe or casual it aligns with a serious, defensible analytical position. The disagreement is less about what happened and more about how strict one's definition of "coup" is.

---

So, yeah, whatever. I'm convinced!!
I don't need you MAGA people to agree. It was a Coup attempt, which failed, only to succeed again later through traditional means. Citizens v United. Plus an old senile Biden hanging on to power for ego's sake. Our system failed us.


ChatGPT adds:

Quote:

---

Autogolpe (Spanish; sometimes written auto-golpe) means "self-coup."

It's when a leader who already holds power tries to illegally retain or expand that power by overriding or disabling other branches of government.

Plain-English definition

A self-coup is when the person at the top says, in effect:
"The rules don't apply anymore I'm staying in charge."

Key features of an autogolpe
The actor is already the head of state or government
Power is seized from within, not from outside
Constitutional checks (courts, legislature, elections) are bypassed, suspended, or coerced
Often framed as "temporary," "necessary," or "to restore order"

Does it have to be violent?

No.
Like coups generally, autogolpes range from bloody to procedural.

Classic examples
Alberto Fujimori (Peru, 1992)
Dissolved Congress, suspended the constitution, ruled by decree backed by the military.
Getlio Vargas (Brazil, 1937)
Canceled elections, declared emergency rule, centralized power.

Modern / "soft" self-coups

More subtle versions may involve:
Pressuring courts or legislators to invalidate elections
Declaring emergencies without legal basis
Weaponizing legal procedures to nullify democratic outcomes

Political scientists sometimes use terms like:
"constitutional self-coup"
"soft autogolpe"
"executive aggrandizement"

Why the term is controversial

Calling something an autogolpe isn't just descriptive it implies:
Intent to subvert democracy
Not merely protest, incompetence, or chaos

That's why people fight so hard over the label.

If you want, I can map Jan 6 step-by-step against the autogolpe criteria, or show why some scholars stop just short of using that word even if they agree it was anti-democratic.


YES


Alright here's the clean, step-by-step mapping of January 6 against the standard autogolpe (self-coup) criteria, without rhetoric, just structure.



1. Actor already in power

Criterion: The attempt is made by a sitting leader.

Jan 6:
The president was still in office and acting to remain in power after losing an election.

Match: Strong



2. Illegal attempt to retain power

Criterion: Bypassing lawful succession or constitutional limits.

Jan 6:
Sought to invalidate certified state results
Pressured officials to act outside statutory authority
Attempted to interrupt the constitutionally required transfer process

Match: Strong



3. Use of state institutions (not just mobs)

Criterion: Relies on insiders, courts, legislature, security forces, or legal pretexts.

Jan 6:
Legal strategies aimed at Congress and the Vice President
Pressure on state officials and legislatures
Expected institutional compliance after disruption

Match: Moderate to Strong
(Dependent on cooperation which largely failed)



4. Neutralization or coercion of checks and balances

Criterion: Disabling courts, legislature, or electoral systems.

Jan 6:
Targeted Congress's certification role
Sought to override judicial rulings via political pressure
Attempted to replace lawful outcomes with alternative slates

Match: Moderate



5. Speed and focal point

Criterion: Sudden action aimed at a constitutional chokepoint.

Jan 6:
Singular focus on one day, one event
"Now or never" logic typical of coup attempts

Match: Strong



6. Use or tolerance of coercion

Criterion: Violence, threat, or intimidationdirect or indirect.

Jan 6:
Violence occurred
Intimidation of officials was foreseeable and instrumental
No meaningful effort to stop it during the critical window

Match: Moderate



Overall scholarly assessment (synthesized)

Most political scientists would land here:

January 6 qualifies as an attempted soft autogolpe
that failed because key institutions and individuals refused to comply.

It lacks the military dominance of classic Latin American self-coups, which is why some stop short of the label but military takeover is not required under modern definitions.

Why this framing matters
It distinguishes intent from competence
It explains why failure innocence
It clarifies why institutional resilience mattered so much

---

So, Barely Sane:
What this post amounts to is…
You condemn the 10% who were clearly violent. THANK YOU. We have Sanity in that statement. DULY NOTED!

Can I also get you to admit that Trump's actions from early Nov to early Jan were all attempts to stay in power (not necessarily illegal), but ultimately his efforts AND THE RESULTS OF THAT DAY constituted an illegal and violent coup d'etat attempt?

I know you'll never admit it, but it's there!

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Alex Pretti looks like the unhinged type that would beat the crap out of his wife, that is, unless he's gay?

---

Okay, I think I'm going to flag this as trolling against Mr Pretti, gay people, and as propaganda.

concordtom said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Big C said:

---

Zippergate, what exactly is your point?

We can all acknowledge that Alex Pretti wouldn't have gotten shot had he a) not been carrying a firearm... and/or... b) not put himself between the "officers" and another protester.

But are you validating his killing because of that?

---

Not validating it, calling it what it is: a regrettable incident that never would have happened if Pretti hadn't intentionally put himself in such a dangerous situation. Want to be a woke warrior and resist arrest? Fine, just be prepared to do the time and most importantly, don't put law enforcement officers, yourself, and others in danger by carrying your weapon. Isn't this pure common sense? I mean, it's so obvious that one has to wonder what Pretti's intent was given his state of mind. Personally, I think he intended to be a martyr because he knew how the Left and the MSM would treat his death.

Do I think the ICE agent should have fired? I don't know, probably not, but who am I to judge these things? Every law organization has procedures for handling these kinds of incidents. And we have courts. If the ICE agent acted unlawfully, he will be tried in court as is right and just. How soon we forget Saint Floyd. His killer, Chauvin, was tried, convicted and sentenced to a long prison term, much longer than a typical criminal serves for even worse crimes and was allowed to be mercilessly beaten in prison. (and I should add that Chauvin may not have even acted unlawfully but merely followed his training which would make him and his fellow officers not guilty.) This is our justice system. It's not perfect, but it's how we settle these kinds of things.

So what am I against here? I'm against the weaponization of this incident. I'm against calling the ICE agent a murderer. The guy is a human being who is doing a job and trying to get home to his family every night. Put yourself in his shoes for just a moment and ask yourself how you would react having to wrestle a deranged man with a gun on his body. But Pretti didn't use the gun, you say? Doesn't matter. Think about it. Another officer, following procedure, shouts, "Gun!", what's your first instinct? For most people, it is self-preservation. He has a right to defend himself. It's the law and rightfully so. And in the fog of war, unexpected things happen. Whether he and his fellow agents acted appropriately in this particular situation is for the judicial process to decide, but IT AIN'T MURDER. Do words have meaning anymore? Anyone calling this murder is fanning the flames of hate and encouraging more violence. Everything is being reduced to an ends-justify-the-means calculus. Is this really what we have become? Anything to stop Hitler?

I'm afraid that the radical Left looks at cases like Laken Riley and says, "See, the Right weaponizes tragedy so it's okay if we do the same." To that I say, good grief, think deeply about the details of these two cases. They are not the same. If you are outraged by what happened to Pretti and not by what happened to Riley (including all the conditions that were allowed to happen leading up to it), I don't know what to say; it shocks me that an intelligent, decent person could come to that conclusion.

---

How does Pretti's action compare to the actions of the J6 mob who physically whacked and attacked law enforcement?

I'm asking because so many claimed they were "peaceful protesters".

---

Many on here have condemned the violent portion of that group, myself included. 90% of them were peaceful though and literally just walked in the building. Some even escorted around by Capital officers.

---

I will start by recognizing that you said, and I will quote:

Quote:

---

Many on here have condemned the violent portion of that group, myself included.

---

I feel that is progress!!!



The eternal quandary, though, as yet unanswered:

Why do y'all excuse the "10%", if you want to agree on that number, and not call the day precisely what it was???

I mean, come on, it's so obvious, and I've spelled it out time and again for you.

To review:

1) Trump never conceded.
2) Trump concocted every excuse imaginable, yet lost all 60 of his attempts in court.
3) Trump persisted and spoke publicly to rally a belief in his conspiracy theories, unfounded as they were.
4) Trump organized a rally on the mall on the day of the acceptance of the losing electoral college count with plans to march to the capitol
5) …to put pressure on lawmakers WHOM WERE IN CAHOOTS with this "Green Bay Sweep" plan, which Peter Navarro so stupidly bragged about with Ari Melber on live tv.

I won't re-explain how Trump devised to remain in power in this way, but I will say again - that is a Coup d'Etat attempt.

I summon ChatGPT:

Quote:

---

Definition of coup d etat and does it have to be violent


A coup d'tat (French for "stroke of state") is:

The sudden and illegal seizure of power from a government by a small group, typically insiders such as military leaders, security forces, or political elites.

Does it have to be violent?

No violence is common, but not required.

Coups fall on a spectrum:

Violent coups
Armed forces overthrow the government
Bloodshed, arrests, or executions
Tanks-in-the-streets kind of thing

Non-violent or "bloodless" coups
Power taken through coercion, threats, or institutional manipulation
Leaders forced to resign
Courts, legislatures, or security forces used as leverage
Minimal or no physical violence, at least at the moment of takeover

What does define a coup?

Three core elements:
1. Illegality it violates the constitutional process
2. Speed happens suddenly, not gradually like erosion or reform
3. Elite actors carried out by people already inside the power structure

What is not a coup?
Elections, even disputed ones (unless power is seized outside the law)
Popular revolutions with broad mass participation (often called uprisings)
Impeachments or lawful removals, even if politically ugly

That said, people argue about edge cases all the time especially when legal tools are used in bad-faith or coercive ways. Political scientists sometimes call those "soft coups" or "constitutional coups."

---

And again:

Quote:

---

January 6 sure looks like a failed soft coup to me!


You're not alone in that view a lot of scholars and analysts describe January 6 as fitting many features of a failed or attempted "soft coup." Others dispute the label, but the debate itself is very real.

Here's why people make that argument, point by point:

Why it looks like a coup attempt to many experts

Using the standard criteria:

1. Illegality
The goal was to prevent or overturn the lawful certification of an election.
Pressure campaigns targeted the vice president, Congress, state officials, and courts to act outside their legal authority.

2. Elite involvement
Not just a mob: there were insiders involved elected officials, campaign lawyers, and parts of the political apparatus.
The plan depended on institutional actors (VP, state legislatures, Congress) cooperating.

3. Speed and timing
The action was concentrated on a single constitutional choke point: January 6.
That "now-or-never" timing is classic coup logic.

4. Mixed methods
Violence was present, but it wasn't a traditional military takeover.
The strategy relied heavily on procedural disruption, intimidation, and legal pretexts hallmarks of what political scientists call soft or constitutional coups.

Why some people reject the term "coup"

Critics argue:
There was no unified command or military leadership
The institutions ultimately held
The participants were disorganized and unlikely to succeed

Those points explain why it failed, but they don't necessarily negate intent.

A useful framing many scholars use

"An attempted self-coup that failed because institutions and enough individuals refused to comply."

That phrasing avoids hyperbole while still being precise.

So your instinct isn't fringe or casual it aligns with a serious, defensible analytical position. The disagreement is less about what happened and more about how strict one's definition of "coup" is.

---

So, yeah, whatever. I'm convinced!!
I don't need you MAGA people to agree. It was a Coup attempt, which failed, only to succeed again later through traditional means. Citizens v United. Plus an old senile Biden hanging on to power for ego's sake. Our system failed us.


ChatGPT adds:

Quote:

---

Autogolpe (Spanish; sometimes written auto-golpe) means "self-coup."

It's when a leader who already holds power tries to illegally retain or expand that power by overriding or disabling other branches of government.

Plain-English definition

A self-coup is when the person at the top says, in effect:
"The rules don't apply anymore I'm staying in charge."

Key features of an autogolpe
The actor is already the head of state or government
Power is seized from within, not from outside
Constitutional checks (courts, legislature, elections) are bypassed, suspended, or coerced
Often framed as "temporary," "necessary," or "to restore order"

Does it have to be violent?

No.
Like coups generally, autogolpes range from bloody to procedural.

Classic examples
Alberto Fujimori (Peru, 1992)
Dissolved Congress, suspended the constitution, ruled by decree backed by the military.
Getlio Vargas (Brazil, 1937)
Canceled elections, declared emergency rule, centralized power.

Modern / "soft" self-coups

More subtle versions may involve:
Pressuring courts or legislators to invalidate elections
Declaring emergencies without legal basis
Weaponizing legal procedures to nullify democratic outcomes

Political scientists sometimes use terms like:
"constitutional self-coup"
"soft autogolpe"
"executive aggrandizement"

Why the term is controversial

Calling something an autogolpe isn't just descriptive it implies:
Intent to subvert democracy
Not merely protest, incompetence, or chaos

That's why people fight so hard over the label.

If you want, I can map Jan 6 step-by-step against the autogolpe criteria, or show why some scholars stop just short of using that word even if they agree it was anti-democratic.


YES


Alright here's the clean, step-by-step mapping of January 6 against the standard autogolpe (self-coup) criteria, without rhetoric, just structure.



1. Actor already in power

Criterion: The attempt is made by a sitting leader.

Jan 6:
The president was still in office and acting to remain in power after losing an election.

Match: Strong



2. Illegal attempt to retain power

Criterion: Bypassing lawful succession or constitutional limits.

Jan 6:
Sought to invalidate certified state results
Pressured officials to act outside statutory authority
Attempted to interrupt the constitutionally required transfer process

Match: Strong



3. Use of state institutions (not just mobs)

Criterion: Relies on insiders, courts, legislature, security forces, or legal pretexts.

Jan 6:
Legal strategies aimed at Congress and the Vice President
Pressure on state officials and legislatures
Expected institutional compliance after disruption

Match: Moderate to Strong
(Dependent on cooperation which largely failed)



4. Neutralization or coercion of checks and balances

Criterion: Disabling courts, legislature, or electoral systems.

Jan 6:
Targeted Congress's certification role
Sought to override judicial rulings via political pressure
Attempted to replace lawful outcomes with alternative slates

Match: Moderate



5. Speed and focal point

Criterion: Sudden action aimed at a constitutional chokepoint.

Jan 6:
Singular focus on one day, one event
"Now or never" logic typical of coup attempts

Match: Strong



6. Use or tolerance of coercion

Criterion: Violence, threat, or intimidationdirect or indirect.

Jan 6:
Violence occurred
Intimidation of officials was foreseeable and instrumental
No meaningful effort to stop it during the critical window

Match: Moderate



Overall scholarly assessment (synthesized)

Most political scientists would land here:

January 6 qualifies as an attempted soft autogolpe
that failed because key institutions and individuals refused to comply.

It lacks the military dominance of classic Latin American self-coups, which is why some stop short of the label but military takeover is not required under modern definitions.

Why this framing matters
It distinguishes intent from competence
It explains why failure innocence
It clarifies why institutional resilience mattered so much

---

So, Barely Sane:
What this post amounts to is…
You condemn the 10% who were clearly violent. THANK YOU. We have Sanity in that statement. DULY NOTED!

Can I also get you to admit that Trump's actions from early Nov to early Jan were all attempts to stay in power (not necessarily illegal), but ultimately his efforts AND THE RESULTS OF THAT DAY constituted an illegal and violent coup d'etat attempt?

I know you'll never admit it, but it's there!

---

You seemed to just have that conversation with yourself anyways so no need for me to respond to your question but I will.

No, Trump didn't cause it or encourage it or ask for it. Hope that helps. If you actually pay attention to his words, he said peacefully. The 10% that got violent deserved the punishment they received and imo shouldn't have been pardoned but when you lump the whole group together I have a problem. I know T4K and I, and I think Oski but don't want to put words in their mouth, have said the same thing about Babbitt that we have about Good/Pretti/etc. When you have police raids and arrests of people who simply walked through the building, again some even led by police/security, you lose your narrative and your "moral" high ground. You would have seen a hell of a lot more support from the right on this issue had they only gone after those who were violent.

I've repeatedly said on this forum that I stand with LEOs. When the waters were muddied with unreasonable arrests and ridiculous prison sentences were handed out, you've lost the plot and you've lost the right's backing.

concordtom said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Alex Pretti looks like the unhinged type that would beat the crap out of his wife, that is, unless he's gay?

---

Okay, I think I'm going to flag this as trolling against Mr Pretti, gay people, and as propaganda.

---

He said nothing negative about gay people. It would be a fact that if he's gay he doesn't have a wife. As a bi person who once thought they might be gay, I see no issue with the gay comment he made.

Tom, I don't think Pretti should have been shot. No one on the right celebrates Pretti's death. But Pretti was a violent man who repeatedly got into violent situations with the police. He purposely chose to carry a gun into that confrontation that day. It was an accident and accidents happen when you wrestle with cops while carrying a gun.

As for Jan 6, we all saw the violence that day. Thousands were persecuted and prosecuted. I've read of many convictions for interrupting a government proceeding, trespassing etc, but I don't remember many (any?) where the charge was actual violence. I'm sure there were violent Trump supporters there, but it is my contention that most of the violence was perpetrated by Antifa, FBI informants, etc. We know these groups were there; it's on video. So my challenge to you is find me 10 convictions where someone, anyone, was charged with a violent act on Jan 6. Find me a few cases someone was charged with assaulting a LEO. It should be very easy given all the violence that day.

I didn't support that violence and I don't support the violence being perpetrated by either side in MN.

A few questions for people on the Left asked in good faith. I think they are reasonable questions to be asked given where we are. I'd be happy to respond if you have questions of your own.

1. Should the borders be secure?
2. Should non-citizen criminals be deported? Is there any crime that merits deportation?
3. Should people here illegally be excluded from EBT, gov't housing, gov't healthcare etc?
4. Should non-citizens be prevented from voting and if so, should reasonable measures be taken to ensure that this doesn't happen?

Zippergate said:

---

A few questions for people on the Left asked in good faith. I think they are reasonable questions to be asked given where we are. I'd be happy to respond if you have questions of your own.

1. Should the borders be secure?
2. Should non-citizen criminals be deported? Is there any crime that merits deportation?
3. Should people here illegally be excluded from EBT, gov't housing, gov't healthcare etc?
4. Should non-citizens be prevented from voting and if so, should reasonable measures be taken to ensure that this doesn't happen?

---

Fair post.

1. Of course we'd like to have controllable borders!!
I think Obama tried to engage in dialogue about this but one of his asks was to allow Dreamers to gain citizenship. That seems fair to me, as a no brainer. The republicans said No and there has been no real discussion about how to control 2500 miles on the south, let alone more on the north.
Like, the task is kinda impossible (!) and so there needs to be some real bipartisan planning and plotting about how to do it.

What we've ended up with (either porous or street violence) is basically a result of our bi-polar political world.

Our system is broken. Two party system. Unlimited monies brainwashing voters into two camps. It's a real problem structurally.
- Get rid of citizens united
- put more parties on ballots automatically (only two are permanent)
- ranked choice voting.

Those are some thoughts.

Maybe then a consortium of elected representatives odor in a room and figure out a border plan.


2. The term crime could mean traffic stop vs murder. I'd say YES but The Gestapo wants to export grannies who jaywalked so ill place a pin here.


3. I don't like the question because it's framed in such a heartless manner. Along with exporting grannies who are part of their citizen families - and that matters - The Gestapo wishes to have this classification of people die starving in the streets. I, on the other hand, have a heart, and so I'm not going to support your absolutist thinking. I'm not calling you the Gestapo. The Gestapo would not have asked the questions, they'd have just done it.
My reply does NOT mean that I think US taxpayers should pay for people living here illegally!


4. I don't support this question either because I do not believe that illegal citizens vote. Propaganda.

"Dialog" wasn't needed, neither were new powers or laws, just the will to enforce them.

Democrats used to also believe in deportations and border enforcement, something changed. Indications that Democrats strategy moved to flooding our nation with future Democrat voters. "Dreamers", family members, etc.

The ten million waiting in line legally? Forget them.

Zippergate said:

---

Tom, I don't think Pretti should have been shot. No one on the right celebrates Pretti's death. But Pretti was a violent man who repeatedly got into violent situations with the police. He purposely chose to carry a gun into that confrontation that day. It was an accident and accidents happen when you wrestle with cops while carrying a gun.

…..

I don't support the violence being perpetrated by either side in MN.

---

I liken what happened to Ms Good and Mr Pretti to what happened at the "Boston Massacre" March 5, 1770.

Fire! Fire? There was a building fire and people were being summoned to put out the fire at the same time that snowballs were being thrown at redcoats. So, who said Fire? Was it an order by an officer? An order to not Fire? A call for help by citizens?
The fog of situations.

Getting into street arguments with either side/person having a gun is risky. Things can happen!

As Bearister has typed many times, the J6 people are lucky they weren't mowed down with machine guns. (Sadly, that's probably what Trump wanted, to fuel his uprising.)

You won't catch me blocking cops in the street like that.
But braver people do stand up for others and injustices.

ICE agents need to practice restraint!
But Trump wants them to rough people up. And I am outraged by his horrible leadership!!!






I could find more examples of his promoting violence. He is a horrible person!

concordtom said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Tom, I don't think Pretti should have been shot. No one on the right celebrates Pretti's death. But Pretti was a violent man who repeatedly got into violent situations with the police. He purposely chose to carry a gun into that confrontation that day. It was an accident and accidents happen when you wrestle with cops while carrying a gun.

…..

I don't support the violence being perpetrated by either side in MN.

---

I liken what happened to Ms Good and Mr Pretti to what happened at the "Boston Massacre" March 5, 1770.

Fire! Fire? There was a building fire and people were being summoned to put out the fire at the same time that snowballs were being thrown at redcoats. So, who said Fire? Was it an order by an officer? An order to not Fire? A call for help by citizens?
The fog of situations.

Getting into street arguments with either side/person having a gun is risky. Things can happen!

As Bearister has typed many times, the J6 people are lucky they weren't mowed down with machine guns. (Sadly, that's probably what Trump wanted, to fuel his uprising.)

You won't catch me blocking cops in the street like that.
But braver people do stand up for others and injustices.

ICE agents need to practice restraint!
But Trump wants them to rough people up. And I am outraged by his horrible leadership!!!






I could find more examples of his promoting violence. He is a horrible person!

---

Pretti would not have been shot if he wasn't carrying a gun and ammo while obstructing ICE officers. Pretti also wouldn't have been shot if the ICE officers were more composed when they discovered he had a gun. They shot him because they feared him, once they discovered he had a gun.