That is absolutely not what I wrote/said. It's not even close to what I said. What I wrote is that the other member's assertion is not supported by the extreme bounds analysis. Reviewing the OP-er's OP, one observes that s/he identified a single criterion -- the society there must be very well divided -- and even your own read of the document reveals that no single criterion is sufficient to militate for a coup. At that point in the discussion, that terse point is the one I had to make. More specifically and to the point I made earlier, you surely noticed that of the 66 criteria evaluated, the robustly related variable that comes closest to the one the OP-er identified is a compound one, "Political Stability and Absence of Violence." That variable really doesn't apply to the situation currently observed in the U.S. Sure as we Americans prattle a lot about violence, the fact is that we quie literally do not have the sort of violence referred to -- violence against the government a la Boston Tea Party, Boston Massacre, Tiananmen Square, the Pine Tree Riot, or some other such violence, such as that happening in Venezuela, whereby material segments and quantities of the polity repeatedly and frequently rise up against their own government. The violence we have in the U.S. is one non-governmental group fighting another, with the government intervening as needed to stop the violence and arrest the perpetrators. Even the BLM folks griping about the police aren't at that stage of violent revolt. Ditto the white supremacists/nationalists and the non-racist Trumpkins. They're pissed, but they don't want a coup or anything close to it, they just want comparatively minor changes, not the complete overthrow of the U.S. government and its Constitution, which is what a coup would be. Obviously, absent the sort of violence described above, the U.S. is politically stable. Political instability and political contentiousness just aren't the same things. The U.S. has been politically stable since 1776 and there's been political contentiousness between/among the various political parties since 1776. It's a difference of degrees, and again, we're nowhere near being politically unstable as was, say, the USSR when Berlin Wall came down and the USSR dissolved, imploded, whatever you want to (for now) call it, or when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar. In short the differences I've highlighted are ones of nature and extent. Sure, a coup is possible anywhere, but the "political stability and violence" conditions that, in concert with other conditions, foster/support one simply don't at the requisite level exist in the U.S. right now, and as is shown in the referenced document, "political stability and violence" alone is insufficient. Thus, as I initially wrote, the OP-er's statement is not supported by extreme bounds analysis.