First, that "could" is again not a probability argument, unless you are taking it to the absurd, which you seem to be. They werent there for a coup. Some talk on Parler doesnt justify you assigning meaning to a group you havent even proved were involved with these online "coups". And there were just as many "coups" about removing Trump before 1/20, some on this site. According to your absurd argument there is a coup about every five minutes in this nation because the probability aspect doesnt matter.
Second, your coup involves the people setting up Pence to take control, but somehow forgot to bring him along? Did they even communicate with him? Since you admitted they wanted him hung, I am guessing no, as Pence would have told them to shove it in person. Kinda seems if they wanted to overthrow the government via Pence he would be in on it.
Third, we are allowed to beAngry at representatives. How coup-ish is it for people to talk about reeducating Trump supporters in Congress? Seems like that also upsets the Consitution. This is the problem with how wide you have cast your net, I can make the same argument for just about anything.
Fourth, ideas are illegal and unconstitutional? Have you ran this by the pre-Crime division before making these accusations? They didnt do any one thing that could have in any way, shape, or form, possibly changed who the representatives were. Again, something a coup would at least attempt. They protested, which is definitely protected. I have already called out the destruction of property, and the violent ones should face their day in court. The fact that there was violence, and that they "stormed" the building (by following the roped path? Lol) doesnt mean it was a coup. Again by your definition a kid breaking into city hall and vandalizing some art is a coup. That is how absurdly broad you are being in your effort to call this a coup.
How did their specific actions, not some bs on Parler or Reddit, actually threaten the government or change of power? At very worst it was a delaying tactic, nothing in the Constitution spells out that under no circumstances can there be a delay or else the old president stays in power. If they were going to subvert the Constitution were was the evidence they were rewriting the Constitution? Some person recording themselves on FB live saying something doesnt make it a coup. And I doubt very much any of them had thought beyond their protest, and you have yet to present anything that takes it beyond a protest. I am even fine if you want to call the protest inside the Capitol illegal, but would argue about the majority who stayed outside were perfectly in their right to be there.
It absolutely is what you’ve referred to as a probability argument. That’s just an asinine statement. You’ve made the same argument six (now seven) different ways and every time it is some flaw in their execution (e.g. “so few people”) and the fact that the whole thing couldn’t produce a certain result. Usually, the result you’re asking after isn’t even necessary for it to have been a coup (e.g. “create a new government.”)
Ok. I’ve already conceded it was poorly planned, delusional, and based on a number of mistakes of fact. It had no realistic hope of being successful. These aren’t the best and brightest people and many of them live in an alternate reality. That’s not news to anybody who isn’t one of them. None of that matters.
What matters is 1. intent and 2. actions in furtherance of that intent.
The videos of people at the Capitol saying that they wanted to overturn the election speak to their intent and are generally consistent with the statements on Parler, Facebook, Twitter, and VN. The subsequent statements are also generally consistent. Donald Trump was, at that time, engaged in a months-long campaign to overturn the election. He said the day before that he wanted Pence to overturn the election. This was a grass roots movement to support that objective. The best evidence of this is that when Pence didn’t overturn the election, they turned on him en masse. There would be no other justification to turn on him at that point, other than that they wanted him to throw out the votes and overturn the election. Therefore, their intent was to overturn the election.
Overturning the election in that manner is unconstitutional. It is inconsistent with our form of government. The result would be, definitionally, a different form of government. Therefore, the intent to illegally overturn an election and suddenly install an unelected autocrat is the intent to carry out a coup.
Their actions furthered this intent by placing a violent, intimidating mob inside the Capitol where the vote was taking place. They dressed in combat cosplay. They brought or fashioned weapons. They fought their way in. They brought or confiscated zip tie restraints. These actions are all in furtherance of subduing or intimidating resistance to an objective. They were, thankfully, unsuccessful at doing more than delaying the vote.
The good faith (I guess?) arguments you’ve made are all endemic to you. You refuse to acknowledge statements about their intent. You refuse to fundamental civics. That doesn’t mean those statements don’t show intent. That doesn’t meant that an autocracy can exist within our constitutional form of government. Those things remain true regardless of any willful decision to ignore them.
The Pence thing, I’ve already covered. There’s no way you followed what happened and honestly thought your portrayal of it above was honest, accurate, and a meaningful rebuttal. So at this point I assume we transitioned into the bad faith arguments.
I think with the third point you’re trying to analogize something that clearly isn’t even close to a coup with a coup to make it seem like some sort of slippery slope. Yours is so obviously unrelated to overturning the government that I can’t really tell.
With the fourth, you seem to be trying to put words in my mouth but, again it’s hard to tell what relevant point you’re making because it starts out seeming a bit hysterical and just gets worse.
