At least these rioters showed up at the right place. Breaking into the capital was beyond dumb, but it makes a lot more sense than breaking into a Gucci store.

I think that the right place to protest to the government would be at a government building (such as the capitol) rather than a Gucci store.

People marched into the capitol with handguns, zip ties, and an intent to award the presidency to the loser. I'm not waiting for someone to actually succeed before I declare them insurrectionists, and I don't know why you want to minimize the threats made against Congress, which did not stop that day: https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-siege/no-bail-for-qanon-...

If you want to compare it to something, I would recommend the fall conspiracy to capture the Michigan governor, put them on a mock trial and then publicly execute them for their "crimes": https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/politics/fbi-plot-michigan-go...

> an intent to award the presidency to the loser

How would they have done that? Nobody would listen to a bunch of hooligans pronouncing orders from the House rostrum. In a coup, someone like a general is waiting to hear the signal to throw in with the coup leaders, providing actual institutional power to the usurpers.

There was no institutional power behind these people -- do you think some general at Andrews was waiting for the phone call to signal his support for the guy in the viking hat?

This was an act of vandalism, and maybe burglary or "home" invasion robbery.

> How would they have done that?

Attempted murder is still a felony, even if's a very dumb attempt. The same is true for coups.

> In a coup, someone like a general is waiting to hear the signal to throw in with the coup leaders, providing actual institutional power to the usurpers.

The Q folks think this is exactly what the military is going to do.

The line I responded to was about "awarding the contest to the loser," that means transferring institutional power. Not just killing people on TV.

In order for a coup to be successful, institutions need to endorse the new order or have their heads replaced with loyalists. Capturing the symbolic seat of power, or even killing elected representatives doesn't accomplish that. In this scenario there would've needed to be a body of bureaucrats and officers in every branch and every agency who would see the house leader lynched on TV and then said, yes I'm ready to do the bidding of the usurping administration.

This would be hundreds of people, if not thousands, in the highest ranking civilian positions who would all have to endorse or be arrested. Then because this is a federalist system, local governments would all have had to endorse the new system or be replaced. Also, the judiciary. Also, all branches of the military.

Unless you believe we were on the precipice of this happening, it wasn't a coup, and if you do think we were anywhere close to seeing this happen, you're insane and wrong. It was at best a bumbling terrorist attack. More accurately IMO, it was mob violence resulting from an epic failure of crowd control.

> How would they have done that?

There were a number of different, complementary means envisioned, the simplest of which was reflected in the chant “Hang Mike Pence”, which existed because the pro-coup political intelligentsia had proposed that the Vice President could and should simply refuse to open the certificates from selected states, denying the Democrats a majority of counted EVs, or alternatively could choose unilateral to accept “alternate” slates of electors from some of those states, an approach Mike Pence rejected. Removing Pence would result in a different presiding officer who might be more amenable to the plan.

And, sure, that still seems like a pretty dumb plan, but an insurrection doesn't stop being an coup attempt because the plan is stupid.

> In a coup, someone like a general is waiting to hear the signal to throw in with the coup leaders.

You’re thinking of a coup in favor of a faction that doesn't already hold the cheif executives office. An auto-coup, which is what was intended, usually involves some mechanism to provide a pretext to either extend power beyond it's lawful limits or extend it beyond it's legal term, not to seize it from the current holder. The only person you need to ready to do anything is the existing executive, who just needs to accept the offered pretext to retain power. Which Trump already announced his support for this theory and his anger at Pence for refusing it, which was a major contributor to the insurrection.

They should be punished to the full extent of the law.

In the meantime, people who continuously talk about insurrection seem to be living in a fantasy land. Just as you say, without the military the "insurrection" means nothing.

Not lost on me that the government these people are claiming needs to be overthrown violently because it's tyrannical is treating them with kid gloves compared to most governments. And frankly the relatives of those that stepped over the line and will go to prison should be really happy they live in the US and not another country where people get punished because of mere association. Because that's totally a thing in other countries. But not here.

>How would they have done that?

Kill enough congress members so the election can’t be certified. Elect Trump speaker of the house (speaker doesn’t need to be a member of congress). Since the election wasn’t certified, the constitution declares the speaker (now Trump) becomes President on the 20th.

I don't know how you can be so confident that there wasn't a general who would have thrown in if he had a chance. Given the statistics, there must be at least a few high-ranking generals who believe Trump's claims that he won the election.

Their intent to intimidate the lawmakers into leaving Trump in power. Trump absolutely wanted them to do so, and was very strategic in staying just on one side of the line.

They didn't need a general waiting in the wings, they just needed the President who was already sitting in the WhiteHouse.