Thank you for clarifying. I was responding in the context of the original comment that denied it was an attempted coup. Given that was the original context that started this, I think reading your comment in a similar light was not unreasonable since your distinction might have been implied, but not explicit. It was merely a miscommunication.

I too would agree that it was highly unlikely to be successful. Had it gone even a few large steps further in seriously injuring members of congress (also unlikely) I still think the worse-case outcome in terms of transfer of power would have been extra days of delay as appropriate cautions were taken to secure congress.

Perhaps you need to read slower? I see no comment denying that a coup was attempted in any of the parent comments.

The too comment didn't mention the topic at all. The reply to that comment that I replied to mentioned the "recent almost successful coup attempt" and I responded to that comment by pointing out that we came nowhere near a coup beinf successful.

So you, and a large number of other posters, are so locked into the mindset of partisan bickering that you cannot communicate effectively anymore. This is a serious problem that will significanly hurt our chances of preventing similar events.

Wow, you really are determined to make this a flame war. Well, I don't engage in them in general, and HN has a low tolerance for anything coming close, so I'm walking away given that you are not willing to engage in civil discourse free of insults.

I will point out one more fact though: VP Pence made it out of congress mere moments ahead of the mob, part of were hunting him with the goal of hanging him. That seems like a close enough call that the "barely" modifier is not completely unreasonable. If you want to reply to that aspect of the situation without resort to insults or other inflammatory rhetoric, I'm not unwilling to entertain your point of view.

You told me that you had misunderstood what I was saying due to the context. I was pointing out that you were still misunderstanding the context. I didn't insult anyone, but I did feel the the repeated misunderstandings had become so prevelant that I needed to describe the pattern that I was seeing. Edit: As I try to always be civil, I'd appreciate you pointing out where I failed to do so so I can learn.

If Pence had been caught and killed or taken hostage by the mob, that would have brought us no closer to a successful coup. There is simply no way that a single mob can overthrow the US government without significant backing from the institutions of power in this country. To pretend otherwise is to indulge in a fantasy that is completely unrooted in reality.

>If you read my comment

>Perhaps you need to read slower

The above are the things I took as insulting &/or likely to provoke a more inflammatory conversation. I think there are better ways to ask someone to reconsider what you wrote, ways that are less likely to escalate a confrontational tone.

As for Pence, he wasn't a random target. The only reason he was a target was because he had a constitutionally required role to play in the transfer of power. This was a role that the President Trump and some of his supporters wanted him to use to prevent the transfer of power to Biden, but Pence himself had made clear he would not do that.

If killed or kidnapped & therefore unable to perform that role, the next steps to a constitutional crisis were very much on the table:

1) The constitution would require the President to select a new VP.

2) That person then has to be confirmed by a majority of both houses of congress.

3) Given President Trump's urging of VP Pence to use his position to block transfer of power, he would likely appoint someone who would do exactly that.

4) The House would never confirm such a person. Regardless of Senate approval (which would also be unlikely) the confirmation would be blocked, the VP role left empty.

5) The constitutionally mandated terms of the transfer of power could not be met. Biden could not become president.

What would happen from there? I have no idea. Maybe some peaceful resolution. Maybe, with the success of taking the VP out of the picture, many more of President Trump's supporters would feel emboldened to act in some way.

Since VP Pence got away from the situation shortly before the mob arrived.

> The above are the things I took as insulting &/or likely to provoke a more inflammatory conversation. I think there are better ways to ask someone to reconsider what you wrote, ways that are less likely to escalate a confrontational tone.

I'm open to suggestions but the level of continued misapprhension I was facing called for more strong language than the simple corrections I had already repeatedly tried in this thread.

Note the the constitution does not assign this duty to the VP directly, but via his role as the Senate President. Chuck Grassley held the position of Senate President Pro Tempore and the ceremonial duties would have fallen to him.

Now, he may have refused to perfom his constitutionally mandated duty which would have resulted in legal battle that would probably have ended up in the supreme court.

Now, there is maybe an extremely outside chance the supreme court would have invalidated the election and forced a new one. There was absolutely no chance that the Supreme Court would decide that the VP has the unilateral power to completely bypass the counting of the votes and skip ahead in the process to the allow state delegations to select the president.

There would have been chaos and probably a lot more riots and even acts of terrorism. None of that would have allowed the overthow of the US government.