I'm not saying it was great or not important, only that it wasn't existentially concluding.

And the difference between "a bad person" becoming President and "half of the country withdrawing from Congress and formally seceding" is several orders of magnitude.

If your only criteria for concern is "existentially concluding" then I'd say you need to recalibrate your barometer. The biggest problem with this approach is that you'll likely only recognize such an event after it is already impossible to stop. We ended up getting very close to throwing out the past election results, wouldn't that be such an event? Or do you think it doesn't qualify because we managed to stopped it this time?

While I somewhat understand your reasoning behind not being concerned, the danger is that there is no guarentee the US will continue to exist forever, and history is full of failed democracies. If you're unwilling to have any concern over the stability of our democracy because it has got this far, then by the time you notice it has failed it will be too late to do anything to fix it.

And in the meantime, bad Presidents have and will continue to do terrible things to people, pretending like it's no big deal is not good. The fact that the US still exists is little consolation to those who were harmed by poor presidential decisions.

> We ended up getting very close to throwing out the past election results

We disagree on this. From what I've read, there was amateurish pontificating on throwing out election results, mostly by sub-Presidential aides or advisors.

And most critically, rejected by almost everyone in a position of authority to legally do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the most serious legal action taken to deny the results was the Arizona private recount?

The President of the United States claimed the election was fraudulent and directed the Vice President to throw out electoral votes and hand him the Presidency. Fake elector certificates were signed. The President called up state officials telling them to "find more votes", and refused to start the transfer of power. Election officials were threatened. The President's supporters attacked the Capital and (for a few hours) stopped the votes from being counted. That list doesn't even cover everything, how is that not a serious attempt? What exactly would they need to do for you to be concerned beyond them actually being successful in overturning the election?

Again, your barometer for concern is way too far off. The issue is that such attempts only needs to work one time for the game to be over. If you're always unconcerned about attempts being made because they failed then eventually one will be successful and you won't be able to do anything about it.

The President's own Vice President, Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, et al. refused to participate in any of the schemes. Republican governors refused to participate in any of the schemes. Republican secretaries of state refused to participate in any of the schemes. The DoJ is now investigating and charging everyone who broke into the Capitol (-ol, not -al), who were evicted the same day by the National Guard, Capitol police, and DC police.

To me, that's a bunch of clowns without a plan.

A serious attempt looks like someone sitting down, planning out an attempt likely to succeed, and then enacting that plan in a competent and responsive manner.

Trump lied on national news, shouted from a podium, and inspired a riot.

At the founding of our country, that would have been a Tuesday.

For me to be concerned, I would have needed to see any other person of executive power or branch of government participate in the plot. Or enough members of Congress to actually threaten the normal process.

And if it had been successful, then you know what everyone does? They march on the Capitol and demand the rule of law be adhered to. Coups require consent. Withhold that, and they crumble.