> Nobody was going to kidnap and murder anyone. And there wasn't constitutional breakdown - nothing broke down.
This is contrary to what some of the people who were in the capitol claimed in advance, and their recorded actions, and their equipment. Seeking out particular officials (Pence and Pelosi), having previously made threats to harm them, with equipment to do so. What about that makes you so certain that no one was going to be killed? So certain that you're willing to reject it outright without even considering the evidence? That rings much more of preconceptions than objective analysis of the evidence.
> but nobody tried to change the constitutional government of the US
The intent of the people who attacked the capitol was to prevent constitutionally mandated transfer of power.
> Pelosi's desk, or steals Pelosi's podium, and now he's the king of the USA and we are all his loyal subjects? There's literally no imaginable way one could perform an actual coup - i.e. take the power into one's own hands
That's not what anyone is suggesting. This wasn't a coup to make baked alaska president, but to keep Trump in power. That's still a coup though. And I think centering your objection to "coup" on that makes it pretty transparent that your argument isn't particularly strong. So yes, stop talking nonsense and get on the same page as everyone else, participate in the discussion others are having, or bow out, but playing semantic games doesn't make you look good, and isn't interesting.
> You mean like being shown a picture of the horned guy in the Capitol, as opposed to actual war
No, but then you knew that already. I'd encourage you to read up on the HN guielines, because you're currently breaking them. And on that I'll disengage, because it's clear you aren't interested in a good faith discussion.
This is contrary to what some of the people who were in the capitol claimed in advance, and their recorded actions, and their equipment. Seeking out particular officials (Pence and Pelosi), having previously made threats to harm them, with equipment to do so. What about that makes you so certain that no one was going to be killed? So certain that you're willing to reject it outright without even considering the evidence? That rings much more of preconceptions than objective analysis of the evidence.
> but nobody tried to change the constitutional government of the US
The intent of the people who attacked the capitol was to prevent constitutionally mandated transfer of power.
> Pelosi's desk, or steals Pelosi's podium, and now he's the king of the USA and we are all his loyal subjects? There's literally no imaginable way one could perform an actual coup - i.e. take the power into one's own hands
That's not what anyone is suggesting. This wasn't a coup to make baked alaska president, but to keep Trump in power. That's still a coup though. And I think centering your objection to "coup" on that makes it pretty transparent that your argument isn't particularly strong. So yes, stop talking nonsense and get on the same page as everyone else, participate in the discussion others are having, or bow out, but playing semantic games doesn't make you look good, and isn't interesting.
> You mean like being shown a picture of the horned guy in the Capitol, as opposed to actual war
No, but then you knew that already. I'd encourage you to read up on the HN guielines, because you're currently breaking them. And on that I'll disengage, because it's clear you aren't interested in a good faith discussion.