3 ms·
No, you’re stuck with trying to overplay how significant J6 was. Even if it was considered by the participants to be a coup, it’s irrelevant because it simply d
by gjsman-1000 2y ago
No, you’re stuck with trying to overplay how significant J6 was. Even if it was considered by the participants to be a coup, it’s irrelevant because it simply did not have the manpower, or any chance at taking out all of the branches of government to a significant degree. Even if all of Congress and SCOTUS was killed, there is a line of succession (created in case of nuclear war) which states would then follow.
The claim that J6 was a serious threat, by stringing one improbable event into what could have happened if a dozen additional improbable events also occurred, is the Democratic Party’s favorite conspiracy theory. Both sides have them.
- tomrod 2y agoSince you're convinced it couldn't be a coup, would you mind helping see your point of view? How many people would be needed and/or what outcomes would we observe for you to believe it was a coup?
- cogman10 2y agoKilling multiple members of Congress wasn't improbable outcome of J6. Do you agree or disagree. Let's set aside everything else. Do you at least conceed that politicians lives were on the line.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoNo, the evidence does not support that concession.
- AngryData 2y agoI don't think anyone would deny that. But the question is really, would it have mattered even if some got killed? Congress sure as fuck isn't standing in the way of executive overreach right now. I don't see why we should be so overly worried about politicians getting killed, most of them are less than useless, especially considering how many citizens are killed per day already thanks to garbage political legislation that makes it legal.
- queenkjuul 2y agoI really do think that was an improbable outcome.
- cosmicgadget 2y agoAre you familiar with Bush v. Gore? Killing people wasn't necessary.