What if the January 6 insurrection had been more successful?

That seems unlikely. It is far more likely that due to extraordinary circumstances, the vote would have been delayed and the attempt to overturn the elections would still have failed. Just because these people failed to come up with an effective plan doesn’t mean an insurrection did not happen. The justice system doesn’t often excuse stupidity or incompetence in the commission of a failed attempt of a crime.

The most recent of those happened the month before I was born, and I’m comfortably middle aged.

Modnote: Please remember to attack the post and not the poster. That sentence crosses the line into attack Sam_Stone. Do not do this again.

Okay. We’ll let that go, for now.

But Antifa was definitely on your watch.

Clever use of non-parametric methods, whereby one crazed Democrat is equivalent to 400 (and counting) insurrectionists charged (and thousands more outside the capitol).

Later, in another thread…

The evidence shows that the ex-President knowingly and with aforethought raised a private army to attack the Legislative branch with the direct and express purpose of preventing their Constitutionally-defined duty from being exercised, with him doing this at the time and date on which the army would be most effective.

His incompetence is not under discussion here. As he was incompetent running the country, he was incompetent in leading an Insurrection. Which is irrelevant to your quotes above.

Sam. We literally had a 3,300+ post thread, started on November 9th, 2020, entitled “The American Coup” which detailed every step taken by Trump to raise and lead this Insurrection.

There was no doubt about his intentions, even early on - there are a couple of polls asking this very question in the thread.

I mean, I EVEN TOOK THE DAY OFF WORK TO WATCH THE UPCOMING ATTACK for God’s sake. :roll_eyes:

As we saw the conservatives deny the reality of viruses to the tune of 500,000 excess deaths, such a catastrophic and grave sin I’m just gonna call it The American Genocide from now on…

… we now see conservatives deny the reality of literally watching Donald Trump raise a private army as to lead an Insurrection to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America.

“Riot” my ass. Only to those who wish to purposely lie to themselves about the true nature of their actions and beliefs.

Read the thread. It is documented. No doubt about the reality of the coup, not if “fighting ignorance” is your goal, much less “sharing a consensual reality based upon real-world evidence”.

Are you sure about that?

As we saw, though, there’s the element of confusion and simply not having even fathomed to prepare for a scenario such as the one that unfolded. What authority does the Capitol Police have to just start laying waste to anyone in a red hat? They’re officers of the law with a specific jurisdiction; they’re not the national guard. Speaking of which, to add to the confusion, the guy who has constitutional control over said militia is the guy who wanted this insurrection in the first place.

I don’t think anyone can say the insurrection would have succeeded had it gone a little farther, but there are all kinds of disastrous scenarios that could have played out that would have forever changed how the nation views itself. Let’s not forget that behind all of the activists and extremists that engaged in the events leading up to the insurrection, they are encouraged by seemingly ordinary people, many of whom probably got out of their recliners and cheered them on by the tens of millions.

Not so.

The Metropolitan Police Department reported its officers, while trying to clear the Capitol grounds about 7 p.m. on Jan. 6, arrested and charged a 33-year-old Maryland man with the federal offense of carrying a fully loaded 9mm semi-automatic handgun on Capitol grounds.

Social media posts claiming that protesters were not armed also do not address the issue of other weapons used by assailants at the Capitol — or the seizure of guns from supporters before and after the riot.

In legal terms, “armed” means being in possession of any weapon, not just a firearm. While there are laws that specifically address firearms, weapons can include virtually any object used to threaten or cause harm.

According to a database compiled by NPR, of the people charged with violent offenses, including assault on police officers, 15 were armed with deadly or dangerous weapons during the riot at the Capitol.

Eight others facing civil disorder or property destruction charges also were charged with possessing weapons, according to the database.

Those weapons included baseball bats, chemical sprays, a captured police officer’s riot shield, a crowbar, fire extinguishers and a metal flagpole.

Before and after the storming of the Capitol, NBC News reported, police seized a dozen firearms, including an assault rifle, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from seven people attending the rally for President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. Other weapons included a crossbow, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails.

The FBI, in a statement to FactCheck.org on March 5, said Sanborn had testified “in her capacity as the FBI Assistant Director of the Counterterrorism Division. Her responses were restricted to FBI investigative matters and she appropriately deferred to other law enforcement partners for their information.”

Asha Rangappa, an attorney and former FBI agent, told us in an email that she did “not see the logic” in the claim that firearms had to be present for the Capitol riot to have been deemed an armed insurrection.

She also said we will never know how many rioters might have been armed with guns on Jan. 6, because only some were arrested that day.

There’s also the “Quick Reaction Force” stationed at a hotel near the Capitol with plenty of firearms. How close were we to these guys jumping in to the fray and January 6 getting a lot more bloody?

Doesn’t seem to have bothered the 'pubbies all that long, does it?

Cite? You are speculating. And remember, the capital insurrectionists were ushered out of the grounds and not arrested, nor frisked.

How’s about this one: Had the insurrection been successful with Trump “re-elected” by the House, then Canada would become the 51st State before Puerto Rico, DC or America Samoa. Instead of foreigners shilling for Trump, they would feel his boot.

Why? Annexing Canada would mean adding tens of millions of liberals to the USA - the last thing Trumpers would want.

@Sam_Stone Watch this and debunk please. Inside the Jan. 6 Capitol Riot: An Exclusive Video Investigation - The New York Times

OK, just Alberta then.

Getting back to the OP:

scenarios ordered in terms of likelihood of success.

If the insurrectionists had succeeded in disrupting the voting to the point that Congress couldn’t have certified the vote that day then they would have just gone ahead and done it at the next available time. Trump lawyers would argue that it wasn’t constitutional and that the presidency should be sent to Congress but this would probably have had as much degree of success as the other 80 or so election law suits they filed.

If the insurgents had kidnapped or killed members of Congress ot Mike Pence, then I think that would be the end of Trumpism right there. That isn’t something you can just brush under the carpet as portestors letting off a little steam as they exercise their first amendment rights. I think you would see super majorities of the public would see it as a bridge too far and voicing any support of it or anyone associated with it would be taboo. Depending on how those polls went, I think there would be a good chance that Trump wouldn’t survive his second impeachment.

If the protestors succeeded in disrupting the vote until after the end of the day and either fails to hold another vote or demands that it go to the House, then I think there is still a 50/50 chance that the house votes Biden in. Remember that many House Republicans voted for his certification I think that there is a good chance that there would be enough Republican members who don’t actually want to overturn Democracy, to make the right choice (but it would be a near thing.)

If it goes to the house and the state by state vote goes to Trump, then we see nationwide protests and riots from the left that make BLM look like Sunday school, and we go back to read one of those threads about what would you do if the US turned into a dictatorship.

In short, the certification process is procedural, a formality. That it is so mundane that it hardly made news before is testament to the fact that, in our society, that voters have the last word in November, and the administrators who implement the results of the popular vote carry it out without hesitation, because that’s what democratic societies do. It’s understood: the hundreds of millions of ordinary folk who vote are the bedrock of the political system, and we determine the leaders of this society based on how they vote.

Had the insurrection been more successful, and had this process been disrupted, you now have serious questions about those assumptions above. I understand full well that the millions who voted for Biden, and perhaps even a few million more who might have voted for Trump, would cry foul and demand a return to normalcy. Opposing them, however, are tens of millions of voters who actually see violent resistance as a viable alternative to the certified vote.

Point being, tl/dr, we have absolutely no idea where this could have led, and that is the most accurate, honest assessment.

I think the outcome would depend on which members of Congress were killed. Do you honestly believe that the people who come to Trump’s rallies would care about a bunch of Democrats getting what’s coming to them? Especially if it would change the electoral college vote in Trump’s favor. And in the Republican party, it’s the base that cracks the whip. The rest of the party would offer thoughts and prayers before blaming the whole thing on BLM and antifa.

You’re projecting how a reasonable person would react.

To use sports as an analogy, it used to be that a game’s disputes were confined entirely to what happened on the field - that is, a coach could challenge a call and dispute that the opposing player actually scored a touchdown or not - but once the referee upheld the call, the call stood, and the six points were added to the scoreboard - and both sides moved on. That’s what happened with previous elections such as ballot recounts, etc.

Now, it’s like the scoreboard itself has become part of the game - that instead of merely challenging the call on the field, now the coach can have his staff physically obstruct the scoreboard operator from adding points to the scoreboard, or physically hack into the scoreboard itself.

I haven’t seen this posted elsewhere, but here is a 40-minute NYT report, How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol.

Very chilling.