Why argue with someone who voted for Trump and whose "opinions" you can predict by simply watching whatever the Fox News hosts say?

That's the only real question. Because it's fun is the answer, I guess. But don't think for a second that you'll get anywhere.

I cannot tell if that’s the CNN or the cocaine speaking. At this point they’re one and the same.

But the situation in this case is not just one side tarring another side.

The proponents for overturning the election did that openly in the name of opposing a crime they said was being perpetrated. If I was convinced that such a crime had been perpetrated, I would not readily accept the results either.

But nobody has shown that such a crime has, in fact, been perpetrated. The courts have thrown out all suits claiming as much. The media still advancing the idea can only conjure the most ridiculous reasons why the crime is not visible to ordinary mortals.

By their own admission, there was a shadow campaign to alter state election laws and systems, securing hundreds of millions in public and private dark money to do so. They got social media companies to suppress “misinformation”, such as Hunter Biden’s escapades, which turned out to be true. They coordinated with the same activist groups who for that whole year destroyed many cities through the country. They convinced millions to vote by mail for the first time. All of this was intended to preserve election integrity from Trump’s withering criticism, which they absurdly labeled an “assault on democracy”. Instead of protecting the election, though, they worked behind the scenes to fundamentally alter it.

Given all this, I see no problem in crying foul and contesting the election, which Trump and his campaign did.

But none of those claims regarding voting fraud could be proven in the light of day. The power to expose such crimes was in the hands of those most interested in proving it. They failed to do it, even with an AG inclined to help.

The mail voting element has not been proven to show anything of significance by even the Fox people.

Crying foul is one thing. Engineering an alternate result is another. How legitimate could that alternate reality be if the grounds for it was not substantiated beyond mere suspicion?

The only insurrection and coup attempts were the activities of the deep state and anti-Trump forces in both parties and in the media, who spent the majority of their time trying to stifle, discredit, and remove Trump from office during his presidency, the will of the people be damned.

The will of the people, eh? I don't suppose you're referring to either the majority of Americans who thought the Russia investigation was fair and its findings accurate, or the majority of Americans who voted for Clinton in 2016?

Also, its funny that you object to using terms like "insurrection" or "coup" wrt the Jan 6 riots, but endorse them in the equally ridiculous context of lawful processes like the Mueller probe or either of Trump's impeachments. If drunk rednecks stealing furniture and holding Trump signs isn't a coup or insurrection, then the lawful activities of journalists or members of Congress certainly isn't either.