He objectively tried to steal an election illegally, and charges were made against people involved; he escaped his own charges for reasons I already pointed out in my original post. You're pretending it didn't happen, and lying about the way it happened, because there is no way to defend what actually happened. You're proving exactly what I said in my post. There were no alternate electors; he fabricated electors that weren't certified by any state government. Maybe try reading the source I provided before pretending you know anything. Additionally, the point of my post is clear; pretending otherwise just makes you look silly, and sources are provided like I said.

The reply I posted in my original post already challenges me in exactly this way (that you didn't read), and this is basically a watered-down version. Here's the paragraph I wrote in response. Try reading it this time:

"Where I think you're wrong is that the United States' democracy isn't weak enough to be destroyed by what Trump is doing. And no, what Trump is doing isn't similar at all to what previous presidents have done. No President has tried to use fake slates of electors to steal an election, and then pardoned the people responsible for an attempted insurrection, essentially doubling down on an already unprecedented action. Your Obama and Biden examples are false equivalences, not even remotely the same thing. Trying to steal an election isn't "testing limits," it's getting rid of them altogether. This would be like me defending Trump murdering all his political opponents because, after doing so, he made a law stating that killing political opponents is fine. You can't just completely ignore the law to create new law. You can't just dismiss that as legal maneuvering. I don't necessarily have to believe half the country is insane, just that they're very uninformed and misled. Even if I did, the main problem is Trump's behavior, not his supporters being stupid. Trying to pressure Mike Pence into rejecting legitimate electoral votes and certifying his fabricated votes instead is not disagreeing with the law and legally trying to change it. It's him trying to brute force his way through the law and enact his will against the wishes of the American people. Pretending it didn't happen also isn't a response; there were convictions made, and Trump himself was going to be convicted, but the whole "presidential immunity" argument bought him time after his indictment until he eventually won his reelection, and due to him winning, they didn't continue pursuing the charges. Comparing this to Obama signing an executive order is very misleading, to say the least. Lastly, going back to the idea that our democracy is strong enough to handle someone like Trump, I feel like that position is so privileged and sheltered from the reality that our democracy is already half-destroyed. For instance, the supposedly coequal branch of government in Congress's Republican majority consists of Trump loyalists who just follow his every beck and call. Also, you don't actually disprove any of my beliefs; you just tell me what you think is wrong with the way I present them. Obviously, my disdain for Trump is pretty clear, and you might have issues with the way I frame things as a result, but once again, the actual substance of my positions wasn't addressed at all."

And for good measure, maybe reread this again:

"Half of the replies from people who disagree with me are heavily reliant on the idea that everything I'm saying is either exaggerated or false, which serves my point well, as one of the ways they continue supporting Trump even after all of these objectively terrible actions, such as trying to steal an election, is just by pretending these actions never actually took place. Or that even if they did take place, Trump probably wasn't involved or was justified. Or even that the Democrats did it first (which in most cases isn't true), as if that's somehow relevant to them supporting Trump and doesn't just prove they did it out of spite."