No. of Recommendations: 2
Several people in this thread have mentioned it - I think you're just focusing on your own sense of the single story, not what other people are saying to you.
No, what people are saying in this thread is "Trump incited an armed resurrection" on 1/6. I'm highlighting how ridiculous that narrative is and how equally ridiculous it was for the media and the left in general to front it for 3 and a half years.
The fact that it wouldn't go well from them doesn't mean that they don't succeed in an act of violence that brings slows the certification down by more than a few hours.
Uh, huh. And so what? The narrative is that the intent was to overthrow the government, not merely slow down the process.
They were modestly successful in these efforts - they managed to get dozens of people to falsely sign their names as electors, generating several false slates, and convinced more than 100 Congressbeings to refuse to acknowledge what actually happened during the election so that Trump could stay in power. It was ultimately unsuccessful, but the effort was definitely there to try to wrongly utilize the certification process as a way of preventing the actual winner of the election from becoming President.
Where in that lies the armed insurrection?
