[mythrwy]

Agreed, absolutely is not what happened. I don't deny a riot happened that day. Which is the kind of thing people are actually being charged with. As they should be. I'm not in favor of riots.

But where do you see "intent to violently usurp" in that footage? That's inaccurate and over the top rhetoric of exactly the kind you call out earlier.

I don't believe false flag. There may (or may not) have been agitators who were other then Trump supporters, but if so it wasn't too hard to do and a large number of Trump supporters behaved criminally. No argument with that. But it was not an "attempt to violently usurp the government" by any reasonable definition.

[_ykl9]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/10/hang-mike-pe...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nancy-pelosi-...

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters...

If it's "over the top", it's because what happened was over the top. The language I used is literal and accurate.

[mythrwy]

I'm sorry I strongly disagree your language is either literal or accurate.

[mythrwy]

A guy in a viking suit with bear spray was out to take over the government? NPR and Washington Post say so (after 4 years of claiming Trump was the antichrist).

They are grasping at straws trying to build an (unreasonable) narrative.

Where are the insurrection charges in court?

No, what happened was a bunch of people were upset about an election they perceived as fraudulent and wanted certification stopped until an investigation was performed (also not reasonable, the electors had been certified at that point and it was done deal). Also Trump didn't help matters. Once the state electors were in it was over for him, fraud or no fraud. There wasn't reasonable time to audit anything and he did no one any favors by getting the crowd whipped into a frenzy.

[_ykl9]

Being an idiot in a viking suit justifies attempting to assassinate multiple acting government officials for the purpose of interrupting the certification of the election. OK.