true enough, what absolves trump is that nothing really happened except some smashing of doors. the building was back in business like 2 hours later
CNN was most certainly serious calling all the riots mostly peaceful. Question: If the media can define mostly peaceful for us, why am I not allowed to use their methodology?
You do realize this is all made up right? This is not how our government works. Do you honestly believe our system is so fragile that one mans words causes everything fall apart on verbal threats? Even though you are wrong, lets assume Trump was threatening congress and Pence verbally to "stop the count"; are you suggesting that we are just words away from a revolution? In your logic, Biden can just say, "no more elections" right? Would it work? Biden could say something like this, but it has a zero percent chance of happening. Just like the Viking had a zero percent chance of taking over the government for Trump. The way the country was formed and the way freedom works is that ya'lls fairytale scenario of some coup or insurrection is basically impossible. The only logical insurrection that could take place in the US would take 20-40 years of a slow erosion of freedoms. Like, for example, people voting away their right to own guns; like Australia did. Then, over time, a group could successfully take over a nation. Some guy giving a speech is not a logical path to do this.
Do you not understand what a civil war is? Do you not understand what martial law is? Do you not understand there's no guaranteed winner in a civil war? Do you not understand that martial law under an authoritarian is the opposite of freedom?
So Trump had this power but didnt use it? I dont understand your point... If Trump could of just declared martial law and made himself president forever, why didnt he if he was trying to stage a coup?
Say what? Do you even understand what "civil war" means? How many trump supporters were there in this country on January 6? How many of them were armed? What's the most cited reason gun nuts feel they should own guns?
Ya'lls logic is severely flawed. Ya'll say this power exists for any president to basically take over the country. If this was true, I would be more concerned this power exists and less concerned on who the president "was".
