> That article includes quite a few quotes from union leaders and protestors, none from supporters of the bill. Its bias is obvious and undeniable.
> And that bias is probably why it fails to mention the death threats, violent rhetoric, chalk outlines
Heh. It was an article published Thursday morning about the events that happened Wednesday evening. Of course it doesn't mention everything in the grand context. Do you not understand how news works?
I would also note that this is the article linked from the Washington Post article that you linked.
> forcing lawmakers to flee
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Democratic lawmakers voluntarily, intentionally left Wisconsin for Illinois in order to prevent a quorum.
> All that in order to stop, not merely protest, passage of the bill.
Heh, this is just a bizarre statement. Why would you protest a bill if you weren't trying to stop its passage? Of course they were trying to stop its passage. Aren't there bills that you don't want passed?
> If we're to believe that lawmakers in Washington were in danger on January 6th, despite the complete absence of any violence against lawmakers
Another bizarre statement. There was no violence against lawmakers because the lawmakers were evacuated from the building while the Capitol police were trying to hold back the crowd.
> we should also believe the lawmakers in Madison were in danger for the same reason
No, because protesters were actually in the Wisconsin Capitol when the bill was passed. There was booing, but no violence.
> Death threats should be taken seriously regardless of partisanship.
Agreed, and the police do investigate them. But a lot of politicians of both parties get death threats, and most of them are just rhetoric. There were no assassination attempts on Scott Walker, and he personally wasn't even in the Capitol, as he was the Governor and not a legislator.