Can the right see this perspective?

I'm not going to try to get into the middle of some of the other inner thread comments below.

The big issue that I see - is that so many people have lost sight that rights and privileges comes with responsibility.

That if you don't take the appropriate responsibility - that you are held responsible for your behavior.

The biggest responsibility that I see is that as an Adult - a person is supposed to exhibit reasonable care to determine the basic facts in a situation; and then act according to those facts; or are held responsible for their actions (and its the very rare case where criminal is judged free from their crime just because they believe something that is not true).

In the above context of truth: While individual judges may make wrong decisions and mistakes. If about 60 judges say essentially the same thing (no actual evidence of election fraud or issues that would overturn votes), and there are only 3 others that agree that there were minor technical issues - what is the truth most likely to be?

Why would not the people who were presenting their cases in court not have introduced real legal evidence - if it existed? Allegations of such evidence - and wild theories or incorrect analysis is not evidence (and anyone can make such allegations without having any facts). An example I researched (out of many): using 2016 population data to argue that 2020 vote counts have to be wrong when there's lots of evidence of population increase for the area of the claim is just invalid. With a noticeable population increase - you would expect more people to vote, and the number of votes was not statistically out of proportion for the current estimated population of the area from independent sources compared to the number of people who voted as a % of the population in other areas of the state.

While there is a right to free speech. It is limited by 2 main factors.

1) Where such speech causes public damage or harm, or is advocating a criminal act:

Example you cannot just yell "fire" in a public place unless there is a fire. People often get hurt (even killed) trying to evacuate from a fire in a building. Likewise, you cannot call for violence and use of force just because you personally believe something to be true. That is not protected speech.

Arguing for over-through of the government, normal well established government functions is Sedition - a federal crime (and most states have similar statutes on the state level); and is not protected by Free Speech.

2)Private companies do not have to provide you "free speech". Only the government has to provide you free speech. Thus, apple, google, etc. controlling and regulating which discussions or discussion groups can exist on their platforms - IS NOT a free speech issue.

It seems that many people on all sides of an issue seems to not understand the above truths or are willing to actually take responsibility for their actions (and the effects of their actions). The Leftist and Rightist are equally as guilty here. It is extraordinarily rare that destruction or violence is justified; and in almost all cases more would have been accomplished on finding a compromise and resolving an issue if the parties had refrained from destruction and violence.

Another problem is that both political parties have used at times the "Big Lie" to further their political advantage.

This is where people publicly say and support things that they know either is not, or likely not true.

Look at the election data and who said what - and what were they potentially get in return:

The people who ran the elections (many of them Republicans) have repeatedly said that they have seen no issues big enough to challenge that Biden won the Presidential Election (look at Arizona, Georgia, Nevada as examples of this).

At the same time the same election process produced unexpected Republican wins at other government levels; which is very solid evidence that there was not Democratic Tampering.

The people in charge of monitoring for fraud in the election on a state and national level have said that their is no evidence of coordinated fraud, or any other fraud that would change the election results. Most of those were Republicans or Republican appointees (all the way up to the Attorney General of the United States).

Now of course, in any large election there are always very trivial numbers of improper votes for a variety of reason (someone voting for a dead person, double voting, etc). In virtually all cases the numbers of those are typically less than 10 per State, and the States do prosecute most of those cases (a common reason for a double vote is an elderly person who is being affected by dementia - they don't prosecute those people as there was no intent, and just talk to the family or care-taker to ensure it does not happen again). Again, the levels of these kinds of frauds are extremely small as a % of votes.

Another common misconception - is that if there are technical issues with an election (improper procedures, etc) that the votes can be thrown out. Not true at all. Only if the improper procedures or rules had a significant effect on how people cast their individual votes. Otherwise - the long standard legal standard (going back hundreds of years based on my research) is that the Courts just tell the affected jurisdiction to fix their procedures and processes prior to the next election; and all votes are counted.

So all the recent legal cases requesting votes to be thrown out were known up front to be immediately dismissed to any lawyer who knew anything about voting rights and voting laws. Notice that all of those claims by President Trump and his supporters were rejected.

In my opinion, the only reasons those cases were filed was as political statements. Given the very long history of the courts accepting people's votes even if technical issues existed about the processes and procedures. What was the actual purpose for even filing these legal claims (did they actually think the courts would invalidate about 200 years of well established legal precedent).

Getting back to who what said - and what they got:
A number of nationally prominent Republicans and the Republican Party has raised over $1 Billion (by my last count) by just telling people that there is clear evidence of election fraud and to donate money to fight that. President Trump himself raised over $200 Million. That's called getting paid well to tell some people what they want to hear by lying. It has nothing to do with the truth - as I have yet to see even on credible claim that indicates there was fraud (now that takes time to research the various claims and look at their validity). A variety of independent national news organizations also did that research - and anyone can read (or watch) the results of those analysis. Is it any wonder the Judges all rejected them. In my opinion the vast majority of the claims are things that most intelligent 8th graders could poke logical holes in).

Political and Financial power can be gotten by some by lying - or even saying nothing and participating in a "big lie."

Note that people on the other political spectrum also fall for similar things on other issues.

So back to my key thesis: As an Adult, we only have rights and privileges if we exercise our it is our Base Responsibility to make an effort to determine the truth; and we are held responsibility for our actions if we do not.

In the case of the protesters about the election: They have no likely sustainable claims to innocence here. They cannot stand on what they personally believe - if that is contrary to what is reasonable based on known facts (otherwise there are very few people who would be guilty of any crimes).

We all learn as kids that people lie and manipulate us. By the time we are adults we should have learned to be skeptical and how to check for what is likely true. Ignorance and laziness are not excuses - either in the courts of law or in overall public opinion.

This is not just can the Right understand these things. Can the Left, and Centrist as well.

The current form of the USA with States and Federal Government was established at the 1787 Constitutional Convention which was held to fix the Articles of Confederation which were not working well.

What we the people were given was a Democratic Republic for which fair elections and voting is the very base of the government. For people to challenge overall the fairness of the election process - after 200+ years of lessons learned and rules and standards to make continually more fair and honest... and without any real evidence: is to challenge the very foundation of our government (which in my opinion falls into Sedition).

I studied the election process years ago. I know that a balanced group of typically Democrats, Republicans, and in some states Independents make up the state and local election boards and committees. These people are responsible for ensuring a fair election - and are empowered to speak up on any issue they see. Ways to validate absentee ballots, check for double voting, etc. were developed decades ago in most states. The most recent new issue from a decade ago was how to ensure that electronic machine voting data was secure (resolved effectively by at least 5 years ago).

The very reason why Georgia had a totally new voting process in 2020 was because there were legitimate questions raised about their previous process - and they vowed to adopt the best practices that they could find nationwide for the 2020 election. I believe that results combined with the not required 100% audit, and additional verification of valid absentee voters (Audited voter signatures on envelopes) in the most populated county - shows just how good of job they did.

I have tremendous respect for the poll workers. They are the base who ensure that we actually have fair elections.

Anyway, this has been a long post - but, lets all Lady and Man up and start to take responsibility for determining what is likely the truth, and act accordingly.

I voted for Trump, and I will admit it was a riot. But if an election was truly rigged would it be justified? The founding fathers did say many times it was our obligation to overthrow tyranny. A rigged election qualifies as that.

So I do feel it is justified and this is just my personal opinion. The difference I see in the riots between BLM and the right wing mob is that BLM/antifa burnt down private businesses and looted them. The right wing mob went to the people they believed rigged the election and did what they did. And I would not be surprised if there is more to come. I dont think this is the last of this.

You can argue whether the election was rigged or not until the cows come home. There is a good argument that multiple confirmed things happened illegally. Theres even video evidence from Pennsylvania and Atlanta of poll workers doing illegal things like filling out ballots and telling observers they were done counting and to go home only to pull out hidden mail in ballots that were under a table and start counting them in secret.

They were stupid to break into the building. Idk if the medics are really stupid; it seems unfair to hurt people who are there for a altruistic, non-aggressive reason like that. I would imagine that many of the people claiming to be medics weren't though in reality.

Do you guys seriously enjoy talking about politics? 😴😴

What I'm going to say is probably irrelevant to your actual point of the post but I want to put my thoughts on it.

Fuck the Capitol Hill rioters, and that should be a viewpoint from both people that believe there was no election fraud and the ones that do believe there was election fraud. These shitheads were larping as revolutionaries, not unlike those in the 2020 riots. They put themselves in a "Win or be punished" scenario and then acted like it was a field trip with smiling faces all around...That wasn't what you claimed to be doing it for, you said you were there to fight against your right to elect a leader that you viewed was being taken from you, your options were to either go big or stay home and you did neither, so yeah you can get punished for wasting everyone's time.

One of my main issue is how they tried to pin it on Trump and Rudy when there is no possible way to do it:
- Trump clearly stated that the rally should go there to "cheer" in support for their side at the Capitol, he never once implied illegal acts.
- Rudy's "Trial by combat" was an edgy GOT reference that was in the context of a legal battle.

My MAIN gripe against it all is this:
We have just spent four years of the left inciting violence towards Trump and his supporters, I'm not talking from just the average Joe but from celebrities and politicians, and they have done so with zero consequence. Christ, nobody seems to remember the assassination attempt on Trump at the very start. We just went through the 2020 riots where the very same people accusing Trump of inciting violence literally said there should be more "unrest" while riots were claiming the lives of people, including children, chaos far worse than what happened in the Capitol riot and for far longer.

The left get away with their violence because they are the establishment and will tell you they are allowed to harm you.
The right fail because they don't realize that their only options are to go big or submit.

The left looted and caused chaos and death when it suited them also.

Same idiots on two sides of a coin really.

It is important to point out, though. If you have one side that is allowed to engage in political violence without consequence and in some cases support from the establishment yet the political opposite are held to a much higher standard then that needs to be pointed out, especially when it's being weaponized to target political leaders.

The primary argument when bringing up the BLM/Antifa rioters isn't that they existed, we know shitty people exist, it's that it was not only ignored but in some cases supported by the very people lying about others inciting violence.

Yes, the BLM/Antifa lot are fringe, as are the people that stormed the Capitol, like you state.

You say you can't find many Trump supporters IRL but you cannot have years of violence being justified upon them, calls for them to be put on "lists", and a whole bunch of other crap and expect them to be as open about their politics.

I may be wrong (I don't know much about the situation), but, from what I've heard, the rioters weren't as bad as the previous rioters, since they weren't attacking random businesses. They were only attacking the capitol (again, I might be wrong about that). If they were only attacking the capitol, then I don't think they've done much wrong. They were attacking a government they thought was tyrannical, and, if you think, the USA are designed to be easily taken out by insurrection in case of tyranny.

The reason why the Second Amendment exists, for example, is not just because the founding fathers were fans of sports shooting or protection against criminals; it exists because the founding fathers wanted to make a government that was easy for the people to defeat. I think that, based upon American morals (not my own), they have done nothing wrong. Based upon my own morals, their acts of violence can be defended, if their reasons and expected results were morally sound enough.

You clearly don't live in the Bible Belt. Those motherfuckers are everywhere still. Complaining about how the election was stolen (which it clearly wasn't) has replaced small talk in grocery stores, etc.

Ah. So it's not the value of the act that's measured, it's the value of the people or group targed? BLM and Antifa can kill 30+ people, including children, burn a man to a crisp inside of a property, and rape women inside the CHAZ for six or so months but if you spend half a day directly targeting the government for their lack of transparency in the right to vote then it's considered as having more casualties? I disagree. I think the fact they exclusively targeted government makes it less of an issue, not more of one.

That's not at all hypocrisy. Hilary lost with the popular vote due to the electoral college, the system that was in place prior to the election. The rules would literally have to change for them to lose.

Exactly. You are the establishment. A very large portion of people defend Donald Trump but because you stand for the establishment you and your side can rally a larger percentage of people to target individual Trump supporters, which is why you fail to find any IRL because your side has the power to abuse power and you will and the Trump supporters can do nothing about it and we have seen that you are held to a far lesser standard of responsibility and accountability for it.
You can't rig the game and then wonder why people hide their beliefs.

About your last paragraph. There is an alternative to the two options you provided. You could just be shunned and called wrong. If anything, that's probably the best option, because if it turns out that you are correct, everyone else will be like, "That guy was right before everyone else, and we shunned him for it."

I'm not sure how the first part relates to my initial point. Mass shooters are definitely held accountable for their crimes. Could you clear what you mean up on this one?

The reason why they're concerned about it now is because the circumstances were entirely different. There were counts of voter irregularities, glitches in the system, Republican poll watchers were not allowed to watch the count, the lies about vote counting being "done for the night" and then they continue counting when everybody leaves, boarding up the vote count so people can't watch, and more...And all of it somehow worked in one flow: Biden's favour. If something irregular happened it would be in Biden's favour.
Maybe he did win fairly but pairing those examples with the fact Democrats stonewalled any and all attempts to get to the bottom of it and you have a chance at justifying a large scale reaction not just like what we seen but even worse.

The far left have definitely not been treated the same way at all, they have had the backing of the establishment for too long. They have not had to deal with the amount of censorship and vilifying that the Trump camp have been dealing with, and it's actually oddly offensive for the side wielding such power over Trump's camp to then try to claim they are the ones fighting the system that they are wielding to attack others with.