Guess which pole I’m at and tell me how I should meet the other pole in the middle.
Where was a single Democrat who stormed the Virginia capital when Republicans won the Governorship?
2 Republicans in Congress voted for an investigation of the insurrections, so there you go: charity.
Did you know the GOP doesn't have superdelegates like the Democrats do? Superdelegates are certainly an example of manipulating the will of the people.
(It is very weird that the internal politics and internal elections of US political parties seem to be a public matter; open primaries are unheard of in most of the rest of the world.)
... and then exaggerate those on top of it.
Also, we note you don't provide any actual rebuttal. :-)
One side violently took to the streets in multiples cities, destroying many small businesses, and causing significant civil unrest.
The other attempted to protect the citizens being attacked in those events and discourage further violence.
One may say that these events weren't strictly Dem vs Rep events, but current hostilities and ideas would suggest that each side was dominantly one or the other.
Some offenses are simply unforgivable.
N.B.: Not american
Even the people in the GOP who refused to back his coup attempt did not sever ties with Trump.
Now, you may disagree (as the courts) that it was manipulated. Being wrong does not make what he did a coup.
If this doesn't look like some uncontrovertibly fascist shit to you, then we live in entirely different realities.
That said, don't think of it as meeting the other pole in the middle. Realize that there are lots of other people between your pole and their pole, and the pole you despise is representative of a lot less people than you think.
To be fair, though, the left also has been associated with violent and anti-democratic behaviors.
One side wants to seize power for all time, and the other side wants democracy. If anyone on the left isn’t polarized by that fact then they aren’t paying attention.
> Six members of the radical far-left Resistance Conspiracy were arrested in May 1988 and charged with the bombing, as well as related bombings
just one, commonly cited counterpoint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
> In the internationally publicized legal proceedings that followed, eight anarchists were convicted of conspiracy
He was condemned by both parties, and was not part of the mainstream liberal movement.
The only person that was killed during the capitol riot was one of the rioters shot by capitol security. Justified, to be clear, but it wasn't violence perpetrated by the rioters. Brian Sicknick died of natural causes [1][2][3].
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/brian-sic...
2. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/19/988876722/capitol-police-offi...
No they don't. They just happened to find a group of people who were likely to vote for them but couldn't. If they were likely to vote GOP (or Green, or Libertarian), they wouldn't be fighting this fight at all.
If you really want to see what someone believes, look at what they do when it isn't in their best interests.
Fast forward now, not so much anymore. Now I want Trump to be back in the office.
Okay so lumping together half the country in with a few extremists would probably be the first step to answering your question. Yes there were probably plenty of people at home cheering them on but if you really believe it was half the country then you need to get outside your bubble.
> the other side wants to make voting for whoever you want as easy as possible
I have a tough time believing this at least from a party perspective. Sure, the democratic party loves to say this, and they even manage to back it up with their actions sometimes when it's convenient for them, but they still only want you voting for their party approved puppets. If that weren't the case then I simply don't see how it is defensible for democrats to not have enacted a better voting system yet in places where they have clear majorities (eg California would be near the top of that list, and yet here we are stuck with a democratic governor who vetoed the legislation which would have allowed general law cities to use alternative voting systems). Note that I find it entirely likely that plenty of democratic voters would like to fix our voting, I'm specifically talking about the party leadership here, although on that note there are also plenty of republicans who would like to fix our voting, so that's another step you could take to meet them in the middle.
First past the post voting is probably the biggest thing preventing people from "voting for whoever they want", but democrats have done very little for that even though it is blindingly obvious how terrible of a system it is. Well, I can see why the democrats (and republicans) would like it, because that's a large part of how they stay in power, but from a "voting for whoever you want" perspective it's just about as bad as it gets and the democrats just don't seem to care about it.
Now that it's becoming clear that more voters care about this reform, many places are turning to RCV/IRV as the solution when there are much better methods out there. It's hard to tell if it's just being ignorant about the problems with IRV (eg doesn't elect condorcet winner, ignores lots of ballot preferences, non-monotonic, etc) or if they are intentionally aiming for a method which appeases the voters while also being one that will help keep them in power. Approval and STAR are significantly better and are gaining momentum in the US and any condorcet method would also be reasonable, but so far support for these other options is pretty grassroots and I'm unaware of any big name republians or democrats actually talking about those other methods.
Fixing the voting would also help people like you distinguish just how much support eg Trump has compared to others. There was a lot of vote splitting happening in the Republican primaries which Trump benefited from and with a proper method I believe it's entirely possible he wouldn't have even been nominated in the first place. There are plenty of Republicans who did not like him but didn't feel they had an alternative in the general election because of how distasteful they found Clinton/Biden to be.
If you believe the presidency has been stolen by a conspiracy then violence is the only recourse remaining.
This is not a handful of extremists. This is the predominant view.
I'm tired of seeing this lie spouted to dismiss all this as a " Russia hoax". It is clear there is a conflict of interest within that admin. They went to bat to remove sanctions against Russia. They blackmailed Ukraine to attack a political opponent.
A number of other people went to jail among the "Russiagate" investigation. It is true that none of this has ever quite reached Trump himself.
Just look at how the DOJ treated these two different "conspiracy theories":
1. DOJ denied any factual basis existed for Trump's election claims.
2. DOJ investigated and convicted numerous people on the basis of the Russia collusion investigation.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/04/more-than-h...
Of all the people I know across the spectrum, I don't know of anyone (registered or otherwise) who believes either nonsense.
So a Democratic majority state legislature _passed_ this legislation?
And the veto proves that it's not what Democrats _really_ want?
edit: although really I hope all you took away isn't just that I don't like democrats. I don't like anyone against fixing the voting methods be they democrat, republican, green, libertarian, independent, or any other category I failed to mention. I just pointed out democrats because supposedly they are the majority in CA and like to claim that they support a healthy democracy. In the same way, I'm happy to work with (just about) anyone who wants to fix the voting system and hope they will make their voice heard. I think it is perhaps the most important thing we need to fix right now, and is one of the main criteria I personally look at when voting for officials.
I think you could make an even stronger statement: the majority of Democrats probably aren't even aware of the issue.
It's not a popular issue, and not the kind of thing that Democratic politicians can use to inspire people to vote.
It's not like Newsom is some outlier, just a year ago in San Diego there was an initiative to try and put IRV on the ballot so that the people of San Diego could vote on whether they wanted it or not. The initiative to put it on the ballot failed, only 2/6 democrats in the city council voted in favor of it. 1/2 republicans were in favor and the independent was in favor.
My personal theory is that if there's a strong majority, then the party on top would not be in favor of it. Hopefully we can break the cycle but it's a hard problem when the people most incentivized to vote for it are already the most marginalized.
Just like republicans don't need to dignify this Jan 6th protest with any response at all, it's not republicans, it's fanatics.
I believe you may be looking for reasons to condemn republicans.
It's disgusting that you try to excuse this by saying it's just fanatics. These fanatics continue to hold power within the party.
Shame on you for the gaslighting. I reject your belief, and you would do well not to try to ascribe other's motivations for their actions.