Screaming fire in a crowded theater is not a violation of free speech. It may be prosecuted as a crime if indeed there was no evidence of a fire.
If you are unwilling to admit that there was evidence of a fire in the 2020 election then there is little hope for a serious debate.
The events of 1/6 were a peaceful version of the Storming of the Bastille. While there may have been agents present who were motivated to violence, most of the participants were exercising their God given right of civil disobedience. The smell in the theater is not popcorn burning.
The fact that once again the Democrat Party is plotting to stifle debate with potential nominees representing the wishes of nearly 1/3 of party members should have you looking for burning embers too. Joe Biden is damaged goods and there is little time for Democrats to get moving and select a realistic candidate to run against Trump or whomever Republicans select.
I am not quite clear on what you mean by "fire in the 2020 election." I certainly think the election was stolen. I have felt the election system has been more or less rigged for a very long time. But I do I believe Chavez came back from the grave and tampered with the machines? I doubt it. The system is rigged (from my perspective, which is primarily a gut feeling) long before anyone casts a vote. The system is rigged by the cost to run which limits many "normal" people from running, how many pipefitters and janitors can run for office? By the primary system that eliminates candidates who do not win or have a very strong showing in the first couple of primaries, by forcing out multiple names on ballots, or fixing it so they have no substantial chance of winning, even though almost half of the country registers as neither party, when they approach voting day, do you "throw away your vote" (as people say, and I have done since 1984) or do you choose between two alternatives you don't prefer?
I don't know the answer, but I feel if you overthrow the government, or limit the options even further, there is less chance. I don't believe you are quite accurate that Jan 6 was a"peaceful" version of the storming of the Bastille. There have been over 1000 convicted for violence on Jan 6; there were only 633 participants in the storming of the Bastille. Be that as it may, I think "our democracy", not very democratic, or at least needs to give voice to more. How can 435 congresspersons represent over 350,000,000 voters? How can voting districts be drawn that are totally geographic? Why do representatives represent themselves and not the consensus of their constituents? If they represent me, and the others in their district, how we would have them vote?
Can the democracy be fixed if it is overthrown? Of course the question becomes if it is not overthrown will it be fixed? Business as usual will continue to tear it apart if no one addresses the inherent reasons that people feel make elections stolen. But I have yet to encounter that violence can give voice to more, only the few who perpetuate the violence. including the French, who became increasingly radical and just as totalitarian as any so-called government of the right.
Somewhere there must be a way to create a democracy for all. But probably not for so many if there is not any lessening of the reigns into much smaller sup-reigns. I keep coming back to Proudhon's later work, when he suggests there is a role for government of the many to protect the multitude of the many communities from encroaching upon each other. I believe no "voting district" should be larger than every voter knows his representative personally. But I don't think that can be achieved, so I prefer an orderly path to at least try to accomplish it.
As for who should run for president on the democratic party, then one primary, a minimum of 600 candidates, and then we'll see if any win? Why should there even be parties, and why should the parties get to "fix" elections into an either/or choice? well I don't know the answer, I don't know if we will continue with the system we have, but I'm not in favor of limiting it any further.
I don't know if that is a very erudite answer--but it's my answer.
Screaming fire in a crowded theater is not a violation of free speech. It may be prosecuted as a crime if indeed there was no evidence of a fire.
If you are unwilling to admit that there was evidence of a fire in the 2020 election then there is little hope for a serious debate.
The events of 1/6 were a peaceful version of the Storming of the Bastille. While there may have been agents present who were motivated to violence, most of the participants were exercising their God given right of civil disobedience. The smell in the theater is not popcorn burning.
The fact that once again the Democrat Party is plotting to stifle debate with potential nominees representing the wishes of nearly 1/3 of party members should have you looking for burning embers too. Joe Biden is damaged goods and there is little time for Democrats to get moving and select a realistic candidate to run against Trump or whomever Republicans select.
I am not quite clear on what you mean by "fire in the 2020 election." I certainly think the election was stolen. I have felt the election system has been more or less rigged for a very long time. But I do I believe Chavez came back from the grave and tampered with the machines? I doubt it. The system is rigged (from my perspective, which is primarily a gut feeling) long before anyone casts a vote. The system is rigged by the cost to run which limits many "normal" people from running, how many pipefitters and janitors can run for office? By the primary system that eliminates candidates who do not win or have a very strong showing in the first couple of primaries, by forcing out multiple names on ballots, or fixing it so they have no substantial chance of winning, even though almost half of the country registers as neither party, when they approach voting day, do you "throw away your vote" (as people say, and I have done since 1984) or do you choose between two alternatives you don't prefer?
I don't know the answer, but I feel if you overthrow the government, or limit the options even further, there is less chance. I don't believe you are quite accurate that Jan 6 was a"peaceful" version of the storming of the Bastille. There have been over 1000 convicted for violence on Jan 6; there were only 633 participants in the storming of the Bastille. Be that as it may, I think "our democracy", not very democratic, or at least needs to give voice to more. How can 435 congresspersons represent over 350,000,000 voters? How can voting districts be drawn that are totally geographic? Why do representatives represent themselves and not the consensus of their constituents? If they represent me, and the others in their district, how we would have them vote?
Can the democracy be fixed if it is overthrown? Of course the question becomes if it is not overthrown will it be fixed? Business as usual will continue to tear it apart if no one addresses the inherent reasons that people feel make elections stolen. But I have yet to encounter that violence can give voice to more, only the few who perpetuate the violence. including the French, who became increasingly radical and just as totalitarian as any so-called government of the right.
Somewhere there must be a way to create a democracy for all. But probably not for so many if there is not any lessening of the reigns into much smaller sup-reigns. I keep coming back to Proudhon's later work, when he suggests there is a role for government of the many to protect the multitude of the many communities from encroaching upon each other. I believe no "voting district" should be larger than every voter knows his representative personally. But I don't think that can be achieved, so I prefer an orderly path to at least try to accomplish it.
As for who should run for president on the democratic party, then one primary, a minimum of 600 candidates, and then we'll see if any win? Why should there even be parties, and why should the parties get to "fix" elections into an either/or choice? well I don't know the answer, I don't know if we will continue with the system we have, but I'm not in favor of limiting it any further.
I don't know if that is a very erudite answer--but it's my answer.