"John Paredes is counsel at Protect Democracy who focuses . . . ensuring accountability for political violence."
Ok. I hope you are also remembering the hero law enforcement officers who endured countless serious injuries defending the federal courthouse in Portland every night for months. The next article I read about their trauma in the NY Times will be the first. And remembering everyone who suffered months of serious political violence from BLM., which easily fits the definition of domestic terrorism evreyone is now seemingly so fond of. Incredible how 1/6 turned everything around on a dime. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
Another sad attempt in the establishment’s never-ending efforts to gloss over legitimate, if ultimately inconsequential, concerns of voter fraud in key swing states; and its illogical hyperbolic ranting of the January 6th capital riot being an attempted insurrection. Hopefully the democratic process in 2022 and again in 2024 will finally silence this narrow-minded segment of the elite.
A mob loyal to Donald Trump attacked the Capitol not as random violence, but to try to intimidate Congress and Mike Pence to overturn an election. "Insurrection" is a perfectly legitimate word for that.
As for the supposedly "legitimate" concerns about voter fraud, the last count I remember is that Trump's legal team won one case and lost 59. If a team with a 1-59 record tried to claim that they really weren't as bad as the media was making them out to be, or that the only reason they're losing is that the officials are biased against them, would you buy it?
How many of those 59 cases were lost on "standing" and how many on their merit? My comments are not intended to defend Trump's behavior after the election. He handled himself and the situation horribly. It is obvious however that in the covid driven panic much was done that was inappropriate if not illegal in the 2020 election and those things tended to support the democrats. I have no idea if those actions would have impacted the results. It only makes sense to examine and correct any policy that make elections more susceptible to fraud. An example are jurisdictions who did not or would not tidy voter roles before mass mailing of ballots. Instead anyone who suggests delving into the inappropriate things that did happen, and they did, gets bashed. Any State that attempts to shore up election law against fraud gets called racist when it is clear race has nothing to do with it. The left's post election rhetoric, makes me more suspicious than the election itself.
Laudable article. In the event that we can't save the democracy, however, it need not be the end of the world. It's time for serious thinkers to consider a peaceful break-up of the republic. Workable scenarios can be imagined. Here's one. Three new countries are formed: blue, red, and purple. There's free trade, freedom of movement across borders, easy immigration. Current states maintain their boundaries. They hold referendums to determine which country they join. Say 55-60% gets you in blue or red. Anything less gets you in the purple. No need for physical proximity of states. States can hold referendums every five-ten years and switch countries. The left and right are free to carry out their agendas without the other as scapegoat. The bad marriage we're stuck in is dissolved. Tensions would be eased. We would find out who's right, over time. I suspect both red and blue countries would slowly wither. The purple would grow and prosper. Reason and practicality would thus prevail. Red and blue countries would persist in weakened form, serving as refuges for ideologues and useful examples of extremism for the purple folk.
"John Paredes is counsel at Protect Democracy who focuses . . . ensuring accountability for political violence."
Ok. I hope you are also remembering the hero law enforcement officers who endured countless serious injuries defending the federal courthouse in Portland every night for months. The next article I read about their trauma in the NY Times will be the first. And remembering everyone who suffered months of serious political violence from BLM., which easily fits the definition of domestic terrorism evreyone is now seemingly so fond of. Incredible how 1/6 turned everything around on a dime. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
Have you ever seen anyone at Persuasion justify or minimize the 2020 riots? I'm pretty sure I haven't.
My issue is not with Persuasion in general.
Another sad attempt in the establishment’s never-ending efforts to gloss over legitimate, if ultimately inconsequential, concerns of voter fraud in key swing states; and its illogical hyperbolic ranting of the January 6th capital riot being an attempted insurrection. Hopefully the democratic process in 2022 and again in 2024 will finally silence this narrow-minded segment of the elite.
A mob loyal to Donald Trump attacked the Capitol not as random violence, but to try to intimidate Congress and Mike Pence to overturn an election. "Insurrection" is a perfectly legitimate word for that.
As for the supposedly "legitimate" concerns about voter fraud, the last count I remember is that Trump's legal team won one case and lost 59. If a team with a 1-59 record tried to claim that they really weren't as bad as the media was making them out to be, or that the only reason they're losing is that the officials are biased against them, would you buy it?
How many of those 59 cases were lost on "standing" and how many on their merit? My comments are not intended to defend Trump's behavior after the election. He handled himself and the situation horribly. It is obvious however that in the covid driven panic much was done that was inappropriate if not illegal in the 2020 election and those things tended to support the democrats. I have no idea if those actions would have impacted the results. It only makes sense to examine and correct any policy that make elections more susceptible to fraud. An example are jurisdictions who did not or would not tidy voter roles before mass mailing of ballots. Instead anyone who suggests delving into the inappropriate things that did happen, and they did, gets bashed. Any State that attempts to shore up election law against fraud gets called racist when it is clear race has nothing to do with it. The left's post election rhetoric, makes me more suspicious than the election itself.
When I asked my chocolate-covered 3 year old grandson if he ate the chocolate cookies, he said "no.'
?
Laudable article. In the event that we can't save the democracy, however, it need not be the end of the world. It's time for serious thinkers to consider a peaceful break-up of the republic. Workable scenarios can be imagined. Here's one. Three new countries are formed: blue, red, and purple. There's free trade, freedom of movement across borders, easy immigration. Current states maintain their boundaries. They hold referendums to determine which country they join. Say 55-60% gets you in blue or red. Anything less gets you in the purple. No need for physical proximity of states. States can hold referendums every five-ten years and switch countries. The left and right are free to carry out their agendas without the other as scapegoat. The bad marriage we're stuck in is dissolved. Tensions would be eased. We would find out who's right, over time. I suspect both red and blue countries would slowly wither. The purple would grow and prosper. Reason and practicality would thus prevail. Red and blue countries would persist in weakened form, serving as refuges for ideologues and useful examples of extremism for the purple folk.
Delaware County, Pennsylvania comes to mind for some reason when I read this.