The exodus of the blue avatars

[Schiff for Senate]

My authority to speak on the subject is limited, but I have noticed a decrease in traditional conservative blue or tan avatars during my time here.  

I think that Atlas can be a "left-wing echo chamber" at times, as overused a phrase it may be.

There are instances where threads vehemently attacking the GOP for things are roundly applauded while threads pointing out Democrats' failures are quickly met with "why is this an issue?" or "not a problem. Next!".  And I'm not even talking about threads that are transparently meant to inflame rather than attempting to start a meaningful discussion (e.g. GOP state senator's husband's cousin's dog steals Indian family's newspaper! Explain that one, Trumpsters!" Or "Local cake shop insists cakes are gendered! Explain that one, libs!").  

For as much as I think he needs to sometimes step away from Atlas and not take an online forum so seriously, Fuzzy (sorry to name you, dear) *does* sometimes bring up legitimate complaints regarding double standards in red vs. blue moderation -- though I also understand that our mods are human and can't possibly be everywhere, all day everyday.  And they seem to do a good job of addressing many instances where our left-of-center posters cross the line.  

I also think there's an over-eagerness to immediately accuse any new poster expressing conservative views of being a sock, potentially discouraging the birth of new blue contributors.  This of course does not include new accounts that are obviously just trying to stir up trouble.    

Again, I'm not an authority here considering I'm not an uber right-wing conservative and my time here has been short.  But I think these things may lend a bit of insight into what I perceive to be a decline in blue avvies.  

This much I can certainly affirm to be true. It's a practice I've engaged in myself - whenever there's a populist right-wing/far-right new poster, the automatic assumption from myself and others is that they're a sock. It's worth noting that a majority of the time, they are in fact proven to be socks, but it's not as if I've sometimes wrongly accused new far-right/populist/MAGA posters of being socks by virtue of their political views (a very recent example: the Libertarian poster Artist, to whom I suppose I owe an apology if mods have conducted an IP check and it's confirmed he's not a sock).

[Schiff for Senate]

One of the biggest problems outside what PQG mentioned is also the fact that USGD is not even fostered for actual debate or discussion anymore. Some of the biggest problems are this :

1. When blue avatars post it’s usually followed up by 5-6 red avatar posters responding in the harshest way possible and given that red avatars outnumber blue avatars , that makes it really hard to debate .

2. The view that many democrats have now days is that being a Republican itself is illegitimate so strawmanning every thing a blue avatar says is ok and calling one side traitors or terrorist enablers is ok . Why would blue avatars even want to debate these people and frankly it’s why I have gotten much more aggressive in my responses cause if we are gonna be attacked like this then why should we respond in serious or nice ways either .

3. Moderators don’t have clear rules on what is or what isn’t ok in culture war threads because frankly in a political forum it should be ok to post anything that is in the mainstream of public debate on an issue . It is why I said there should be a megathread on this so you can stop the clutter as well

"I just said transgenders don't deserve human rights, why am I catching flak?"

Everyone has a right to 'contribute' to USGD, but your opinions don't get immunity from criticism.

Well, yes, but the latter is entirely a one-way street.

Black Lives Matter and the defenses of BLM's activities have, indeed, being given immunity from criticism.  Any questioning of why people are silent in the face of BLM's crimes and destruction is made with allegations of "whataboutism" and inane personal attacks, no matter how inane the point that is being made by the Red Avatars.  And the Red Avatars lack self-control.  

Joe Republc (an HP, but that's another story) started a thread about Nick Fascuentes making an inane statement and how all Republicans sign off on it, etc.  The statement was outrageous and was promptly "condemned" but a point was made as to the fact that others have not condemned BLM rioting.  That prompted 7 responses that were deleted by mods without me even reporting them.  Seven (7) responses.  There were responses by T'Chanka and Sir Mohammed that were decent and reasonable (as they are decent and reasonable people), but there were the garbage responses by The Trump Virus, Joe Republic, Badger, Ferguson97, and CentristRepublican.  

So please don't tell me about how no one's opinion is immune from criticism.  Advocacy for BLM is, and has long been, "protected speech" here.  They are a Sacred Cow, and Transgender Ideology is the second.  The latter is treated as settled science and settled social science, which it is not.  

And the Dog Pilers are protected.  Badger.  Hindsight waa 2020.  ProudModerate2.  Ferguson97 (the most dishonest poster currently active).  The Trump Virus.  It goes on and on.

Do serous discussion Forums allow routine dogpiling?  Or is that an example of what happens to a liberal who sneaks into some place like Free Republic?  Will meaningful policy discussions be the norm in an Identity Politics world when so many issues have support from particular Identity Groups and people are allowed to libelously insult people in response?  

I personally believe that many people want the Blue Avatars to leave.  They don't want any Republicans, and especially not Trump Republicans.  (I wonder how they deal with real life where my opinions are commonplace, but that's another sotry.)  They only want Republicans who were/are some form of RINO.  And their broad strategy in the Culture War (a war well worth fighting from my perspective) is to demonize.  That's a reflection of the real world at that time, but the real world does present some ability to push back against that.

Now I don't think Blue Avatars should leave.  They should stay, they should post, and they should join in to defend fellows who are being ratpacked.  That's because many here are cowards who can dish it out in packs but can't go toe to toe with an opponent, let alone a group of those who disagree.  That's up to individuals, but doing so is practice for the real world.  The real world is a more Leftist place than when we grew up (although more conservative than Atlas) so this can be the first place where we fight back and advance OUR ideas.

This is news to me! It doesn't help that, for whatever reason, this post doesn't show up on my profile's "Moderated Posts" (which still lists the same 3 posts it's listed for very long). Do you by any chance remember what I wrote? Curious to know what I wrote that was so incendiary that it got taken down by moderators.

Now, I'd like to take this post of yours bit-by-bit.

Well, yes, but the latter is entirely a one-way street.

Black Lives Matter and the defenses of BLM's activities have, indeed, being given immunity from criticism.  Any questioning of why people are silent in the face of BLM's crimes and destruction is made with allegations of "whataboutism" and inane personal attacks, no matter how inane the point that is being made by the Red Avatars.  And the Red Avatars lack self-control. 

For the zenith time (hopefully, this time you'll ACKNOWLEDGE what I'm saying instead of hiding): only a small fraction of BLM protestors were violent (see this, just one piece of evidence of this). Those that were violent? Yes, there was a small minority that looted and committed arson. I at least will swiftly and unequivocally condemn those protestors, no questions asked (and I'm 99% sure I've done so on here in the past, as well). BUT - again - why are you so keen, so eager, so desperate, to characterise this less than 1/10 of all protestors, as representative of ALL BLM protestors? Why do you so broadly generalise when you know you're doing so in bad faith? Yes, I absolutely abhor the 7% of BLM protestors that became violent and resorted to looting and arson, but as for the 93% that did not - why do you act like that 93% doesn't exist, that most or all of BLM protestors were violent? I think it's past time you were asked a direct question on this matter - do you support the CAUSE of BLM (and of most people protesting for BLM)? Do you agree that there is police brutality, police racism, that must be addressed? Or not? That's all I'm asking. Yes, the 7% of violent BLMers are bad, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about police brutality - do you think that those protesting are without a point? That's all I ask you, and a "yes" or "no" answer will suffice.

Now, moving on. Since time and time again - albeit not in this particular post of yours that I'm replying to  - you've drawn comparisons between BLM protestors and the J6ers, and drawn comparisons and whined about double standards. Well, you're right. The J6ers faced minimal resistance or police violence, and they were literally able to break in to the Capitol, tear down, ruin, vandalise historic and valuable artefacts, defecate, cause a mess, break things, endanger the lives of lawmakers. (Convenient how you barely mention that, despite honing into every action the violent BLMers took - yes, the violent BLM 'protestors' were absolutely terrible, but so were the January 6 attackers, and they were, I'd argue, worse.) In contrast? When it was PEACEFUL BLM protestors? Who were protesting the murder of a black man for the crime of being black, rather than attempting to riot about the results of a democratic election? When they were PEACEFUL rather than violent? When they protested at the Capitol - they were tear-gassed and met with severe violence. That was what Donald Trump wanted. He wanted "law and order" and coming down hard on them, and that's what happened. They were beaten back quite brutally despite being peaceful. Contrast that with the January 6ers - the police officers did not resort to nearly as much violence, and the J6ers did not face nearly as much violence. In fact, THEY were the ones who were violent, THEY were the ones who instigated violence and assaulted the Capitol Police. So yes, Fuzzy Bear - there is a BIG double standard when it comes to January 6 and BLM. You're absolutely right. And I'm glad you've pointed it out - only the bias was towards the violent J6ers, not the peaceful BLM protestors.

Joe Republc (an HP, but that's another story) started a thread about Nick Fascuentes making an inane statement and how all Republicans sign off on it, etc.  The statement was outrageous and was promptly "condemned" but a point was made as to the fact that others have not condemned BLM rioting.  That prompted 7 responses that were deleted by mods without me even reporting them.  Seven (7) responses.  There were responses by T'Chanka and Sir Mohammed that were decent and reasonable (as they are decent and reasonable people), but there were the garbage responses by The Trump Virus, Joe Republic, Badger, Ferguson97, and CentristRepublican. 

I'm genuinely unsure what point you're trying to make here - this little "gotcha" observation of yours seems to me to more DISPROVE than PROVE your claims of mod bias and left-wingers being given a pass. You yourself said - after apparently incendiary comments, without you even having to moderate them, a full 7 posts got moderated! 7 posts by left-wingers and red avatars (myself among them)! NOT 7 posts by conservatives or Republicans or blue avatars - but by partisan left-wingers and red avatars. So...how exactly are you then saying - after literally making this observation yourself - that the left gets a pass and it's an echo chamber and they're allowed to say whatever without facing punishment? Logic doesn't compute. That is,...unless you're complaining about the fact that these posts were allowed to be written or posted in the first place? If you are (and I doubt you are), then, well, it's an online forum. The point is to write and post things, and then after that, if they're truly abhorrent or go against the rules or whatever, to then remove them. But still. I'd appreciate you clarifying what the point of this example was - despite well-proving the opposite of what you set out to prove: that the mods are not 'biased' and do not give left-wing posters a pass to write whatever (I'm still not even sure what the moderated posts, mine included, actually said, since I've forgotten, but let's indulge ourselves in the notion that they really were bad, bad, incendiary posts that deserved moderation - well, they did get moderated, didn't they? despite the ideological identities of their authors).

So please don't tell me about how no one's opinion is immune from criticism.  Advocacy for BLM is, and has long been, "protected speech" here.  They are a Sacred Cow, and Transgender Ideology is the second.  The latter is treated as settled science and settled social science, which it is not. 

And the Dog Pilers are protected.  Badger.  Hindsight waa 2020.  ProudModerate2.  Ferguson97 (the most dishonest poster currently active).  The Trump Virus.  It goes on and on.

Do serous discussion Forums allow routine dogpiling?  Or is that an example of what happens to a liberal who sneaks into some place like Free Republic?  Will meaningful policy discussions be the norm in an Identity Politics world when so many issues have support from particular Identity Groups and people are allowed to libelously insult people in response? 

Here, I refer you to precisely what I wrote just above, because a lot of it really applies here. You just cited an example of left-wing posters having their posts moderated. So...on exactly what basis are you, right after that, being able to argue that they are "protected" and allowed to "dog pile?" You literally just pointed out that (without your having to even moderate them!) a solid 7 posts by left-wingers (probably what you mean by "dogpiling"), were moderated. So, yes, on a liberal majority forum, a majority of posts will be by liberals. And if they're controversial or incendiary or whatever - they'll be moderated. Not sure what the problem is, at all, or how you can (after admitting yourself that the mods removed 7 posts by left-wingers in one thread) complain of mod bias.

Also, as for Ferguson being the least honest poster here - I don't think he's *dishonest* (that title goes more to people who spread baseless conspiracy theories about election fraud, arguably), but I do admit he's very sloppy with his fact-checking and is a good case of confirmation bias: he's willing to believe what goes with his general beliefs - what squares with his LARGELY ACCURATE narrative - without checking carefully enough to see if it's actually true, first. So yes, he absolutely should work on his confirmation bias and fact-checking skills (there was that infamous time where he made 2 USGD threads in a row that had false premises), but he's hardly some guy spreading conspiracy theories or lies or dishonest statements, is he? That's more like the people on here who parrot baseless and disproven and dangerous conspiracy theories about election fraud in 2020, or 2020 being "stolen," despite mountain loads of evidence to the contrary and none in support.

I personally believe that many people want the Blue Avatars to leave.  They don't want any Republicans, and especially not Trump Republicans.  (I wonder how they deal with real life where my opinions are commonplace, but that's another sotry.)  They only want Republicans who were/are some form of RINO.  And their broad strategy in the Culture War (a war well worth fighting from my perspective) is to demonize.  That's a reflection of the real world at that time, but the real world does present some ability to push back against that.

Now I don't think Blue Avatars should leave.  They should stay, they should post, and they should join in to defend fellows who are being ratpacked.  That's because many here are cowards who can dish it out in packs but can't go toe to toe with an opponent, let alone a group of those who disagree.  That's up to individuals, but doing so is practice for the real world.  The real world is a more Leftist place than when we grew up (although more conservative than Atlas) so this can be the first place where we fight back and advance OUR ideas.

Overall, I agree with the 2nd paragraph. On the whole, we absolutely need blue avatars - otherwise this really is just a big echo chamber with little dissent. I agree.

But as to the first? I'd just point to "Opinion of" polls showing that scores of conservative Republicans have very solid approvals and are very popular - as just one example, Cody (but again, there are tons others - many blue avatars who post thoughtfully and engage in constructive and good-faith debate have good standing on here...even OSR, one of the most visible conservatives posters on USGD, somebody who frequently spars with liberal red avatars on that board, has a roughly 50-50 approval rating). So I don't know where you're getting that red avatars / liberal posters want all or even most blue avatars out of here - admittedly, a few bad-faith trolls and Big Lie parroters, yes, but absolutely not ALL or even most. Just some.

[Schiff for Senate]

First off, you're not a Republican any more than Larry McDonald was a Democrat.  (McDonald was a Georgia Congressman and a nominal Democrat who was a member of the John Birch Society.)  

Second, your "Big Lie" line is tiresome.  Millions of Americans that are educated, work and pay taxes (you're in the process of one and not there for there yet for the other two) don't believe that the 2020 election was fairly administered, and they don't believe that irregularities and unconstitutional changes to voting procedures were given fair hearings in Court.  

Millions of Americans are well aware of the opposition to Trump by the "Intelligence Community".  And they are well aware of what the Intelligence Community does.  What DO they do?  In other countries, they manipulate public opinion by controlling their media, they create events to create narratives that can be used to manipulate elections and drive disfavored leaders from power.  And they do this covertly.  Lyman Kilpatrick, a former CIA Inspector General, described the perfect Covert Operation as one that remains undiscovered "from inception to eternity".  Allen Dulles once gave a lecture about the mechanics of covert operations and spoke about minor mishaps that resulted in temporary loss of cover.  Dulles stated that how damaging these slips could be depended on "the sophistication of the observer" and their ability to sense of what they were observing being something out of place.

An exaggerated response to COVID-19 designed to provide justification for massive changes in how America actually votes.  Unprecedented NGO involvement in the mechanics of elections (particularly Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook).  The implementation of widespread ballot harvesting.  These are the methods.  The deliberate relaxing of identification.  Denying poll watchers to watch recounts (Detroit). The recounting restarting in Atlanta when the GOP observers were gone.  The driver who transported Pennsylvania ballots to Lancaster, PA from LONG ISLAND.  The abnormal number of ballots ran that ONLY selected the Presidential race.  These things don't happen in every Presidential election, but they happened in 2020.  Then, to top it off, criticism of COVID-19 measures are effectively censored in ways far more typical of the Soviet Union (or Communist China) than today's American government.

People are not cranks for questioning this.  They knew 2020 was different.  They saw differences in the way things were ran and it wasn't Trump implementing the changes.  And, just like COVID-19, you're not allowed to question this.  

If you want to believe that the 2020 election was on the level, that's your choice.  Millions of Americans don't and it's not just because they're "Trump Cultists".  They know what they've observed and they have every right to conclude what is and isn't credible.  And when they've been systematically insulted, bullied, and censored, you'll forgive them when the response to them is to not believe the people telling them to shut up because everything's on the up and up.  I don't lose sleep over the 2020 election, but I'm not going to say it was fairly conducted and fairly administered, and millions of Americans agree with me.  Millions of Americans that have contributed far more to society than you have to date.

It's not about how many millions of people agree with you, or what they've contributed. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts, as Pence and Harris et. al. said. Who *should* have won in 2020? If you say Trump, that's an opinion I can still respect even if I vehemently disagree. Who *did* win 2020? Biden. And that's a fact, that's all there is to it.

I'm not going to bother wasting my time with too many specific nitpicks of this post when you've doubtless received dozens in the past, and are adamant in your opinion, but regarding the "abnormal number of ballots" point - that's called overvoting/undervoting. People have a right to do this - they have the right to vote for whichever offices they want. They only want to vote in the presidential race? That's absolutely, 100% their choice. I don't know how you think this is some epic own or gotcha that there was a higher-than-usual number of presidential overvotes. So WHAT? It doesn't "InDiCAtE fRaUd" and I'm genuinely not sure how you think that it does. And regarding "2020 was different" - OF COURSE it was different! We had a global pandemic that took millions of lives (many of them American). So yes, it had to be conducted differently. There was mail-in voting. I do agree that some of the processes could be a little bit confusing or convoluted, but if you take the time to research rather than taking whatever out-of-context, half-baked sound-bite you're fed, you'll see that each of your little "nuggets of evidence" has a logical explanation (and no, it's not fraud). Nobody conspired to make Joe Biden president except for the American voters. Scores of Republicans (CONSERVATIVE Republicans who had previously never had their GOP credentials questioned - not centrists or even moderates or me when I considered myself a Republican - actually involved in election administration and oversight - said as much, said that although they wished the result was different and Trump had won, it wasn't within their power to unilaterally change it. I'll remind you it was DONALD TRUMP who asked Brad Raffensperger to "find him", to give him, the number of votes he needed to win GA. It was HE who wanted Raffensperger to "find" extra ballots at the last minute so that Trump could subvert the will of the voters of Georgia. It was Donald Trump and his Republicans who had said, who have said, that if they lose, that means the result is fraudulent. That's simply not how things work in a democracy, Fuzzy. You win some, you lose some. And you need to accept that. You need to not attack democracy like a sore loser when you lose - insist that you won and spread conspiracy theories and incite insurrection.

(Also, regarding the RINO part of your post - you're absolutely, 100% correct. The username is an outdated relic, and you're better off considering me as an Independent or even a de facto Democrat. I'm not a member of this Republican Party by any means whatsoever, make no mistake about it).

EDIT: Also, I'd appreciate you addressing the other points in my post (the ones on BLM and moderation bias, for instance).

[Schiff for Senate]

... Second, your "Big Lie" line is tiresome.  Millions of Americans that are educated, work and pay taxes (you're in the process of one and not there for there yet for the other two) don't believe that the 2020 election was fairly administered, and they don't believe that irregularities and unconstitutional changes to voting procedures were given fair hearings in Court.  

LMAO.
Oh my. Where to start.
If people "are tiresome," they are tired of hearing garbage by those who try to defend trump's "stolen election" gibberish, such as the stuff you are posting here.
Millions of American Idiots are the only ones believing in this "the election was not fairly administered" horse-manure.
I mean honestly ... you were even pushing that "our election did not adhere to international election standards" hogwash, just 6 months ago or so.
Are you not embarrassed by all this?
You have really gone down-hill since the 2015 trump years. Good God.

Not to mention that a lot of the 60-something cases that either failed in court or were tossed out before the proceedings even began were overseen by Republican judges, some of whom were Trump appointees.

Fuzzy and his ilk, quite possibly: "They are RINOs who are a part of the Deep State!"

[Schiff for Senate]

The fact is that the 2020 election didn't HAVE to be conducted differently.  That was a choice, and it was a choice made, by and large, by individuals who shared the goal of ousting Trump from the White House by any means necessary.

The first sentence of this paragraph is utterly laughable and demonstrably false. There was a serious pandemic that killed millions globally, and hundreds of thousands of Americans, and people had the right, especially if they were part of at-risk groups, to vote from him in that election, if they were concerned about their safety. Maybe you didn't take COVID19 seriously, but all medical health experts - people who, unlike Donald Trump, know what they're talking about - said it was a serious pandemic. Enough seniors, enough people with preexisting conditions, enough with weak lungs or hearts, really anybody concerned about their health if they voted in person - they had the right to vote from home in 2020. When there's a global pandemic going on, Fuzzy, yes, elections do need to be conducted differently. And this 'choice' was not made by the anti-Trump Deep State or whatever. It was made by nonpartisan public health experts and election administrators and others. They were not unified in some mission to defeat Trump, unless you think supporting democracy and everybody having the right to vote from home in an election with an unprecedented global pandemic = conspiring against Trump.

No one likes losing, but when people act in ways that give the appearance of rigging the system for the other party, they are right to be upset to question that. 

We HAVE had stolen elections in our lifetime at all levels.  The 1960 Presidential election was likely stolen in Texas and Illinois (although it's likely that both sides were stealing in Illinois in 1960, but Daley was better at it).  The 2000 Presidential election was quite possibly stolen in Florida; we'll never really know, but it should raise issues when the Governor of Florida calls the Secretary of State in Florida in the middle of the count.  And this is true at other levels as well.  Stacey Abrams today still insists she is the rightful Governor of Georgia.  Yet Stacy Abrams is never called an enemy of democracy.

Yes, we did. And 2020 was not such an election. Experts reviewed and re-reviewed and recounts and audits took place and nothing changed. It was a safe and secure election, a safe and secure election which your side lost, like it or not.

Re: Stacy Abrams. You're right that she should concede, and she's very wrong to be a sore loser and not do so. However, she did not incite an insurrection at the Georgia State Capitol - did she? She did not, like Trump, ask the GA SoS (ironically, Brian Kemp) to find [her] enough votes to win, did she? She did not file lawsuit after lawsuit contesting the result, did she? Do her supporters believe Kemp was legitimately elected? Do a poll and you'll find most do, as they should. So it's a false equivalency to compare Abrams' conduct, bad as it was, with Trump's, and to compare elections with very legitimate questions (1960 and 2000) with a safe and secure election (2020).

But to say that "the Courts have ruled" on these things is not true in spirit.  In one state, the Trump campaign was rebuffed in Court because it was too early; the election had not been held yet; then, after Election Day, the same Court rebuffed them because their issue was moot.  The Courts that decided many of the cases were partisan Democratic courts with decisions rendered by Judges subject to election.  The Supreme Court, IMO, showed extreme cowardice in not granting cert in the Pennsylvania case, in particular, because it involved questions of actual black-letter law that needed to be answered for future elections.

I also note that people here have suggested packing the Court or having states actively disregard the overturning of Roe, suggesting that the Court is now "illegitimate".  Now I certainly agree that this is not the kind of attitude that people ought to encourage their fellow citizens to nurture.  I certainly believe that Courts have an interest in their orders being obeyed and I certainly think that citizens have an interest in the orders of Courts being obeyed.  But millions of Americans saw relevant issues of the 2020 election being decided by lower partisan Courts and not dealt with by the Federal Courts.  The SCOTUS itself just wanted this to go away.  But this issue WON'T go away, and the reason it won't go away is that the conduct of elections is an ongoing issue when it comes to the veracity of mail-in ballots, widespread ballot harvesting, and just who, Constitutionally, has the power to set the terms under which Federal Elections shall be held.

You and your party claim to support law and order - yet, you do not respect the sanctity of the court or the decisions it makes; you do not respect the rule of law. Federal judges are nonpartisan, Fuzzy. And just so you're aware - as I'm sure you already are - many of the judges who struck down Trump's baseless and unconstitutional lawsuits (some trying to stop ballots from being counted, others trying to overturn election results, etc) were the appointees of GOP presidents (some, I believe, of Trump himself). Just because the court didn't rule the way you like - well, I mean, when they all (all 60 something courts) rejected all the Trump lawsuits, when judges appointed by presidents of both parties, when they all said NO - when you're still questioning that and refusing to respect that, YOU and YOUR SIDE are the ones that have no respect for either the sanctity of the court, or the rule of law, or law and order. You do not respect the authority of the courts. So next time - please, do not try your "I'm for law and order" crap on me, ever again, or try to say you're for "the rule of law" or "sanctity of the court" or anything like that. This post shows you're only for "law and order" selectively, when you like and agree with the decisions made. Otherwise, the judges are just partisan hacks - even if they're appointed by Republican presidents, even if they're appointed by Trump, they're just left-wing Democratic hacks if they don't make the ruling you want them to make (and they didn't make the ruling you wished they'd made because they respect our Constitution, our democracy, our institutions - if you did as well, you wouldn't have such strong objections to the unanimous, resounding rulings of so many courts across the political/ideological spectrum).

And, no, the conduct of our 2020 election did not adhere to international standards.  I've posted that before.  When one side is silenced on social media, and while the rules of voting are changed to increase the possibility of votes that are merely harvested and counted and not truly cast (e. g. seniors in Wisconsin nursing homes) and those mail-in votes are subject to less rigid standards of verification as legitimate ballots, one is foolish to NOT question the fairness of the election.

No side was "silenced on social media." Far-rightists who spread misinformation about public health - putting people's lives at risk, if they believed the lies they read - far-rightists who instigated violence and spread lies in advance about the election, yes, they did see their posts removed, in accordance with the posting rules of social media. Maybe follow their rules, and you won't get banned or see your posts removed. But I guess, for all your "respecting rules and laws", you don't really respect ANY laws you don't like (whether they be Constitutional, legislative, or on a social media platform), and don't think such laws need be followed. "Those mail-in ballots are subject to less rigid standards of verification of legitimate ballots." Let's analyse that. First of all, this is entirely untrue, as each ballot was carefully scanned and checked - there was no lack of caution, and the results were meticulously counted and tabulated. Secondly, to imply that mail-in ballots are not "legitimate ballots" - that's foolish and idiotic and insulting. Even prior to 2020, people with disabilities, people out of town or out of state or out of country, legally cast mail-in ballots. In 2020, because of an unprecedented global health crisis (you may have heard of it - it's called COVID-19 and it's taken millions of lives internationally and here in the United States), more people chose to do that, especially seniors and those who were especially at-risk. To imply that all those ballots weren't legitimate is despicable and insulting and really, reveals that you're not for all people having a right to a vote (voting being a privilege, not a right, and a privilege granted selectively). You don't think those people should be allowed to vote, do you? Or at least, their opinions, their ballots, shouldn't be counted, shouldn't matter? They are not "legitimate." Can't say I'm surprised by the statement though - figures on your side of the aisle have engaged in this behaviour: whether it be Trump repeatedly calling for the counting of votes to stop when he was ahead, for mail-in ballots not to be counted, or for a Minnesota Republican politician to float the idea that disabled people should not have the right to vote.

THAT is the real threat to democracy; the treating as illegitimate a President who was elected against the will of collective elites as Trump was in 2016.  This does not justify the demonstration inside the Capitol on January 6, 2021, but it also does not justify lying about that demonstration by calling it a "violent insurrection", "coup attempt", etc.  And the invasions of the privacy of ordinary citizens and the violations of the Constitutional Rights of J6 defendants are bigger threats to basic Freedoms and Liberties (the stuff that makes meaningful elections possible) than Trump being a sore loser or Tweeting out that someone is a Poo Poo Head.

I'm calling it exactly what it was. It was people breaking into, breaching the United States Capitol, in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, to delay or outright stop the ceremonial and Constitutional certification of results. That is an attempt at a violent insurrection - an attempt to subvert the will of the American voters, to not respect their decision, to overturn the result and install a dictator who did not win the election. And when Donald J. Trump repeatedly spread lies about the election on Twitter, he was inciting violence. And he knew it. On January 6, it took him hours - and that, after much, much persuasion from people close to him, and only reluctantly - to call for an end to the violence. BECAUSE IT WAS WHAT HE WANTED. He said the people who wanted Mike Pence hung had a point. He liked his supporters attacking the Capitol in an attempt to install him as a dictator. The fact that you refuse to condemn all of that - instead having the nerve to describe this as "left-wingers attacking democracy" - is disgusting and shows you've cast your lot with Trump over American democracy and the American Constitution. Trump did a lot more than "Tweeting out that someone is a Poo-Poo head." He spread lies about COVID-19 that resulted in American lives being lost. He spread lies about the election and incited violence (just as he's incited violence in the past. Go on to Twitter, write out a Tweet calling Biden, Trump, Obama, whatever, anybody a "Poo-Poo head", and see if it gets you permanently banned from Twitter. Trump spread misinformation. He knowingly incited and encouraged violence, multiple times.

You use such big words as "The Big Lie" (implying, of course, that ordinary Americans who question the election's validity to this day are somehow Nazis) and "Conspiracy Theories" (implying that people are cranks for believing that something is not on the up and up when the result doesn't go their way).

Uh...I'm implying no such thing. Stop creating your own reality and putting words into my mouth. And btw, neither "the Big Lie" nor "conspiracy theories" are one word, daunting or challenging though that may be for you to comprehend - the former is three short, simple words, and the latter is two (albeit slightly more complicated and longer) words. I'm not using "big words." I'm using regular words that English speakers should have no difficulty understanding.

Elites in our society with the power to effect illicit changes of all kinds covertly rely on that belief and expect the ordinary citizen to not be a critical thinker.  To be sure, some conspiracy theories are crackpot nonsense.  But it was not crackpot nonsense to believe that Alger Hiss was a Communist Spy who had positioned himself to be a top adviser to FDR and Truman, who was positioning himself in the late 1940s to be close to John Foster Dulles in an anticipation of partisan change in America.  Millions of Democrats would not believe this; they believed that Hiss was set up.  It was only after the fall of the Soviet Union that files came to light confirming that Hiss was, indeed, a Soviet spy who was committing espionage at the highest levels.  The protection of Hiss was done, of course, to protect the legacy of FDR, which includes his negotiations at the Tehran and Yalta conferences, much of which were controversial, and people were lambasted as "conspiracy theorists" back then, but the passage of time proved them wrong.

People need to think for themselves today, and they need to question the veracity of anything they hear on the media.

Now you're going on an irrelevant tangent, so nor am I going to bother reading that, nor trying to respond to it.