Activism, Uncensored: Diverging Perspectives on January 6th Anniversary
Discover more from Racket News
Activism, Uncensored: Diverging Perspectives on January 6th Anniversary
In actions featuring prominent politicians on both the left and the right, two starkly different world views came into relief on the 1/6 anniversary. TK Partners News2Share report
News2Share captured a series of actions in Washington on the anniversary of January 6th. Ford Fischer walks us through the dueling views of what happened a year ago, interviewing Ashli Babbitt’s mother, Micki Withoeft, while also compiling footage of lawmakers like Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), and the increasingly visible Jamie Raskin (D-MD), along with Republicans like Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Twitter-banned Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).
As usual, Ford and his crew captured a ton of interesting stuff, including theories from friends of Withoeft that a handful of agents provocateurs stirred things up just enough, so that “The government attacked the people that day.” Note that Fischer was careful to follow YouTube rules requiring a “countervailing view” of certain opinions, having had material taken down for less in the past.
Activism, Uncensored: Diverging Perspectives on January 6th Anniversary
There may be diverging perspectives, but to me the most interesting question is the extent to which law enforcement, especially the FBI, was involved in January 6th. I know a lot of people will regard the notion as a conspiracy theory, but there is enough eyebrow raising (something Pelosi knows a little something about) evidence to warrant a more thorough inquiry. And by thorough, I mean an inquiry where the FBI is actually required to answer questions. I understand the argument that the FBI can't endanger its operatives during "ongoing operations" but I fear that excuse can also be used as a very convenient loophole to avoid accountability in instances of malfeasance.
How about this, to meet in the middle:
1. There should be voter ID as a basic voter security measure.
2. It must be free and easy to get.
3. There must be a paper audit trail to verify votes.
4. Techniques that could compromise the secret ballot (including some kinds of ballot harvesting) should be prohibited.
5. Voting in person in a limited period should be the default, absent unusual circumstances.
6. The authorities must commit sufficient resources to avoid long voting lines.
How hard can this be, for Pete's sake? Regardless of what you think of the 2020 election, we should take measures so that there can be ready verification, a quick tally of the vote so that the winner is announced the same day, and reasonable convenience combined with security,