[switch007]

How did the right get “shut out”? The entirety of the right? That to me seems a quite hilarious claim when the President up until quite recently had a huge platform on Twitter.

Validation of the result? Beyond all the official counts and recounts? I’m confused.

Also your last paragraph was completely uncalled for.

[zo1]

One can't point to a definitive set of facts that proves the right was "shut out" completely. Because they weren't all shut out and they weren't (for now) supposedly singled-out and "shut out" because they republican/right-leaning. They had "plausible" and "official" reasons for doing the things they did in each case.

What did occur was a lot of little things and disparate things that had a huge dampening effect on the mobilization of discussion and questioning of details. And this has been happening for way before the election results were even out, it's been going on for years with a steady escalation.

There was also the constant repetitive narrative pushing, specific language and tone by reporters, activists and politicians that essentially gave "official" and "quotable" legitimacy to potentially-questionable election results, and gave plausible excuses/cover to de-legitimize and conspiracy-blame any criticisms of the election results. This stuff is downright scary, and a good chunk of the people not seeing it are the ones that are (for now) in the "good books" of whoever is overall in charge of driving the narrative and controlling public discourse. Right now, the left/Democratic party is in said good books.

Look how the discussion is so widely and suddenly revolving around conflating this protest with insurrection even though it was essentially a fart in the grand scheme of things, and implying that there is a huge overlap between right/republican/conservative individuals and "racists/white-supremacists". It's laying the ground-work to make it legitimate and acceptable to assume/claim that republicans are racists among other things. Next up we'll have dehumanization, firings and overall de-platforming because said protestors were "terrorists" due to their participation. The event will be labelled as a "coup attempt" and the storming of the building was a "terrorist attack". And if you question any of these accepted facts (because hey all news reports labelled it as such) you too will be de-platformed, ostracized and called a terrorist-sympathizer or a "something-denier" (hint look at the anti covid-lockdown protests for an example).

[mcv]

This was not a protest, and not a fart "in the grand scheme of things". This was a direct assault on democracy. They were explicitly hunting down specific politicians (Pelosi and Pence, for example), and several were armed with weapons, explosives, tie wraps, and by all evidence, it looks like they intended to hurt or abduct people. It was a coup and should be treated as such. Everybody outside the US sees it as such, and the US would see it that way had this happened in another country. The US would see it that way if these rioters had been black. The only reason many people don't see it that way is because they were white and right-wing, act like they own the place, and have always been able to get away with that. The US has a blind spot to right-wing terrorism.

The process you talk about in your first paragraphs: that some people get subtly shut out of the political process, does happen, but it happens mostly to poor people, black people, and university students. Various forms of voting suppression are aimed at preventing them from voting. Several voter ID laws require forms of ID that conservatives are more likely to have. For example, a gun license would be valid, while a student ID card wouldn't.

Also note the difference in DC police response against the BLM protests in the summer versus this more protest.