The law distinguishes in many ways. It can distinguish a protest in which idiots storm the capitol in a protest in which people shout, march and go home. It should not treat a protest in favor of Democrats differently than a protest in favor of Republicans, or a protest in favor of abortion differently than a protest against police brutality. Suggesting that there should be legal distinctions between protests because of what side people are on is a bad idea. I'm a bit concerned that you feel otherwise.
I suppose that I could be very misinformed about the first amendment, and welcome evidence that the law intends to determine what is acceptable rhetoric or behavior because of what side someone is on, rather than value-neutral factors.
The idea that citizens should only discuss their professional area of expertise is a limiting one. I do think citizens can be informed enough about the law to discuss legal principles. This is going to be necessary when voting for people who are going to selecting judges, or be in positions of legal power (IE- elected prosecutors.)
This is a new standard that it was okay to challenge electoral college results if your side won a plurality vote, but lost the electoral college. It doesn't explain Democratic challenges in 2004, but it is a standard, albeit one that isn't based on existing law.
I am unaware of any ideology that supporters of the electoral college believe that voters in non-competitive states should have no say. I suspect you're aware that's a strawman.
My point about what citizens should ask for was in response to your view that citizens should not consider the law or political implications, when you wrote asking a view "as a citizen -- not as a pundit (which you are not), not as a political strategist (which you are not), not as a campaigner or canvasser (which again you are not.)" Your rhetoric encourages ignorance, which I don't think you want to do.
The moderate view I responded to was that two Senators should be tried for sedition.
Thanks.
Most of us are unlikely to change fundamentally because of any political discussion. My main reason for participating in this discussion is to learn and bounce back ideas. I sometimes wonder if the main way I end up persuading people is to radicalize them in the other direction, by causing them to examine views they hadn't considered.
To be fair, I suspect most people here will select the facts that bolster their side. That said, if something is selected, it is not intended to mislead.
I'm being pedantic here, but there's a middle ground between a claim that nobody predicted a march on the capitol (not my view) and that it is so obvious that senators should be criticized for not expecting it.