You wrote:

You said that Adam Kinzinger's statement about the insurrection on January 6 was "one of the more ignorant comments I've read from a Republican congressman. The term "dunce" comes to mind...."

I wrote:

Why do you think it was ignorant? Does the term "dunce" mean you think he is stupid?
Do you think everyone you disagree with is ignorant or stupid?

Did you watch the violent videos from that day, or did you only watch the sanitized ones? Are you fully informed about January 6 or might you not be somewhat ignorant on that matter? Do you know more about it than Rep. Kinzinger, who was in the building when it happened? Do you not think that we should have had a January 6 commission to investigate?
No matter how much peaceful footage is available from that event, none of that, in anyway, justifies the violence, injury, and destruction of property that went on during that riot.
When you speak of ignorance and stupidity your picture of "Head up butt" comes to mind.

I posted four questions above. You did not address anything I said. Instead, you implied that it was a rant, and immediately deferred to your so called  "summer of fire and destruction."

Would you mind addressing my questions? If you do that, then I will respond to what you posted.

Mark wrote:

Thank-you for speaking your mind. Everytime a Democrat rants about Jan 6, I am reminded about how they didn't rant about that entire summer of fire and destruction and billions of dollars of loss due to rioting, and even death. You call it "mostly peaceful demonstrations." So you can see why we don't listen too hard when you complain about Jan 6.

I wrote:

That is part of it, but only a small part.
Some major issues are gerrymandering, voter suppression, removing polling places from poor neighborhoods, allowing Republican politicians to choose delegates instead of the voters.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been weakened over the years, in part, because The Supreme Court has allowed individual states to make their own laws rather than follow the 1065 act.

Mark wrote:

It's hard to control gerrymandering, but all parties have done it over time. Voter suppression is hard to prove and claims are likely wildly exaggerated. Removing polling places from poor neighborhoods is also an unlikely claim, but of course wrong if it has happened.
Regarding the 1065 Voting Law, I would have to do more research. While there have been a couple of Supreme Court rulings in this century, I'm not sure that they undermined the basic meaning, depth and breadth of the law. So far, all I can find are commentary by decidedly liberal sources, and nothing that I feel comfortable trusting as unbiased. So until I do I'll have to forgo an opinion on this.

My reply:

Gerrymandering happens more by Republicans. But in Maryland, a blue state, Democrats arranged the districts so that Republicans were in favor in the western part of the state and the eastern shore, the more rural areas of the state. We, on the eastern shore were stuck with Rep. Andy Harris. I am totally against gerrymandering, but I would not have been disappointed if the Democrats attempt to redistrict to squeeze out Harris was successful. It was vetoed by our excellent Republican Governor, Larry Hogan. I would normally not have supported that, but Harris would not even vote to support cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay, a major estuary and important economic value for fishermen and crabbers in the state.

Shutting down polling places in poor neighborhoods really happens. I have posted links about this in the past. If you are interested, just use your browser to look it up. I doubt that conservative sources are interested in reporting on voter suppression.

I wrote:

Here are some:
Click Here
Click Here
Here are some recent updates from The Democracy Docket:
Georgia Republicans are one step closer to enacting new gerrymandered maps. The state House and Senate maps await the signature of Gov. Brian Kemp (R) and the congressional districts passed the first chamber today.
A Nevada voter filed a lawsuit to stop a voter ID initiative from getting on the ballot. The plaintiff argues that the initiative violates state law because the language is deceptive and misleading.
A federal judge in Arizona rejected a lawsuit arguing that the 14th Amendment disqualifies former President Donald Trump from running for president again due to his involvement in the Jan. 6 insurrection.
The Republican National Committee sent a letter to Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar (D), alleging inconsistencies in the state’s voter registration numbers. The organization is demanding the secretary of state address its concerns, or else it will proceed with a lawsuit.
New York Republicans asked a state court to expedite review of a new mail-in voting law set to go into effect on Jan. 1, citing an upcoming special election caused by the expulsion of former Rep. George Santos (R) from Congress.
Wisconsin Republican lawmakers introduced legislation to abolish the Wisconsin Elections Commission, the state's bipartisan election regulatory body, and grant more power over elections to the state's Republican-controlled Legislature.
The U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Irma Ramirez to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, making her the first Latina to ever serve on the circuit. Read more about President Joe Biden’s federal judge confirmations here.
Louisiana Republicans asked the 5th Circuit to revise its private right of action precedent, saying that the 8th Circuit's recent decision has created an "untenable scenario where a [Voting Rights Act] claim by private litigatns can proceed in Louisiana but not in neighboring Arkansas”
Last month, the 8th Circuit ruled that private parties cannot sue to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, only the U.S. Department of Justice can. Louisiana Republicans want the 5th Circuit to adopt the same ruling. Read more here.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not release a decision in the South Carolina congressional redistricting case today. South Carolina asked the Court to issue a decision by the new year so the state has time to redraw the map in time for 2024 elections, if necessary.

Mark wrote:

I read nothing about actual voter suppression in those articles. Those were liberal articles blowing reasonable voting regulations out of proportion to make it sound as if states are making it hard or impossible to vote for the so-called society's downtrodden. You know, anyone who isn't white and automatically privileged. They were clearly written to make things sound a hundred times worse than they are. Reasonable voting laws to prevent non-citizens to vote, to prevent people from voting twice, etc., exist to keep elections honest. Being registered, and showing some ID to vote should be mandatory. That's just common sense.
Your other blurbs may address issues with state laws, some may not, some definitely don't even address voting. Hard to say from a couple of sentences.

My reply:

Mark, do you actually expect conservative sources to report incidents of voter suppression? It is the Republican Party that wants to suppress voter turnout. It has been proven that when there is a massive voter turnout, the Democrats win.