Yes, the rhetoric from both sides has been divisive and toxic. I don't think that's productive from either side.

But there are two points which particularly condemn the Democratic side: censorship and disenfranchising votes. Democrats - over and above the hateful back and forth - have defined their side as moral, even though in fact their thinking is every bit as hateful as those they oppose. They then use their weight in the power structures of the legacy and social media to silence any Republican response. This is the definition of censorship. Democratic philosophy is working to enshrine itself as a religion from which we are not allowed to dissent. Censorship must always be opposed. Always.

Regarding votes, it's ironic, because Democrats have made the argument for years that they are the party of making sure that votes are not lost due to intimidation from powerful forces. Interestingly, this commitment to getting "all the votes in" has in fact determined their strategy. They did not stop anyone from voting; I'll give them that. They allowed all Republicans to vote. It should be noted that Republicans also appear not to have interfered with anyone voting. I saw no evidence for the Democratic myth of Republicans intimidating people away from the polls. Congratulations to both for that. But Democrats then proceeded to disenfranchise every Republican vote by manufacturing enough additional votes to get the result they wanted (the obviously impossible "participation" in disputed races gives this tactic away). Just because you allow (and encourage) someone to vote, that doesn't make you a hero if you then proceed to negate the vote they cast through overt manipulation of the result. The Stalin quote comes up again and again: What matters is who counts the votes. That's raw power, zero "democratic" about it. Democrats may successfully take and wield power, but popular legitimacy? That's harder to come by.

These are the "bridges" I'm talking about.