As for taking the life of someone advocating a different truth than you, I suppose this is a stance I would have to take in the context of the discussion.
In terms of ours, I would suggest that the truth we are describing needs to be contextualized within the system it is occurring in. We have criteria for elections and judging them as valid, and arguments against their validity need to meet certain requirements in order to justify upending the results. Thus, the "truth" according to the American Democratic election of 2020 and the available data thus far is that Joe Biden won. Conspiracy theories that suggest otherwise must remain theories until the conspiracy can be proved.
An individual is free to hold a different, subjective "truth" according to their individual perspective in space and time, but they will be subject to the consequences of how they manage this "truth." Discussing it will be met with critical analysis and sometimes derision (particularly if they are aggressive with it), or violence if they attend to their "truth" violently.
As for the mechanisms of our Government, if there was a conspiracy, they did a fine job covering it up. That doesn't justify the action (justification is different from truth), but it does mean that they will face the consequences should that truth become evident. But it requires evidence lest everyone seeking political office call conspiracy without evidence to remain in bm power.
The gist of you statement is well-taken. According to the authorities, and the legal definition as legitimized by the courts, the election was not stolen. In one sense that should be the end of the matter.
But imagine that, per Trump's urging, Mike Pence refused to legitimate the election. Say it went to the Supreme Court, and, as they ruled on Roe v. Wade, so too here, they rule that though it's unsavory as hell, the vice President has the legal authority to question the legitimacy of the election under the conditions in play, and was of his legal right to not legitimate the election. If Pence takes that legal right and de-legitimizes the election, the election is legally illegitimate and that's the end of the matter.
It's when we feel that the system itself is under attack, i.e., that even the legal checks and balances that secure our freedom are being disassemble or destroyed by those on the other side of the political divide (often using the law to destroy the law), that, devoid of the normal support and defense for our freedoms and rights, we feel forced to think and act outside of the once functioning legal and political system.
Right or wrong, the Right (so to say), feel that the judges who overlooked the irregularities and legalized the election at the court level, even implying there was very little evidence of serious irregularities, were like the flip side of Mike Pence. Pence surely felt the weight of what was going on and just didn't feel the situation warranted dismantling the long established norms and standards even if it was legal to do so (he said as much). In the mind of the Right, the judges who shot down appeals regarding the election were part of the machine that rigged the election in the first place; they feel precisely as the Left would have felt if Pence refused (with legal force) to legitimize the election.
The important part of this for the sake of where I would direct this thread is not to argue what is true, right, factual, in all this, but to point out that we have ---in my opinion ----reached a point in our political history where majorities on both sides of the isle feel that the very legal checks and balances that support a healthy functioning society are under attack by those on the other side of the isle. I feel I genuinely see and appreciate the arguments from both sides. Beyond that, I feel the arguments for both sides are sound and legitimate within the context of the thinking that supports both side.
And yet I think one side is more correct, and of a high order of correctness, than the other. My goal would be to posit a philosophical/theological argument that's abstract enough that a thinking person even on the side of the isle I feel is incorrect could see the strength, or at least understand the nature of the argument, even if they disagree with it for personal or theological reasons that for them might transcend the factuality, scientific validity, of the argument.
John
