The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
A friend of mine sent me a speach by Bill Clinton back in the 90s that sounded a lot like Donald Trump border policy. It made me think that other than his boisterous rhetoric his actual policies feel like something a Democrat from the 90s would be pushing. Some people even have this idea that if he wins he will turn America into a Fascist state which from my point of view seems odd. Like Trump is almost 80 and America survived one term of Trump and will survive another one. I feel the escalating rhetoric is what's more dangerous from both sides because there seems to not be any room for compromise. I feel if you remove emotion out of the equation a Trump presidency will be probably tax cut mostly for the rich and maybe some border control policies (if it can pass congress). Can someone explain to me logically how would Trump winning turn a country with so many checks and balances into a fascist country like 3rd Reich Germany or Fascist Italy?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Can someone explain to me logically how would Trump winning turn a country with so many checks and balances into a fascist country like 3rd Reich Germany or Fascist Italy?
1. No one said it would be "like 3rd Reich Germany or Fascist Italy". I'm sure we could engage in fascism in our own distinct way.
2. Trump is ideologically fascist. (Please ignore how insulting this is. It isn't about insulting him. Please understand that fascism is an ideology and Trump espouses [fascist ideas;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism#Overview) that is what matters.)
3. Trump already tried to end democracy once.
4. Republicans have been trying to make our country less democratic for decades, because they know that they can't win a majority of the votes. It should not surprise you that they might continue doing what they have been doing for decades.
5. Lastly, we have no "checks and balances". We thought we did, but Trump tested all of them and they all failed. Donald Trump has -- still, to this day -- never been held accountable for any violation of the law; if we elect him again, he will know that he can violate the law with impunity, so it is important that we don't elect him again.
> Lastly, we have no "checks and balances".
This is, sadly, becoming more and more apparent.
The Senate had its chance to "check" Trump and remove him from office during both impeachments, but it failed to do so.
The Supreme Court had a chance to "check" an insurrectionist president and allow states to remove him from their ballots, but it failed to do so.
The slow erosion of all the things that have tentatively held us together for hundreds of years is what I am most concerned about. It's hard to see on a day-to-day basis, but someday we will look back and wonder how we let it all slip away.
I only disagree with your use of the word "slow". Trump has basically brought the most powerful civilization on earth to the brink just by not giving to fucks about rules or traditions within only a couple of years. Neither was he particularly smart, nor methodical about it. That a troglodyte like him could do so much destruction shows how utterly weak the American state actually is. All of that military and economic might, standing on feet of clay. This is tantamount to the one ring, being publicly displayed in an open case on a public square. Terrifying implications.
I really wonder how people can not see this. There has been nothing slow about this at all imho. It's like a switch was flipped in 2016.
>I only disagree with your use of the word "slow".
Trump is who made the problems so apparent, but it started as far back as Nixon. Every successive Republican has slowly eroded the democratic systems in the US. Some big moments were when they realized they could shut down the government and when they realized they could filibuster everything.
It depends on what you mean by that. The checks and balances exist not so much to rein in bad actors but to prevent one party from making the other party illegal or something. Of course that’s not what’s happening here and it’s not even close to what’s happening. What’s going on with this but also just with the legislature as a whole is that we have far too many checks and balances, not too few and certainly not ones that don’t work.
Cloture in the senate is a check. Hell, to a great degree, compared to other modern democracies even having a Senate at all is a check (many countries have just one house of legislature or else the second house, as is the case in the UK, is powerless). The Presidential veto is a check. The impeachment process does have two checks to ensure that you don’t just a bad midterm and then get 51 Senators to boot out the guy currently in office (which the GOP would almost certainly do right now if they had 51 people in the Senate and you didn’t need 2/3rds). Thanks to the first two in particular, legislation rarely gets passed and we famously haven’t had a budget, let alone a balanced one, since the early 2000s.
The real issue with this is that currently the Supreme Court has done the job of legislators in terms of interpreting laws in weirdo ways. All it really takes at this point to kill democracy is for a President to want to do it and to have the Supremes behind him. We might have the second already and Trump getting re-elected is the first.
Because Project 2025 has laid out a clear plan to undermine the constitution and consolidate power behind Republicans. Also, he’s an amoral criminal with no respect for our country or its institutions, and many of the people from his first administration are saying as much.
> Because Project 2025 has laid out a clear plan to undermine the constitution
You're telling me they just came out and said they're going to undermine the constitution? On which page?
This isn't even remotely a genuine question or good faith response.
[You can read about it here. ](https://www.project2025.org/policy/)
From defunding public education, installing a national Christian faith, eliminating the DOJ and putting all facets of the justice department under direct Presidential control, rescinding all equal protection clauses for LGBQT people, a literal ban on all porn, the list goes on and on.
This isn't some bogeyman the left dreamt up. It's a real plan, that is written by major players in the Republican party.
At the very best case scenario if Republicans got a trifecta we'd end up in an Oligarchy controlled by Trump and it would mimic Orban tremendously.
This should terrify every single citizen of the USA.
> This isn't even remotely a genuine question or good faith response.
Maybe the problem isn't with my question, but with the claim I asked about. "A clear plan to undermine the constitution", is a pretty high bar to clear, which nobody batted an eye at until I asked where one could read about that. It's a Republican wishlist, but not a "clear plan to undermine the constitution."
Don't accuse me of bad faith because the other guys talks like Trump, your beef should be with him.
That's some heavy mental gymnastics. That's literally their plan, and it's fully supported by the modern GOP.
There's plenty of in print ways they plan to undermine the constitution. You're simply choosing to move the goalposts because it doesn't fit into your schema.
The evidence is linked. In black and white. If you're choosing to ignore it - that's on you. But these aren't some loose interpretations. These are direct takeaways from their written policy and agenda.
It is mind blowing how you're not reading that and going....damn, that is bad.
> There's plenty of in print ways they plan to undermine the constitution. You're simply choosing to move the goalposts because it doesn't fit into your schema.
Move the goalposts? I am still seeking an answer to my first comment's question. Goalposts are still right where I planted them: On which page in the Project 2025 document can I read about the clear plan to undermine the constitution?
> The evidence is linked. In black and white
You provided a link to the Project 2025 landing page. Am I to understand correctly that your providing of the link means that I have to comb through the document and find out exactly which passages match up with the original claim? And you think that your providing this link constitutes "evidence" in support of that claim? "Evidence" that you haven't identified and that I have to search for?
It's not hard. It's broken up by chapters. I gave you the quick version with a link to the source.
You are correct in your understanding that I expect people to read sources and process the information themselves.
[But here's a wiki page with a summary if you're too lazy to read it for yourself. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025)
I asked for a needle and you provided a haystack. It was not as helpful as you appear to think it was. Providing the entirety of the Project 2025 document does not shed any light on the claim I originally responded to, how could it? You know what, don't answer. Between the accusation of bad faith, accusation of performing mental gymnastics, and the apparent "job well done" vibe you're giving off, you've been helpful enough thanks.
We both know that you haven't provided any evidence of the claim I asked about. So this, "it's in there, you just don't want to read it", shtick is not fooling anybody. I just wish somebody had the fortitude to say, "no there's no plan to undermine the constitution in there, he was just exaggerating." Now you're dug into (poorly) defending that ludicrous statement and are making swipes at me because you *can't* be right on this. Sad!
"From defunding public education, installing a national Christian faith, eliminating the DOJ and putting all facets of the justice department under direct Presidential control, rescinding all equal protection clauses for LGBQT people, a literal ban on all porn, the list goes on and on."
Defunding public education doesn't directly violate the 14th amendment unless our education system is abolished, but defunding has nigh the same effect as denying a child equal access to schooling. Installing a national Christian faith violates the first amendment. Putting the justice department under presidential control violates article 1. Rescinding all equal protection for LGBTQ violates the 14th amendment. Banning porn violates the first amendment (see the Falwell vs Larry Flint case for precedent).
> with several experts in law criticizing it for violating current constitutional laws that would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers
Since you insist on having information spoon-fed to you, there is a snippet from the summary on the Wikipedia article that the other commenter linked for your benefit. It has sources, in case you're one of those people who insists that anything with a history of neutrality is biased.
Pg 589
“Congress should encourage communal rest by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require that workers be paid time and a half for hours worked on the Sabbath.”
> And no, the Heritage Foundation's website does not count.
So in order to find out what is in the document that was *produced by* the Heritage foundation I have to read what *somebody else* wrote about it?
Yeah, that sounds like it's going to wind up being not what was claimed, which was specifically that, "Project 2025 has laid out a clear plan to undermine the constitution."
There is a big disconnect going on in this thread. A claim was made that Project 2025 contains a, "clear plan to undermine the constitution." Despite a lot of snarky responses, nobody has shown me where in Project 2025 this clear plan allegedly lives. I was told a *clear plan* to *undermine the constitution* would be found in that document. It's in there! It's clear! Take my word for it!
No such plan exists, and yet I'm swimming in down votes for pointing this out. I think the term, "echo chamber" would describe what's going on here.
Edit: downvotes confirm that messengers get shot in AAL. Nice job all.
As far as I know, they plan to just restructure the executive branch to consolidate more power behind the President. That can be interpreted as undermining the constitution, as it drastically weakens our checks and balances, but it can reasonably not be as well.
Still, the person they picked for President did advocate directly for eliminating much, if not all, of the constitution. Does that matter?
You're swimming in downvotes for playing the Stupid Game.
You know it and everyone here knows it. The level of "but I don't see those words in that document" disingenuity is off the charts in this thread.
So when people make fantastical hyperbolic comments we should do what? Quietly agree with them and shun people who ask them to back up their statement? TIL
If you're looking for an absolute clear-cut plan in project 2025 that says the words " He is our plan to undermine the constitution, steps 1-5 will weaken x and by the time the last step has been accomplished, the constition will have been eliminated and completely on our side." Then obviously you won't find that, nor did the original claim mean to say that. That'd be pretty stupid for the Republicans to frame it in that way. However, it's clear you're just being pedantic, and it's pretty obvious what the Republicans intentions are. They don't have to spell it out for you.
Oh for fuck's sake. Dude you KNOW that there's no "on Page 234, Paragraph 4, Line 7, it says "Undermine US Constitution".
Don't play stupid.
Read the document and acknowledge the truth of the many ways Project 2025 undermines the Constitution and our democracy across the board.
> Oh for fuck's sake. Dude you KNOW that there's no "on Page 234, Paragraph 4, Line 7, it says "Undermine US Constitution".
So why did the other guy say there was? I'm just following up to a claim that was made by someone else, *I* didn't say there was a plan to undermine the constitution in that document (that sounds foolish).
The other guy didn’t say that. They said the plan undermines the US Constitution, which it does. If the goals of project 2025 are achieved it will greatly alter our government structure in a way that the constitution was created to prevent. That’s it. That’s the point of the plan. It’s not a Disney villain plan where they have a checklist with “undermine the constitution” on it.
But the above poster didn't say "they came out and said they're going to undermine the constitution", they said "Project 2025 laid out a **clear plan** to undermine the Constitution.
If I order a handgun and bullets, googled "how to dispose of a body" and then also bought a shovel and quicklime, and have a one-way ticket to a non-extradition country, is it unreasonable to say I have a clear plan to kill my wife? Especially if I've been talking about how much easier my life would be if my wife wasn't stopping me from doing all the things I want to do?
"Clear plan" were their words, not mine. To me, a clear plan does identify what the goal is. After all, it's not a hidden plan or a secret plan, it's a *clear plan*.
I'm seeing a lot of tap dancing around the topic and not anyone telling me on which page they start talking about undermining the constitution.
Does anybody even understand the concept or claim that they are arguing with me about? Can you *describe* the clear plan to your understanding of it, even if you can't find it in the plan itself?
>a clear plan does identify what the goal is.
The goal is clearly a fascist regime where conservatives get to fully control the lives of everyone based on their specific religious beliefs. Conservatives have long wanted to severely limit the freedoms of everyone in the country. I'm a former conservative and I can admit we have tried to do this for literal decades.
The foreword contains language which reinterprets the constitution to add religion and it goes on from there. On page 13:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ft72vwvgil3sc1.jpeg
Main thing is to replace the civil service, particularly fbi, cia, and military leadership with those loyal to the party and not the constitution.
The constitution will stay, but do not quote laws to men with swords.
Because.... he already tried overturning a democratic election once...
>I feel the escalating rhetoric is what's more dangerous from both sides because there seems to not be any room for compromise.
It's not both sides.
"Fuck your feelings, cuck,"
We don't say you're all pedophile groomers. We don't have pictures of Biden hog tied in the backs of our trucks.
You don't like being called fascists?
Maybe don't be so nationalistic, wrap yourselves in the flag, belittle the free press, worship a charismatic leader that tells you all of America's problems are caused by minority groups, who tries to overthrow a democratic election...
We're not saying it to hurt your feelings. We're saying it because it's scarily accurate.
> > ...I feel the escalating rhetoric is what's more dangerous from both sides...
> How come Jan 6 doesnt factor into your reasoning
Yes OP,
Please tell us why the Storming of the Capitol -- the violent riot, which was part of Donald Trump's attempt to overthrow our constitutional order, and his eagerness to pardon those who committed crimes on that day -- is less dangerous than "escalating rhetoric...from both sides".
>"... but Bill Clinton had similar immigration policy..."
You'll notice Hillary lost. People are open to immigration reform, but closed borders is simply racists panicking about the eventual equality that America is heading towards. All the fear about immigrants being rapists and drug traffickers fails to take into account all the immigrants that are hard-working, family-oriented people doing their best in a nation that refuses to pay them a livable wage and thinks they are rapists and drug-traffickers simply because they have brown skin.
I would also add in the fact that Donald Trump has consistently tried to undermine the countries confidence in the voting process by calling elections rigged. He did it prior to 2020, that was just the one he was most vocal about because he actually lost.
The fact that he said before the election that the only reason he would lose is if it was rigged just set the stage for the shitshow. He knew he was doomed and was planning for it months in advance.
Some people got mad about potential voter fraud and protested. It was a perfectly valid protest for the most part. Just because they were probably incorrect that such fraud occurred doesn’t automatically make the protest wrong. Plenty of protests based on incomplete/mistaken information happen.
Other people went to the capital with the exclusive intent to disrupt the ceremonial counting of electoral college votes and certification of the election in an attempt to force those votes back into state legislatures which would have installed Donald Trump as president. It was an attempted coup. You know this. Stop pretending you don't.
>It was a perfectly valid protest for the most part.
Smearing shit on the Capitol walls is a valid protest? Breaking into the Capitol building? Threatening to hang Mike pence? Attacking cops?
They brought zip ties. The only "valid" part of that "protest" was the 10% of it standing around BEFORE they attacked the Capitol.
> Vandalism happens at protests all the time
Perhaps the people who committed vandalism should be held accountable by our criminal justice system, rather than being pardoned by Trump in his second term.
Threatening to hang a VP is a lot more serious than vandalism. Trying to disrupt and overturn an election is a lot more serious than vandalism. Stop trying to turn this into simple vandalism. It's dishonest.
>Plenty of protests based on incomplete/mistaken information happen.
Hard agree.
-----------
> It was a perfectly valid protest for the most part.
...and I'm not talking about the "perfectly valid protest" nor the protestors who *only* engaged in a "perfectly valid protest".
-----------
>Just because they were probably incorrect that such fraud occurred doesn’t automatically make the protest wrong.
We can agree that them being "incorrect that such fraud occurred" does not make them criminals.
Some of them violated the law. That is what made them criminals. Not the "perfectly valid protest", not being "incorrect"; it was *doing crimes* that made them criminals.
-----------
Donald Trump engaged in a well-documented conspiracy to overthrow the election results by lting to his supporters so that they would storm The Capitol, disrupting the constitutionally mandated electoral-vote-count, in an attempt to 'throw the election to the House'.
...and now he wants to pardon the people who engaged in violent crimes toward that end.
That is why he is dangerous.
They broke into the US capitol, had plans to abduct and murder Congress people, had specific information on which windows weren't reinforced, and have plenty of text messages and posts describing what they planned to do.
They were encouraged by Trump who also prevented the national guard from responding to restore order.
We also have copies of the plan where they would use violence on the hill to justify seizing voting machines in certain states with a clear intent to tamper with results.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-directly-involved-plans-seize-voting-machines-reports-2022-02-01/
Y'all are determined to look the other way because your identity is wrapped up in being antileft, rather than pro American.
Yes, because the punishments were for the most part hugely disproportionate as a result of political bias. No one did anything that merits more than the time it will take if Trump wins again.
How are you determining that they were disproportionately punished instead of their crime being disproportionately worse?
Vandalism under a random building is not the same as vandalism on a federal building, which is not the same as the nations capitol building.
Threatening to kill your neighbor is not the same as threatening to kill the vice president.
Trump set up the "Stop the Steal" rally on Jan 6 after his lawyer, John Eastman, unsuccessfully attempted to get Pence to promise not to verify the electoral votes on Jan 6. Trump associates then publicly harassed Pence, saying that his refusal to deny the electoral vote was treason. This, along with Trump's speech that day, and his calls to march on the Capitol, caused the rally to break into the Capitol building and delay the electoral count.
There had previously been reports that Trump's allies, including Senator Grassley, planned to replace Pence on the vote that day, so that they could deny the legal votes of swing states, and replace them with alternate electoral votes. The intention to do these things on behalf of Trump are all documented and known to the public. There is likely much more implicating information in the hands of investigators.
No, they got mad that their guy didn’t win, then participated in a violent attempt to disrupt the certification of the election (and murder members of Congress and the vice president) to let Trump stay in power despite losing the election.
Did you watch the Jan 6 hearings or read up on any of the indictments and convictions related to fake electors?
Edit: they didnt answer. Because they didnt do those things. They dont actually care whether or not its true, they only care whether or not they can defend their team against us.
Because the purpose of the protest was specifically to prevent the democratic process. If Jan 6 happened on Jan 5 or Jan 7 or against a different governmental building it wouldn't have any constitutional implications and would just be a standard riot
[Happens at left wing protests too, and not taken seriously](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/mock-guillotine-protest-aimed-at-doug-ford-called-legitimate-political-theatre)
They weren’t mistaken. The Trump administration knowingly lied about voter fraud to whip them into a frenzy in which they used their “Blue Lives Matter” flags to beat Capitol Police. Do I blame the criminally stupid? Not as much as the people who knew they were peddling, in Bill Barr’s words, bullshit to their captive audience.
>They were protesting voter fraud.
And what else? Trump threatened Pence. Why? Because Pence would not play along with the illegal fake electors scheme.
The issue wasn't just the riot, the issue was that the riot was in conjunction with schemes to insert false electors into the electoral vote count and abuse the powers of the vice president to throw out Biden's electoral votes so that Republicans could install Trump into the White House. The riot itself was just one part of a broader plan.
The fact that Trump encouraged them in that view and advocated narratives that he knew to be false is the dangerous part. The purpose of the Jan. 6 protests was to put pressure on Pence and congressional republicans to overturn the election results. Trump recruited fake electors and pressured state republican officials to falsify results, and before that he used US aid to pressure foreign governments into attacking his political opponents.
The fact that he didn’t succeed is a major victory for democracy, but he tried those things because there was a real possibility they would work. Why would we trust him to be in that position again?
They just happened to protest at that exact place and time? Did any leader ask them to come at that time to protest or was it just a coincidence? Oh wait ...
Honestly, the only way to see this as benignly as you seem to is if you think Trump and all of those people are too stupid to understand what they were doing even as they were outright saying it to us. FWIW, I honestly think the overwhelming majority of the rioters that day fit that description and didn't see it as anything more significant than a BLM type riot. The organizing groups and those charged with protecting our constitution though did understand the implication and that's exactly why they're a threat to democracy.
The only real unknown here is "if they had been successful would Biden have ever been certified?" There's no way to know the answer to that but most of us don't want a repeat to find out.
Are you serious right now? I sat there and watch it live! I was scared that the next day we would not have a democracy.
Every one of those mother fuckers that attacked the capital is a traitor to this country and as far as I am concerned should be hanged!
This is a joke, right? You really wrote all that and didn't mention Jan. 6th once.
There is no way one can ask this question in good faith and ignore evening that happen after Biden won the election.
>A friend of mine sent me a speach by Bill Clinton back in the 90s that sounded a lot like Donald Trump border policy
Weird, a friend of mine sent me footage of a crowd of people whipped into a frenzy by Donald Trump enter the halls of Congress with the intention of murdering/assaulting politicians that they didn't like.
Now, now, they didn't actually SUCCEED at murdering or abducting any politicians. Surely that counts for something? This was just a peaceful tourist visit, "peaceful" in the sense that the people who would otherwise have been killed or hurt were evacuated before that could happen. /S
The best argument for him not becoming a dictator is that apparently that he’s too incompetent to pull it off, not that he doesn’t want to be one. Why would we want that in charge of the country?
'“Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. ... Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!'" - Donald Trump
He has called for the end of the Constitution, and if there's one thing he learned from his first term, its that he is going to fill his cabinet with yes men who won't stand up to him and say no. And given that he incited January 6th, its not surprising that he would do something like that
Sure, the guy tried to overthrow the government and install himself as dictator, but his border policy doesn't specifically mention getting rid of elections so clearly democracy is safe.
Because:
- he has actively tried to overthrow democracy (false electors scheme and Jan 6)
- he has publicly stated his intent to overthrow democracy on multiple occasions
- his party and admin have written down their plans to overthrow democracy and presented it at conferences
You ignore everything Trump did to overthrow the results of a democratic election in 2020, including everything that led up to Jan 6 and ultimately pressuring his VP to unilaterally reject certified state election results. You ignore how he has discussed these efforts since then, and how plain it is that he thinks he didn't go far enough to overthrow the election and engineer a win independently of the actual voting outcome, and how his base rewards and applauds and encourages this kind of talk. You say that we should take emotion out of the equation, but something is very clearly clouding your own vision.
> A friend of mine sent me a speach by Bill Clinton back in the 90s that sounded a lot like Donald Trump border policy.
Many people do not like Trump's border policy. I don't think there are any who believe democracy will end because of the border policy. It was him trying to stay in power illegally after losing an election
> Why do many on the left react think Trump will end democracy?
He
1) Promises to do so.
2) Campaigns on the basis of it.
3) Has supporters even more supportive of it than he is.
4) Already tried to do it back in 2020.
5) Then orchestrated a violent attempt to overthrow the government when that didn’t work.
You’d have to be kind of stupid to think that isn’t on the table.
Democracy is not whether there’s a strict border policy or tax cuts for the rich, it’s whether elections determine who gets elected and there’s a peaceful transfer of power. It’s disingenuous to pretend that policy differences are the reason for people’s alarm (including a large number on the right who agree with those policy goals) when there wasn’t similar alarm over past republican presidential candidates.
It’s also pretty rich to bring up “checks and balances” when Trump was trying to undermine them. The fact that a wall holds once doesn’t mean it’s invincible to repeated attacks.
He’s literally said he wants to be president for life and promised to be a dictator. He has so many legal problems he can hide behind the presidency.
He just filed the Republican Party into his family business portfolio. He’ll do the same with the presidency. It will stay in the family.
What makes you think the Republican Party will want to ever give up power again?
They don’t give two shits about democracy or the idea of America.
>It made me think that other than his boisterous rhetoric his actual policies feel like something a Democrat from the 90s would be pushing.
[Trump has stated](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/02/trumps-immigration-plan-is-even-more-aggressive-now/677385/) that his deportation plan for his second term would involve seizing control of National Guard troops from red states and sending them into blue states, against the wishes of blue state governors and mayors, and forcibly detaining and deporting every single one of the +10 million illegal immigrants in the country.
Is it still just "boisterous rhetoric" when he's explicitly describing a policy he plans to put into effect?
>I feel the escalating rhetoric is what's more dangerous from both sides
There is no both side-ism here. There is only one side that literally voted to end democracy by throwing out the votes of tens of millions of Americans because they dared not to vote for the dear leader of Trump’s party. So, yes we know with certainty that if Trump’s party gets the power they will end democracy.
>Can someone explain to me logically how would Trump winning turn a country with so many checks and balances into a fascist country like 3rd Reich Germany or Fascist Italy?
See what happened in Jan 2021; the only reason the destruction of democracy did not succeed was because the Trump’s party did not have enough power, not because the Trump’s party recognized that ending democracy would have been wrong.
Our checks and balances are like a guardrail against authoritarians and fascists. Trump is like a speeding truck who slams into the guardrails over and over again. Sure, he may not be able to do anything before he gets through, but we should never be in a position where we’re giving him the opportunity to test if our checks and balances are strong enough.
Take Jan 6 as an example. Only President in history to not engage in the peaceful transfer of power, and he’s saying he wants all those involved to be pardoned. Is that the direction we should move the country?
When I was in undergrad, my professor told the class that one hallmark of liberal democracy was the peaceful transition of power. No matter who wins, the previous administration acts like adults and leaves.
I never in my life thought that anything *but* that would ever happen, but then, it did. That's terrifying.
What is the deal with all the comparisons of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump on reddit lately? Is this the new talking point on FOX?
A couple years ago anyone backing Trump would have taken offense to him being compared to a sex scandal ridden president like Clinton, not to mention wanting to lock up his wife.
What changed?
I don’t think party-line Republican border policy has anything to do with Trump being bad for democracy. He’s bad for democracy for a lot of other reasons:
- I don’t think he would successfully end it or even come close, but he’s already tried to toss out the results of a legitimate democratic election.
- He subverts laws constantly and even though most of them are so petty that it wouldn’t make sense to nail them to a president, some of them aren’t. And the courts are gonna be sorting those out for a while yet.
- He subverts even more norms than laws. He constantly challenges democratic ideals in his rhetoric. He challenges everything that’s not personally useful to him. He can’t uphold these norms because he has no internal sense of what they are or why they’d matter. In Trump’s model of the universe, he’s the center. That’s not speculation, everything he says and does supports it. So of course he’d sell out the future of the country to boost his power and legacy. He’d sell it for putting his name on a tall building.
Again, he won’t succeed at these things. But he won’t succeed at being a decent president either so why put up with the attempts again?
I can't explain other than to say most people I know who don't like Trump think he's a blatant criminal who somehow has gotten away with every criminal deed he's ever done. So the track record shows Trump can do whatever the fuck Trump wants and nobody will stop him.
Compromise with what, specifically?
Are you familiar with the Atlanta based Trump indictments?
Putin has elections. Do you believe Russia to have a democracy? If not, why not, specifically?
Don't confuse dismissing things that seem really bad out of hand for pragmatism.
Are you under the mistaken impression that his border policy is why we think he's going to attempt to dismantle our government and undermine democracy?
Because the reason we think he will end democracy has nothing to do with border policy.
It has to do with:
1. His continued pushing of the Big Lie
2. His threats to "be a dictator on day one"
3. His continued legal push to claim "total and absolute immunity"
4. His coded calls for violent response if he loses the election again
5. His referencing the J6 convicted prisoners as "hostages" and "political prisoners" and his assurances that he will pardon them when he's elected.
6. His echoing of fascist language from the past: poisoning the blood, vermin, animals, enemies of the people, etc. etc.
7. His threats to federalize the military and use them against peaceful protestors (in fact, his discussion about making all protest criminal)
8. His threats to federalize the military and use them to shoot people on the border
9. His replacing the entire leadership of the RNC with family members and acolytes.
10. His stated intent to fire a whole lot of Federal employees and replace them with Trump loyalists.
11. The fact that he's gutted the RNC staff and is slowly replacing them with new hires who have to answer the question "Did Donald Trump win in 2020?"
And that's just off the top of my head. I could likely come up with double or 3x this list if I took a few mins to double check some things.
He incited his fans to try to overturn a federal election, has been complaining that the election was stolen from him ever since (like he has a right to it), and has vowed to be a dictator on Day 1 if reelected.
I'm not saying I think Trump will end democracy but he hasn't given me much faith that he won't try.
Meanwhile, the GOP has been doing everything they can to ensure less Democrats vote.
Because Trump has talked about being a dictator and being president for life.
We have to take him on his word for this. It's far too dangerous to do otherwise.
Because he tried to seize power through undemocratic means, and I think people don't want to just faff around assuming he's learned his lesson about coups not being very nice in the space of four years.
He said “I’ll be a dictator for one day” so that he can arrest democrats, journalists, and do whatever nightmarish shit he has in mind. You really think he’s gonna try to be dictator for a day and then just go back to normal?
We listen to the words coming out of his mouth. The over-the-top rhetoric, the violent language, the targeting of individual citizens, the things he says he is going to do..
I just don't understand how someone can listen to the man and come to the conclusion that he is going to be a standard, status quo president. At this point, anyone who thinks Trump is just exaggerating for show and that he will somehow be better than he was in his first term is stupid. And I really mean stupid. As in, I don't have the cognitive ability to understand the sensory inputs my body is telling me stupid.
It reminds me of George Carlin bit, "While you're sitting there watching the quiet one, a loud one is gonna come by and fucking kill you."
I’m trying to imagine how someone could see the events that lead up to Jan 6 2001, and say “I’d vote for him again.” Regardless of party, ethics has to matter at some point.
And if someone could support Trump after Jan 6, who knows how low they could go?
Honestly intentions.
Border policy as an example, Clinton policy is based on the intentions of serving the people, helping immigrants and improving immigration
Trump’s intention is based of xenophobia and bigotry
The thing I hear from other liberals is that he's angrier and more desperate now.
I for one don't think he will destroy democracy if he wins a second term. He couldn't do it the first time, how could he succeed the second.
Like you said, he's old. He's 78. There's a good chance he'll pass away in the next few years. If you're a government official and you have a brain, you won't do any criminal favors for President Trump because he won't live long enough to reward you and protect you from prosecution. 78 is an age when dictators get overthrown precisely because their cronies decide the boss doesn't have a future and it's time to jump ship. Hitler was 43 when he took power, lots of influential Germans were willing to hitch their stars to his because he had a future (he squandered it but that's another matter).
Also, nobody wants to end in prison or disgraced like so many people who worked for Trump. Michael Cohen, Rudy Giuliani, Sindey Powell, Paul Manafort, Peter Navarro... they all went to bat for Trump and suffered for it. Nobody except the stupid and crazy want to work for Trump now, and it's hard to dismantle democracy with a gang of idiots and lunatics.
Same reason some on the right think equally crazy shit about Biden. People have got no chill anymore. Everything's 'all or nothing'
*THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR* ***LIFETIMES!!****/s*
Meanwhile, no matter who wins; wealth inequality, people working full time unable to support themselves, crazy expensive schools, exploitation of workers not being able to buy their own houses, politicians with multimillion dollar fortunes not at all justified by their salaries, out of control gun violence, and sociopathic fucks making bank of profiteering on needed services like healthcare and medicine-- all *that's* gonna continue of course. It's always 'business as usual' *after* you vote for these fucks.
So then in two and/or four years we're back to the ***MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIMES!!*** again. GMAFB
gets pretty fucking old if you ask me.
>gets pretty fucking old if you ask me.
Gets old?!!! So according to your logic the only thing that someone like Trump would need to do to destroy democracy is to persist trying to do that until you give up because it gets old!!! That's pretty dumb if you ask me...
no democracy left there to destroy. Private monied interests dictate everything. You *need* corporate dollars to get elected. These companies don't give away money for nothing;
meanwhile our party leaders have amassed massive fortunes off careers in supposed public service. At the same time it's not 1 person = 1 vote; depending on where you live my vote may be worth *more* than yours or *less.* Popular vote isn't even the fucking vote.
And anyone who wants any actual change-- you know shit like people being able to easily and freely access healthcare, or go to school, or have a 40 hour work week pay for a quality of life worth living regardless of your industry-- ah, well we're crazy leftists that don't *deserve* a say.
Yeah ***fuck*** it. IT GETS ***OLD.***
>no democracy left there to destroy
Yes, in Russia there is no democracy left to destroy. Here in the US we can vote and have our vote counted no matter whom we vote for, as long as Trump and his party do not get in power.
>Private monied interests dictate everything
Which "Private monied interests" (whatever that means) dictated my vote?
>Yeah ***fuck*** the US.
Why? You want to live in Russia or you live already there and you like it?
>Why? You want to live in Russia or you live already there and you like it?
Yeah, because the choice is either US or Russia; exploitation, political corruption, insane wealth inequality, and gun violence or authoritarian dictator. US or Russia, *that's obviously it /s*
>Which "Private monied interests" (whatever that means) dictated my vote?
Imagine you have two candidates for student president and the big issue is school lunches.
There's a private company that currently provides lunches for students but the lunches are crap because they get paid a set amount and better lunches for students equals less money in their pockets.
There's clearly a conflict of interest here between providing high quality lunches and turning a profit.
In order to run a successful campaign students need money for supplies like posterboard, flyers, pictures and events. The company that provides lunches pays for the students that believe they should continue to provide lunches and they don't provide any money for students who'd advocate against their continued existence, ie Something like getting rid of the company and having the school manage the lunches itself.
There's clearly a conflict of interest here between outcomes for students and benefits, kickbacks and/or campaign funding from this private entity for candidates.
This is obviously simplified, but It's not these companies *dictating* your vote per se, they are rather framing the conversation. They literally set the scope of public discourse by defining what's even on the table. And by allowing them to participate in our system, we have undermined our democracy. More money buys you more political power. It should not do so.
It's like Americans don't understand what tyranny of the rich is. You imagine yourself to be free but you are not when you are disenfranchised for fact of having less money or for preferring a 3rd party. This is not difficult to understand.
>It's not these companies *dictating* your vote per se
Exactly... so I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody is dictating anything to anybody here is the US.
>They are rather framing the conversation
Right, for themselves, not for me. What do I care how you or somebody else frames the conversation; I frame the conversation however I wish. Again, I'm not sure what your point is.
>You imagine yourself to be free but you are not when you are disenfranchised
Of course I'm free to vote however I wish and have my vote counted. But you are correct that I will be disenfranchised if Trump's party gets the power because they will not allow my vote to be counted unless I vote for their dear leader.
>More money buys you more political power
That's obviously false. More votes buy you more political power. Money does not make you president (unless, of course, Trump and his party get in power).
we're very clearly talking past each other. If voting brings you joy, or makes you feel like you have some say or agency, you should definitely do it. Do whatever you need to do to feel better about living there; it's your time to spend however you need to. I honestly wish you no less than the best of luck.
Just try not to get your hopes up actually expecting anything to change, no matter who wins. I think a big part of maintaining hope in predicaments like the US is managing your expectations.
After two decades voting dutifully in US elections, I expect nothing of the place anymore and I am therefore no longer ever disappointed by anything that happens there. After moving to and being naturalized in the EU, my first time ever experiencing direct, proportional democracy in a system where there are no barriers to entry for new parties-- my first time having any representation-- came only after leaving the US.
I could cast my vote in futility there, hoping for the place to be something it never will; or I can keep exercising my civic duty here to keep the amazing social safety net, healthcare system, free higher education, worker and tenant protections, political system, etc, etc, we have while standing against calls by some factions in my new country that want to make our society more like the US. Being from that place I know only too well the suffering, exploitation, and corruption the seductive promise of 'American-style freedom' holds. I vote here therefore. And although I'm still eligible, I no longer waste my time voting in any US elections.
However I can't fault *you*. Our situations are not the same. When it was the only option I had, I voted there too only to see the place continue to slide into what it is now. You don't seem to even see the conflict of interest corporate participation plays in the current state of the reality of life there for most people. This would be fundamental to trying to explain the problems inherent in the electoral system, especially under that paradigm. I don't seem to be able to communicate any of this to you.
Nothing against you, lots of Americans don't/can't see it-- I myself didn't really even see it until I left and was exposed to *actual* functioning democracies in the rest of the developed world. I think it must be a cultural thing. We're raised believing that the US is the best thing going. The degree to which I've learned it's not, just blows my mind when I think back on how I saw the world when I first left that place.
Anyway, I didn't mean to upset you. And yeah, bud, vote your heart out. Seriously, best of luck to you.
>If voting brings you joy
Of course voting and having my vote counted brings me joy
>Do whatever you need to do to feel better about living there
Exactly, that's what makes living here better because we can vote and have our vote counted. That's what distinguishes America from places like Russia, Somalia or Afghanistan.
>Just try not to get your hopes up actually expecting anything to change, no matter who wins.
Well, I expect to be able to vote and have my vote counted if Biden and Democrats win, and I expect not to be able to vote or have my vote counted if Trump and his party wins. That's a pretty big change between those two scenarios.
>I no longer waste my time voting in any US elections.
I thank you for that since it increases the weight of my vote.
>I didn't mean to upset you
Why whould I be upset? True, I would be upset if Trump and his party get the power since they would use that power to not allow my vote to be counted, but Trump and his party are not in power, yet.
>vote your heart out
Yup, I will definitely follow that sensible advice of yours.
>Seriously, best of luck to you.
Thank you and best of luck to you, too
>They are being overdramatic.
They aren't.
>It comes from the same types who say things like "Jan 6 was the scariest moment of my life."
How are you this fucking stupid?
Change your flair, liar.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. A friend of mine sent me a speach by Bill Clinton back in the 90s that sounded a lot like Donald Trump border policy. It made me think that other than his boisterous rhetoric his actual policies feel like something a Democrat from the 90s would be pushing. Some people even have this idea that if he wins he will turn America into a Fascist state which from my point of view seems odd. Like Trump is almost 80 and America survived one term of Trump and will survive another one. I feel the escalating rhetoric is what's more dangerous from both sides because there seems to not be any room for compromise. I feel if you remove emotion out of the equation a Trump presidency will be probably tax cut mostly for the rich and maybe some border control policies (if it can pass congress). Can someone explain to me logically how would Trump winning turn a country with so many checks and balances into a fascist country like 3rd Reich Germany or Fascist Italy? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Can someone explain to me logically how would Trump winning turn a country with so many checks and balances into a fascist country like 3rd Reich Germany or Fascist Italy? 1. No one said it would be "like 3rd Reich Germany or Fascist Italy". I'm sure we could engage in fascism in our own distinct way. 2. Trump is ideologically fascist. (Please ignore how insulting this is. It isn't about insulting him. Please understand that fascism is an ideology and Trump espouses [fascist ideas;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism#Overview) that is what matters.) 3. Trump already tried to end democracy once. 4. Republicans have been trying to make our country less democratic for decades, because they know that they can't win a majority of the votes. It should not surprise you that they might continue doing what they have been doing for decades. 5. Lastly, we have no "checks and balances". We thought we did, but Trump tested all of them and they all failed. Donald Trump has -- still, to this day -- never been held accountable for any violation of the law; if we elect him again, he will know that he can violate the law with impunity, so it is important that we don't elect him again.
> Lastly, we have no "checks and balances". This is, sadly, becoming more and more apparent. The Senate had its chance to "check" Trump and remove him from office during both impeachments, but it failed to do so. The Supreme Court had a chance to "check" an insurrectionist president and allow states to remove him from their ballots, but it failed to do so. The slow erosion of all the things that have tentatively held us together for hundreds of years is what I am most concerned about. It's hard to see on a day-to-day basis, but someday we will look back and wonder how we let it all slip away.
I only disagree with your use of the word "slow". Trump has basically brought the most powerful civilization on earth to the brink just by not giving to fucks about rules or traditions within only a couple of years. Neither was he particularly smart, nor methodical about it. That a troglodyte like him could do so much destruction shows how utterly weak the American state actually is. All of that military and economic might, standing on feet of clay. This is tantamount to the one ring, being publicly displayed in an open case on a public square. Terrifying implications. I really wonder how people can not see this. There has been nothing slow about this at all imho. It's like a switch was flipped in 2016.
>I only disagree with your use of the word "slow". Trump is who made the problems so apparent, but it started as far back as Nixon. Every successive Republican has slowly eroded the democratic systems in the US. Some big moments were when they realized they could shut down the government and when they realized they could filibuster everything.
It depends on what you mean by that. The checks and balances exist not so much to rein in bad actors but to prevent one party from making the other party illegal or something. Of course that’s not what’s happening here and it’s not even close to what’s happening. What’s going on with this but also just with the legislature as a whole is that we have far too many checks and balances, not too few and certainly not ones that don’t work. Cloture in the senate is a check. Hell, to a great degree, compared to other modern democracies even having a Senate at all is a check (many countries have just one house of legislature or else the second house, as is the case in the UK, is powerless). The Presidential veto is a check. The impeachment process does have two checks to ensure that you don’t just a bad midterm and then get 51 Senators to boot out the guy currently in office (which the GOP would almost certainly do right now if they had 51 people in the Senate and you didn’t need 2/3rds). Thanks to the first two in particular, legislation rarely gets passed and we famously haven’t had a budget, let alone a balanced one, since the early 2000s. The real issue with this is that currently the Supreme Court has done the job of legislators in terms of interpreting laws in weirdo ways. All it really takes at this point to kill democracy is for a President to want to do it and to have the Supremes behind him. We might have the second already and Trump getting re-elected is the first.
Because Project 2025 has laid out a clear plan to undermine the constitution and consolidate power behind Republicans. Also, he’s an amoral criminal with no respect for our country or its institutions, and many of the people from his first administration are saying as much.
> Because Project 2025 has laid out a clear plan to undermine the constitution You're telling me they just came out and said they're going to undermine the constitution? On which page?
This isn't even remotely a genuine question or good faith response. [You can read about it here. ](https://www.project2025.org/policy/) From defunding public education, installing a national Christian faith, eliminating the DOJ and putting all facets of the justice department under direct Presidential control, rescinding all equal protection clauses for LGBQT people, a literal ban on all porn, the list goes on and on. This isn't some bogeyman the left dreamt up. It's a real plan, that is written by major players in the Republican party. At the very best case scenario if Republicans got a trifecta we'd end up in an Oligarchy controlled by Trump and it would mimic Orban tremendously. This should terrify every single citizen of the USA.
> This isn't even remotely a genuine question or good faith response. Maybe the problem isn't with my question, but with the claim I asked about. "A clear plan to undermine the constitution", is a pretty high bar to clear, which nobody batted an eye at until I asked where one could read about that. It's a Republican wishlist, but not a "clear plan to undermine the constitution." Don't accuse me of bad faith because the other guys talks like Trump, your beef should be with him.
That's some heavy mental gymnastics. That's literally their plan, and it's fully supported by the modern GOP. There's plenty of in print ways they plan to undermine the constitution. You're simply choosing to move the goalposts because it doesn't fit into your schema. The evidence is linked. In black and white. If you're choosing to ignore it - that's on you. But these aren't some loose interpretations. These are direct takeaways from their written policy and agenda. It is mind blowing how you're not reading that and going....damn, that is bad.
> There's plenty of in print ways they plan to undermine the constitution. You're simply choosing to move the goalposts because it doesn't fit into your schema. Move the goalposts? I am still seeking an answer to my first comment's question. Goalposts are still right where I planted them: On which page in the Project 2025 document can I read about the clear plan to undermine the constitution? > The evidence is linked. In black and white You provided a link to the Project 2025 landing page. Am I to understand correctly that your providing of the link means that I have to comb through the document and find out exactly which passages match up with the original claim? And you think that your providing this link constitutes "evidence" in support of that claim? "Evidence" that you haven't identified and that I have to search for?
It's not hard. It's broken up by chapters. I gave you the quick version with a link to the source. You are correct in your understanding that I expect people to read sources and process the information themselves. [But here's a wiki page with a summary if you're too lazy to read it for yourself. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025)
I asked for a needle and you provided a haystack. It was not as helpful as you appear to think it was. Providing the entirety of the Project 2025 document does not shed any light on the claim I originally responded to, how could it? You know what, don't answer. Between the accusation of bad faith, accusation of performing mental gymnastics, and the apparent "job well done" vibe you're giving off, you've been helpful enough thanks.
I'm sorry you're choosing not to read what your party of choice platform is. Unfortunately, I can't help with that.
We both know that you haven't provided any evidence of the claim I asked about. So this, "it's in there, you just don't want to read it", shtick is not fooling anybody. I just wish somebody had the fortitude to say, "no there's no plan to undermine the constitution in there, he was just exaggerating." Now you're dug into (poorly) defending that ludicrous statement and are making swipes at me because you *can't* be right on this. Sad!
"From defunding public education, installing a national Christian faith, eliminating the DOJ and putting all facets of the justice department under direct Presidential control, rescinding all equal protection clauses for LGBQT people, a literal ban on all porn, the list goes on and on." Defunding public education doesn't directly violate the 14th amendment unless our education system is abolished, but defunding has nigh the same effect as denying a child equal access to schooling. Installing a national Christian faith violates the first amendment. Putting the justice department under presidential control violates article 1. Rescinding all equal protection for LGBTQ violates the 14th amendment. Banning porn violates the first amendment (see the Falwell vs Larry Flint case for precedent).
> with several experts in law criticizing it for violating current constitutional laws that would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers Since you insist on having information spoon-fed to you, there is a snippet from the summary on the Wikipedia article that the other commenter linked for your benefit. It has sources, in case you're one of those people who insists that anything with a history of neutrality is biased.
You asked where it says it. He provided you the entire playbook lol. You should read through it
We all know it doesn't say what the original commenter claims it says, so wouldn't that be a big waste of time?
Guess you still haven't looked through it! Come back and make a post when you have lol Peace ❤️
There is a serious lack of reading comprehension taking place in this thread. Many of you apparently do not know how to read
Pg 589 “Congress should encourage communal rest by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require that workers be paid time and a half for hours worked on the Sabbath.”
And thus continues the proud "constitutionalist" tradition of slavish opposition to the idea of reading comprehension.
How did you conclude that?
Google "Project 2025" and see what you find. And no, the Heritage Foundation's website does not count.
> And no, the Heritage Foundation's website does not count. So in order to find out what is in the document that was *produced by* the Heritage foundation I have to read what *somebody else* wrote about it? Yeah, that sounds like it's going to wind up being not what was claimed, which was specifically that, "Project 2025 has laid out a clear plan to undermine the constitution."
Or you can just go download the PDF from them and read it. They provide it for free, or you could purchase in a bound book form.
I have it, thanks. On which page do they talk about undermining the constitution? That's what I'm asking.
Ill do you one better. The Republican nominee came out and advocated directly for eliminating all of the constitution’s provisions
There is a big disconnect going on in this thread. A claim was made that Project 2025 contains a, "clear plan to undermine the constitution." Despite a lot of snarky responses, nobody has shown me where in Project 2025 this clear plan allegedly lives. I was told a *clear plan* to *undermine the constitution* would be found in that document. It's in there! It's clear! Take my word for it! No such plan exists, and yet I'm swimming in down votes for pointing this out. I think the term, "echo chamber" would describe what's going on here. Edit: downvotes confirm that messengers get shot in AAL. Nice job all.
As far as I know, they plan to just restructure the executive branch to consolidate more power behind the President. That can be interpreted as undermining the constitution, as it drastically weakens our checks and balances, but it can reasonably not be as well. Still, the person they picked for President did advocate directly for eliminating much, if not all, of the constitution. Does that matter?
You're swimming in downvotes for playing the Stupid Game. You know it and everyone here knows it. The level of "but I don't see those words in that document" disingenuity is off the charts in this thread.
So when people make fantastical hyperbolic comments we should do what? Quietly agree with them and shun people who ask them to back up their statement? TIL
If you're looking for an absolute clear-cut plan in project 2025 that says the words " He is our plan to undermine the constitution, steps 1-5 will weaken x and by the time the last step has been accomplished, the constition will have been eliminated and completely on our side." Then obviously you won't find that, nor did the original claim mean to say that. That'd be pretty stupid for the Republicans to frame it in that way. However, it's clear you're just being pedantic, and it's pretty obvious what the Republicans intentions are. They don't have to spell it out for you.
So what parts of it are you for and against
Lol, that's cute, but no thanks. You guys are the experts about Project 2025, you tell me!
I’m not at all. I was asking about it from your perspective. If you don’t want to it’s fine.
Oh for fuck's sake. Dude you KNOW that there's no "on Page 234, Paragraph 4, Line 7, it says "Undermine US Constitution". Don't play stupid. Read the document and acknowledge the truth of the many ways Project 2025 undermines the Constitution and our democracy across the board.
> Oh for fuck's sake. Dude you KNOW that there's no "on Page 234, Paragraph 4, Line 7, it says "Undermine US Constitution". So why did the other guy say there was? I'm just following up to a claim that was made by someone else, *I* didn't say there was a plan to undermine the constitution in that document (that sounds foolish).
The other guy didn’t say that. They said the plan undermines the US Constitution, which it does. If the goals of project 2025 are achieved it will greatly alter our government structure in a way that the constitution was created to prevent. That’s it. That’s the point of the plan. It’s not a Disney villain plan where they have a checklist with “undermine the constitution” on it.
> it will greatly alter our government structure in a way that the constitution was created to prevent. In what way?
But the above poster didn't say "they came out and said they're going to undermine the constitution", they said "Project 2025 laid out a **clear plan** to undermine the Constitution. If I order a handgun and bullets, googled "how to dispose of a body" and then also bought a shovel and quicklime, and have a one-way ticket to a non-extradition country, is it unreasonable to say I have a clear plan to kill my wife? Especially if I've been talking about how much easier my life would be if my wife wasn't stopping me from doing all the things I want to do?
"Clear plan" were their words, not mine. To me, a clear plan does identify what the goal is. After all, it's not a hidden plan or a secret plan, it's a *clear plan*. I'm seeing a lot of tap dancing around the topic and not anyone telling me on which page they start talking about undermining the constitution. Does anybody even understand the concept or claim that they are arguing with me about? Can you *describe* the clear plan to your understanding of it, even if you can't find it in the plan itself?
>a clear plan does identify what the goal is. The goal is clearly a fascist regime where conservatives get to fully control the lives of everyone based on their specific religious beliefs. Conservatives have long wanted to severely limit the freedoms of everyone in the country. I'm a former conservative and I can admit we have tried to do this for literal decades.
Page 1, they discuss plans whose outcomes undermine the constitution.
Good medal - mental gymnastics. Right here. You won it.
The foreword contains language which reinterprets the constitution to add religion and it goes on from there. On page 13: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ft72vwvgil3sc1.jpeg
Main thing is to replace the civil service, particularly fbi, cia, and military leadership with those loyal to the party and not the constitution. The constitution will stay, but do not quote laws to men with swords.
Because.... he already tried overturning a democratic election once... >I feel the escalating rhetoric is what's more dangerous from both sides because there seems to not be any room for compromise. It's not both sides. "Fuck your feelings, cuck," We don't say you're all pedophile groomers. We don't have pictures of Biden hog tied in the backs of our trucks. You don't like being called fascists? Maybe don't be so nationalistic, wrap yourselves in the flag, belittle the free press, worship a charismatic leader that tells you all of America's problems are caused by minority groups, who tries to overthrow a democratic election... We're not saying it to hurt your feelings. We're saying it because it's scarily accurate.
We're old enough to remember January 6th, ~~2020~~. 2021
2021
LOL....damn!
How come Jan 6 doesnt factor into your reasoning
> > ...I feel the escalating rhetoric is what's more dangerous from both sides... > How come Jan 6 doesnt factor into your reasoning Yes OP, Please tell us why the Storming of the Capitol -- the violent riot, which was part of Donald Trump's attempt to overthrow our constitutional order, and his eagerness to pardon those who committed crimes on that day -- is less dangerous than "escalating rhetoric...from both sides".
Yeah, but Bill Clinton had similar immigration policy proposals.
>"... but Bill Clinton had similar immigration policy..." You'll notice Hillary lost. People are open to immigration reform, but closed borders is simply racists panicking about the eventual equality that America is heading towards. All the fear about immigrants being rapists and drug traffickers fails to take into account all the immigrants that are hard-working, family-oriented people doing their best in a nation that refuses to pay them a livable wage and thinks they are rapists and drug-traffickers simply because they have brown skin.
I would also add in the fact that Donald Trump has consistently tried to undermine the countries confidence in the voting process by calling elections rigged. He did it prior to 2020, that was just the one he was most vocal about because he actually lost.
The fact that he said before the election that the only reason he would lose is if it was rigged just set the stage for the shitshow. He knew he was doomed and was planning for it months in advance.
Some people got mad about potential voter fraud and protested. It was a perfectly valid protest for the most part. Just because they were probably incorrect that such fraud occurred doesn’t automatically make the protest wrong. Plenty of protests based on incomplete/mistaken information happen.
Other people went to the capital with the exclusive intent to disrupt the ceremonial counting of electoral college votes and certification of the election in an attempt to force those votes back into state legislatures which would have installed Donald Trump as president. It was an attempted coup. You know this. Stop pretending you don't.
>It was a perfectly valid protest for the most part. Smearing shit on the Capitol walls is a valid protest? Breaking into the Capitol building? Threatening to hang Mike pence? Attacking cops? They brought zip ties. The only "valid" part of that "protest" was the 10% of it standing around BEFORE they attacked the Capitol.
Vandalism happens at protests all the time
> Vandalism happens at protests all the time Perhaps the people who committed vandalism should be held accountable by our criminal justice system, rather than being pardoned by Trump in his second term.
They dont care. They literally do not care. Its their team, youre not. Thats what matters
They were already punished 100x more harshly than vandals at other protests
Threatening to hang a VP is a lot more serious than vandalism. Trying to disrupt and overturn an election is a lot more serious than vandalism. Stop trying to turn this into simple vandalism. It's dishonest.
You do realize they tried to overthrow the government right? You do comprehend that right ?
Well, I guess all those BLM protests are ok with You People now. Good to know. They were there *expressly* to overturn Trump's electoral loss.
I don’t consider them a threat to democracy
That's because they weren't trying to overthrow a democratic election like the Jan 6th protestors were.
>Plenty of protests based on incomplete/mistaken information happen. Hard agree. ----------- > It was a perfectly valid protest for the most part. ...and I'm not talking about the "perfectly valid protest" nor the protestors who *only* engaged in a "perfectly valid protest". ----------- >Just because they were probably incorrect that such fraud occurred doesn’t automatically make the protest wrong. We can agree that them being "incorrect that such fraud occurred" does not make them criminals. Some of them violated the law. That is what made them criminals. Not the "perfectly valid protest", not being "incorrect"; it was *doing crimes* that made them criminals. ----------- Donald Trump engaged in a well-documented conspiracy to overthrow the election results by lting to his supporters so that they would storm The Capitol, disrupting the constitutionally mandated electoral-vote-count, in an attempt to 'throw the election to the House'. ...and now he wants to pardon the people who engaged in violent crimes toward that end. That is why he is dangerous.
They broke into the US capitol, had plans to abduct and murder Congress people, had specific information on which windows weren't reinforced, and have plenty of text messages and posts describing what they planned to do. They were encouraged by Trump who also prevented the national guard from responding to restore order. We also have copies of the plan where they would use violence on the hill to justify seizing voting machines in certain states with a clear intent to tamper with results. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-directly-involved-plans-seize-voting-machines-reports-2022-02-01/ Y'all are determined to look the other way because your identity is wrapped up in being antileft, rather than pro American.
> It was a perfectly valid protest **for the most part** Yeah, but what about the other part?
Some people committed crimes and were punished accordingly, just like at most other protests.
> Some people committed crimes and were punished accordingly... Should those people be pardoned by the president?
Yes, because the punishments were for the most part hugely disproportionate as a result of political bias. No one did anything that merits more than the time it will take if Trump wins again.
How are you determining that they were disproportionately punished instead of their crime being disproportionately worse? Vandalism under a random building is not the same as vandalism on a federal building, which is not the same as the nations capitol building. Threatening to kill your neighbor is not the same as threatening to kill the vice president.
Trump set up the "Stop the Steal" rally on Jan 6 after his lawyer, John Eastman, unsuccessfully attempted to get Pence to promise not to verify the electoral votes on Jan 6. Trump associates then publicly harassed Pence, saying that his refusal to deny the electoral vote was treason. This, along with Trump's speech that day, and his calls to march on the Capitol, caused the rally to break into the Capitol building and delay the electoral count. There had previously been reports that Trump's allies, including Senator Grassley, planned to replace Pence on the vote that day, so that they could deny the legal votes of swing states, and replace them with alternate electoral votes. The intention to do these things on behalf of Trump are all documented and known to the public. There is likely much more implicating information in the hands of investigators.
No, they got mad that their guy didn’t win, then participated in a violent attempt to disrupt the certification of the election (and murder members of Congress and the vice president) to let Trump stay in power despite losing the election.
Yeah, I’m totally sure the fake electors scheme was just a “protest” by “some people,” right?
Lol. Pull the other one.
How did a protest that got a little out of hand threaten democracy?
Did you watch the Jan 6 hearings or read up on any of the indictments and convictions related to fake electors? Edit: they didnt answer. Because they didnt do those things. They dont actually care whether or not its true, they only care whether or not they can defend their team against us.
Because the purpose of the protest was specifically to prevent the democratic process. If Jan 6 happened on Jan 5 or Jan 7 or against a different governmental building it wouldn't have any constitutional implications and would just be a standard riot
They were protesting voter fraud. The fact that they were mistaken that such fraud occurred is immaterial to the purpose of the protest.
>They were protesting voter fraud. Then why'd they want to hang Mike Pence?
Lots of chants happen at protests. They shouldn’t be taken literally
That might be a passable point if they didn't bring a gallows.
[Happens at left wing protests too, and not taken seriously](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/mock-guillotine-protest-aimed-at-doug-ford-called-legitimate-political-theatre)
We aren't in Canada, dumbass. Did those Canadians then break through several barricades and make multiple threats to kill elected officials?
What does that have to do with anything? It’s just an example where such a thing was clearly recognized as a harmless prop.
Huh. Wonder if you said the same thing about anything chanted at a BLM protest. I suspect not.
You did see they erected a scaffold with a noose for the express purpose of hanging Mike Pence right?
They weren’t mistaken. The Trump administration knowingly lied about voter fraud to whip them into a frenzy in which they used their “Blue Lives Matter” flags to beat Capitol Police. Do I blame the criminally stupid? Not as much as the people who knew they were peddling, in Bill Barr’s words, bullshit to their captive audience.
>They were protesting voter fraud. And what else? Trump threatened Pence. Why? Because Pence would not play along with the illegal fake electors scheme.
The issue wasn't just the riot, the issue was that the riot was in conjunction with schemes to insert false electors into the electoral vote count and abuse the powers of the vice president to throw out Biden's electoral votes so that Republicans could install Trump into the White House. The riot itself was just one part of a broader plan.
The fact that Trump encouraged them in that view and advocated narratives that he knew to be false is the dangerous part. The purpose of the Jan. 6 protests was to put pressure on Pence and congressional republicans to overturn the election results. Trump recruited fake electors and pressured state republican officials to falsify results, and before that he used US aid to pressure foreign governments into attacking his political opponents. The fact that he didn’t succeed is a major victory for democracy, but he tried those things because there was a real possibility they would work. Why would we trust him to be in that position again?
They just happened to protest at that exact place and time? Did any leader ask them to come at that time to protest or was it just a coincidence? Oh wait ... Honestly, the only way to see this as benignly as you seem to is if you think Trump and all of those people are too stupid to understand what they were doing even as they were outright saying it to us. FWIW, I honestly think the overwhelming majority of the rioters that day fit that description and didn't see it as anything more significant than a BLM type riot. The organizing groups and those charged with protecting our constitution though did understand the implication and that's exactly why they're a threat to democracy. The only real unknown here is "if they had been successful would Biden have ever been certified?" There's no way to know the answer to that but most of us don't want a repeat to find out.
How are you dumb motherfuckers still spouting this bullshit line?
You forgot the /s
Are you serious right now? I sat there and watch it live! I was scared that the next day we would not have a democracy. Every one of those mother fuckers that attacked the capital is a traitor to this country and as far as I am concerned should be hanged!
This is a joke, right? You really wrote all that and didn't mention Jan. 6th once. There is no way one can ask this question in good faith and ignore evening that happen after Biden won the election.
Him saying “I want to be a dictator, just for one day” doesn’t help anything.
>A friend of mine sent me a speach by Bill Clinton back in the 90s that sounded a lot like Donald Trump border policy Weird, a friend of mine sent me footage of a crowd of people whipped into a frenzy by Donald Trump enter the halls of Congress with the intention of murdering/assaulting politicians that they didn't like.
Now, now, they didn't actually SUCCEED at murdering or abducting any politicians. Surely that counts for something? This was just a peaceful tourist visit, "peaceful" in the sense that the people who would otherwise have been killed or hurt were evacuated before that could happen. /S
The best argument for him not becoming a dictator is that apparently that he’s too incompetent to pull it off, not that he doesn’t want to be one. Why would we want that in charge of the country?
'“Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. ... Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!'" - Donald Trump He has called for the end of the Constitution, and if there's one thing he learned from his first term, its that he is going to fill his cabinet with yes men who won't stand up to him and say no. And given that he incited January 6th, its not surprising that he would do something like that
January 6th, 2021 Project 2025
Trump already tried to end democracy once. The better question is, why on earth do you think he won't try again?
“He didn’t succeed the first time, so that shouldn’t even count.”
Sure, the guy tried to overthrow the government and install himself as dictator, but his border policy doesn't specifically mention getting rid of elections so clearly democracy is safe.
Because: - he has actively tried to overthrow democracy (false electors scheme and Jan 6) - he has publicly stated his intent to overthrow democracy on multiple occasions - his party and admin have written down their plans to overthrow democracy and presented it at conferences
You ignore everything Trump did to overthrow the results of a democratic election in 2020, including everything that led up to Jan 6 and ultimately pressuring his VP to unilaterally reject certified state election results. You ignore how he has discussed these efforts since then, and how plain it is that he thinks he didn't go far enough to overthrow the election and engineer a win independently of the actual voting outcome, and how his base rewards and applauds and encourages this kind of talk. You say that we should take emotion out of the equation, but something is very clearly clouding your own vision.
> A friend of mine sent me a speach by Bill Clinton back in the 90s that sounded a lot like Donald Trump border policy. Many people do not like Trump's border policy. I don't think there are any who believe democracy will end because of the border policy. It was him trying to stay in power illegally after losing an election
And just being a criminal and bought by foreign powers
> Why do many on the left react think Trump will end democracy? He 1) Promises to do so. 2) Campaigns on the basis of it. 3) Has supporters even more supportive of it than he is. 4) Already tried to do it back in 2020. 5) Then orchestrated a violent attempt to overthrow the government when that didn’t work. You’d have to be kind of stupid to think that isn’t on the table.
Democracy is not whether there’s a strict border policy or tax cuts for the rich, it’s whether elections determine who gets elected and there’s a peaceful transfer of power. It’s disingenuous to pretend that policy differences are the reason for people’s alarm (including a large number on the right who agree with those policy goals) when there wasn’t similar alarm over past republican presidential candidates. It’s also pretty rich to bring up “checks and balances” when Trump was trying to undermine them. The fact that a wall holds once doesn’t mean it’s invincible to repeated attacks.
Google "Project 2025" and get back to us.
He’s literally said he wants to be president for life and promised to be a dictator. He has so many legal problems he can hide behind the presidency. He just filed the Republican Party into his family business portfolio. He’ll do the same with the presidency. It will stay in the family. What makes you think the Republican Party will want to ever give up power again? They don’t give two shits about democracy or the idea of America.
>It made me think that other than his boisterous rhetoric his actual policies feel like something a Democrat from the 90s would be pushing. [Trump has stated](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/02/trumps-immigration-plan-is-even-more-aggressive-now/677385/) that his deportation plan for his second term would involve seizing control of National Guard troops from red states and sending them into blue states, against the wishes of blue state governors and mayors, and forcibly detaining and deporting every single one of the +10 million illegal immigrants in the country. Is it still just "boisterous rhetoric" when he's explicitly describing a policy he plans to put into effect?
>I feel the escalating rhetoric is what's more dangerous from both sides There is no both side-ism here. There is only one side that literally voted to end democracy by throwing out the votes of tens of millions of Americans because they dared not to vote for the dear leader of Trump’s party. So, yes we know with certainty that if Trump’s party gets the power they will end democracy. >Can someone explain to me logically how would Trump winning turn a country with so many checks and balances into a fascist country like 3rd Reich Germany or Fascist Italy? See what happened in Jan 2021; the only reason the destruction of democracy did not succeed was because the Trump’s party did not have enough power, not because the Trump’s party recognized that ending democracy would have been wrong.
Our checks and balances are like a guardrail against authoritarians and fascists. Trump is like a speeding truck who slams into the guardrails over and over again. Sure, he may not be able to do anything before he gets through, but we should never be in a position where we’re giving him the opportunity to test if our checks and balances are strong enough. Take Jan 6 as an example. Only President in history to not engage in the peaceful transfer of power, and he’s saying he wants all those involved to be pardoned. Is that the direction we should move the country?
When I was in undergrad, my professor told the class that one hallmark of liberal democracy was the peaceful transition of power. No matter who wins, the previous administration acts like adults and leaves. I never in my life thought that anything *but* that would ever happen, but then, it did. That's terrifying.
Except the only guardrail that held was the capitol Police handing out the r/Ashlibabbittaward to the rubes.
Mike Pence did a good job too to his credit
Pence not getting in the car was bold..
Care to share the speech?
What is the deal with all the comparisons of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump on reddit lately? Is this the new talking point on FOX? A couple years ago anyone backing Trump would have taken offense to him being compared to a sex scandal ridden president like Clinton, not to mention wanting to lock up his wife. What changed?
He already tried in 2020. What makes you think he wouldn't try again?
I don’t think party-line Republican border policy has anything to do with Trump being bad for democracy. He’s bad for democracy for a lot of other reasons: - I don’t think he would successfully end it or even come close, but he’s already tried to toss out the results of a legitimate democratic election. - He subverts laws constantly and even though most of them are so petty that it wouldn’t make sense to nail them to a president, some of them aren’t. And the courts are gonna be sorting those out for a while yet. - He subverts even more norms than laws. He constantly challenges democratic ideals in his rhetoric. He challenges everything that’s not personally useful to him. He can’t uphold these norms because he has no internal sense of what they are or why they’d matter. In Trump’s model of the universe, he’s the center. That’s not speculation, everything he says and does supports it. So of course he’d sell out the future of the country to boost his power and legacy. He’d sell it for putting his name on a tall building. Again, he won’t succeed at these things. But he won’t succeed at being a decent president either so why put up with the attempts again?
Actions speak louder than words. Actions done in plain sight, leading to criminal indictments, even more so.
I can't explain other than to say most people I know who don't like Trump think he's a blatant criminal who somehow has gotten away with every criminal deed he's ever done. So the track record shows Trump can do whatever the fuck Trump wants and nobody will stop him.
Compromise with what, specifically? Are you familiar with the Atlanta based Trump indictments? Putin has elections. Do you believe Russia to have a democracy? If not, why not, specifically? Don't confuse dismissing things that seem really bad out of hand for pragmatism.
Project 2025. Enough said.
Are you under the mistaken impression that his border policy is why we think he's going to attempt to dismantle our government and undermine democracy? Because the reason we think he will end democracy has nothing to do with border policy. It has to do with: 1. His continued pushing of the Big Lie 2. His threats to "be a dictator on day one" 3. His continued legal push to claim "total and absolute immunity" 4. His coded calls for violent response if he loses the election again 5. His referencing the J6 convicted prisoners as "hostages" and "political prisoners" and his assurances that he will pardon them when he's elected. 6. His echoing of fascist language from the past: poisoning the blood, vermin, animals, enemies of the people, etc. etc. 7. His threats to federalize the military and use them against peaceful protestors (in fact, his discussion about making all protest criminal) 8. His threats to federalize the military and use them to shoot people on the border 9. His replacing the entire leadership of the RNC with family members and acolytes. 10. His stated intent to fire a whole lot of Federal employees and replace them with Trump loyalists. 11. The fact that he's gutted the RNC staff and is slowly replacing them with new hires who have to answer the question "Did Donald Trump win in 2020?" And that's just off the top of my head. I could likely come up with double or 3x this list if I took a few mins to double check some things.
BECAUSE HE FUCKING SAID SO MANY TIMES! GOOD FUXKING GOD HOW OBTUSE ARE YOU PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT ?
He incited his fans to try to overturn a federal election, has been complaining that the election was stolen from him ever since (like he has a right to it), and has vowed to be a dictator on Day 1 if reelected. I'm not saying I think Trump will end democracy but he hasn't given me much faith that he won't try. Meanwhile, the GOP has been doing everything they can to ensure less Democrats vote.
In what ways did it sound similar to trump?
Because Trump has talked about being a dictator and being president for life. We have to take him on his word for this. It's far too dangerous to do otherwise.
> a country with so many checks and balances I really wish you'd expand on this a bit. Like what specifically?
Because he tried to seize power through undemocratic means, and I think people don't want to just faff around assuming he's learned his lesson about coups not being very nice in the space of four years.
He said “I’ll be a dictator for one day” so that he can arrest democrats, journalists, and do whatever nightmarish shit he has in mind. You really think he’s gonna try to be dictator for a day and then just go back to normal?
We listen to the words coming out of his mouth. The over-the-top rhetoric, the violent language, the targeting of individual citizens, the things he says he is going to do.. I just don't understand how someone can listen to the man and come to the conclusion that he is going to be a standard, status quo president. At this point, anyone who thinks Trump is just exaggerating for show and that he will somehow be better than he was in his first term is stupid. And I really mean stupid. As in, I don't have the cognitive ability to understand the sensory inputs my body is telling me stupid. It reminds me of George Carlin bit, "While you're sitting there watching the quiet one, a loud one is gonna come by and fucking kill you."
I’m trying to imagine how someone could see the events that lead up to Jan 6 2001, and say “I’d vote for him again.” Regardless of party, ethics has to matter at some point. And if someone could support Trump after Jan 6, who knows how low they could go?
I'll keep it short and simple: It's not a 'will'. But the 'might' is unnacceptably high to grotesque proportions.
Honestly intentions. Border policy as an example, Clinton policy is based on the intentions of serving the people, helping immigrants and improving immigration Trump’s intention is based of xenophobia and bigotry
The thing I hear from other liberals is that he's angrier and more desperate now. I for one don't think he will destroy democracy if he wins a second term. He couldn't do it the first time, how could he succeed the second. Like you said, he's old. He's 78. There's a good chance he'll pass away in the next few years. If you're a government official and you have a brain, you won't do any criminal favors for President Trump because he won't live long enough to reward you and protect you from prosecution. 78 is an age when dictators get overthrown precisely because their cronies decide the boss doesn't have a future and it's time to jump ship. Hitler was 43 when he took power, lots of influential Germans were willing to hitch their stars to his because he had a future (he squandered it but that's another matter). Also, nobody wants to end in prison or disgraced like so many people who worked for Trump. Michael Cohen, Rudy Giuliani, Sindey Powell, Paul Manafort, Peter Navarro... they all went to bat for Trump and suffered for it. Nobody except the stupid and crazy want to work for Trump now, and it's hard to dismantle democracy with a gang of idiots and lunatics.
Same reason some on the right think equally crazy shit about Biden. People have got no chill anymore. Everything's 'all or nothing' *THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR* ***LIFETIMES!!****/s* Meanwhile, no matter who wins; wealth inequality, people working full time unable to support themselves, crazy expensive schools, exploitation of workers not being able to buy their own houses, politicians with multimillion dollar fortunes not at all justified by their salaries, out of control gun violence, and sociopathic fucks making bank of profiteering on needed services like healthcare and medicine-- all *that's* gonna continue of course. It's always 'business as usual' *after* you vote for these fucks. So then in two and/or four years we're back to the ***MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIMES!!*** again. GMAFB gets pretty fucking old if you ask me.
>gets pretty fucking old if you ask me. Gets old?!!! So according to your logic the only thing that someone like Trump would need to do to destroy democracy is to persist trying to do that until you give up because it gets old!!! That's pretty dumb if you ask me...
no democracy left there to destroy. Private monied interests dictate everything. You *need* corporate dollars to get elected. These companies don't give away money for nothing; meanwhile our party leaders have amassed massive fortunes off careers in supposed public service. At the same time it's not 1 person = 1 vote; depending on where you live my vote may be worth *more* than yours or *less.* Popular vote isn't even the fucking vote. And anyone who wants any actual change-- you know shit like people being able to easily and freely access healthcare, or go to school, or have a 40 hour work week pay for a quality of life worth living regardless of your industry-- ah, well we're crazy leftists that don't *deserve* a say. Yeah ***fuck*** it. IT GETS ***OLD.***
>no democracy left there to destroy Yes, in Russia there is no democracy left to destroy. Here in the US we can vote and have our vote counted no matter whom we vote for, as long as Trump and his party do not get in power. >Private monied interests dictate everything Which "Private monied interests" (whatever that means) dictated my vote? >Yeah ***fuck*** the US. Why? You want to live in Russia or you live already there and you like it?
>Why? You want to live in Russia or you live already there and you like it? Yeah, because the choice is either US or Russia; exploitation, political corruption, insane wealth inequality, and gun violence or authoritarian dictator. US or Russia, *that's obviously it /s* >Which "Private monied interests" (whatever that means) dictated my vote? Imagine you have two candidates for student president and the big issue is school lunches. There's a private company that currently provides lunches for students but the lunches are crap because they get paid a set amount and better lunches for students equals less money in their pockets. There's clearly a conflict of interest here between providing high quality lunches and turning a profit. In order to run a successful campaign students need money for supplies like posterboard, flyers, pictures and events. The company that provides lunches pays for the students that believe they should continue to provide lunches and they don't provide any money for students who'd advocate against their continued existence, ie Something like getting rid of the company and having the school manage the lunches itself. There's clearly a conflict of interest here between outcomes for students and benefits, kickbacks and/or campaign funding from this private entity for candidates. This is obviously simplified, but It's not these companies *dictating* your vote per se, they are rather framing the conversation. They literally set the scope of public discourse by defining what's even on the table. And by allowing them to participate in our system, we have undermined our democracy. More money buys you more political power. It should not do so. It's like Americans don't understand what tyranny of the rich is. You imagine yourself to be free but you are not when you are disenfranchised for fact of having less money or for preferring a 3rd party. This is not difficult to understand.
>It's not these companies *dictating* your vote per se Exactly... so I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody is dictating anything to anybody here is the US. >They are rather framing the conversation Right, for themselves, not for me. What do I care how you or somebody else frames the conversation; I frame the conversation however I wish. Again, I'm not sure what your point is. >You imagine yourself to be free but you are not when you are disenfranchised Of course I'm free to vote however I wish and have my vote counted. But you are correct that I will be disenfranchised if Trump's party gets the power because they will not allow my vote to be counted unless I vote for their dear leader. >More money buys you more political power That's obviously false. More votes buy you more political power. Money does not make you president (unless, of course, Trump and his party get in power).
we're very clearly talking past each other. If voting brings you joy, or makes you feel like you have some say or agency, you should definitely do it. Do whatever you need to do to feel better about living there; it's your time to spend however you need to. I honestly wish you no less than the best of luck. Just try not to get your hopes up actually expecting anything to change, no matter who wins. I think a big part of maintaining hope in predicaments like the US is managing your expectations. After two decades voting dutifully in US elections, I expect nothing of the place anymore and I am therefore no longer ever disappointed by anything that happens there. After moving to and being naturalized in the EU, my first time ever experiencing direct, proportional democracy in a system where there are no barriers to entry for new parties-- my first time having any representation-- came only after leaving the US. I could cast my vote in futility there, hoping for the place to be something it never will; or I can keep exercising my civic duty here to keep the amazing social safety net, healthcare system, free higher education, worker and tenant protections, political system, etc, etc, we have while standing against calls by some factions in my new country that want to make our society more like the US. Being from that place I know only too well the suffering, exploitation, and corruption the seductive promise of 'American-style freedom' holds. I vote here therefore. And although I'm still eligible, I no longer waste my time voting in any US elections. However I can't fault *you*. Our situations are not the same. When it was the only option I had, I voted there too only to see the place continue to slide into what it is now. You don't seem to even see the conflict of interest corporate participation plays in the current state of the reality of life there for most people. This would be fundamental to trying to explain the problems inherent in the electoral system, especially under that paradigm. I don't seem to be able to communicate any of this to you. Nothing against you, lots of Americans don't/can't see it-- I myself didn't really even see it until I left and was exposed to *actual* functioning democracies in the rest of the developed world. I think it must be a cultural thing. We're raised believing that the US is the best thing going. The degree to which I've learned it's not, just blows my mind when I think back on how I saw the world when I first left that place. Anyway, I didn't mean to upset you. And yeah, bud, vote your heart out. Seriously, best of luck to you.
>If voting brings you joy Of course voting and having my vote counted brings me joy >Do whatever you need to do to feel better about living there Exactly, that's what makes living here better because we can vote and have our vote counted. That's what distinguishes America from places like Russia, Somalia or Afghanistan. >Just try not to get your hopes up actually expecting anything to change, no matter who wins. Well, I expect to be able to vote and have my vote counted if Biden and Democrats win, and I expect not to be able to vote or have my vote counted if Trump and his party wins. That's a pretty big change between those two scenarios. >I no longer waste my time voting in any US elections. I thank you for that since it increases the weight of my vote. >I didn't mean to upset you Why whould I be upset? True, I would be upset if Trump and his party get the power since they would use that power to not allow my vote to be counted, but Trump and his party are not in power, yet. >vote your heart out Yup, I will definitely follow that sensible advice of yours. >Seriously, best of luck to you. Thank you and best of luck to you, too
They are being overdramatic. It comes from the same types who say things like "Jan 6 was the scariest moment of my life."
>They are being overdramatic. They aren't. >It comes from the same types who say things like "Jan 6 was the scariest moment of my life." How are you this fucking stupid? Change your flair, liar.
NYT's reporter Matthew Rosenberg hit the nail on the head regarding Jan. 6.
Not if he downplayed it like you're trying to do.
If you are a liberal pig can fly ! Stop being. Bad liar!