Because it was mostly being astroturfed. Democracy obviously isn't going to end in any way, shape, or fashion under Trump.
And so the organizations pushing these lies need to move onto the next lies to keep the rage and fear going. Maybe this time around it'll be Trump is secretly controlled by China - must be why he reversed the TikTok ban.
His campaign is large enough that there's probably some guy in it, no more than a degree or two separation away, banging a Chinese spy a la Eric Swalwell. Tie it to Trump, start a new committee of absurdity and away we go.
It'd actually provide some logic to banning TikTok which was just politically absurd when Trump would predictably reverse that, to much fanfare.
Trump incited an insurrection based on lies in 2020. He's on tape demanding a state election official 'find' the exact number of votes he needed to win. His appointed judges have preemptively given him immunity from criminal prosecution. He routinely calls for physical violence against those who loudly disagree during his rallies. He has said he's willing to use the military against political opposition. He offers to deregulate (selling the health of the people) in exchange for campaign funds (which he spends like his own personal bank account). There has never been a president so openly corrupt and vitriolic in the US.
Trump is the most willing and equipped to strike a fatal blow to Democracy.
People have already marched against him. Now they rightly fear for their safety.
> His appointed judges have preemptively given him immunity from criminal prosecution.
I get your point here, though if I'm not mistaken they defined the boundary of what any president can be legally held accountable for while in office. It wasn't a blank check or a one-off rule only for Trump.
> People have already marched against him. Now they rightly fear for their safety.
Marching really isn't the answer if democracy truly is at stake, unfortunately. I very much dislike Trump and don't expect him to do well by our country, though I don't personally see enough to think he is actually going to tear down our democracy. Hopefully that's right and we don't get to the point of actually having to defend it.
I’m really curious what kind of activity someone could exhibit that would cause you to believe they could end democracy.
Genuinely. Because for me, it’s enough for someone to incite an insurrection, and to argue in front of the Supreme Court it should be legal for him to use the military to murder his political opponents. Why does that not read “wannabe dictator” to you?
Because I gotta say, if you’re wrong and he wants to tear down our democracy, the time to defend it was the election. Now we just have to deal with the fallout.
A president can't end democracy just because they want to. There have probably been many presidents in the past that would have liked, in their secret heart of hearts, to be dictators. But they didn't end democracy because they couldn't, because our Federal government has a system of checks and balances that limit the power of the president.
He was president once, and was not able to pull off a successful insurrection, or murder any political opponents. And he probably won't do so this time.
The whole point of starting an insurrection, sending the vote back to the states, and using alternate slate of electors was this was something that is so far outside the reach of normal courts that it would have stalled the process enough to possibly grant him emergency powers, declaring himself as president.
Trump doesn't need go full militant to end democracy. He could literally just cause enough bullshit in the process to where the two choices are either let things continue as he wants them two, or mass civil unrest and economic shutdown, and most people don't have a sense of nationalism to pick the latter. So US dies a death by 1000 cuts.
The only hope is that there are more people like Pence on the Republican side that when duty calls, they do the right thing.
> But they didn't end democracy because they couldn't, because our Federal government has a system of checks and balances that limit the power of the president.
Checks like Congress, a majority of which is terrified to stand up to him even after an attempted coup and comically bad cabinet appointments?
Or the courts, many of whose judges he appointed and shamelessly render verdicts (often on his behalf) without recusing themselves over conflicts of interest?
Or the executive branch, of which he is the head, and can cycle department heads like an episode of The Apprentice?
> He was president once, and was not able to pull off a successful insurrection, or murder any political opponents
The US passed an entire amendment to its constitution to prevent insurrectionists from repeated attempts to take over. The fact that he attempted to do so is already treason. One doesn't have to succeed to be disqualified. Otherwise what's the point of the amendment? Just keep trying until you succeed.
Yes exactly those checks.
Even if your characterization of the independence of the three branches of government is valid, the circumstances are far from unique in history.
In the past, there was always a threat that if a president got out of line, he could be impeached. But the impeachment clause has been rendered inoperable by Republicans.
The first time Democrats tried to impeach Trump, Trump argued in front of the Senate that he's allowed to commit crimes, including extorting bribes, as long as he does it for the good of the country. On that basis, the Senate acquitted him. So now the the standard set by Republicans is that even in the case of extortion and bribery, the president should not be removed from office as long as he had a patriotic heart.
Worse than that, the Supreme Court affirmed that the president has sweeping executive immunity, making any prosecution of an impeachment case impossible; the Executive controls all of the information Congress would need to prosecute the impeachment, and as we saw during Impeachment I, Trump is fine to just flout congressional subpoenas. Furthermore with the new doctrine of Presidential Immunity there is no judicial recourse for them to compel production of the documents they would need to prove an impeachment case.
Finally, we further know impeachment is impossible because when they tried it, Trump argued the correct recourse was the courts. But when we tried the courts, Trump argued the correct recourse was impeachment. That cannot be the case in a functioning system.
Any president could end democracy, as could a many other groups. I really don't have a checklist of behaviors a la the DSM-5 that would allow me to know someone is likely to end democracy.
I do think trump is capable of it, as where others in the past. I just haven't seen enough to think its an legitimate enough threat to have made me warn others that it will happen. I could always be wrong.
But you would agree that making the argument that it's fine for you to assassinate your political opponents would be a flashing red flag that person does not believe in the the ideals of democracy. I mean, generally someone who agrees with democracy would not argue, even for hypothetical purposes, that the highest power in the land reserves the right to murder with impunity people they don't like for personal political gain.
And so if someone does make that argument in front of the highest court in the land with the intent to avoid accountability for inciting an insurrection, as Trump did, maybe that person would be a bad person to give immunity from criminal liability because of their outlook on the scope of their own power.
“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within,” Trump said. He added: “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”
Do you understand what others (who may not agree with you) think of your arguments when you use extremely hyperbolic language to describe things that do not appear to justify such?
The Boy Who Cried Wolf is an excellent tale I regularly read to my children. The moral is one of the utmost importance.
Trump argued in front of the Supreme Court that his notion of presidential immunity covers the right for the president to use Seal Team Six to assassinate his political rivals:
I also see it as astroturfing or a hollow threat of not voting for the "right" person. That said, if anyone honestly believed it I don't see how they could not sit by and watch it happen.
There are plenty of examples of the people stopping their government when it went to far. Its not easy and should always be a last resort, but the people should never just roll over and give up if the threat is real - especially when a seemingly large portion of the population viewed it as a real threat.
This was clarified on Snopes; he was referring to groups such as fundamentalist Christians who rarely vote, urging them to come out this one time and vote. Not very eloquently worded, perhaps, but certainly his intent, as explained by spokespeople and by himself in subsequent interviews, was not to shut down voting.
Anyone trying to make sense of Trump's words has as much credibility to me as people who interpret tea leaves, or the Bible. Judge his actions; trying to divine anything from his words is about as effective as chasing wild geese.
I judge every politician by their actions, not their words. In Trump's case, his words are more "salad-like" than most, but his actions generally speak pretty clearly.
Where is it going to come from though? The news networks that propagated this nonsense seem to have realized this election cycle that its over for them. Comcast just spun off MSNBC and CNBC. That means they are going to milk it for whatever scraps are left and then toss it in the trash. The neoliberal left does not really have an effective online platform like the right and the progressive left have because they spent years dismissing online.
And so the organizations pushing these lies need to move onto the next lies to keep the rage and fear going. Maybe this time around it'll be Trump is secretly controlled by China - must be why he reversed the TikTok ban.
His campaign is large enough that there's probably some guy in it, no more than a degree or two separation away, banging a Chinese spy a la Eric Swalwell. Tie it to Trump, start a new committee of absurdity and away we go.
It'd actually provide some logic to banning TikTok which was just politically absurd when Trump would predictably reverse that, to much fanfare.