6 ms·

> Some members of the mob were actively looking to kill the people who were 2nd and 3rd in line for the presidency. Let's not pretend that there was zero danger

by imgabe 6y ago

> Some members of the mob were actively looking to kill the people who were 2nd and 3rd in line for the presidency. Let's not pretend that there was zero danger to democracy. Do you realize that numerous times throughout history people have successfully killed the actual president and it didn't end democracy? What these people did was a serious crime and it should absolutely be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but no it was never going to destroy the country or end democracy. This is hyperbole people are using to grab and consolidate power. Democracy is not a single person that can be killed and taken over. It's all of us acting in concert to uphold those values. It doesn't end by this person or that person being killed, it ends by all of us collectively agreeing to give up the values that make it work. That's the real threat here.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Your description of democracy is on the nose, but that's exactly why I think it's reasonable to be concerned. One of the critical values that makes democracy work is the peaceful transition of power, and if there'd been just a bit more violence, it would be impossible to maintain even a polite fiction that this transition was peaceful.
- smichel17 6y ago
  We've still survived worse. The civil war comes to mind (although in some ways, current tensions are an extension of that conflict).
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    "Survived" is just a very low bar. I'm not scared of the US becoming Mad Max - I'm scared of something like the Troubles, where democratic institutions still exist but struggle to maintain the peace against large, powerful groups who don't consider them legitimate.
vharuck 6y ago
>Do you realize that numerous times throughout history people have successfully killed the actual president and it didn't end democracy? I'm no historian, so was there ever a time the killing was instigated by a sitting politician who then was not punished? (Yes, the Senate has yet to decide, but chances are they won't vote for removal or banning from office). Because politicians trying to have their political opponents harmed or killed is basically all one needs to have fake democracy.
- imgabe 6y ago
  > Because politicians trying to have their political opponents harmed or killed is basically all one needs to have fake democracy. I don't follow this logic. Assume for the sake of argument that politician A attempts to have politician B killed (also not a historian, but I feel there has to be at least one instance of this happening somewhere, at some point in US history). Based on this event, we now conclude that the entire democracy is fake? How? All of the votes for all other politicians are now invalid? The electoral process (largely out of the control of any single politician) just ... goes away? How do you figure? What's the cause and effect mechanism there?
  - slg 6y ago
    Here are some questions based entirely on the procedural process of electing a president. We don't even have to get into any potential illegal actions by Trump. The vice president presides over the counting of electoral college votes. Tradition says this role is largely ceremonial. Trump disagrees. What would a conservative Supreme Court, with 3 justices appointed by Trump, say about this? What were to happen if the VP was murdered by a mob while the president is arguing in bad faith that he won the election and the VP is needed to certify the true winner? Can the president pro tempore take the place of the VP in counting votes? We would likely be back in the Supreme Court to decide. What if they say only the VP can serve this role? Would Trump and Congress be able to agree on a new VP? If no VP is in place, would the election end up in the House? Would they have time to vote before 1/20? Who would they vote for? If we don't have a clear president by 1/20, the line of succession passes to the speaker of the House. What happens if she was murdered too? Would the House vote on a new speaker quick enough or would the line of succession go to the 4th person, the president pro tempore of the Senate? Would this create perverse incentives for the the president pro tempore to reject EC votes if the Supreme Court decided in his favor several steps back in this hypothetical? There are obviously a lot of hypotheticals there, but what they are meant to show is there are a lot of ways for this to go wrong and for the next president to be in doubt. Do you see how this is bad for a healthy democracy? Would you be confident that Trump would sit idly by and wait for this situation to play out without putting his fingers on the scale, inciting more violence, or potentially something even more drastic?
tw04 6y ago
>Do you realize that numerous times throughout history people have successfully killed the actual president and it didn't end democracy? How many times in the history of the US, has the president asked his supporters to bring violence against his political opponents? >What these people did was a serious crime and it should absolutely be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but no it was never going to destroy the country or end democracy. This is hyperbole people are using to grab and consolidate power. If half of the population believes that elections are not fair, it will absolutely, positively destroy democracy. The very foundation of democracy is fair elections. >Democracy is not a single person that can be killed and taken over. It's all of us acting in concert to uphold those values. It doesn't end by this person or that person being killed, it ends by all of us collectively agreeing to give up the values that make it work. That's the real threat here. shouldn't be. People should use critical thinking skills, and not be persuaded by charlatans. All of that depends on them actively seeking the truth, and we've seen first hand that a large portion of the US population isn't interested in actively seeking the truth, they're looking to have their beliefs reaffirmed. When Rudy Giuliani gets on TV and proclaims fraudulent elections, then goes into a court room and admits there's no fraud (because he'd go to prison for lying to the court), but 50% of the population only ever bothers to listen to what he says on TV we've got serious problems. https://www.salon.com/2020/11/18/judge-cancels-fraud-evidence-hearing-after-rudy-giuliani-admits-this-is-not-a-fraud-case-in-court_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2020/11/18/judge-cancels-fraud-evidenc...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Karunamon 6y ago
  >the president asked his supporters to bring violence against his political opponents This did not happen. Trump asked his supporters to march on the capitol, and then when shit got out of hand, he asked them to go home. Anything else regarding his words is a "reading between the lines" that's going to involve a lot of loaded, partisan-biased, and worst of all unfalsifiable claims.
  - tw04 6y ago

by imgabe 6y ago

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Your description of democracy is on the nose, but that's exactly why I think it's reasonable to be concerned. One of the critical values that makes democracy work is the peaceful transition of power, and if there'd been just a bit more violence, it would be impossible to maintain even a polite fiction that this transition was peaceful.

smichel17 6y ago
We've still survived worse. The civil war comes to mind (although in some ways, current tensions are an extension of that conflict).
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  "Survived" is just a very low bar. I'm not scared of the US becoming Mad Max - I'm scared of something like the Troubles, where democratic institutions still exist but struggle to maintain the peace against large, powerful groups who don't consider them legitimate.

vharuck 6y ago

>Do you realize that numerous times throughout history people have successfully killed the actual president and it didn't end democracy? I'm no historian, so was there ever a time the killing was instigated by a sitting politician who then was not punished? (Yes, the Senate has yet to decide, but chances are they won't vote for removal or banning from office). Because politicians trying to have their political opponents harmed or killed is basically all one needs to have fake democracy.

imgabe 6y ago
> Because politicians trying to have their political opponents harmed or killed is basically all one needs to have fake democracy. I don't follow this logic. Assume for the sake of argument that politician A attempts to have politician B killed (also not a historian, but I feel there has to be at least one instance of this happening somewhere, at some point in US history). Based on this event, we now conclude that the entire democracy is fake? How? All of the votes for all other politicians are now invalid? The electoral process (largely out of the control of any single politician) just ... goes away? How do you figure? What's the cause and effect mechanism there?
- slg 6y ago
  Here are some questions based entirely on the procedural process of electing a president. We don't even have to get into any potential illegal actions by Trump. The vice president presides over the counting of electoral college votes. Tradition says this role is largely ceremonial. Trump disagrees. What would a conservative Supreme Court, with 3 justices appointed by Trump, say about this? What were to happen if the VP was murdered by a mob while the president is arguing in bad faith that he won the election and the VP is needed to certify the true winner? Can the president pro tempore take the place of the VP in counting votes? We would likely be back in the Supreme Court to decide. What if they say only the VP can serve this role? Would Trump and Congress be able to agree on a new VP? If no VP is in place, would the election end up in the House? Would they have time to vote before 1/20? Who would they vote for? If we don't have a clear president by 1/20, the line of succession passes to the speaker of the House. What happens if she was murdered too? Would the House vote on a new speaker quick enough or would the line of succession go to the 4th person, the president pro tempore of the Senate? Would this create perverse incentives for the the president pro tempore to reject EC votes if the Supreme Court decided in his favor several steps back in this hypothetical? There are obviously a lot of hypotheticals there, but what they are meant to show is there are a lot of ways for this to go wrong and for the next president to be in doubt. Do you see how this is bad for a healthy democracy? Would you be confident that Trump would sit idly by and wait for this situation to play out without putting his fingers on the scale, inciting more violence, or potentially something even more drastic?

tw04 6y ago

>Do you realize that numerous times throughout history people have successfully killed the actual president and it didn't end democracy? How many times in the history of the US, has the president asked his supporters to bring violence against his political opponents? >What these people did was a serious crime and it should absolutely be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but no it was never going to destroy the country or end democracy. This is hyperbole people are using to grab and consolidate power. If half of the population believes that elections are not fair, it will absolutely, positively destroy democracy. The very foundation of democracy is fair elections. >Democracy is not a single person that can be killed and taken over. It's all of us acting in concert to uphold those values. It doesn't end by this person or that person being killed, it ends by all of us collectively agreeing to give up the values that make it work. That's the real threat here. shouldn't be. People should use critical thinking skills, and not be persuaded by charlatans. All of that depends on them actively seeking the truth, and we've seen first hand that a large portion of the US population isn't interested in actively seeking the truth, they're looking to have their beliefs reaffirmed. When Rudy Giuliani gets on TV and proclaims fraudulent elections, then goes into a court room and admits there's no fraud (because he'd go to prison for lying to the court), but 50% of the population only ever bothers to listen to what he says on TV we've got serious problems. https://www.salon.com/2020/11/18/judge-cancels-fraud-evidence-hearing-after-rudy-giuliani-admits-this-is-not-a-fraud-case-in-court_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2020/11/18/judge-cancels-fraud-evidenc...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Karunamon 6y ago
>the president asked his supporters to bring violence against his political opponents This did not happen. Trump asked his supporters to march on the capitol, and then when shit got out of hand, he asked them to go home. Anything else regarding his words is a "reading between the lines" that's going to involve a lot of loaded, partisan-biased, and worst of all unfalsifiable claims.
- tw04 6y ago