7 ms·

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 the

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.

drawkward 2y ago
While i dont think Democracy will end under Trump, it is manifestly not obvious that it won't. The president-elect literally floated the idea that his voters wont ever have to vote again if he won.
- blisterpeanuts 2y ago
  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.
  - tremon 2y ago
    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.
    - blisterpeanuts 2y ago
      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.
      - drawkward 2y ago
        Right, he did incite that attempt to violently overthrow the peaceful transfer of power on Jan 6.
_heimdall 2y ago
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.
- fooqux 2y ago
  > That said, if anyone honestly believed it I don't see how they could not sit by and watch it happen. And what, exactly, is someone supposed to do about it? Legally. Besides voting, obviously. That ship already sailed.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    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.
paulryanrogers 2y ago
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.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > 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.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    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.
    - 2y ago
saturn8601 2y ago
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.

drawkward 2y ago

While i dont think Democracy will end under Trump, it is manifestly not obvious that it won't. The president-elect literally floated the idea that his voters wont ever have to vote again if he won.

blisterpeanuts 2y ago
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.
- tremon 2y ago
  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.
  - blisterpeanuts 2y ago
    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.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      Right, he did incite that attempt to violently overthrow the peaceful transfer of power on Jan 6.

_heimdall 2y ago

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.

fooqux 2y ago
> That said, if anyone honestly believed it I don't see how they could not sit by and watch it happen. And what, exactly, is someone supposed to do about it? Legally. Besides voting, obviously. That ship already sailed.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  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.

paulryanrogers 2y ago

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.

_heimdall 2y ago
> 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.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  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.
  - 2y ago

saturn8601 2y ago

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.