3 ms·

You mix real concern with conspiritorial language. Why do you think Trump didn’t win legitimately; do you think Louis Bonaparte also stole the election? People

You mix real concern with conspiritorial language. Why do you think Trump didn’t win legitimately; do you think Louis Bonaparte also stole the election? People elected Trump to destroy the federal government; of course he is going to try to take advantage of it as far as he can, but what makes it susceptible to his attacks also makes it open to forces from below as well. So, be scared, weak, cowardly, but it won’t help! You can’t trust the state to help you anymore.

toss1 2y ago
>> Why do you think Trump didn’t win legitimately...? Depends on the definition of "legitimate". States with significant R control are very good at voter suppression, from electing barriers to registration, to ensuring that it is difficult to vote in non-R-voting areas with lower polling station density ensuring long queues to vote (see Houston TX), to outlawing bringing water to people waiting in line 6+hours to vote, to actively purging voter rolls (ofc focused on D-voting areas), to not preventing, providing provisions to help affected people vote, or prosecuting dozens of election-day bomb threats against, you guessed it, heavily-D polling stations. >> You can’t trust the state to help you anymore. TRUE. I don't see anyone cowering, but we are definitely on our own. The problem is that as John Fitzgerald Kennedy said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." Let's hope it does not come to that.
- DiscourseFan 2y ago
  None of those provisions made a real dent in voter turnout in 2020. And aside from that, the republican party was far better at getting mail-in turnout in 2024, AND not even considering that about half or more voters are not even members of a particular party. That you look at this in such a partisan manner tells me your view of “revolution” has more to do with putting democrats back in power than any substantial structural changes to governance.
  - toss1 2y ago
    It has NOTHING to do with politics or any particular party It has EVERYTHING to do with putting in power a party that runs by and honors small-"d" democracy, as opposed to the lawless administration now occupying the WH and it's enablers in congress who are only ensuring their own irrelevance. This administration is is not political games, they are attempting, so far successfully, to convert a democracy and small-"d" democratic election into an autocracy. This is the same thing that happened in Russia, Venezuela, Hungary, Germany and many other countries (Putin, Chavez then Mauduro, Orban, and Hitler were all first elected, then "re-elected"). Stop trying to justify it. Things always get worse under autocracy, and often by the time people notice it, it is too late to do anything about it.
    - DiscourseFan 2y ago
      Its not a democracy if there is only one party that can make it so.
      - toss1 2y ago
        Sort of true, but don't act like such a glib answer holds water. It is even less of a democracy when the party in power neither believes in nor abides by the rule of law. In First-Past-The-Post voting, the dynamics inevitably force 1- or 2-Party rule. Third-party candidates are always spoilers, and candidates who absolutely do NOT have majority support can be elected. None of those are true when Ranked Choice Voting is used. These flaws of 1PTP voting have been repeatedly exploited by fascists and authoritarians to gain power and impose their rules and avoid the rule of law. The most essential part of a democracy is that THE PEOPLE write the laws and NO ONE, including and especially the rulers, is above the law. The rulers are there to implement the laws of the people, not to impose on the people their laws or whims. When under 1PTP voting, one party abandons democracy and rule of law, yes, there is not much of a choice and that demands repair. The authoritarian party must be brought back to abide by rule of law or be replaced by one that does. Acting like we need to 'respect' the authoritarian party because otherwise there would be only one viable party left in the democracy is just wrong. If it were up to me, I'd ban any party that stopped respecting the rule of law (as the current one has), and implement Ranked Choice Voting nationwide to ensure that any leader has at least a majority of people who support him/her. I'd expect new parties or currently fringe parties to play a much larger role in a more vibrant democracy. But at this point, complaining that only one party respects rule of law is not the priority; re-establishing the rule of law is Job #1.

toss1 2y ago

>> Why do you think Trump didn’t win legitimately...? Depends on the definition of "legitimate". States with significant R control are very good at voter suppression, from electing barriers to registration, to ensuring that it is difficult to vote in non-R-voting areas with lower polling station density ensuring long queues to vote (see Houston TX), to outlawing bringing water to people waiting in line 6+hours to vote, to actively purging voter rolls (ofc focused on D-voting areas), to not preventing, providing provisions to help affected people vote, or prosecuting dozens of election-day bomb threats against, you guessed it, heavily-D polling stations. >> You can’t trust the state to help you anymore. TRUE. I don't see anyone cowering, but we are definitely on our own. The problem is that as John Fitzgerald Kennedy said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." Let's hope it does not come to that.

DiscourseFan 2y ago
None of those provisions made a real dent in voter turnout in 2020. And aside from that, the republican party was far better at getting mail-in turnout in 2024, AND not even considering that about half or more voters are not even members of a particular party. That you look at this in such a partisan manner tells me your view of “revolution” has more to do with putting democrats back in power than any substantial structural changes to governance.
- toss1 2y ago
  It has NOTHING to do with politics or any particular party It has EVERYTHING to do with putting in power a party that runs by and honors small-"d" democracy, as opposed to the lawless administration now occupying the WH and it's enablers in congress who are only ensuring their own irrelevance. This administration is is not political games, they are attempting, so far successfully, to convert a democracy and small-"d" democratic election into an autocracy. This is the same thing that happened in Russia, Venezuela, Hungary, Germany and many other countries (Putin, Chavez then Mauduro, Orban, and Hitler were all first elected, then "re-elected"). Stop trying to justify it. Things always get worse under autocracy, and often by the time people notice it, it is too late to do anything about it.
  - DiscourseFan 2y ago
    Its not a democracy if there is only one party that can make it so.
    - toss1 2y ago
      Sort of true, but don't act like such a glib answer holds water. It is even less of a democracy when the party in power neither believes in nor abides by the rule of law. In First-Past-The-Post voting, the dynamics inevitably force 1- or 2-Party rule. Third-party candidates are always spoilers, and candidates who absolutely do NOT have majority support can be elected. None of those are true when Ranked Choice Voting is used. These flaws of 1PTP voting have been repeatedly exploited by fascists and authoritarians to gain power and impose their rules and avoid the rule of law. The most essential part of a democracy is that THE PEOPLE write the laws and NO ONE, including and especially the rulers, is above the law. The rulers are there to implement the laws of the people, not to impose on the people their laws or whims. When under 1PTP voting, one party abandons democracy and rule of law, yes, there is not much of a choice and that demands repair. The authoritarian party must be brought back to abide by rule of law or be replaced by one that does. Acting like we need to 'respect' the authoritarian party because otherwise there would be only one viable party left in the democracy is just wrong. If it were up to me, I'd ban any party that stopped respecting the rule of law (as the current one has), and implement Ranked Choice Voting nationwide to ensure that any leader has at least a majority of people who support him/her. I'd expect new parties or currently fringe parties to play a much larger role in a more vibrant democracy. But at this point, complaining that only one party respects rule of law is not the priority; re-establishing the rule of law is Job #1.