It seems as if this presidential race has run on the "threat to democracy" platform. The left has pounded the drum that Trump is an "existential threat to democracy" for most of this year (and before) (and they were startled when "patriots" tried to eliminate that "existential threat" with assassination). Why? Primarily because Trump questioned the results of the 2020 election. Now, I wouldn't think questioning the results of an election was a "threat to democracy." I mean, Gore did it in 2000 and Hillary did it in 2016 and ... well, a lot of people are doing it ... without being an "existential threat." I would think verifying election results would be in support of democracy. But, no, Trump kept (I think still) saying that the election was rigged. The media (primarily) declared, "There is no evidence for widespread election fraud." Look at that a moment. First, it does not claim "Election fraud was proven false." No, they claim "no evidence." They do it despite the evidence, but the claim is not "proof," but the lack thereof. And then there are those "weasel words." "No evidence" (in their book) of "widespread" (undefined) election fraud. I didn't think anyone was claiming "widespread" fraud. In the 2020 election 3 swing states had a small gap between Trump and Biden. Three states decided the outcome. That's not "widespread" but neither is it insignificant. But they swept the evidence and the question under the rug and call Trump the "threat to democracy."
I'll tell you what is a threat to democracy. Fascism or a monarchy or a dictatorship or an oligarchy or the like -- those are threats to democracy. An overbearing, over-controlling, over-stepping government -- that's a threat to democracy. You know what else? A republic. You see, America is not a democracy; it is a republic. We vote in representatives and they make the rules ... without concern for the voters'. Their only accountability is "Can I get reelected?", and folks like AOC have demonstrated that that's not an issue. The American political system is a threat to democracy. We have a two-party system. Each party offers a candidate before we decide who will be our leader. So we end up with so many goofballs, none of which should be in office. A democracy would give us a list of names and we vote and the one with the highest number wins, but we don't do that. We don't even want to do that. So we eliminate actual democracy, substitute a two-party system, and then fold in a Republic ... and complain about Trump.
The founding fathers of this nation revolted against their government because, as an example, "No taxation without representation." Well, I can't think of the last time I voted in a representative who represented my views. For most of my life it has been "hold your nose and vote" elections, some slightly better than others. For the 21st century, it seems it has been "Never them" votes, where you're not voting for a candidate, but against an opponent. That's not democracy. It's not even a representative government. So, fine, you want to call Trump an "existential threat to democracy"? Go ahead. I'm no Trump fan. But keep in mind that you are perpetrating "an existential threat to truth" when you do. And that's on you.
8 comments:
Likewise, the claim that Trump "lost" all of the court cases regarding the elections isn't actually True. The majority of those cases never went to trial, and the evidence was never presented. They were thrown out on "technicalities".
The way our election system works, it doesn't take widespread fraud to swing an election. It takes a relatively small amount of fraud, in a relatively small amount of precincts, in a relatively few swing states.
We also keep seeing more and more evidence of that fraud, as well as states purging their rolls of thousands of ineligible voters, who somehow got on voting rolls anyway. Adding to the evidence that the Dominion voting machines are not a secure as claimed.
I'm also not a huge Trump fan. What I am a fan of is election security and integrity. I'm a fan of knowing that my vote won't be offset by the vote of someone ineligible to vote. I'm also a fan of running people of higher character for office.
Yet, strangely enough, I just posted a video of a young woman making an excellent point. In life, those best equipped to solve certain problems are not always those we would wish. She uses the example of surgeons. many good surgeons are arrogant, off putting, difficult to deal with, and generally not nice people. But, they are excellent at their job, and that's what matters. Trump is every bit of all of the negative things people say about him, yet he did manage to do a good job as president.
I also don't like the "hold my nose" or "voting against" the greater of "two evils" approach that seems to characterize our options of late. But I really don't like the thought of a Harris/Walz presidency and the negative consequences certain to follow.
They say he's a that to democracy, and yet they are doing everything they can to avoid democracy. Their current nominee has not received a single vote to be the nominee, ever. They have politicians in their side saying that the first amendment is a threat to democracy. They definitely believe the 2nd amendment is a threat to democracy, which it kind of is, since we were never meant to be a full blown democracy. To them, the entire Constitution is a threat to their plans and desires, which is why they do everything they can to ignore or bypass it. Trump might be a threat to democracy, but they are definitely a threat to our country remaining a free country of united states working toward a common goal. I don't think this country has been this divided since the Civil War.
Speaking of ineligible voters, apparently Arizona has a real bad problem with it and has decided to not bother to fix it until after the election.
To no one in particular, it's interesting when some of the comments I get are so outraged and so foul I can't post them here without offending my readers. And I'm the one who's wrong.
Shocking!!
Yes, the Kerry comments on 1A were outrageous, although he's kind of right. The 1A was intended to protect the kind of speech he's complaining about.
I can't believe that there is anyone who would comment here that would engage is such behavior when your code of conduct clearly warns of the consequences.
You're right, Craig. Probably my imagination.
Post a Comment