would really like dems to tone down their rhetoric about Trump being a proto fascist who tried a coup and failed and might try again in the future because some 20-year-old incel whose motivations are still yet unknown tried to kill him.
And as to Jeremiah's points in Part 2, those violent movements were put down with violence, not with "let's all tone this rhetoric down guys" liberalism. It took the practitioners of liberalism going violent themselves to put the fascists down. That's an important footnote.
I didn't say it wouldn't sell. However, it's pretty tough to make a living writing short stories. Instead these hacks became politicians and are now in positions of power. Lucky us.
Important point, though - Democratic leaders have never been for assassination of a candidate. Nor would they have been when Germany was still a republic. In a Republic the means of political change is the ballot box.
When the situation devolves to civil war or aggressive land-grabbing war, that is another matter, and yes, the ballot is no longer an option.
Right, we're still at the ballot box part, not the bullet box part. That latter part only comes into play when authoritarianism manifests itself in government-sponsored extra-legal violence while they're in power. Then the ballot box is no longer there to save you and the government and supporting groups are carrying out unrestricted violence.
Yes, in the long run liberal democracy won, but there was always a cost. Still, at this juncture in the US' liberaI history, I think the Dems can both dial down the violence in their rhetoric and show the voters how Trump is a threat to liberal democracy, in terms that are personal to the voters. It's just a matter of messaging (Axelrod and Carville are the best at this. So is Sarah Longwell.)
So before we start talking about arming ourselves, let's give the Dems a chance to meet this moment.
Please supply one example of violence in Democratic rhetoric. If there is one, I canтАЩt think of it. Calling Trump and MAGA out for who and what they are isnтАЩt violent rhetoric.
I heard a right-wing pundit on CNN last night say Biden's rhetoric was violent. I don't remember what examples he gave, and no one on the panel pushed back on that. I tried a quick search. All I found was him saying Trump was unhinged. I don't think that qualifies as violent.
It's the violence in the rhetoric that needs to be turned down. Is there violence in your rhetoric?
I'm sure the swing voters who will decide the election want the violent rhetoric to stopo. By definition, they are not the extremes. It's the extremes who have the violent rhetoric.
There's no violence in my rhetoric, but as to the swing voters, battleground polls seem to indicate that they'd prefer the violent rhetoric to the old/weak guy who whisper-talks.
Yes, Travis. Every one of these fascist, authoritarian empires was defeated violently. Every one. What JVL apparently wants us to do is wait until Trump wins (or, almost as likely, SCOTUS invalidates the election and lets the House decide.) Project 2025 is implemented. And then we fight back and get violent, but only after sitting back and allowing everything to happen, and play by some kind of code. Because, apparently, otherwise it makes us Trump. Maybe not. Maybe it makes us Churchill? Maybe it makes us Washington? Or even Lafayette. Or any of the nameless and countless people who have fought people like Trump.
Trump may well win, but between now and then, we (the pro-democracy/anti-Trump coalition, led by the Democratic nominee), do not just sit and wait and then get violent after he wins. We use all the Constitutional means we have to defeat him. Once he wins, if he does, those means will be useless. So no violence between now and the election.
IтАЩm not advocating violence. But one of the parties is in a street fight with at least one hand tied behind its back. We have to stop hiding behind institutionalism and civility and realize itтАЩs now or never.
IтАЩm no longer a fan of тАЬwhen they go low, we go highтАЭ. We have to go after these liars and fascists. When one of them who voted no takes credit for infrastructure projects, we have to go after them. Not by a few social media people. But at the source. These liars have to be called out and trashed. Civility be damned. Sorry, but playing nice and by the rules is not going to save America, just as it hasnтАЩt saved any other country.
We have yet to see the kind of violence imposed by the fascists that ignited the liberal response in WWII. Liberals with guns right now is not the answer. I am a bit dismayed at the number of likes a post promoting counter-violence has received.
The republicans are making the point that we are hounding Trump for being an "existential threat to democracy" when he is not. Too many people excuse his rhetoric saying he said crazy stuff in 2016 that he didn't do.
First, somebody somewhere needs to start hammering home the point that in 2016 no one expected him to win so he came into office without the infrastructure needed to put his notions into action.
This time it's different, and I don't think enough people realize it. Project 2025 is a blueprint containing multiple proposals that should be seen as a threat to our democratic institutions that have served us well for more than two hundred years.
The threats need to be spelled out in detail, not as broad stroke "existential threats to democracy." Stop talking about existential threats and spell them out.
You make such a fine point about institutions that have served us well for 200+ years. The arrogance, ignorance, and ultimately greed of educated and powerful Americans like the Republican SCOTUS, Judge Cannon, the GOP is vile. They really are evil and we have the right to fight back against violence and political oppression.
I'll say is again and again. Influencers need to spell out in detail how Trump threatens those institutions. in detail. Water safety is a good start. Do those undecided voters really want a political appointee instead of an expert implementing water regulations?
I do not read Travis and think "promotion of counter-violence", or tit-for-tat, or anything of the sort. I read Travis and think about the hyperbole that he's underlining and the lessons of history that he's pointing to.
Fascism was not put down in Germany and Italy by an internal immune response. It had its noggin stoved in by the USMC, RAF, the French resistance, and others who gave to topple it. Fanatical imperialism was not brought low in Japan by the men and women of Honshu, Shikoku, Kyushu, and Hokkaido. It was done in by the efforts of the United States Navy and Air Force, the scientists back home, Chinese resistance, and the raw power of economics. Outside forces came on planes and ships because internal correctives were too weak-willed to push hard against burgeoning evil.
The lesson of history is that evil in the hearts of fellow Man have to be fought with good and insight. The alternative is violence, and it should be an absolute last resort when it is all we desperately have left.
"I am a bit dismayed at the number of likes a post promoting counter-violence has received."
I'm not promoting counter-violence, only pointing to the *fact* that violent authoritarian movements of the past weren't put down by the temperance of liberalism. They were put down with overwhelming counter-violence. There's a *big* difference between making historical clarifications that are grounded in facts and "promoting" counter-violence. Promoting counter-violence would be telling people to gun up and start taking things into their own hands. That's not at all what I'm doing here.
I'm on your side, Travis, counter violence a this time would not be productive. I also stand by my earlier thoughts about "something really bad will result from Trump's reelection" and it could involve mass violence and destruction. It took 30+ million deaths, Europe and Japan in ruins for liberalism to be saved from evil in WW II. Germany, Italy and Japan were delivered from evil by outsiders. This time around, America could be on the wrong side of history, siding with the autocrats and modern tsars. These are Trump's peeps. Who will save America then, NATO?
If it's a "historical clarification grounded in facts" that the temperance of liberalism failed, what is left? The point you made in your original post on how Maga types view liberals are "facts" in their world, are they not? In their world we are devils and demons.
Saw an interview in which a focus group moderator relayed the response she got from citing unemployment statistics. "Where did you get those stats?" came the replay. "From the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The retort was "I will get my own source of statistics because those can't be right.
That is the kind of reasoning that should be exposed to persuadable voters who aren't yet paying attention. I think the historical facts of violent responses to fascism only scares them.
There wasn't reasoning that would have changed the minds/actions of Hitler's or Mussolini's movements either, and that which cannot be reasoned with and conducts itself violently can only be stopped with counter-violence. Maybe we're already on that path, just not at that final destination yet. At the very least people should start mentally preparing themselves for that possibility. We just might get to find out exactly how much democracy means to people when they might have to fight to maintain it themselves, as opposed to just carrying on with their regular daily lives under an autocratic/violent government. There's a non-zero chance of that happening during our lifetimes from where I'm sitting.
"We just might get to find out exactly how much democracy means to people when they might have to fight to maintain it themselves, as opposed to just carrying on with their regular daily lives under an autocratic/violent government."
I'm a lifelong Texas leftist who regularly gets into "good trouble" fighting the fascists who have been in charge of this state for years. Antifa are the good guys down here.
then we are already on that path because hard-core Maga-types cannot be reasoned with. There is a slimmer of hope with his election and that is the breakaway of those who choose to ignore the state in which we find ourselves. Heard a priceless comment from historian Heather Cox Richardson to those who blithely claim they don't get involved in politics. She said, politics is about to get very involved with YOU.
We're on the path via not being able to reason with them, but we're not on the path via them doing autocratic government with unconstrained extra-legal violence yet.
And yes, people may not be interested in politics, but politics may be interested in them. The same applies to violence--whether political or otherwise. You may not be interested in it, but it may be interested in you.
Sad to say Americans in neighborhoods across the country with illegal immigrants in their midst are about to see that violence as they watch neighbors dragging into the streets by "jack-booted government thugs" and into awaiting transports. What will happen to the crying children clinging to their mother's skirts?
Spell them out - YES!!!!! And do so in terms the voters can understand. That means how the threat will afffect them personally. The very first point is how his proposed economic policies - steep tariffs and sweeping tax cuts тАУ would probably increase inflation and strain the US's finances. The second is how removing illegals from the work force will increase the cost of food and services. I'm sure there are more ways the Dems can SHOW how he is a threat, not just TELL us he is.
We're not there yet, and we shouldn't pretend we are. Even if Biden (or other dem candidate) loses we're still not at that part yet. We're only at that part if the GOP gets into power, shuts down the ballot box, and then starts doing gov-sponsored extra-legal violence.
Travis, the Senate failed to do its job in early 2021 by not convicting Trump for January 6. SCOTUS has generated a bunch of opinions that functionally shield Trump from accountability for all his various crimes. So we're already backed into that corner. I think it's a question of when violence starts, not if.
We aren't backed into a corner, yet, because the outcome of the election is VERY close and we have a chance to beat Trump using Constitutional means. That means making the case to the voters how the Trump regime will affect them personally.
Yes we are, but which is worse? In the event of a Biden/Harris win, we have the chance to continue and strengthen the current efforts to depolarize our nation. See (https://commongroundcommittee.org/depolarizing-america/).
Sandy, I no longer believe appealing to our better angels is a viable way forward to end polarization. I do believe that when people show you who they are, you should take them at their word. And for the past several years, there is one and only one party that has stressed the guardrails that's kept our democracy going for 250 years. Their intentions are clear through words and deeds. There are *no* better angels to appeal to.
Sandy, in a sane world, there should be no swing voters. The election is between an old man who is a good man and has been a good president, and the biggest friggin' moral degenerate who has ever been elected to office. Period. The record is clear, the stakes are clearer, and there is no margin for error. And if one of these swing voters can't wrap their head around and acknowledge the purely existential threat Trump presents, then we are totally and legitimately screwed.
Yes it does. At this point, there is nothing to be done about that except reach them, inform them and persuade them to vote Democratic. That's what canvassing is. That's the responsibility of the Dem party. (Yes, this all hangs on the Dem party.) Can they do it? Maybe not. Gotta try.
Well, that's not entirely true. Trump is very old, and so are many of his fans, including his most devoted ones. The money is running out. Florida is in financial straits. And Trump can't actually improve anyone's living conditions. The GOP policies already mean that people in Red States don't live as long as people in Blue States. Propaganda may be able to cover that up for quite a while, but truth comes out in unpredictable ways. And the alliance between the Chamber of Commerce types and the Christian Nationalists gets weaker all the time. The truth will out as it did for the Soviets. The more we delay, the less damage can be done in that time. Maybe! I am not good at predictions.
Kate, these people are very determined, very well funded, and have support in Congress and the judiciary. And they are also amoral. What they want is power. And should Trump win, he's got control of the executive branch and all of its agencies, and the Congress and judiciary will do his bidding. Game, set, match. It's over. Any and all resistance to Trump will be dealt with using unfettered executive power.
And by the way, people who vote in red states don't give a rat's ass about things like mortality rates, childhood obesity, poverty, or any sort of policy. What they care about is getting even with people who they think look down on them. There's no reasoning with people like that. So we have to have really think about what is the worst possible thing that can happen.
I don't think the country is sustainable as is. As JVL has said, the pro-democracy side has to be perfect everytime, and none of us can be 100% perfect. The facsists just have to luck into getting it once, and frankly maybe that was 2016. I thought we had beaten them back in 2020, but here we are.
Remember kids, the party who says that:
- dems are grooming children
- dems are pedophiles
- dems are literal communists
- dems murder babies
- dems want to replace whites with immigrants
- dems steal elections
- dems want to confiscate all of your guns
- Mike Pence should hang
- Kyle Rittenhaus did nothing wrong
would really like dems to tone down their rhetoric about Trump being a proto fascist who tried a coup and failed and might try again in the future because some 20-year-old incel whose motivations are still yet unknown tried to kill him.
And as to Jeremiah's points in Part 2, those violent movements were put down with violence, not with "let's all tone this rhetoric down guys" liberalism. It took the practitioners of liberalism going violent themselves to put the fascists down. That's an important footnote.
Not to mention the fact fascism in Europe killed at least 75 million people, while Stalin alone killed some 9 million people.
That's not nuting'.
Oh they say all that, and more. Here is the reaction of one of our most high-profile GOP officials after the shooting:
"We are in a battle between GOOD and EVIL
The Democrats are the party of pedophiles, murdering the innocent unborn, violence, and bloody, meaningless, endless wars.
They want to lock up their political opponents, and terrorize innocent Americans who would tell the truth about it.
The Democrat party is flat out evil, and yesterday they tried to murder President Trump."
It just occcurred to me that in a different time and context, these people could have had a good career in fiction short story writing.
I think literary critics would ridicule them as talentless hacks conjuring up unbelievable plot contrivances with an utter lack of nuance.
And those kind of writers don't make a living? Trash sells too!
I didn't say it wouldn't sell. However, it's pretty tough to make a living writing short stories. Instead these hacks became politicians and are now in positions of power. Lucky us.
Important point, though - Democratic leaders have never been for assassination of a candidate. Nor would they have been when Germany was still a republic. In a Republic the means of political change is the ballot box.
When the situation devolves to civil war or aggressive land-grabbing war, that is another matter, and yes, the ballot is no longer an option.
Right, we're still at the ballot box part, not the bullet box part. That latter part only comes into play when authoritarianism manifests itself in government-sponsored extra-legal violence while they're in power. Then the ballot box is no longer there to save you and the government and supporting groups are carrying out unrestricted violence.
You explained that really well - thanks!
Yes, in the long run liberal democracy won, but there was always a cost. Still, at this juncture in the US' liberaI history, I think the Dems can both dial down the violence in their rhetoric and show the voters how Trump is a threat to liberal democracy, in terms that are personal to the voters. It's just a matter of messaging (Axelrod and Carville are the best at this. So is Sarah Longwell.)
So before we start talking about arming ourselves, let's give the Dems a chance to meet this moment.
Please supply one example of violence in Democratic rhetoric. If there is one, I canтАЩt think of it. Calling Trump and MAGA out for who and what they are isnтАЩt violent rhetoric.
This just in: "Biden says тАШit was a mistakeтАЩ to use тАШbullseyeтАЩ in rhetorical Trump attack" (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/biden-says-was-mistake-use-bullseye-rhetorical-trump-attack-rcna161998).
I heard a right-wing pundit on CNN last night say Biden's rhetoric was violent. I don't remember what examples he gave, and no one on the panel pushed back on that. I tried a quick search. All I found was him saying Trump was unhinged. I don't think that qualifies as violent.
When the GOP starts toning down their rhetoric I'll *think* about toning my much-milder-by-comparison rhetoric.
It's the violence in the rhetoric that needs to be turned down. Is there violence in your rhetoric?
I'm sure the swing voters who will decide the election want the violent rhetoric to stopo. By definition, they are not the extremes. It's the extremes who have the violent rhetoric.
There's no violence in my rhetoric, but as to the swing voters, battleground polls seem to indicate that they'd prefer the violent rhetoric to the old/weak guy who whisper-talks.
OK, then you have no rhetoric to turn down.
Yes, the voters prefer strong and wrong to weak and right. Which is all the more reason for the Dems to get a strong candidate.
Yes, Travis. Every one of these fascist, authoritarian empires was defeated violently. Every one. What JVL apparently wants us to do is wait until Trump wins (or, almost as likely, SCOTUS invalidates the election and lets the House decide.) Project 2025 is implemented. And then we fight back and get violent, but only after sitting back and allowing everything to happen, and play by some kind of code. Because, apparently, otherwise it makes us Trump. Maybe not. Maybe it makes us Churchill? Maybe it makes us Washington? Or even Lafayette. Or any of the nameless and countless people who have fought people like Trump.
Trump may well win, but between now and then, we (the pro-democracy/anti-Trump coalition, led by the Democratic nominee), do not just sit and wait and then get violent after he wins. We use all the Constitutional means we have to defeat him. Once he wins, if he does, those means will be useless. So no violence between now and the election.
IтАЩm not advocating violence. But one of the parties is in a street fight with at least one hand tied behind its back. We have to stop hiding behind institutionalism and civility and realize itтАЩs now or never.
So what then are you advocating?
IтАЩm no longer a fan of тАЬwhen they go low, we go highтАЭ. We have to go after these liars and fascists. When one of them who voted no takes credit for infrastructure projects, we have to go after them. Not by a few social media people. But at the source. These liars have to be called out and trashed. Civility be damned. Sorry, but playing nice and by the rules is not going to save America, just as it hasnтАЩt saved any other country.
I agree with calling out the liars. It's how you do it that has to be very skilled. What rules do you think we no longer need to go by?
This sounds a bit like the old Bugs Bunny / Daffy Duck routine. Do we start shooting now or wait until we get home?
If violence is the only way to win, are we just quibbling about timing?
I'm still on team "we can win this without violence."
Violence begets violence. The renunciation of violence by Gandhi and MLK both led to successful resistance movements that in the end prevailed.
Me too, Kate!!
He doesn't have to shoot you now!
We have yet to see the kind of violence imposed by the fascists that ignited the liberal response in WWII. Liberals with guns right now is not the answer. I am a bit dismayed at the number of likes a post promoting counter-violence has received.
The republicans are making the point that we are hounding Trump for being an "existential threat to democracy" when he is not. Too many people excuse his rhetoric saying he said crazy stuff in 2016 that he didn't do.
First, somebody somewhere needs to start hammering home the point that in 2016 no one expected him to win so he came into office without the infrastructure needed to put his notions into action.
This time it's different, and I don't think enough people realize it. Project 2025 is a blueprint containing multiple proposals that should be seen as a threat to our democratic institutions that have served us well for more than two hundred years.
The threats need to be spelled out in detail, not as broad stroke "existential threats to democracy." Stop talking about existential threats and spell them out.
You make such a fine point about institutions that have served us well for 200+ years. The arrogance, ignorance, and ultimately greed of educated and powerful Americans like the Republican SCOTUS, Judge Cannon, the GOP is vile. They really are evil and we have the right to fight back against violence and political oppression.
I'll say is again and again. Influencers need to spell out in detail how Trump threatens those institutions. in detail. Water safety is a good start. Do those undecided voters really want a political appointee instead of an expert implementing water regulations?
I do not read Travis and think "promotion of counter-violence", or tit-for-tat, or anything of the sort. I read Travis and think about the hyperbole that he's underlining and the lessons of history that he's pointing to.
Fascism was not put down in Germany and Italy by an internal immune response. It had its noggin stoved in by the USMC, RAF, the French resistance, and others who gave to topple it. Fanatical imperialism was not brought low in Japan by the men and women of Honshu, Shikoku, Kyushu, and Hokkaido. It was done in by the efforts of the United States Navy and Air Force, the scientists back home, Chinese resistance, and the raw power of economics. Outside forces came on planes and ships because internal correctives were too weak-willed to push hard against burgeoning evil.
The lesson of history is that evil in the hearts of fellow Man have to be fought with good and insight. The alternative is violence, and it should be an absolute last resort when it is all we desperately have left.
Vote, Goddamnit!
"I am a bit dismayed at the number of likes a post promoting counter-violence has received."
I'm not promoting counter-violence, only pointing to the *fact* that violent authoritarian movements of the past weren't put down by the temperance of liberalism. They were put down with overwhelming counter-violence. There's a *big* difference between making historical clarifications that are grounded in facts and "promoting" counter-violence. Promoting counter-violence would be telling people to gun up and start taking things into their own hands. That's not at all what I'm doing here.
I'm on your side, Travis, counter violence a this time would not be productive. I also stand by my earlier thoughts about "something really bad will result from Trump's reelection" and it could involve mass violence and destruction. It took 30+ million deaths, Europe and Japan in ruins for liberalism to be saved from evil in WW II. Germany, Italy and Japan were delivered from evil by outsiders. This time around, America could be on the wrong side of history, siding with the autocrats and modern tsars. These are Trump's peeps. Who will save America then, NATO?
If it's a "historical clarification grounded in facts" that the temperance of liberalism failed, what is left? The point you made in your original post on how Maga types view liberals are "facts" in their world, are they not? In their world we are devils and demons.
Saw an interview in which a focus group moderator relayed the response she got from citing unemployment statistics. "Where did you get those stats?" came the replay. "From the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The retort was "I will get my own source of statistics because those can't be right.
That is the kind of reasoning that should be exposed to persuadable voters who aren't yet paying attention. I think the historical facts of violent responses to fascism only scares them.
There wasn't reasoning that would have changed the minds/actions of Hitler's or Mussolini's movements either, and that which cannot be reasoned with and conducts itself violently can only be stopped with counter-violence. Maybe we're already on that path, just not at that final destination yet. At the very least people should start mentally preparing themselves for that possibility. We just might get to find out exactly how much democracy means to people when they might have to fight to maintain it themselves, as opposed to just carrying on with their regular daily lives under an autocratic/violent government. There's a non-zero chance of that happening during our lifetimes from where I'm sitting.
"We just might get to find out exactly how much democracy means to people when they might have to fight to maintain it themselves, as opposed to just carrying on with their regular daily lives under an autocratic/violent government."
I'm a lifelong Texas leftist who regularly gets into "good trouble" fighting the fascists who have been in charge of this state for years. Antifa are the good guys down here.
then we are already on that path because hard-core Maga-types cannot be reasoned with. There is a slimmer of hope with his election and that is the breakaway of those who choose to ignore the state in which we find ourselves. Heard a priceless comment from historian Heather Cox Richardson to those who blithely claim they don't get involved in politics. She said, politics is about to get very involved with YOU.
We're on the path via not being able to reason with them, but we're not on the path via them doing autocratic government with unconstrained extra-legal violence yet.
And yes, people may not be interested in politics, but politics may be interested in them. The same applies to violence--whether political or otherwise. You may not be interested in it, but it may be interested in you.
Sad to say Americans in neighborhoods across the country with illegal immigrants in their midst are about to see that violence as they watch neighbors dragging into the streets by "jack-booted government thugs" and into awaiting transports. What will happen to the crying children clinging to their mother's skirts?
And I'm sure that the government that "is the problem" won't mess up and drag off anybody they shouldn't.
Yup
Spell them out - YES!!!!! And do so in terms the voters can understand. That means how the threat will afffect them personally. The very first point is how his proposed economic policies - steep tariffs and sweeping tax cuts тАУ would probably increase inflation and strain the US's finances. The second is how removing illegals from the work force will increase the cost of food and services. I'm sure there are more ways the Dems can SHOW how he is a threat, not just TELL us he is.
Which begs the question: what should proponents of democracy do when they're backed into a corner?
We're not there yet, and we shouldn't pretend we are. Even if Biden (or other dem candidate) loses we're still not at that part yet. We're only at that part if the GOP gets into power, shuts down the ballot box, and then starts doing gov-sponsored extra-legal violence.
Travis, the Senate failed to do its job in early 2021 by not convicting Trump for January 6. SCOTUS has generated a bunch of opinions that functionally shield Trump from accountability for all his various crimes. So we're already backed into that corner. I think it's a question of when violence starts, not if.
We aren't backed into a corner, yet, because the outcome of the election is VERY close and we have a chance to beat Trump using Constitutional means. That means making the case to the voters how the Trump regime will affect them personally.
But even if Biden wins, we're still for all intents and purposes in a precarious place.
Yes we are, but which is worse? In the event of a Biden/Harris win, we have the chance to continue and strengthen the current efforts to depolarize our nation. See (https://commongroundcommittee.org/depolarizing-america/).
Sandy, I no longer believe appealing to our better angels is a viable way forward to end polarization. I do believe that when people show you who they are, you should take them at their word. And for the past several years, there is one and only one party that has stressed the guardrails that's kept our democracy going for 250 years. Their intentions are clear through words and deeds. There are *no* better angels to appeal to.
Among MAGA, yes. Among swing voters, I think there are.
Sandy, in a sane world, there should be no swing voters. The election is between an old man who is a good man and has been a good president, and the biggest friggin' moral degenerate who has ever been elected to office. Period. The record is clear, the stakes are clearer, and there is no margin for error. And if one of these swing voters can't wrap their head around and acknowledge the purely existential threat Trump presents, then we are totally and legitimately screwed.
Tim, I don't know any pesonally (but I will be canvassin in WI next month, so I will). The surveys I've seen on them (https://www.dataforprogress.org/insights/2024/5/30/measuring-the-swing-evaluating-the-key-voters-of-2024) show that they are disengaged, low-information voters. I don't know that the record of either candidate or the stakes in electing Trump are clear to them.
And yet the fate of the republic lies upon their shoulders.
Yes it does. At this point, there is nothing to be done about that except reach them, inform them and persuade them to vote Democratic. That's what canvassing is. That's the responsibility of the Dem party. (Yes, this all hangs on the Dem party.) Can they do it? Maybe not. Gotta try.
Sure, but there's no quick fix to get us out of that place. All we can do at this point is delay until the worst of MAGA burns out.
What evidence is there that it'll burn out, Kate?
See "What Does our Current Fourth Turning Hold for Us?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAxBjl7VYOM).
None!
Well, that's not entirely true. Trump is very old, and so are many of his fans, including his most devoted ones. The money is running out. Florida is in financial straits. And Trump can't actually improve anyone's living conditions. The GOP policies already mean that people in Red States don't live as long as people in Blue States. Propaganda may be able to cover that up for quite a while, but truth comes out in unpredictable ways. And the alliance between the Chamber of Commerce types and the Christian Nationalists gets weaker all the time. The truth will out as it did for the Soviets. The more we delay, the less damage can be done in that time. Maybe! I am not good at predictions.
Kate, these people are very determined, very well funded, and have support in Congress and the judiciary. And they are also amoral. What they want is power. And should Trump win, he's got control of the executive branch and all of its agencies, and the Congress and judiciary will do his bidding. Game, set, match. It's over. Any and all resistance to Trump will be dealt with using unfettered executive power.
And by the way, people who vote in red states don't give a rat's ass about things like mortality rates, childhood obesity, poverty, or any sort of policy. What they care about is getting even with people who they think look down on them. There's no reasoning with people like that. So we have to have really think about what is the worst possible thing that can happen.
I don't think the country is sustainable as is. As JVL has said, the pro-democracy side has to be perfect everytime, and none of us can be 100% perfect. The facsists just have to luck into getting it once, and frankly maybe that was 2016. I thought we had beaten them back in 2020, but here we are.
we woke up one day and the Nazis were just gone, damnedest thing
Hey, it worked for the Swiss. ;)
The Nazis were good business for the Swiss for a while, even after they officially went away.