I want to live in a country where we accept the results of a democratic process instead of spreading conspiracy theories, and yes, that goes for the Russia collusion conspiracy theories and the general "we're going to burn this mf-er to the ground if the election doesn't go our way" sentiments as well.
The reasoning on the demand to stop vote counts was to delay until they could get legal observers in to validate the process, not a bid to stop the entire process altogether.
That's not true. Regrettably we have the nationally televised words of the president on the matter:
This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. We did win this election. So our goal now is to ensure the integrity for the good of this nation. This is a very big moment. This is a major fraud in our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we’ll be going to the US Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at four o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. Okay? It’s a very sad moment. To me this is a very sad moment and we will win this. And as far as I’m concerned, we already have won it.
So, so often people only hear what they want to hear. From what we've witnessed over recent times, such thinking is so prevalent that it has to be a part of the human condition.
There were already Republican observers in NV (as per state law) and in PA, including Philadelphia. The argument lawyers are making in Philadelphia is basically incoherent. See the excerpts from the court transcript for PA case.
100% not true. Legal observers were in all places, and Trumps lawyers had to admit it in court when they said a ‘non-zero’ number were present. Most counting places even live streamed the count.
I think this is probably one of the most secure elections ever executed.
cult of personality, attacking the press, denying everything, attacking the legitimacy of our voting system, creating division by refusing to unify people, shouting "law & order" to position himself as the only solution against chaos, inciting young supporters to push his agenda with more violence (akin to hitler youth), etc.
Nearly all of the press and social media companies worked together to fight and censor him and he’s the authoritarian one for calling them out on it?
By creating division you mean sending in troops to end riots that were burning down businesses, beating people, and spreading the virus all in the name of dubious claims of police brutality?
The rioters caused real violence that really happened. What did Trump’s supporters do that is violent on that level?
Trump talks like an authoritarian, but his actual actions have been mainly to reduce the power of a central government, like appointing federalist judges, dismantling federal departments, etc. So the opposite of what an authoritarian would do.
>So the opposite of what an authoritarian would do.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that's not entirely right.
Authoritarians aim to centralize power to themselves. By removing other sources of power, their power grows. An authoritarian's ultimate goal in the US is to remove all checks and balances they can.
In comparison a libertarian aims to remove non-centeral government, like laws that effect small towns, schools and police forces in small towns, and so on, though each libertarian voter aims to remove different things, so not to mislead: Not all libertarians want to remove police, or schools, or roads, or whatever else. What you will not hear is a libertarian wanting to remove congress or another form of checks and balance.
That's a good point. Removing centralized laws so there is more autonomy for individual states is one thing, which is not removing checks and balances. I overlooked that on the libertarian part of the comment.
Unfortunately, Trump did not go around removing centralized laws, or any I know of at least. Everything he did has more to do with a power grab as best I can tell.
This is an interesting point, but he's also done and said a number of things that indicate a level of comfort with his supporters committing violence that is entirely inappropriate for a leader of a democracy, and suggests that he wants a paramilitary loyal to him. Those are exactly the actions of an authoritarian. "Stand back and stand by"
There's also been a focus on personal loyalty in high office that is also unseemly in a democracy, and has caused problems for the USA in the past too.
I suspect that his choosing of those judges was a combination of him listening to his handlers when they (rightfully) told him big portion of his base was only in it for the judges combined with the assumed belief on Trumps part that any judges he appointed to show him loyalty in any legal situation (they won't).
The pandemic, if anything, has proved the "authoritarian" diagnosis to be false. Authoritarians love to have an excuse to lock everyone up in their homes and decide from on high which businesses will be allowed to operate. Trump OTOH was like "math is tough; let the states handle it!"
I think that's oversimplifying. The fact that Trump is not a full-blown authoritarian, or is bad at it, is compatible with his expression of a number of authoritarian values.
This is true, but it emphasizes the difference between marketing and reality. Trump's evocation of authoritarian imagery has been uncorrelated with genuine threats of increased authoritarianism in USA. These threats do exist, but focusing attention on Trump has been a distraction from genuinely opposing them.
One particularly scary one is 60 minutes recorded footage of rally of Trump supporters, where many of them on their Trump flags had fascist symbolism. This spiked a fear of fascism growing in America.
In response instead of addressing this growing anti-american anti-democratic minority, instead the news decided to associate anti-fascism with riots, protestors, and other scary negative fear based topics. Now the second anyone raises a concern about fascism, supporters will unconsciously turn a blind eye. I'm surprised such word smithing like that works, and frankly I'm scared it does work. I'm terrified that different conservative groups rallied behind not only fascist movements, but invented a boogyman term for it like antifa as a way to make the topic of fascism partisan and questionable. If that's not anti-democratic and unamerican I don't know what is.
I think the interregnum period will be chocked full of rightwingers lashing out at the country and people in general. People that know Trump supporters know that there was a lot of identity wrapped up in his presidency, and see it cut down to one term is going to set them off.
>America is extremely divided, and I'm not sure that it's going to recover from this
Sadly without re-regulating the news it isn't, or some large trauma that brings the entire country temporarily together.
In the US we historically had similar problems, so something called the fairness doctrine was created. It was a law that required news give equal airtime for opposing views. This way no matter where you got your news you'd get the full truth, not half truths as the current American populous is getting.
One particularly scary one is 60 minutes recorded footage of rally of Trump supporters, where many of them on their Trump flags had fascist symbolism. 60 minutes did not say a word about this, as the topic they were covering was different, but regardless, this spiked a fear of fascism growing in America.
In response instead of addressing this growing anti-american anti-democratic minority, the term anti-fascist or antifa was created. The idea is if anti-fascism can be associated with riots, protestors, and other scary negative fear based topics, the second anyone raises a concern about fascism, supporters will unconsciously turn a blind eye, because antifa has a negative anti-american sting in their unconscious now. I'm surprised such word smithing like that works, and frankly I'm scared it does work. I'm terrified that not only Trump but Fox and other groups would rally behind not only supporting fascist movements, but invent a boogyman as a way to make the topic of fascism partisan and questionable. If that's not unamerican I don't know what is.
I want to live in a country where we accept the results of a democratic process instead of spreading conspiracy theories, and yes, that goes for the Russia collusion conspiracy theories and the general "we're going to burn this mf-er to the ground if the election doesn't go our way" sentiments as well.