President Biden and his Democratic allies have cast his reelection campaign as a battle for the country’s survival, warning that a second Donald Trump presidency would present an existential threat to American democracy.In speeches and campaign ads, Biden points to Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, his incitement of an angry mob that ransacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and the former president’s boasts that he will use the powers of his office to punish his political enemies....In six swing states that Biden narrowly won in 2020, a little more than half of voters classified as likely to decide the presidential election say threats to democracy are extremely important to their vote for president...Yet, more of them trust Trump to handle those threats than Biden.
How can this be?
You might start by asking people what they think the threats to democracy actually are.
UPDATE: These two bits deserve separate mention.
Trump has tried to flip the democracy issue, claiming falsely that he and his allies are facing multiple criminal investigations because Biden is weaponizing the judicial system against him. The former president also continues to undermine the legitimacy of elections with baseless claims of widespread fraud.
...
David Dunacusky, a 61-year-old from Phoenixville, Pa., who serves as a constable, an elected law enforcement officer, is among those who believe that the threat to democracy is coming from the left. A staunch Trump supporter, he echoed Trump’s unfounded claims that voter fraud swung the 2020 presidential election to Biden and suggested that FBI agents were embedded with Jan. 6 rioters. He also expressed concern that the election won’t be legitimate this year. He said it’s “propaganda 100 percent” when Democrats say Trump is a threat to democracy because “they’re scared to death” of their corruption being exposed.
The journalist does not, of course, similarly characterize Biden's or Biden supporters' claims.
Were FBI 'agents' embedded with the rioters, by the way? It may depend on whether you intend the word in the specific sense of 'a Special Agent,' or in the generic sense of 'an individual acting on behalf of another entity.' In the latter sense, it's established fact that they were: so many the FBI claims to have "lost count" of how many they had there.
10 comments:
Republicans need to hit this issue very hard. I think it's pretty clear that the Dem view of Democracy means something like the rule of the Prince-Electors:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/67520.html
Nice Holy Roman Empire reference. I agree with your basic premise. They don't so much mind if we elect Mitt Romney or Joe Biden, but they definitely want to be sure they get to pick the options.
In evidence, by the way, is the fact that the DNC regularly disposes of all of the state electors and appoints their candidate by acclamation at the event. The primary election process is controlled by the parties, and making sure to kick third parties off the ballot is always a major effort for both parties. I've seen them do it even when the third party would have been helpful to them in the election, because keeping the two-party control of the selection process for candidates is more important than winning a particular election.
The canonical example of a threat to American democracy is the last Congress' J6 Committee. That Congress was run by the Progressive-Democratic Party, and when the Committee was formed, Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected some of the minority party's member appointments--contrary to then-House rules--and when the Minority Leader pulled the rest of his member appointments in response, Pelosi appointed on her own recognizance two Republicans known to be a virulently anti-Trump as Party was. And, those were the only two Republicans she put on her Committee. She put seven of her Party on it.
Now we're learning that that Committee's Progressive-Democrat leadership willfully, if quietly, destroyed much of the documentation accumulated over the life of the Committee so the current Congress cannot have access to it.
The threat to American democracy is pretty clearly demonstrated, even if the propaganda tabloid cited in OP tries to hide it.
Eric Hines
Note the USSC just refused to hear a case on the government strong arming the media to take certain stances- using the same "lack of standing" they used to refuse to hear election fraud cases. State AG's were instrumental in bringing both cases- one has to ask, if an affected State does not have standing, exactly who does?
if an affected State does not have standing, exactly who does?
One or more specific persons and/or corporations as persons. States, as States, do not qualify. That's an argument I've had with a Federal judge (ret) friend for some years. And there has to be a particular remedy to be applied.
Note, though, that those are criteria for a preliminary injunction, and all the Supremes refused to do was to uphold an appellate court's injunction against the Federal government. The case itself is alive and well on its merits.
Eric Hines
States, as States, do not qualify
Yah, some people learned that during the Recent Unpleasantness.
Prefacing this with I am not a lawyer but I do read Ann Althouse's blog on a regular basis, and she has a post on this decision.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2024/06/writing-for-majority-justice-amy-coney.html
This comment from Prof Althouse (my emphasis)
The case is decided on the threshold issue of standing, so the majority does not reach the merits of the First Amendment question. The plaintiffs were seeking prospective relief, so they needed a concrete and particularized injury that would be redressable by that form of relief. Past injury is not enough...
My reading of this is that it's not the identity of the plaintiffs that is the issue but the fact that they are seeking prospective relief (I suppose something like tell Facebook, et al to not honor government censorship requests in the future) but that is too broad a request to be actionable by FaceBook, et al.
She mentions the controlling case in this instance is one brought by a man who was almost killed by a police chokehold, and was denied an injunction to stop the use of chokeholds by the police.
...during the Recent Unpleasantness.
How recent? Out here some of what was long ago was just the other day in popular reckoning.
I've said what I wanted to say.
Fair enough.
Post a Comment