Republican's Open About Destroying Democracy

[Hallam]

I opened this thread to give bilge forumites a location to post specific instances with links etc where republicans openly state they are prepared to forego Democracy in one way or another. It will be interesting to see how many examples there are.

I saw this tweet and was somewhat surprised.....I should not have been I suppose.

Posted four hours ago:

[sonofswen]

unnamed.jpg

[John Smith]

One candidate says if wins no Republican will ever again lose an election.

Kind of says it all.

[McMike]

The fact that this family isn't in jail is proof that America is lost.

[Hallam]

I think this qualifies:

[Vernon]

Trump Jr's off the rails, but if you got that he intended to destroy democracy out of that, then you probably should have read the entire sentence all at once.

It's quite clear that he said that if y'all want to describe these points I'm listing as 'destroying democracy', then here we go. But, I think every here knew that already. Many simply approve of the hyperbole.

[McMike]

Trump Jr's off the rails, but if you got that he intended to destroy democracy out of that, then you probably should have read the entire sentence all at once.

It's quite clear that he said that if y'all want to describe these points I'm listing as 'destroying democracy', then here we go. But, I think every here knew that already. Many simply approve of the hyperbole.

Knowing what I know about him and his family, it doesn't effing matter. Why defend this monster?

[Vernon]

No defense for Trump or any of his ilk.
Defense of the truth and reasoned argument, yes.

[Hallam]

Trump Jr's off the rails, but if you got that he intended to destroy democracy out of that, then you probably should have read the entire sentence all at once.

It's quite clear that he said that if y'all want to describe these points I'm listing as 'destroying democracy', then here we go. But, I think every here knew that already. Many simply approve of the hyperbole.

Well I read it as he is implying that he sees it as an option to destroy democracy in order to achieve those listed outcomes. I think the ambiguity is intentional and on message, consistent with other messaging.

[McMike]

No defense for Trump or any of his ilk.
Defense of the truth and reasoned argument, yes.

They are immune to both. Why bother being a Karen?

[Hallam]

Vernon has a point and how I read it could well be my confirmation bias.

[Vernon]

Well I read it as he is implying that he sees it as an option to destroy democracy in order to achieve those listed outcomes. I think the ambiguity is intentional and on message, consistent with other messaging.

Ahhh, OK - that's at least a reasonable take on it I suppose, just not how I read it.


ETA - I see you replied again.
We'll have to each agree to agree with each other.

[McMike]

Ahhh, OK - that's at least a reasonable take on it I suppose, just not how I read it.


ETA - I see you replied again.
We'll have to each agree to agree with each other.

Dude, it's the only way to take it . . . JFC. It's literally the Trump MO... Have you been living under a rock?

[sandtown]

Wait, the GOPPER Reich is not only "open about destroying democracy",

they attempted to actually do it,

and nearly succeeded.

Jeebus !!

[johnw]

Trump Jr's off the rails, but if you got that he intended to destroy democracy out of that, then you probably should have read the entire sentence all at once.

It's quite clear that he said that if y'all want to describe these points I'm listing as 'destroying democracy', then here we go. But, I think every here knew that already. Many simply approve of the hyperbole.

He's announced that he's willing to destroy American democracy in order to accomplish goals that have nothing to do with destroying democracy. Do you really think cops aren't allowed to do their jobs, that a dictator will provide a better economy, or that teachers are actually trying to turn kids trans? Those are ad hoc justifications for his real goal.

[David G]

He's announced that he's willing to destroy American democracy in order to accomplish goals that have nothing to do with destroying democracy. Do you really think cops aren't allowed to do their jobs, that a dictator will provide a better economy, or that teachers are actually trying to turn kids trans? Those are ad hoc justifications for his real goal.

Ayup

Meantime... we really need to get to the point we can start taxing the wealthy much more progressively than now.

To the point where they can no long use their rapidly-expanding, mind-blowingly large stockpiles of wealth to buy politicians whose primary goal is to make the donors even more wealthy & powerful.

An example from the midterm elections --- Republican S. Dakota governor Noem had always chosen to refuse Medicaid expansion, even though it amounted to a nearly free expansion of health coverage for tens of thousands of her citizens. The R-dominated legislature also followed the logic that there was no benefit for their wealthy donors, so they should oppose it... while ginning up lots of 'reasonable R excuses'. They even managed to pack their Supreme Court so that a challenge would be rejected.

Now, citizens put it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment. And it passed handily. Now enshrined essentially beyond the reach of venal state politicians. All those benefits for the citizen of the states. All that obvious support. And all that time denying benefits in the face of that support.

Because wealthy donors had bought themselves politicians who'd put the donors interests first... and to heck with the citizens.

[gypsie]

Trump Jr's off the rails, but if you got that he intended to destroy democracy out of that.....

Its the playbook isn't it?
If i don't like the result i believe i can legitimately reject it and wreck the place.

Wasn't Jan 6th precisely that?

Is there really any doubt that destroying democracy is an option? Consider the extraordinary gerrymandering; effectively the party in power decides who the next party in power will be. Isn't that democracy in serious paliative care?


If DJ Jnr wanted to be accurate, he'd point out that he was about to constructively engage in the democratic process. But he wasn't interested in accuracy. In marketing terms he had a message to sell; success for political objectives justifies the destruction of democracy. Two ideas intertwined, one more bean in the bag normalising the idea of destroying democracy. Bean by bean the sack fills.

[skuthorp]

"Because wealthy donors had bought themselves politicians who'd put the donors interests first... and to heck with the citizens."

And there David lies the root of the problem, and not just for America. The parties are owned by the wealthy, the politicians are also 'bought' even if they do not actually get shopping bags of cash delivered to their office. And it matters not if they are notionally right or left, it still applies because money buys office.

[Jim Mahan]

Two ideas that will never fly (not until right after pigs do) but would go a long way to safeguarding democracy and improving the country, would be, first, to limit campaign spending, to something like a tenth of what is spent now, and figure some way to drastically cut back or eliminate campaign funding by deep pocket donors, and second, to make voting mandatory.

The latter thing is even less likely to even be considered, because Thomas Jefferson and John Adams et al would be spinning aghast in their three hundred year old graves. Make voting mandatory. And make being allowed to vote come with a prerequisite of demonstrating a basic knowlege of civics, which should also be a prerequisite for running for office.

If you can't pass a fairly simple quiz about how government functions, you don't get the privilege. A case could be made that public education or an equivalent home school education is already required, a minimum demonstration of civics is therefore also already required. It shouldn't be that hard to have a federal law that says, if you're qualified to vote according to current basic requirements AND the above, and you don't vote, you get dinged with something equivalent to a traffic violation. Just enough motivation to get something like ninety plus percent of those eligible off their goram couch one day every two years, or pay fifty bucks. And of course, included in that, election day ought to be a nationwide holiday.

[willin woodworks]

Start by making election day a paid federal holiday. Then limit electioneering of any kind to 180 days, start to finish. Limit the amount of money that can be raised and/or spent on any candidate's campaign.
Term limits come next; 3 for senators, 9 for representatives.
Lose the electoral college.

Am I missing anything?

[UCanoe_2]

Make voting mandatory. And make being allowed to vote come with a prerequisite of demonstrating a basic knowlege of civics, which should also be a prerequisite for running for office.

If you can't pass a fairly simple quiz about how government functions, you don't get the privilege. A case could be made that public education or an equivalent home school education is already required, a minimum demonstration of civics is therefore also already required.

Jim you are starting down a slippery slope. Voting is a RIGHT, not a privilege. Years ago in the South there used to be literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting. Those went out the window with the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The tests were used to suppress the votes of less educated minorities, who were less educated because the educational system in those states was designed to be discriminatory. We can't deny the right to someone whose education, by our standards, might have been deficient.

Literacy tests are an extreme example, but let's explore the implications. Suppose someone can't read because of a learning disability. They may not have benefited fully from school because of that disability; maybe they specifically flunked civics. They can still obtain information about public affairs through conversations, or by listening to the radio or watching TV (yes, even Faux News -- UGH).

Certainly the schools should provide good civics education, and it should start early. However, civics education does not only take place in schools. My grandchildren, ages 7 and 9, just went to the polls with their parents. They went into the voting booths with Mom and Dad, and helped pull the levers. Of course, this act can lead to a discussion of which lever to pull, and why. That kind of family-based experiential education can be more concrete and meaningful than what the schools are able to provide.

[Osborne Russell]

The Greeks supposedly invented democracy. Gave us the name anyway.

Which of their government were democracies by our standards? None.

OK, so we must mean something more. But what, in particular? What have we added or subtracted from Greece?

Unless one can say, democracy doesn't mean anything. One can't, and so it doesn't, and one is responsible.

And here we are. One is unable to respond to Donald Trump Jr.

[Jim Mahan]

Jim you are starting down a slippery slope. Voting is a RIGHT, not a privilege. Years ago in the South there used to be literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting. Those went out the window with the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The tests were used to suppress the votes of less educated minorities, who were less educated because the educational system in those states was designed to be discriminatory. We can't deny the right to someone whose education, by our standards, might have been deficient.

Literacy tests are an extreme example, but let's explore the implications. Suppose someone can't read because of a learning disability. They may not have benefited fully from school because of that disability; maybe they specifically flunked civics. They can still obtain information about public affairs through conversations, or by listening to the radio or watching TV (yes, even Faux News -- UGH).

Certainly the schools should provide good civics education, and it should start early. However, civics education does not only take place in schools. My grandchildren, ages 7 and 9, just went to the polls with their parents. They went into the voting booths with Mom and Dad, and helped pull the levers. Of course, this act can lead to a discussion of which lever to pull, and why. That kind of family-based experiential education can be more concrete and meaningful than what the schools are able to provide.

Yeah, I know. Wishful thinking born of frustration with the tyranny of the ignorant.

[johnw]

The Greeks supposedly invented democracy. Gave us the name anyway.

Which of their government were democracies by our standards? None.

OK, so we must mean something more. But what, in particular? What have we added or subtracted from Greece?

Unless one can say, democracy doesn't mean anything. One can't, and so it doesn't, and one is responsible.

And here we are. One is unable to respond to Donald Trump Jr.

We have added freedom of conscience. None of the Greek city states were secular, all had a state religion. The whole point of social contract theory, as proposed in the wake of the Reformation, was to find a source of state legitimacy that did not depend on religion.

[John Meachen]

Start by making election day a paid federal holiday. Then limit electioneering of any kind to 180 days, start to finish. Limit the amount of money that can be raised and/or spent on any candidate's campaign.
Term limits come next; 3 for senators, 9 for representatives.
Lose the electoral college.

Am I missing anything?

30 days ought to be enough.

[David G]

30 days ought to be enough.

Disagree. Would make the window too tight & 'hot'. Too few people would have time to digest the resulting deluge.

I don't want to pick on you in particular, but there are way too many people offering off cuff opinions and making things up as they go along. When it REALLY is not helpful or useful. Any question you can muster, there's likely already been some well-informed thought put into it, and careful suggestions bruited.

[sandtown]

We have added freedom of conscience. None of the Greek city states were secular, all had a state religion..

What are you talking about ?? They did not even have a word for religion.

Further there were around 160 Greek city states, and we know very little about most of them.

[Osborne Russell]

We have added freedom of conscience. None of the Greek city states were secular, all had a state religion. The whole point of social contract theory, as proposed in the wake of the Reformation, was to find a source of state legitimacy that did not depend on religion.

So, we put some things beyond the easy reach of the demos, and that's what democracy means now?

[Osborne Russell]

What are you talking about ?? They did not even have a word for religion.

Depends on the translation. They speak of "the gods" quite a lot, when translated into English. Built temples, etc.

[Paul Pless]

Start by making election day a paid federal holiday. Then limit electioneering of any kind to 180 days, start to finish. Limit the amount of money that can be raised and/or spent on any candidate's campaign.
Term limits come next; 3 for senators, 9 for representatives.
Lose the electoral college.

Am I missing anything?

only voters that are eligible to vote for a given candidate or ballot initiative should be able to give money to campaigns for or against said candidate or ballot initiative

no pacs, no pass through money, no corporate money, no special interest money, no moving or spending of money between candidates and or political parties

done

[Sandlapper]

Damn good question which Jr. is unable to understand or answer. The statement itself is so ambiguous as to defy reason.

[Canoez]

From Heather Cox Richardson today:

White nationalist Nick Fuentes told his audience that the solution to the fact Republicans are in a minority and keep losing elections is to establish “a dictatorship.” "We need to take control of the media or take control of the government and force the people to believe what we believe or force them to play by our rules.”

[sandtown]

only voters that are eligible to vote for a given candidate or ballot initiative should be able to give money to campaigns for or against said candidate or ballot initiative

no pacs, no pass through money, no corporate money, no special interest money, no moving or spending of money between candidates and or political parties

And free TV and radio time for candidates . .

[skuthorp]

but…but…. all those corporations offering bribes or funding private campaigns are 'people' according to that august political body the USSC…………. no?

[John Meachen]

Disagree. Would make the window too tight & 'hot'. Too few people would have time to digest the resulting deluge.

I don't want to pick on you in particular, but there are way too many people offering off cuff opinions and making things up as they go along. When it REALLY is not helpful or useful. Any question you can muster, there's likely already been some well-informed thought put into it, and careful suggestions bruited.

Feel free to disagree,but I live in a country where a general election typically takes place three weeks after parliament is dissolved.It works and it doesn't give vested interests too much time to buy a favourable outcome.I really wish Scot and now his successor had taken heed of mmd's plea for a sub-bilge section for American politics.