How about we don’t let the dictator who is shouting his plans to the world run for president?
Props to Colorado for actually having this discussion.
Shame on the whole rest of the country for not…
MN and FL have already been over it, with different results. Ten other states have cases pending.
“But what I will say, too, though, is I think everybody should vote for Joe Biden if they want our democracy to survive,” she added.
Cue the people who want to clutch their pearls like, “BuT I DoN’t WaNt ThIs DeMoCrAcY tO sUrViVe!” as if they have an alternative option that isn’t a Trump-fueled fascist dystopia.
I think there’s an alarming number of Americans who are realizing the government is the only thing between them and the violent fantasies they desperately want to enact.
Same people who are afraid to visit New York or Chicago today think that they will thrive in a lawless dystopia.
Or that war-torn husk, Seattle
Seattle? Conservatives swear it was burned to the ground along with Portland. They really do believe these cities were demolished into rubble. It’s bizarre.
Conservatism is a mental illness.
As they visit from the comfort of their car
They don’t think it will be a lawless utopia, do they? They want strict application of laws on people, just not corporations. Unless those corporations directly harm them, then it’s bad corporation.
I see it as akin to how Nazis pushed the idea that the Weimar government was soft on crime (liberals just didn’t understand how to apply “justice”), so they opened Dachau to show their fellow Germans how “criminals” should be dealt with. It served as a primer on how they would operate the kz network in Poland and elsewhere.
Wilhoit’s Law : Conservatism consists of one principle: there needs to be an in-group whom the law protects but does not bind, and an out-group whom the law binds but does not protect.
At the least the number of Americans simultaneously realizing this about their neighbors is pretty high too.
we already living in that dystopia
You’re a naive fool if you think this is anything like fascist authoritarianism.
as if they have an alternative option that isn’t a Trump-fueled fascist dystopia
As if the democrats don’t lead to the same end result, only slower and more “politely”…
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
Also, you not being comfortable, or even able, to think outside of the existing (and completely artificial) constructs we’re forced to live under, doesn’t mean other options don’t exist, only that you haven’t bothered looking for them.
Go back to your troll cave with this “both sides are the same” bullshit.
His sources are pretty mid, but he’s right. A lot of people who like to trash Trump for yelling about election fraud also seem to forget democrats have done the same thing in the past.
Also, the whole “both sides are the same is bullshit” tagline is very Reddit. Doesn’t work as well here, where conservatives aren’t systematically banned for not agreeing with the hivemind.
Trump and Democrats have done the same thing???
Get the fuck right out of here.
There is no room for this kind of false equivocation in any honest conversation. You’re parroting sheer --and dangerous– propaganda. Take that back to Russia or wherever pays you 10 cents to post it.
I think the root of this was the SCOTUS stepping into the 00 election to stop the Florida recounting. I definitely heard a lot of stolen election rhetoric from liberals and leftists during shrubs first term - and there’s some gravity to the claim given the events. It’s not the same in Trump’s case though, but the details aren’t what matters in a game with lowest common denominator voters - only rhetoric matters. Rhetoric is what got 1/6 to happen, and it’s what’s where the average Republican to support Trump no matter what.
If we’re talking about 2000, when Supreme Court justices appointed by Bush’s father stepped in and prevented recounts from taking place (which later showed that Bush would have lost) and handed the presidency to Bush; and comparing that to 2021, when the president launched a mob of armed traitors and attacked the capitol, while GOP lawmakers aided them; and saying there’s something similar between them, then all hope for meaningful truth is lost.
“Both sides have accused the other of stealing the election!” is only true insofar as one side has actually stolen an election, after which that fact was grumbled about but then accepted peacefully, and then that same side 20 years later launched a failed coup d’état and whined afterwards about the election being stolen. So it’s a fact, but presenting it as some sort of equivalence is the peak of dishonesty.
(I know that’s not what you’re doing, you’re just explaining the conversation. But that is what the grandparent post was doing, thus my complaint.)
Totally in agreement here. You know, it reminds me of another aspect of the Florida recounting. Let me dig …
Here we go!
I mean, yeah. I gave you a primary source of a plethora of prominent democrats, including the current president and vice president, claiming election fraud when Trump was first elected.
I’m guessing your overly abundant use of question marks and italics, as well as lack of any sort of substantive retort other than claiming propaganda, is related to your cognitive dissonance. I’m sorry this doesn’t fit your world view.
That’s not what a “primary source” is. Links to websites are not primary sources. This is pretty basic stuff.
No, my abundant use of question marks and italics was to emphasize just how stupid and dishonest what you wrote was. You’re a dishonest propagandist and you are making the world a worse place. Be better than that.
Oof, you’re really gonna hate that the definition of a primary source includes videos. Pretty basic stuff.
Might wanna consider applying that “stupid and dishonest propaganda” tagline to your comment. Seethe some more sweetie.
Those video clips are talking about how the electoral college had fucked over the majority of voters 2 out of the last 3 times that Republicans have won the presidency.
And when the voter fraud teams weren’t looking for fraud, they almost exclusively found Republicans who were cheating because they were convinced everyone else was too.
That’s why all the assholes who were running those commissions quietly ended then so fast in 2020.
Except Horseshoe Theory is hot garbage. “Both Sides” is what lazy people come up with. That’s like saying hot and cold are practically the same, because they are both temperatures.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#Academic_studies_and_criticism
Fuck off with your victimization complex, and go educate yourself.
So, are you denying that democrats claimed election fraud when Trump was elected?
And remember when they kept claiming election fraud long after they lost, and brought 60+ lawsuits, and called Secretaries of State to “find me X votes,”, and tried to get the vice president to decertify peoples votes, and tried to send fake Electors to vote for them, and planned to use the Insurrection Act to stay in power?
But please, go off about how they’re fundamentally the same.
when they kept claiming election fraud long after they lost
Which is also in the video I provided.
brought 60+ lawsuits
The Democratic Party itself sued Trump claiming his election was illegitimate.
called Secretaries of State to “find me X votes,”
So a recount, lol.
tried to get the vice president to decertify peoples votes
Democrats did the same thing for Trump — it’s literally within the first two minutes of the video that you apparently neglected to watch.
tried to send fake Electors to vote for them
Democrats tried to get republican electors to reject their oath and vote against the actual election results — very democratic, right?
planned to use the Insurrection Act to stay in power
Which they didn’t, lmfao.
So yeah, as to the issue of complaining about election fraud, they are fundamentally the same. Got any more areas that you want me to remind you of the democratic equivalent for, or would you prefer to actually watch the primary source that you pretty blatantly disregarded before posting all that?
It’s funny to watch you play the victim.
I don’t recall claiming to be a victim. All I did was drop of video of democrats claiming election fraud.
Even if that were the case, which it’s clearly not, wouldn’t it be better to move slowly towards full-on fascism than speed run it?
What is with all the both-sidesing and accelerationism on here in the last few weeks? Some of you all are either too young or too privileged to remember what living under Trump was really like, and he’s been abundantly clear that his next term will be far worse.
You won’t find very many enthusiastic Biden supporters, but I’d much rather have four more years of this than four-plus more years of Trump with a grudge and nothing left to lose.
What is with all the both-sidesing and accelerationism on here in the last few weeks?
Lotta Libertarian “Centrists” who think they’re smart and that they have a choice. They think they will be able to die on the single-issue-hill of Biden’s policy stance on Israel and still retain the ability to vote in five years.
Fortunately, as evidenced by most of the comments here, they’re still squarely in the minority, and I’ll never stop pointing out how bad their arguments are.
Work on ranked choice voting.
Colorado has a ballot measure for that.
Meanwhile check an org working for voting reforms /ranked choice
The Federal Fair Representation Act For example, would go a massive way for voting reform.
Agreed. Thanks for pointing that out.
As if the democrats don’t lead to the same end result, only slower and more “politely”…
Can you say, “Slippery Slope Fallacy?”
…doesn’t mean other options don’t exist, only that you haven’t bothered looking for them.
Go learn what a FPTP System is.
As if the democrats don’t lead to the same end result, only slower and more “politely”…
Yes. The Democrats would have definitely slowly and politely installed far-right Supreme Court justices that would have ended Roe.
That sounds very credible.
did Joe Biden vote for Clarence thomas?
Did Joe Biden nominate Clarence Thomas? Because that’s the issue.
Do you really think Obama or Biden would have installed justices to end Roe if they had the chance? Be serious.
Biden is Catholic so… yes.
Biden has repeatedly said that he was pro-choice. Why don’t you even know that?
politicians are notorious for lying and backstabbing.
biden voted for Thomas. he DID install him.
Is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson pro- or anti- abortion?
this is a red herring.
Classic hexbear alt
…what’s the dark reason? Was there something new, or the same “end of democracy” we’ve known very well about for about 8 years now?
Yeah, that thing she participated in.
I came to the comments to have that question answered. Because fuck this clickbait title. And fuck huffington post generally. If I wanted an article that was just a bunch of snappy white liberals tweeting…I’d go on twitter.
the same “end of democracy” we’ve known very well about for about 8 years now
It’s that.
Actually, the article says that she’s personally planning to go to the homes of every person that either doesn’t vote or votes for Trump and snap the necks of their children.
That would at least be saying something new.
I almost think these doom screamers are working for Trump, to make people bored of the idea of the death of American democracy.
We’ve known for seven years. If you didn’t, you’re just fucking dumb. The lines were drawn on January 6th if nothing else, and tbh if you voted for him after it was proven in court he’s a rapist you’re just a piece of shit regardless.
Trump is a corrupt asshole hell-bent on destroying America for his own gain.
Dark Brandon obviously
How is it that people are intelligent enough to type words on a screen to form complete sentences yet incapable of reading the content which they’re commenting on? And how do others choose to support this sort of statement?
“But what I will say, too, though, is I think everybody should vote for Joe Biden if they want our democracy to survive,”
For the elementary schoolers, Hutchinson is saying that, “if they want our democracy to survive”, “everybody should vote for Joe Biden”.
You may not agree with this statement, you may claim that this title is clickbait, you may argue that HuffPost is a shitty outlet for news; but to question “what’s the dark reason?” and have others upvote such a question, while the answer to the question is very clearly written in the article in which you’re commenting on, suggests you and others are simply too lazy or disinterested in giving a shit about the topic and more interested in generating your own rage-bait content for karma.
But it’s just so much more fun to have a sanctimonious blowhard such as yourself summarize it in the most obnoxious way possible!
It’s like how my teachers used to explain it to the slow kids back then. #genX
Right. Rage-bait, as I said.
So, do you just read every article that comes across your feed? How much time per day do you spend reading? Do you ever worry you may be missing out on important information, due to not selecting articles more likely to convey newer information, more relevant information, or more in depth information?
Personally, I appreciated the question, and the answer, as it saved time that I can use on reading something more valuable to me - or, I guess, on writing this comment. A lot of articles these days use misleading or vague headlines to trick people into reading a long article that says nothing more than could have been conveyed in the headline itself.
Now, I will admit, thanks to your comment, I did click through and read this article, just so I wouldn’t look like an idiot writing this comment, if it turned out to be much different from what was said above, or to provide more context, or whatever, and yes, I did find it was not so bad. It’s pretty brief, and while the main point could have easily been in the headline, the article does give some additional context (most of which I knew, but it was a good refresher). Whether we choose to read or not to read, we are taking a gamble with our time and opportunity cost, but people in the comments giving at least some information is better than having nothing to go on, or trusting a headline from a source known to use misleading headlines.
I do agree with her statement.
I’m not so sure you’ve really learned anything here. You claim to have now taken the time to read the article and you learned something yet you’re still supporting the idea that reading original content over reading the comment section is a waste of time.
do you just read every article that comes across your feed?
The ones I find interesting, yes. The ones I choose to comment on, yes, if it’s a top level comment, of course I do.
Do you ever worry you may be missing out on important information, due to not selecting articles more likely to convey newer information, more relevant information, or more in depth information?
Whuuut? No… I worry I might miss out on important information by only reading headlines. And, frankly, I worry that the majority of people on “social media” are missing the point of the journalist’s story by only reading the top -often unrelated or diluting- comments. The comment I responded to is a waste of everyone’s time and alters the narrative of both Hutchinson and the author.
These platforms are great for sharing information, especially in topical areas we find interesting. Yet at the same time, it seems they’re making most of us dumber for participating in them. Headlines are often misleading. A lot of media outlets publish content just for the sake of publishing content and getting clicks while only a tenth of an article is really relevant to the story or offers any new valuable insight. This HuffPost article is trash to begin with. It’s click bait and OP is making it even worse. Which is pretty remarkable.
I’d argue that you’d have more time to read more, and would be more well informed, if you spent more time reading the articles instead of the headlines and engaging in the peanut gallery (of course I’m guilty here too).
I read a lot of articles, friend, and I feel that you are going far out of your way to misinterpret my comment. We can’t read everything, and we have to choose based on some criteria. A comment offering some summary of what is in the article is better criteria than nothing, especially if, as you seem to agree, the headline is worse than useless.
…yes. that is the “the end of democracy” that we’ve been aware of now for the entirety of Trump’s political existence. I know this because I did read the article.
So, you’re saying you posted a question to something you knew the answer to while paraphrasing the known answer. That’s a great contribution you’ve added to the conversation.
And yet, she’s still registered as a Republican. 🤔
Probably not the case with her, but I’m registered as a Republican to vote in their primaries. The way the party has gone though it’s going to be a cold day in hell before I vote for a Republican in a general election.
There’s a lot I disagree with Democrats on, but in general I can usually live with whoever they end up putting up as a candidate. I may not be thrilled about some of them, but they’re usually not trying to send us headfirst into a fascist hellhole.
Republicans though, while pretty much all shitty, are a bit of a mixed bag, and I’d rather try to head off the trumps, Santoses, DeSantises, etc. before they make it to the general election.
I don’t know why she’s a Republican. Anyway I think she’s attractive.
Why would anyone vote for genocide Joe
So what you are saying is that Donald J Trump is going to come to the rescue of the oppressed Muslim people of Palestine? The same Trump whose Middle East peace plan was formulated by his Jewish son-in-law and basically said “give Israel what they want, and everything will be fine”?
Gotcha.
Not at all. He will be even worse. By a long shoot. I still don’t see that as an argument for anything
Because they’d rather not live under a fascist dictator? Did you read the article?
Because if he’s the frontrunner, the alternative is no more democracy.
If your representative democracy is not representing you. Then there already is no more democracy.
If I have a car, and it doesn’t work anymore, do I still have a car?
Not a working car that you can use no…
But you still called it a car. Therefore, a broken democracy is still a democracy.
That is the saddest defense of a failed democracy I have ever heard
Nobody said it’s pretty. But it’s what we’ve got right now. Unless you have a better alternative and a plan to get there…?
Whining is easy.
Imagine being unable to understand why people would vote against Donald Trump…
Ah yes, Genocide Joe, as opposed to Genocide Xi or Genocide Vladimir…
Are they on the ballot?
No, but curiously enough they had a foot in the White House, when it was Orange.
Trump wants to Genocide Americans, Americans like you.
Plot twist: that poster isn’t American.
Most predictable plot twist of all plot twists ever.
It really is peak centrist liberal to be satisfied with the least horrible alternative.
Democracy is representative. If Noone represents you, why should you support them?
Imagine this scenario.
- There’s 100 people who will decide a winner.
- 60 of them share the majority on the left and have varied beliefs (communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, etc.)
- 40 share the minority on the right and have largely monolithic beliefs (religion, tradition, control, etc.)
- Candidate C is a Centrist.
- Candidate F is a Fascist.
- There are 10 other candidates, Q-Z, with varying platforms across the political spectrum.
35 of the minority are guaranteed to vote for F. 1 votes for Q. 2 vote for R. 2 vote for S.
But that means the 60 have an easy 25 point lead. 3 vote for Q. 2 vote for R. 5 vote for T. 6 vote for X. 10 abstain on moral grounds and don’t vote for anyone.
- Candidate C gets 34 votes.
- Candidate F gets 35 votes.
- Candidate Q gets 1 vote.
- Candidate R gets 4 votes.
- Candidate S gets 2 votes.
- Candidate T gets 5 votes.
- Candidate X gets 6 votes.
Congratulations, the fascist won, because you thought you had the privilege to vote for your favorite, or maybe you didn’t vote at all. Either way, the fascist took your human rights away, along with everybody else’s. But you go to sleep at night knowing you stood your ground like a good idealogue.
Imagine this scenario.
You have a representative democratic system that degrades itself completely decade after decade while the culprits stuff their pockets and make careers out no longer representing the people that voted for them.
After so many decades of automating and accommodating financial interests, to the point where lobbies and corporate interests basically write the laws the politicians sign, the system is now completely broken and is no longer, in any way shape or form something that represents the interests of the people.
It is not privilege, but necessity to abstain from voting for actors in that system, unless they want to change it.
And I haven’t even covered how the system you are voting for are using war, death and terror to further, spread the domination of the same financial interests, and even destabilize and meddle in other democratic processes all over the world.
If there was a candidate that atleast pretended to want real change, I would absolutely encourage everyone to vote. But there isn’t. Not even the slightest.
It is not privilege, but necessity to abstain from voting for actors in that system, unless they want to change it.
You are advocating for being the 10 who abstain. The scenario I presented is how it works now (minus the political chess that is the Electoral College). What does abstention do to prevent the rise of fascism? How would you convince the other 90 to join you en masse? How would you prevent just one person from keeping such a system alive?
I know you can’t answer these questions, because none of the people who think like you can. This system sucks. I’m with you on that. But there isn’t another option, therefore choosing not to participate doesn’t do anything but give a leg up to the fascists.
