Election officials in TX county quit after being threatened and stalked

I pay little attention to blanket statements like this because it's usually histrionics and "loser talk" as @tilly mentioned earlier. I could just as easily claim that ONOZ, A majority of Democrats want to abolish the SCOTUS with the same degree of reaction. Not trying to deflect the conversation, just give another example of "the over the top rhetoric is pretty much all BS designed to keep both sides hating each other".

 

The difference is that you aren't going to find the majority of Democratic candidates in swing states backing the abolition of the SCOTUS. Meanwhile, you are finding the majority of Republican candidates in swing states backing the election lies and the resulting "policies." So even if you want to argue both are "loser talk," the loser talk is winning primaries on the political right and not on the left.

 

The scenario described was not a physical insurrection but rather stealing the election on paper by having partisan State legislatures throw out Biden (?) votes they claim (falsely) to be fraudulent. The legislature then declares Trump the winner according to State law and gives Trump all the electoral votes.

Several swing States passed Trump-friendly election laws that empowered their highly partisan legislatures with election oversight. So they have control of the ballots, the voting machines and the counting of the ballots.

How would the military respond to that???

 

But conservatives will vote for him to prevent the alternative that they also see as dangerous to our country.

 

Ok, so how do you combat that? Get out there and vote against those candidates. The left has historically had a poorer turnout despite having as rabid a base. A primary isn't an elected office.

Throwing out the "if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas" aspect of this, the military would likely only get involved well after the courts do and even then only likely in the interim between November and January if there were armed riots over the results (which I suspect there would be regardless of the winning or losing team).

 

No.

I can try to fly a 747, dunk on KD, thow further than Anthony Richardson, convince my kids that TikTok is dumb, bench more than Tebow, etc etc.

I wont come close on any of them.

 

Sure. But notice that solution doesn't involve Republicans acting like adults and/or not backing those that will overturn elections. It relies on others to save us from Republicans. And it ignores the fact that Republicans can gerrymander minority rule in all non-statewide offices (and has in many places).

 

See this is where you lose me. Democrats gerrymander almost as effectively as Republicans. This isn't "save me" from one team or the other, this is (as it always has been) a case where the people get what they vote for.

 

Probably. After all, the Germans voted for Adolf because he told them to fear socialists, communists, intellectuals, homosexuals, the Jews and other riff raff.

(I know you don't like these analogies. But, if the shoe fits . . . . . Trump sows hate and anger by constantly railing against bogeyman like libs, socialists, communists, RINOs, election officials, federal judges, the FBI, the Deep State, the free press, Antifa, "shithole" countries, caravans, and immigrants who, in his words, "infest" our country.

 

The difference is that while both Democrats and Republicans gerrymander, only one side is consistently delivering minority rule through it. So, I have lived in two heavily gerrymandered states over the last decade, one each direction. Neither was a minority rule situation. But look at Michigan. A majority of voters voted for a Democrat in the State House. And the final results? 58-52 Republican.

Having the Democrats get better at the prisoner's dilemma of gerrymandering shouldn't be the solution either.

And you are right that we get what we vote for often. But the problem is that we will get people willing to throw out elections if we vote Republican. You don't find that concerning?

 

I think you're right that there's a spectrum here. If Trump runs again, we're going to find out in the primary how much actual support he has at this point. The articles and polls I've pulled up suggest that he would probably win the nomination if it were held today.

 

Concerning? Sure. Realistic? No.

 

Except there are polls showing 70% of Republicans believe the election was stolen despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

Such pearl-clutching. Here is some sage advice that you offered me not too long ago:

 

Hopefully you are right that the voters won't vote for these candidates. But that seems like quite a risk. Because all it takes is a couple to get into office in swing states and we end up with mass chaos during the next election. And I don't think swing states electing Republicans is unrealistic.

 

Good lord. Who have you appointed yourself spokesman for this time? I know it's one of your favored tactics, but you should recognize that your argument is going badly when you have to invent an anonymous group of like-minded folks to support it.

 

This is where I think that you are wrong: when you decide that overthrowing our democracy is worth it to prevent tax increases, not build a southern wall, allow abortions, not spend money on climate change, provide free pre-school, or whatever else your agenda might be, you have crossed the line from being a conservative to supporting fascism. Liberals, moderates and conservatives have battled each other for over 200 years over these types of issues. That’s the nature of politics and governance. The idea of getting rid of our democracy to accomplish your goals is fascism, not conservatism.

 

No, but a conspiracy to install faithless electors across multiple states without a major court fight (and likely nationwide protests) is unrealistic.

 

What stops those states from simply ignoring the courts?

 

Whatever the motive for voting, it is abundantly clear that, whether they realize it or not, a vote for Trump is effectively a vote against democracy because (a) he has made it clear that he will never accept the will of the people if he loses and (b) he is actively working to ensure he wins whether or not that is the will of the people.