A really, really excellent account of what is fundamentally at stake in this election. I think there are many, many other reasons why no sane and responsible person should be even slightly tempted to vote for Trump, but this piece captures the most central and important one with great cogency.
I’m curious: Did this piece express something you have not already thought about? From a new angle or something? Has it only been about “policy issues” thus far?
First off, I don’t care who wins the US presidential election. They’re all evil in my book. And picking sides, and getting involved in politics, just predisposes one to irrational and unclear thinking.
However, I think it’s very important to point out that 2020 was the very first election in my lifetime, where many votes were not cast in person, and instead cast via mail-in, which had previously been reserved for overseas veterans and the like.
This, in itself, was a change in the norms of voting. And did benefit the democrats (Trump was leading early in the 2020 election specifically because republicans were more likely to go to the polls, whereas mail-ins took longer to count).
So all of the actions and complaints that republicans are making, should be considered in that context. Namely, you had a huge change in the norms of voting, which benefited the democrats, which (in my opinion) does justify some amount of complaint.
This doesn’t mean that there were a lot of fake votes, or that the election was fraudulent. But large changes in, even implicit, norms around institutions does justify complaint. And I think many democrats do underestimate how easy it is to tamper with mail-in votes (I could have easily disposed of, or even falsely used, my wife’s ballot without her ever knowing). And even worse, mail-in ballots lowers the quality of the median voter, which in our world benefits democrats. A point that I would have thought Huemer would be concerned about.
And, just to be clear. I’m not saying that the reasons for the large change in norms was insidious. COVID panic was still in full swing. An argument could have been made at the time that it was better for everyone to stay home and mail-in their ballots.
Nonetheless, that is still a change in norms. And changes in such norms are themselves dangerous. And I think a lot of Trump’s actions actually do make a lot of sense, once you realize the context under which things were happening.
With respect to Michael’s claims of Trump’s misbehavior in section 2b. Here are the counter-arguments:
1) The Georgia phone does sound a bit like a mafia boss ordering people with plausible deniability. Or, it could have been just Trump telling Raffensperger how many votes they needed to win, in a tight election, with a lot of late-counted mail-in ballots. It’s tough to say.
2) There is a draft executive order to seize voting machines. But the key word there is “draft”. It is unclear, and perhaps just unlikely, that Trump had anything to do with the order. More likely that someone in his administration was upset, and wrote the draft without thinking. Trump never signed it, nor is it clear that he was even aware of its existence.
3) It’s not clear that Trump had anything to do with the fake electors. These totally could have been, and again, likely were, independent actors. After all, if you were from a swing state, and you thought that the election was fraudulent (perhaps you saw several associates cast mail-in ballots for their elderly grandparents and thought this was a common occurrence), and believed in the legitimacy of the US system, wouldn’t correcting this fraud be the right thing to do (I’m not saying it is, just trying to get you into other people’s mental states at the time)?
4) I haven’t seen evidence where Trump pressured Pence to do anything on January 6th. Though, I’m open to evidence. He did make a bunch of claims about the process which are not true, or at least the constitutionality is unclear. But this makes it seem like they met in a back room, and Trump threatened Pence, which is just not true.
5) Trump did not incite a mob to riot. A fact I learned fairly recently: Trump’s supposedly inciting speech was made, several blocks away, while the break-in at the capitol was already happening. Trump must be a wizard, because it’s tough to incite a riot, in a different place and location, while the riot is already happening. Not to mention that, while his statements are bombastic, I don’t personally think they qualify in any sense as inciting-to-riot. And Trump was careful enough to tell people to be peaceful, and tell them to go home when it was clear what was happening.
>I think it’s very important to point out that 2020 was the very first election in my lifetime, where many votes were not cast in person, and instead cast via mail-in, which had previously been reserved for overseas veterans and the like.
Literally not true in any sense of the word. Not even directionally correct.
"States like Oregon and Washington conduct their elections almost entirely by mail (97% of voters in these states mailed in their ballots in 2016)"
"Across the five states where the 2020 presidential election will be conducted entirely by mail, nearly nine-in-ten voters cast ballots using this method in 2016 – a rate that increased 60 percentage points since 1996, as states adopted these measures."
>And I think many democrats do underestimate how easy it is to tamper with mail-in votes (I could have easily disposed of, or even falsely used, my wife’s ballot without her ever knowing).
This is not any different from in person voting. You can even go and vote multiple times in person. The problem is that you will be caught and there are huge incentives for proving voter fraud, something none of the 60+ lawsuits that were filed on behalf of the Trump administration could do. Nothing that multiple recounts or audits caught in the 2020 election. Nothing that any of the Republican poll watchers caught on election night or during any of the recounts.
>The Georgia phone does sound a bit like a mafia boss ordering people with plausible deniability. Or, it could have been just Trump telling Raffensperger how many votes they needed to win, in a tight election, with a lot of late-counted mail-in ballots. It’s tough to say.
First off, the President should not be calling a state Attorney General to pressure them to certify the state's electoral votes in their favor. This is completely inexcusable antidemocratic behavior. Throughout the phone call, the AG and others on the call debunked all of Trump's voter fraud claims - they did not fail to answer a single accusation of voter fraud. He would later tweet out:
"I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ballots under table scam, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!"
Which was a complete lie. The "ballots under the table scam" also refers to a video that Giuliani spliced to make it look like there was a hidden ballot box under the table - this is something he got sued for defamation for and lost - because his defense was that he had a first amendment right to lie about it.
"Donoghue said Trump asked him what he would do if he replaced Rosen with Clark.
"I said, 'Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I'm not working one minute for this guy,'" he replied.
Engel echoed that: "'I've been with you through four attorneys general, including two acting attorneys general, but I couldn't be part of this," he said he told Trump.
Donoghue told Trump he would lose his "entire department" if he moved ahead.
>It’s not clear that Trump had anything to do with the fake electors.
"Chesebro, however, wrote a Dec. 6, 2020 memo arguing that Trump could use the existence of false slates of electors to foment challenges to Congress’ certification of the results on Jan. 6, 2021 — even if the slates weren’t certified by legislators or backed by court rulings."
Chesebro and Eastman (and Giuliani) were Trump's personal lawyers that he brought in to the White House. They were not part of the DOJ. They were brought in by Trump so that he could overturn the results of the 2020 election. There is no reason he would be communicating with them otherwise, since the President has multiple legal routes available to him as part of the Executive Branch,
"Within 24-48-72 hours, you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What's that going to say about you?" Donoghue remembers asking."
>I haven’t seen evidence where Trump pressured Pence to do anything on January 6th.
"In an interview hours after former President Donald Trump was indicted for an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election, one of his attorneys said that all Trump had ultimately asked his vice president to do was “simply pause” the Electoral College count at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
On Fox News the following night, Aug. 2, former Vice President Mike Pence called that claim “completely false.” Pence said Trump and his “gaggle of crackpot lawyers” asked him “to literally reject votes.”
“I think it’s important that the American people know what happened in the days before January 6,” Pence said. “President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes. I had no authority to do that.”"
"Dec. 25, 2020: When Pence called Trump to wish him a Merry Christmas, Trump requested that Pence reject electoral votes on Jan. 6. Pence responded, as he had in previous conversations, “You know I don’t think I have the authority to change the outcome.”"
"Jan. 1, 2021: Trump called Pence and “berated him because he had learned that the Vice President had opposed a lawsuit seeking a judicial decision that, at the certification, the Vice President had the authority to reject or return votes to the states under the Constitution.” Pence told Trump he didn’t think there was any constitutional authority for that. In response, Trump reportedly told Pence, “You’re too honest.”"
Literally mountains more quotes in that source.
>Trump did not incite a mob to riot.
Trump advertised the Jan 6 event repeatedly, said it was to "take back the country" repeatedly, and told his protestors to march to the Capitol.
>And Trump was careful enough to tell people to be peaceful, and tell them to go home when it was clear what was happening.
He sat and watched TV for 3 hours, tweeted out that "Mike Pence failed us," and completely failed to deploy the National Guard to stop the protestors. He is the executive of the military and the only person at that time who could have brought in military support.
These claims are not even hard to debunk, in many cases I just searched your direct words and the first result on google completely contradicted most of what you said.
It claims 69% of voters voted by mail in 2020. That did go down to 50% in 2022, which is still higher than anything previous to 2020.
If that’s correct, then I think my claim is true, both literally and directionally.
> Nothing that any of the Republican poll watchers caught on election night or during any of the recounts.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I did not claim that the 2020 election was fraudulent. Merely that the criticisms of people who claimed that it was fraudulent are based on this perception that 2020 was just like any other election. When, that’s not the case. Context is important.
> First off, the President should not be calling a state Attorney General to pressure them to certify the state's electoral votes in their favor.
I don’t typically like to call out logical fallacies, but this is a good example of begging the question.
The very argument in dispute was whether or not Trump called Raffensperger to pressure him.
And perhaps he did. I don’t know. I don’t think the evidence is that conclusive.
>Which was a complete lie.
Ok.
Sounds like Trump was misled to believe that there was a bunch of voter fraud going on (he is a narcissist after all), and called Raffensperger to sort it out.
Doesn’t seem all that insidious. Indeed, that’s what he should do if such claims were true, and he respected the democratic process.
Honestly, I don’t trust NPR. They claim a lot of things in that article that they just don’t have sufficient evidence for. And I highly suspect many of these quotes are taken out of context.
But even if they weren’t. DOJ officials are going to be butthurt if you threaten to fire them. They could be exaggerating things, or even just making stuff up to make Trump look bad. Simply because he threatened to fire them.
Which, as someone with libertarian proclivities, who would fire large swaths of the federal government if I ever held power, I can totally empathize with Trump on that one.
But, even if everything in that article is literally true. Again, you have to go back to context. Trump thought the election was stolen, and there was a significant change in voting norms, that could make it easier for fraud to happen (again, I’m not claiming that it did). If you were in such a position, and your attorney general was refusing to investigate such claims, shouldn’t you replace him? After all he’s refusing to uphold the integrity of the election.
Again, I’m not saying that such an action is correct. Merely illustrating that context makes things less clear cut than is often presented.
Again, politico is extremely biased, so I do approach these sorts of articles with skepticism.
But it’s actually interesting that you cite this. Because my takeaway from the article is that Chesebro was the one who orchestrated the electors. Not Trump.
>They were brought in by Trump so that he could overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Do you have specific evidence of this claim?
And to be super specific. I am looking for evidence that he specifically brought these people in specifically to overturn the election results.
And not to just help with the legal battles that happen in every election. Because ballots are often difficult to collect, and often these things come down to court rulings (e.g. the 2000 election). So, I’m no expert, but I presume that every election has its elements of legal dispute.
>On Fox News the following night, Aug. 2, former Vice President Mike Pence called that claim “completely false.” Pence said Trump and his “gaggle of crackpot lawyers” asked him “to literally reject votes.”
As I said originally. There is plenty of evidence that Trump was confused about process, and thought that Pence could do things he couldn’t. Apparently, Pence interpreted this as “literally rejecting votes”.
But “pressured” is a specific word, that seems to be overstated in this instance.
>Trump advertised the Jan 6 event repeatedly, said it was to "take back the country" repeatedly, and told his protestors to march to the Capitol.
Yeah, he was conducting a rally. That’s a separate thing from the capitol riot.
After Trump ended his speech, people did march from the speech to the capitol building. But the perimeter of the building had been breeched before Trump had even ended his speech.
And yeah, Trump did tell be to march to the capitol. “Peacefully and patriotically” were the words I believed he used.
I’m not a MAGA guy. Perhaps there is some dog whistle amongst the whole community where “peacefully” actually means “violently”. But I doubt it.
And yeah, his speeches are pretty bombastic. And he uses a lot of harsh rhetoric, like “take back the country”. But that’s pretty par-for-the-course in terms of political rallies.
>He sat and watched TV for 3 hours
During that time, he also tweeted to “be peaceful”.
And after those 3 hours, he gave a speech telling people to go home.
Which are important facts that I don’t think should be left out.
>and completely failed to deploy the National Guard to stop the protestors
Good. They were destroying government property, and making a fool of themselves and the government. Not starting a civil war.
Perhaps more than the one person would have died that day if violence had escalated even more.
>These claims are not even hard to debunk
Look. I don’t like Trump. He is funny. But he’s also a narcissist. His appointments were all over the place. His policies are very hit-and-miss. And yeah, there are legitimate questions about his integrity (just like there are legitimate questions about Joe Biden’s, or basically any politician of that caliber).
But I do recognize a concerted effort to slander someone. To take things out of proportion. To twist facts for political ends.
And it saddens me that so many people have fallen for it. Even people, like Huemer, who I admire in many other contexts. To the point, where he’s outright admitting that he doesn’t care about the policies.
> My understanding is that it’s pretty common place for politicians to hold events after they’ve lost.
Can you provide a list of presidential candidates that have ever done this on the day of the electoral vote count?
Can you provide a list of any losing gubernatorial candidates that have ever done this? (I would look for really close ones, like possibly the election that Stacey Abrams lost in 2018.)
> But “pressured” is a specific word, that seems to be overstated in this instance.
You’re the one who used the word “pressured”. Huemer just said Trump “tried to get” Pence to do it. Pence’s testimony is certainly evidence of that. Maybe you think simply asking (or demanding, as Pence put it) your VP to refuse to accept Congress’s certification isn’t a big deal. Huemer admits that he doesn’t know what would have happened if Pence had acquiesced to Trump’s request. But I think he’s right that it’s well within the realm of possibility that it could have led to the most severe constitutional crisis since the Civil War. In which case even just asking is a very big deal indeed.
All I was trying to say was that saying someone “tried to get” someone else to do something is a very broad category. Trump and Pence’s interaction could have been anything from:
“Hey, can we pause things for a second, there was an unprecedented amount of mail-ins this election, let’s make sure these numbers are accurate”.
To
“You better not count those votes if you know what’s good for you!..”
People presume the conversation was closer to the latter, when it’s not at all clear to me.
LMAO. Here’s what we basically know Trump did between the time he arrived back to the White House after his speech up until he finally told the mob to go home. And all the republicans who tried to get him to call it off unsuccessfully until hours later. Even the nut job MTG was trying to get Trump to call off the mob, unsuccessfully.
1:19 p.m.
Trump arrives back at the White House. During the short drive back from the Ellipse, Trump becomes irate and demands to be driven to the Capitol, but members of his security team refuse to take him there, according to Hutchinson, who testified that she was told about the exchange by Ornato and another member of Trump's security detail.
1:25 p.m.
Trump goes into the private dining room near the Oval Office, where he stays until 4 p.m., according to the committee which cited testimony from White House aides. Witnesses told the committee that Trump spent the afternoon watching Fox News' coverage of his supporters attacking the Capitol…
1:39 p.m.
Trump calls Giuliani, according to phone records obtained by the January 6 committee. It is unclear what they discussed.
Around 2 p.m.
The Capitol goes on lockdown as some of the first rioters breach the building. Back at the White House, the White House Counsel Cipollone tells Meadows that Trump needs to take action to stop the riot, and that "something needs to be done or people are going to die," according to Hutchinson's testimony.
2:03 p.m.
Trump calls Giuliani again, and the call lasts for approximately eight minutes, according to phone records obtained by the January 6 committee. It is unclear what they discussed.
2:13 p.m.
…Trump speaks on the phone with Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, who tells Trump about the frantic evacuation of senators…
Around 2:15 p.m.
At the White House, Cipollone again tells Meadows that Trump should intervene. Meadows responds by saying Trump "doesn't want to do anything" about the riot and that Trump agrees with the rioters who were calling for Pence to be hanged, according to Hutchinson's testimony.
2:24 p.m.
Trump criticizes Pence in a tweet, slamming Pence for refusing to implement his illegal scheme to overturn the election while presiding over the joint session of Congress.
2:26 p.m.
The Secret Service evacuates Pence from his office across from the Senate chamber, and he was eventually whisked away to a loading dock under the Capitol. The January 6 committee has said Pence came within 40 feet of the approaching rioters.
2:28 p.m.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican and pro-Trump conspiracy theorist, tells Meadows via text that he should "tell the President to calm people," according to messages obtained by CNN.
2:30 p.m.
2:32 p.m.
Fox News host Laura Ingraham, who promoted many of Trump's election lies, texts Meadows that "the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home," according to messages obtained by CNN.
2:35 p.m.
Trump's former acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney texts Meadows saying that Trump "needs to stop this, now," and offers to help, according to messages obtained by CNN.
2:38 p.m.
Trump tweets that the rioters should "stay peaceful," but doesn't tell them to leave the Capitol.
…
2:44 p.m.
Pro-Trump rioter Ashli Babbitt is fatally shot by a police officer while trying to break into the Speaker's Lobby, which is adjacent to the House floor, while lawmakers were evacuating. At the same time, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who supported nullifying Biden's victory in his state, texts Meadows that "It's really bad up here on the hill," according to messages obtained by CNN.
…
2:53 p.m.
Donald Trump Jr. texts Meadows, "He's got to condem (sic) this shit. Asap. The captiol (sic) police tweet is not enough," according to messages obtained by CNN. Meadows replies, "I am pushing it hard. I agree."
Sometime before 3 p.m.
Trump speaks on the phone with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who pleads with Trump to call off the mob, but Trump takes the side of the rioters, telling McCarthy that they seem to care more about the election results than he does, according to CNN reporting.
Around 3 p.m.
White House aides draft a statement for Trump to release, which would've condemned the violence and the "illegal" actions of the rioters, according to Hutchinson's testimony. The statement was never released.
3:09 p.m.
Former Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus texts Meadows, "TELL THEM TO GO HOME !!!," according to messages obtained by CNN.
3:13 p.m.
Trump tweets that his supporters at the Capitol should "remain peaceful," but again doesn't tell them to leave the premises. At the same time, Trump's former Health Secretary Tom Price texts Meadows saying, "POTUS should go on air and defuse this," according to messages obtained by CNN.
3:15 p.m.
Ivanka Trump, the President's daughter and senior adviser, calls the rioters "patriots" in a tweet, and tells them that "the violence must stop," but does not say that they should leave the Capitol.
3:31 p.m.
Fox News host Sean Hannity, who promoted many of Trump's election lies, texts Meadows, "Can he make a statement. I saw the tweet. Ask people to peacefully leave the capital," according to messages obtained by CNN. Meadows replies, "on it."
4:03 p.m.
Trump heads to the Rose Garden to film a recorded message. His staff prepared a script for him to read, which said, "no one should be using violence or threats. ... Let's respect our institutions, let's all do better." But Trump goes off-script and improvises most of his remarks, according to a witness, who later testified to the January 6 committee.
4:05 p.m.
Trump Jr. texts Meadows, "We need an oval address. He has to lead now. It's gone too far and gotten out of hand," according to messages obtained by CNN. A few minutes later, Trump Jr. sends another message saying, "Now Biden beating us to the punch."
…
4:17 p.m.
Trump tweets out a video, where he tells the rioters that "you have to go home now," but he also praises them and repeats the lie that fueled the attack itself -- that the 2020 election was stolen.
I just wanted to thank you both for having this conversation. This was the first time I’ve seen the issues laid out fact by fact, dissected by one person and another—it helped me understand the two ways we’re looking at these events.
Everything stems from 2016, when Trump won despite what the establishment desired. Then the machine went into overdrive to undermine Trump’s term, and rig 2020. Jan 6th, etc. was merely a natural, health result of the bill coming due for what the left and establishment have done.
Seeing that the establishment did not learn anything from Jan 6th, I now categorize it as an appetizer for what’s to come.
Well there's the synchronized stopping of the reporting across multiple states followed by statistically impossible jumps for Biden, the multiple instances of observers being tricked or kicked out of the counting rooms followed by the count resuming, in one case the counters literary boarding up the windows so the observers couldn't see what they were doing, the videos counters running the same set of ballots multiple times through the machines, the multiple sworn eyewitness affidavits, the miscellaneous statistical irregularities, etc.
More generally the Democrats constantly moving heaven and earth to try to prevent even basic common sense anti-fraud measures like *making sure the voter is who he says he is*.
What’s a schizophrenic mess are people trying to rationalize how their policies are better than the others. You sir, are crazy. This election has nothing to do with politics or even whether a president shot someone on 5th Ave.
The most obvious answer to this is that if your wife tried to vote, she would have been notified that she'd "already" voted. Her original ballot would be invalidated, and she would have filled out another ballot. I'm not sure how you see yourself tampering with her ballot. If you filled it in first, obviously she would have noticed when she tried to fill it out. If you tried to fill it out after she had, the ballot would be unreadable, and discarded. Depending on where you live, she could actually view her ballot online. Every ballot has a unique number.
So while you could in theory have somehow tampered with her vote, maybe by convincing her not to vote and then secretly filling out her ballot, you must see how small bore and labor intensive this is. Nobody can do this on a large scale.
It's essentially the same as Trump claiming that people vote multiple times by wearing disguises. There is always going to be some implausible reason to disbelieve an totally unsurprising result, that an unpopular president lost.
>I'm not sure how you see yourself tampering with her ballot.
It came in the mail, which I check and she doesn’t. I could have taken it, filled it in, and mailed it without her knowing. Or even easier: just thrown it away.
She definitely wouldn’t have expended the effort to get another ballot, check online, or even notice before it was too late. Likely she wouldn’t have even asked me if I saw it.
There’s no reward for voting (other than vibes), so people aren’t going to spend a lot of effort on this.
That doesn't make sense. If she got a ballot, that means she took the trouble to register at some point, and most likely has voted since then. And there's no "too late." If she realized on Election Day that she hadn't gotten her ballot, she could simply go to her polling station and fill out a provisional ballot, which would have invalidated the one you stole.
And surely you must see that there can be no massive operation where a family member steals someone's mail-in ballot and then hopes they don't notice or fill in a second one. Maybe your wife specifically wouldn't care, but most people who take the trouble to register and vote do.
>that means she took the trouble to register at some point
Expending time and energy at “some point” does not equate to expending time and energy now.
>and most likely has voted since then
Only by the ballots that I have handed to her.
>she could simply go to her polling station and fill out a provisional ballot
Which requires figuring out where that is, drawing up the mental energy to go there, getting in the car, driving there, waiting in line, and then finally filling out the ballot.
In the modern world, that’s not an insignificant opportunity cost.
>And surely you must see that there can be no massive operation where a family member steals someone's mail-in ballot and then hopes they don't notice or fill in a second one.
I never claimed that there was.
Merely that it would have been easy for me.
I will say, though. While personal anecdote is often wrong. It’s also wrong to dismiss it entirely.
>but most people who take the trouble to register and vote do
Doubtful. I’ll let Huemer explain why:
“Why don’t they care? You know the answer: wise voting is a public good, and they know the probability that their vote will make a difference is close to zero.”
Granted, he was talking about why people don’t care about voting for bad rulers, not why they wouldn’t care about voting at all (given sufficiently high opportunity costs). But the same logic applies.
What’s the similar institutions? How do Democrat activists routinely target nursing homes for ballot harvesting? Do they just show up and say give me all the mail in forms that you didn’t give the old folks? Did they forge the signatures , how did they know what the signatures of the voters looked like? Ballots wouldn’t be counted if they didn’t match. They would be questioned and the person whose name was on the ballot would be contacted. Maybe they helped some less than capable people fill out their ballots. Of course Republican activists could have done the same, they just didn’t.
Thousand's of activists at thousands of nursing homes across the nation. Or was it just in the states that decided the election. We’ll go with hundreds of activists and hundreds of nursing home then. What a coordinated effort. Amazing how it’s been kept quiet for the last 4 years. Tell ten people a secret and see how long it takes for one of them to talk about it. Yet hundreds have kept the secret. Not one of them had a change of heart. Not one of them thought “Hey, I could make a ton of money doing interviews, maybe even write a book!” Amazing dedication.
But hey maybe it did happen, kind of funny though in my state they had three recounts ( two by hand) and for good measure audited a large population diverse county. Investigated every voter fraud claim statewide. A Republican controlled state. If there was something to have been found they would have loved to have found it. They didn’t.
I'm really trying to understand. If you're a libertarian and a fan of Huemer, how do you care so much about democracy? Doesn't that flatly contradict Huemer's stated libertarian values?
It's not that democracy is great. It's that our system e much better than the average, so if you blew it up you should expect to end up with something worse
I don't think Trump's method of challenging election results was as heinous as Michael describes. Moreover, to say that he doesn't care about Ukraine is to say that he is indifferent to the prospect of nuclear war. Russia has 6000 nuclear weapons. The u.s. is sending billions to Ukraine to buy weapons that are used to threaten Russia. Ukraine is currently seeking u.s. permission to fire those weapons into Russia. This is madness. We are risking nuclear war by threatening Russia. Biden/Harris have provoked this entire war with talk of inviting Ukraine into NATO. And a peace agreement was on the table that Biden Harris rejected. Even if you think Trump threatened our democracy, increasing risk of nuclear war is a bugger deal.
Furthermore, while I don't like Trump's method of challenging the election result, it wasn't a grave threat to democracy. Our constitution lays out the method Trump employed. He thought the election was a result of fraud. He couldn't get the courts to look at the fraud issue substantively. (The courts threw out his claims based on standing.) If Pence had refused to certify the election, congress could have done what the courts refused to do -- substantively consider the fraud claims. Were the mail-in ballots consistent with state law or the the result of unconstitutional executive orders? Were the mail-in ballots properly cast and counted? Signatures verified? Chain of custody proper? These are legit questions. Trump's Hail Mary was an attempt to vet claims of fraud NOT the end of democracy.
Lastly, if you really care about democracy, you have to protest the lawfare. Those in power have used lawfare to try to bankrupt and imprison their opponent. How can democracy survive if our rulers can use police powers to imprison political opponents? The cases are completely politically motivated and would never be brought against someone not running for president. We have to protest this lawfare, a true threat to democracy. The best way to register that protest is to vote for Trump, which is something this former Never Trumper did not do in 2016 or 2020.
Where we disagree: Trump did not think the election was a result of fraud. He knew that it wasn't. He was using one of his subtle manipulation techniques, known as "lying". He was just trying to steal the election, plain and simple.
His intention was also not that Congress substantively consider the fraud claims. His intention was that Republicans would vote on party lines to install him as President simply because he demanded it. It is extremely naive to think otherwise, on the order of thinking that a Nigerian prince you met over the internet actually wants to give you a million dollars.
Regarding "lawfare", whether you should charge political candidates with crimes depends on whether they committed crimes -- just like with anyone else. Running for public office cannot be a license to get away with any and all crimes. (If a serial killer decides to run for public office, do we then have to let him get away with murdering people?) Voting for Trump is signaling that Presidents can commit any and all crimes that they feel like.
Michael, Thank you for engaging with me on this. I hate disagreeing with the only other vegan anarcho-capitalist I know of. (For some reason, libertarians are big meat eaters.) But I remain unpersuaded by your arguments. First, you did not address my concern that funding a proxy war against a nuclear power is of much greater import than Trump's efforts to challenge an election.
Second, you claim to know what was in Trump's head. Why is it so hard to believe that Trump genuinely believed there was widespread election fraud? Not only was Trump highly motivated to believe there was fraud, but there was lots of evidence of fraud. Have you read the report from the former Wisconsin supreme court justice regarding nursing home ballots and other irregularities in WI? Have you seen the evidence presented to the GA legislature regarding the double counting of ballots in GA? Have you looked at how Cleveland voted vs. Philly or Detroit? Are you aware of the over 900 affidavits of eye-witness evidence of election fraud? Have you considered that GA did not give third parties a chance to look at the absentee ballots and verify signatures as they initially said they would. Did any jury ever get to hear the evidence of fraud? Have you compared the historical rejection rate for absentee ballots with the absentee ballot rejection rates in 2020? Unlike Trump, I have no motive to believe there was fraud, yet even I believe that thousands of absentee ballots were counted that never would have passed muster in prior years. Too many jurisdictions ignored the rules -- maybe due to being inundated by mail-in ballots from the pandemic. You have not made a compelling case for the proposition that Trump was lying. If Trump believed there was fraud, seeking redress in the courts, with state legislatures and even with Pence, is not the end of democracy. Rather, it is fighting for democracy.
Lastly, I am surprised by your straw man argument regarding lawfare. I never said presidents should be able to get away with crimes. Rather, my position is that those in power should not prosecute their opponents unless they would bring the same charges against anyone else. But look at some of the cases brought against Trump: (i) a $450 million penalty in a civil fraud case for having a high opinion of the value of unique real estate when getting a loan from Deutsche Bank, a sophisticated lender that formed its own opinion on the value of the real estate, (ii) a criminal case for characterizing hush money as legal fees on his PRIVATE company's books, and (iii) a criminal case for possessing "classified" documents that he had the power to declassify. Who else gets prosecuted on such BS charges? Our rulers are using police powers to bankrupt and imprison their opponent. We cannot let that stand. If we do, our democracy is truly in jeopardy.
The fact is Trump declared he had won the election before the votes were even counted. How could be know this? Did he have surveillance cameras in every precinct in swing states? I have seen no claims (much less evidence) that this was the case.
He was the president of the United States and had a professionally run campaign that did their own polling as well as pay attention to public polls. Even accounting for the "Trump effect" as seen in 2016, Biden still had sufficient margin to win. This would be manifest in the campaign polling. Trump had the information showing he was going to lose before the election even happened, which is why he did what he did.
That Trump lies about stuff he has no reason to lie about (like crowd size in 2017 inauguration and pet-eating in Ohio) the burden of proof falls on the campaign to show empirical proof of fraud at a level that would affect the outcome. It is not the job of those like Huemer, who see that Trump is obviously lying to answer your protestations. It is the job of those arguing for fraud to make their case in court.
Sixty court appeals were made to try to do this and 59 of then were rejected. They never had a case. Rather they threw up lots of chaff in order to persuade those in their tribe to accept the word of the chief, as you have done. Huemer simply has not fallen for it.
I wish someone could respond to my main point: funding a proxy war against a nuclear power is of much greater import than Trump's efforts to challenge an election. I suspect it is ignored because it is irrefutably and inconveniently true.
You seem to be arguing that a nuclear power should have carte blanche do what it wants with non-nuclear powers without any interference from us. This seems like an invitation for expansionary powers to expand.
It's not like you cannot have proxy wars against other nuclear powers. Back in the 1980's the US funded a proxy war against a nuclear power in Afghanistan. In the 1960's and 1980's the USSR funded a proxy war against a nuclear power in Vietnam.
So why do you think the US should roll over and let Russia, China, North Korea or Iran (once they get the bomb) to walk all over us?
Let's end the bloodshed and lower risk of nuclear war by not threatening to move NATO so close to Moscow. That was Putin's red line. No good was done by crossing it.
> It is extremely naive to think otherwise, on the order of thinking that a Nigerian prince you met over the internet actually wants to give you a million dollars.
What's naive is to believe that the 2020 election was "free and fair" despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Or do you have an innocent explanation for the synchronized stopping of the reporting across multiple states followed by statistically impossible jumps for Biden, the multiple instances of observers being tricked or kicked out of the counting rooms followed by the count resuming, in one case the counters literary boarding up the windows so the observers couldn't see what they were doing, the videos counters running the same set of ballots multiple times through the machines, the multiple sworn eyewitness affidavits, the miscellaneous statistical irregularities, etc?
More generally if they're not engaging in election fraud, why are Democrats constantly moving heaven and earth to try to prevent even basic common sense anti-fraud measures like *making sure the voter is who he says he is*?
Look I realize you want to preserve democracy, but making it so "democracy" comes to mean apologism for election fraud is not the way to do it.
> observers being tricked or kicked out of the counting rooms followed by the count resuming
This was the first claim of yours I did a search on, and this came up. Is it fair to assume all of the other things you mention are also not evidenced? Or is this article wrong somehow?
Thanks for laying out your thought process. I am trying to understand the rationale behind the anti-Trump sentiment.
January 6th is the final step by which a President is officially elected. So the question is, is this a check-and-balance step or a rubber stamp step of what is received from the states? I view it as a check-and-balance - humans are not angels, so extra reviews are needed to reduce the risk of nefarious political activists tainting the process. There are multiple examples that support a check-and-balance position. We have seen many recordings of Democrats raising issues on other January 6th sessions under the Bush and Trump election cycles. Even back to the 1960 election cycle, Hawaii submitted two slates of electors (the second slate called an alternate slate, not fake electors.)
When valid objections are met, the House and Senate assemble to evaluate the claims. If valid the alternate slate of electors are selected, so that's why it's important to send two slates of electors.
The U.S. Constitution delegates the powers to select electors to the state legislatures. There were multiple states where Governors, State Secretaries of State, other election officials, did not follow this selection process - basically breaking the chain of custody through drop boxes, mail-in voting, thresholds for signature verifications, etc. Who is supposed to adjudicate these issues? Answer: Congress during the January 6th certification process.
In addition, during the 2020 campaign, President Trump would have huge rallies, while Vice President Biden's were sparse. The final results of the 2020 election were in sharp contrast to what everyone saw at the rallies.
Something didn't make sense, and President Trump wanted the House and Senate to take a look. There may have been better ways to express this concern, but it doesn't negate an independent review (i.e., check-and-balance) of the electoral count.
In addition, there was no history of violence at Trump campaign rallies. But there is a history of government informants infiltrating groups and trying to entrap them to commit crimes, e.g., Governor Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot. Evidence is still filtering in, but it feels like something amiss was going on during January 6, 2021.
So, getting back the concerns you raise under your "Conduct I care about" analysis, is your view that Congress should treat January 6th as a rubber stamp?
> Even back to the 1960 election cycle, Hawaii submitted two slates of electors (the second slate called an alternate slate, not fake electors.)
Hawaii submitted two slates of electors that were certified by their state legislatures because the election was called within 150 votes and they feared that they wouldn't be able to complete a recount by Jan 6. None of the alternate slates that were submitted on behalf of Trump were approved by the states - that's why the people who falsified the documents are all being charged and sentenced for perjury.
>When valid objections are met, the House and Senate assemble to evaluate the claims. If valid the alternate slate of electors are selected, so that's why it's important to send two slates of electors.
This is not true. There is no established precedent for what to do in the case of alternate electors. From the Hawaii fiasco - "During the congressional joint session to tabulate electoral votes on January 6, 1961, Nixon (who presided over the session in his capacity as President of the Senate), presented both the Republican and Democratic electoral certificates. To head off the possibility of a floor objection by Democrats such as Representative Daniel Inouye, Nixon then requested and received unanimous consent from the joint session for the Democratic certificate to be counted and the Republican certificate to be set aside, though he specified that this was being done "without the intent of establishing a precedent"."
>The U.S. Constitution delegates the powers to select electors to the state legislatures. There were multiple states where Governors, State Secretaries of State, other election officials, did not follow this selection process - basically breaking the chain of custody through drop boxes, mail-in voting, thresholds for signature verifications, etc. Who is supposed to adjudicate these issues? Answer: Congress during the January 6th certification process.
The first part of your comment is completely untrue. The only electoral vote irregularities in 2020 were the ones that Trump falsified. The second part of your comment is also completely untrue. The Jan 6 certification process is not the right time to "adjudicate issues" - that's what the courts are for. Federal representatives don't get to decide to throw out whichever state electoral votes they want.
>In addition, during the 2020 campaign, President Trump would have huge rallies, while Vice President Biden's were sparse. The final results of the 2020 election were in sharp contrast to what everyone saw at the rallies.
Statements like these solidify what a schizophrenic mess the Republican party has become. The candidate that did all their rallies virtually had smaller in person audiences than the one that tried his hardest to skirt pandemic regulations? And this is supposed to constitute prima facie evidence that there were election irregularities? Do you also think it's weird that more mail-in ballots were for Biden than for Trump, even though Trump explicitly told his voters to vote in person and not use mail in ballots? Just completely living in lala land.
>But there is a history of government informants infiltrating groups and trying to entrap them to commit crimes
You understand that "A federal agent tricked me" is not a valid defense for committing a violent crime in court, or morally, correct?
> Evidence is still filtering in, but it feels like something amiss was going on during January 6, 2021.
>is your view that Congress should treat January 6th as a rubber stamp?
The Electoral Count Act is largely ceremonial. There isn't ambiguity about this. Congress isn't where legal disputes get settled. It's only through Trump's terrible legal advice that has resulted in his lawyers like Eastman, Giuliani, and Powell getting disbarred that we had such a chaotic Jan 6 certification ceremony.
The Electoral Count Act is not largely ceremonial. It is a certification process that serves as a check on the results received from the states. One member of the Senate and one member of the House need to lodge an objection to automatically trigger votes in both chambers on whether to overturn or discard a state’s presidential election results. It is a political process, not a judicial process. The steps President Trump took was to achieve this end. One may not approve of the means President Trump took, but it wasn’t illegal.
I’m trying to imagine you calmly making this same point if Trump wins in November and Kamala interrupts the certification with a mob of Antifa at her side. I am, surprisingly, coming up short.
If Trump were to engage in massive election fraud on the level of what the Democrats did in 2020, it would be fine for Kamala to stage an "insurrection".
If Trump were confident he acted legally, wouldn’t you expect him to want the election interference case to go ahead without delay so that he can clear his name? Instead, he’s taken every opportunity to delay it
I suppose if you believe we are already in a fascist totalitarian state with no guard rails, then it is reasonable to say that therefore it isn't important if any of the electoral laws get followed, because you think law is already irrelevant.
Well, as demonstrated in 2020, the Democrats have no interest in actually following election law, when they haven't outright perverted it in order to make cheating easier, and the system will let them get away with it.
I would find this argument a lot more persuasive if it were consistently applied, but it never is, and that reveals something: it reveals that those opposed to Trump who make this argument are actively downplaying the actions their preferred side has taken to undermine democracy. Yes, I know you are a Libertarian Mike, but it's been pretty clear which side is your preferred one for a while now. If you can't admit that respect for democratic norms has rapidly deteriorated on both sides since at least 2016, then you can't expect me to take you seriously when you try to sell me (even part of) a solution.
For those who are unaware or need a refresher, in 2016 there were nationwide "Not My President" protests, literally denying the result of the election. The 2016 Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, has repeatedly said that Trump stole that election (and many Democrats repeated this sentiment, e.g. Hakeem Jeffries), and is currently warning people not to let Trump steal the 2024 election. In a 2018 YouGov poll, 66% of Democrats polled responded that it was "Definitely true" or "Somewhat true" that "Russia tampered with vote tallies to get Donald Trump elected." Letitia James, the Attorney General for New York, won her election in 2018 in part by claiming that Donald Trump was an "illegitimate president" and promising to use the courts to go after him. Since then, we've seen many different institutions destroy their own bipartisan trustworthiness by politically targeting Trump, the most notable examples here being mainstream media (as very well-illustrated by the recent debates) and our criminal justice system (as illustrated by some of the cases brought against Trump, especially those brought against him in New York, like the hush money case or the real estate fraud case). Some of the cases against Trump deserved to be done well (e.g. the one regarding the phone call to Georgia) but seem to me to have been mishandled by obviously-partisan actors (in that case, Fani Willis).
You may have noticed that most of the problems among Democrats began in 2016-2018, *prior to* January 6th, 2021. As a result, it should be obvious that January 6th is *not* the cause of these anti-democratic behaviors on the part of Democrats (although Trump said some concerning stuff about elections even back in 2016). Actually, Democrats improved their support for democratic norms significantly for over a year from what I could tell after January 6th, since it became politically convenient to juxtapose themselves with the autocratic actions Trump took surrounding that day. I wish that had continued, and that (for example) Biden had condemned attempts by his fellow left-wing partisans to use the courts to target Trump (compare Biden's public response to those cases to, say, his public response to the Supreme Court outlawing affirmative action) and that Kamala Harris would condemn the obviously-partisan media which breaks its own debate rules in an underhanded attempt to support her while peddling themselves as impartial fact-checkers. Alas, since at least late 2022, this has not been the direction the Democratic party has gone. It has instead regressed to the same sort of anti-democratic fervor it had from 2016-2018. Much of the Democratic establishment has gone so far as to blame the heated political environment which has led to attempts to assassinate Trump solely on Trump himself, never looking in the mirror to see whether they, too, are part of the problem. Every reasonable person should expect at this point that, regardless of who wins, the other side will spin the narrative as if the election were stolen, and now a lot of us can't even trust the media or the courts to help them adjudicate the issue.
So, yes, you have the option of two bus drivers. One bus driver tried and failed to drive off the cliff multiple times from 2016-2018, before seeming regaining sanity for a short while, but now seems to have returned to trying to drive off the cliff. They are driving around to help protect abortion rights, get universal healthcare, further regulations on guns, etc. The second bus driver has been trying to drive off the cliff since January 2021. They are driving around helping with more pro-life causes, more pro-gun causes, etc. Which driver do you choose? I honestly don't see how you can make a reasonable choice without evaluating the particular causes they support in addition to evaluating their various attempts to drive off the cliff. If one of the bus-drivers had no history of trying to drive the bus over the edge and/or wasn't currently trying to do so, then it would be pretty clear which you should choose. But that's not the actual choice before us, and, again, when you pretend that it is that simple you are actually excusing your own preferred side of the same sort of behavior that you claim is unforgiveable on the part of the other side.
I don't know how to lower the temperature, reduce polarization, and make our institutions trustworthy again. But I do know that this one-sided rhetoric (which is false precisely because it is one-sided, most of what you say about Trump is true here, and I wish the Republicans had gone in a different direction since at least 2021, too) is actively making things worse (by raising the temperature even further and, again, leading straightforwardly to things like assassination attempts). I think Jonathan Haidt might have some ideas for reducing polarization and getting us back on track, but I'm not sure that the political parties even want that anymore (see, again, the shift from 2021 Democrats to 2024 Democrats). The problem keeps getting worse on both sides over time, which should make it a problem for everyone no matter what side you are on...at least if we aren't willing to ignore the problem on our own preferred side.
Which side is clearly my preferred side? I ask because the people on the left certainly don't think I'm on their side. Among other things, I don't think they'd consider my most recent book to be consistent with their side.
I also would have voted for *any* Republican other than Trump over Harris. If the Republicans had nominated DeSantis, I would be voting DeSantis. If they nominated Haley, I would be voting Haley. I would even have voted for Doug Burghum, whoever the hell he is. But no, the Republicans had to pick the one person that I can't support, and dare me to vote Democrat.
It's pretty clear that your preferred side is the one Trump isn't on. (Are you denying that you are on Harris' side this election, and that you were on Biden's side prior?) It's also the side you are downplaying the anti-democratic actions of. You wouldn't be the first person to end up excusing Democrats from bad stuff they've actually done because you were alienated by Trump.
I agree that Trump is the worst candidate Republicans could have chosen, but that doesn't stop me from acknowledging how both sides have degraded democratic norms in egregious ways. You can't expect the country to improve at all on this front if we aren't willing to acknowledge that the root problem (namely, polarization) is corrupting both sides.
As polarization increases, people become more biased in favor of their side and more biased against the opposing side. As a result, more people are willing to endorse and vote for the candidate on their side even when their candidate is a bad actor. When they perceive institutions as belonging to the other side, they are more likely to vilify those institutions and believe that they are under the control of bad actors, even when those institutions are acting normally. Obviously, this results in people on both sides being more and more willing to endorse and vote for bad actors who attack the institutions. As partisanship continues to increase on both sides, we should expect this problem to get worse on both sides. Democracy cannot stand this in the long run: democracy crucially depends on the people trusting institutions enough to hold the people's power and to check the power of others. This is the primary problem we are facing today.
Normally I would hope that, upon being made to explicitly acknowledge Democrat's track-record of undermining democratic norms, you would agree that (1) the record is very bad, in a similar way but perhaps not to the same degree as Trump's record (perhaps even so bad that, if Republicans had a good track-record instead of having Trump, you would be calling out Democrats as the threat to democracy instead) and (2) that since both sides have quite bad track-records on this front, you need to investigate and reason carefully both about the relative badness of their anti-democratic tendencies *and* the relative goodness of their political positions to figure out whether one option is truly better than another.
But (2) is just what your post denies, so all I can do is assume that you think something to the effect that Democrats' anti-democratic tendencies are so much milder than Trump's that no set of policy positions could ever make up the difference. Yet, you don't even *acknowledge* the bad actions of Democrats in the article (or in your response to me), let alone provide any argument to this effect. Instead, you engage in the sort of one-sided rhetoric which has demonstrably eroded democratic norms (by encouraging people to assassinate Trump), making the problem worse, not better.
Wallet, I can't respond to every claim that someone makes in the comments. It is not appropriate to expect a response to every claim you made in a rather long comment. If I didn't respond to something you said, I probably didn't agree with you, but in any case, you should assume I don't want to discuss it with you further.
My complaint about Trump was not that he said that Biden's victory was illegitimate in some sense. My complaint was that he made a serious effort to *actually not leave office* after losing the election. Hilary Clinton did not do anything like that. She did not try to actually assume power in 2017. So I find the "whatabout" comparisons between Clinton and Trump completely off base and unreasonable.
Hi Mike, thanks for the responses, though I hope you can understand some of my frustration. You don't have to respond to this one if you feel like we are just going to talk past each other.
I expected some response regarding the anti-democratic tendencies because I took that to be my main point, and I appreciate getting something in your reply here. Similarly, I took your main point to be *not* that Trump did something no Democrat had done to threaten democratic norms (I agree that he did), or even that it was the worst thing anyone had done to threaten democratic norms (I'll concede that, though I think using the courts to target political opponents is similarly really bad). I took your main point to be:
"Therefore, we should not accept a serious risk of disrupting our system for the sake of getting a few moderately better policies."
In other words, I took the main threat not to be that specific action of Trump's, but the threat of regressing back to a historically normal (relatively terrible) society via undermining our democratic system. I took it that if Trump did something other than try to assume power which was still a serious threat to democracy (say, he left the office to Vance in 2028 without letting anyone vote on the matter, or he had the army kill each opposing Democratic candidate in 2028), you would strongly oppose that as well.
If so, then I don't get why you wouldn't similarly consider convincing voters that the election was literally stolen by Russia (they literally tampered with the vote tallies) a serious threat in a similar vein, or trying to impeach the duly-elected president on the basis of that hoax a serious threat (I take it that someone can be undemocratic by preventing the candidate who won the election from taking office), or politically persecuting your opponent with obviously-partisan court cases run like those in New York. Don't all these actions drastically increase the risk of our democratic system collapsing as people lose trust in that system (and so are no longer willing to trust the institutions necessary for democracy)? You can think that these are not as bad as what Trump did, but aren't they all still seriously bad, and don't we need to take that into consideration when voting?
If Trump and the Republican party had decided to target Biden in 2020 with some of court cases which seemed at face value to be ridiculous, but did so in red states where the jury members were likely to hate Biden, and as a result Trump won a narrow election in part because Biden had less funding available after the court cases...it's not obvious why it would be wrong to say that "Trump won the election because he illegitimately persecuted Biden (i.e. Biden would have won absent that persecution), so Trump did not legitimately win the election." This would constitute a serious threat to our democratic system, wouldn't it? Would you remain silent about it, if this had happened in 2020 instead? I would hope not.
Yet, to me, this seems increasingly to be the situation we are in with Harris vs Trump right now...if Harris wins a narrow victory due to her large funding advantage (which is large in part because Trump has had to spend so much on defending himself in court, in some cases over things he should not have been tried for but was tried for because of the political prejudices of officials), it might very well turn out that "Harris won the election because Democrats illegitimately persecuted Trump" and so it will be hard to convince Republicans not to conclude (and, depending on the details, it might be hard to see why it would be mistaken to conclude) "Harris did not legitimately win the election." I consider this to be a serious threat to democracy, similar to the threat posed by Trump's actual 2020 election scheme, even if you want to say that the 2020 scheme was worse.
To rephrase your concern about Trump's 2020 election scheme: At that point, if you are a Republican, what’s your move? Go along with it and welcome Harris? The system cannot be “the other side gets to illegitimately persecute their opponent in order to win." If we’re not going to have legitimate elections, free from political persecution, all bets are off, and we’re thrown into the situation of third-world dictatorships. If you (playing the Republicans) don’t want to completely give up everything, you have to fight this, and physical violence is no longer out of the question. (Why would it be, if the law can no longer be trusted to fairly adjudicate these issues?) It’s not out of the question that you have to assassinate Harris. What happens in the rest of the country? Riots across America, pro- and anti-Trump forces fighting in the streets? I would hope not, but alas the likelihood is increasing.
To be clear, I think there is a very good chance of "Riots across America" regardless of who wins. Democrats prepared narratives prior to 2020's result to the effect that Trump was going to steal the election (they said he would do it by messing with mail-in ballots), and if they lose in 2024 the narrative will be that Trump was an illegitimate candidate. Trump would assuredly claim that the current election was rigged even if there is no reason to think it was (like he did in 2020). Both sides are increasingly prone to justifying political violence (as shown in polls), which again is very predictable given the increase in polarization.
Trump is one of the worst parts of a serious problem that rests on both sides, and that problem (which is, at root, political polarization) is getting worse over time. I remember a time (around 2017) when reasonable people from all across the aisle (most of my friends then, as now, were left-wing) could admit that Democrats had a problem recognizing the results of the 2016 election. Yet, it is increasingly hard post-2021 to get anyone (who isn't a Trumper, themselves a large part of the problem) to admit that Democrats still have an awful track-record in this regard, and we need to take serious aims to address the root cause of the issue (polarization) while *also* doing our best to keep the active threats (from both sides) to democracy out of office, all while keeping in mind the very-real consequences of bad policy. If we can't do that, the situation will just get worse and worse. The problem is really difficult, but it feels like almost nobody is taking it seriously. I don't have a solution, but even if I did, it feels like nobody would be willing to implement it in this environment because it wouldn't be one-sided enough for them.
If I can't even get you, Mike, (by all accounts a very intelligent, reasonable fellow who is a pretty-staunch Libertarian and shouldn't really have a strong bias one way or the other) to recognize that the house is burning on both ends and to stop throwing gasoline on one end, how am I or anyone else supposed to convince the American people to recognize the threats (plural) and to stop burning the other side of the house down? Again, I don't know what the ultimate solution is at this point, the problem is difficult, but I know that the one-sided rhetoric isn't helping (it is, again, actively raising the temperature and leading to assassination attempts).
I don’t think she’s ever said Trump literally stole the election, but on multiple occasions she’s insinuated he only won due to Russian interference, called him illegitimate, etc.
It’s Hillary Clinton we’re talking about here, so it takes the form of self-serving bullshit with enough wiggle room for barely-plausible deniability in the unlikely event she ever gets called on it.
"...This is the first time any U.S. President has done anything remotely like this."You have to be uniformed about US history to make such a claim. True, in previous cases they used operatives (Mayor Daley, Cook county, Illn. 1960 election). The contested election of 1876. Some would include the 1800 and 1824 elections. Your main point still stands, but I think you are a bit off on the historical claim.
Prof. Huemer - I will consider restoring my comments on this post if you do your duty to administer respectful discourse here. This concerns not your comments, but lack of response toward the disrespectful conduct of others. I suggest the following rules of conduct: “I am here to learn. I respect myself and my rights. I respect others and their rights.” If you’re vigilant in upholding this version of the Golden Rule as an administrator I can participate in this discussion. Otherwise I’ll take my comments and money elsewhere.
This is an empirical question that would seem to be resolved by data answering: “What percentage of voters voted for Trump reluctantly or grudgingly? Versus voted for him with mild enthusiasm? Versus voted for him with the utmost passion and highest esteem?
If we had this data would it help resolve a fundamental question underlying your post: what is the likelihood that Trump could damage the Republic by bringing my fears and concerns to fruition?
Potential to damage the Republic is proportional to one’s popularity and support. A one man army can only do so much damage. Mass shooters for example. On the other hand, a popular figure like Hitler can wreak havoc on a democracy like Germany. Can you think of exceptions?
I think one needs to be popular enough to win an election, and to not get impeached and convicted, in order to wreck a country, but Trump has cleared those bars in the past and has a 50/50 chance of clearing them again. The president has the power to wreck the country whether they're popular or not.
What do you mean don't support a coup? If Trump wins and is successful at making America a one-party state like Mexico was in the 20th century, what will you do about it? I predict nothing.
As for "others" stopping him, if they couldn't stop him this fall why do you think they can stop him later after he has had four years to reduce their power? They (those that haven't left the country) will do nothing but lie low. I'm 65 and y wife is 70. In the worst-case scenario, y wife and I are old. We are both white and can pass as Republicans so I don't think they will be coming after folks who look like us, at least during the time we have left.
It is a shame it has come to this, and I am still hopeful that either Trump loses or is too inept to proceed as he would be able to. But it is what it is.
Prof. Huemer - I will consider restoring my comments on this post if you do your duty to administer respectful discourse here. This concerns not your comments, but lack of response toward the disrespectful conduct of others. I suggest the following rules of conduct: “I am here to learn. I respect myself and my rights. I respect others and their rights.” If you’re vigilant in upholding this version of the Golden Rule as an administrator I can participate in this discussion. Otherwise I’ll take my comments and money elsewhere.
> First consider the Supreme Court nominations. Such nominations endure for decades.
Kamala has been an active politician in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Trump had no prior experience in politics before becoming President. He is completely uncalibrated and has no ability to choose good fits for governmental roles - that's why nearly all his Attorney Generals quit and said he was the worst person they ever worked with, why many of his family members say to vote against him, and why the people who worked closest with him are being indicted, charged, or imprisoned for illegal actions they took on his behalf.
> Second consider that the economy might be much better under Trump, and this might be the difference in valuable start-ups succeeding or failing.
Trump wants to install 10% tariffs for all foreign imports. This will not be a good thing for the economy. He was also completely ineffective at coordinating the Republican party to pass legislation he wanted - where's the border wall at now - vs the Biden/Kamala administration that passed the CHIPs act and infrastructure bill by garnering bipartisan support to invest in the American economy. Your what ifs are undermined by Trump's inability to pass anything in his first term, even when he had control of both houses of Congress.
> People will respond to Trump’s actions. They will resist his efforts to change the election outcome. Those efforts of resistance strengthen the system. They make it more anti-fragile. They set a precedent for future generations in how to respond to such actions. These are benefits.
Were China and Russia's governments strengthened and became more antifragile when Putin or Xi Jinping continued consolidating power? What a terrible idea. Should the military strike your house so you can maybe get better at defending it?
>Your first bullet point stating that Trump tried to find the votes sounds a bit like me trying to find mistakes in my chemistry teacher’s grading notebook. Teachers make mistakes in the grading process. By finding those mistakes one might change their class grade. Not sure how applicable this analogy is in this instance but it came to mind as I was reading your post. It’s okay to check for mistakes in the voting process. Finding the votes is like finding points I deserved. An 88% might be turned into a 90%, which might mean valedictorian instead of a lower class rank, which might make the difference in attending a particular college. Unlikely but could happen.
Huemer undersold what Trump said in that call. You should listen to it yourself.
In it he makes multiple false accusations of voter fraud that are completely debunked by the people on the call. Trump and his lawyers on the call also lie and say that other states have recalled their elections and decided to certify in his favor after being confronted with voting fraud claims - not a single state in 2020 did such a thing. Trump after this call would later go on to tweet:
"I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ballots under table scam, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!"
Again, this is malicious lying. I'm not sure why you're doing this vibes based political analysis when you could just enter into google or chatgpt "Was Trump calling a state Attorney General and pressuring them kind of like when I try to correct a chemistry teacher's grading?" and be inundated with multiple primary and secondary sources detailing his corruption.
I disagree with what is at stake. I think Trump, rightfully or not, took a legal positivist approach that didn't turn out. Whether or not he was correct is another issue. Your case is dramatic and overblown.
What we see on the left, alternatively, is the importation of voters to increase apportionment in blue states (even the non-voters will increase apportionment). Taking the dramatic interpretation of Jan 6 as presented here (one that includes the 'justification' of violence against a political candidate) gives wind to the sails of people like Hillary Clinton to push censorship programs, packing of the Supreme Court, insecure elections, etc etc.
As someone commented below, the change in methods of voting has had a material impact on election results and the possibility of cheating. There is a real chance the elections are now rigged. Furthermore, California is now paving the way to make ID's at polling places illegal.
I think most people have a visceral like or dislike of Trump and build their dramatica around that reaction.
Professor Huemer, you wrote a whole book in which you argued convincingly that democracy is bad and should be abolished. If we are going to abolish democracy in the future, at some point we will have to threaten the norms of democracy. If we take a long-term view, couldn't it be the case that eroding the norms of democracy now might be beneficial even if it causes some short-term chaos?
Also, it is true that America has been much better than the typical human society throughout history, but why should we attribute its success to its democratic government? There are plenty of other factors that may have contributed to America's unique success. And of course it is unfair to compare America to societies of the past, which were terrible mostly because they were extremely poor due to being pre-industrial. If we look at the best current societies, they are democratic, but there are also other commonalities; it isn't clear that democracy is the causal factor. So overall, I think the worry that America will regress to the "normal state for human societies" if its democracy is destroyed is a bit exaggerated.
In the book, I described how the transition to anarcho-capitalism might come about. It would not come about by someone simply blowing up our institutions. Rather, we need to gradually build the alternative institutions while the government is shrinking, essentially outsourcing more and more of the government's work to private businesses.
Regarding democracy, it is well established in general that democracies do better than dictatorships. We have solid theoretical reasons for this, and many examples. See my post, https://fakenous.substack.com/p/i-cant-believe-this-is-the-best-we-can-do-but-democracy. That post spends the most time talking about the flaws of democracy. But the flaw of undemocratic government is much worse -- that it tends to lead to immediate, obvious, widespread disasters.
I feel as though a similar argument could be used against any action taken to move the government in a more libertarian direction. E.g. if someone proposes a bill to privatize social security, you could just say “well, I advocate for gradual transition, not blowing up the institution!”
And perhaps that is a valid response, but the goalposts are very moveable.
I think the more constructive argument is to say that Trump’s actions aren’t actually moving the government in a more libertarian direction.
It’s unclear to me if that’s true, though. Mail-in ballots increase the number of lower-quality voters. Lower-quality voters are less libertarian. So doing anything to undermine the legitimacy of these votes very well could shift policy in a more libertarian direction.
Prof. Huemer - I will consider restoring my comments on this post if you do your duty to administer respectful discourse here. This concerns not your comments, but lack of response toward the disrespectful conduct of others. I suggest the following rules of conduct: “I am here to learn. I respect myself and my rights. I respect others and their rights.” If you’re vigilant in upholding this version of the Golden Rule as an administrator I can participate in this discussion. Otherwise I’ll take my comments and money elsewhere.
I don't see how all that is supposed to be comforting. It seems like you just described an extremely bad and childish person. Why would that be comforting?
Perhaps it's supposed to be comforting because Trump didn't do it *for the purpose* of destroying America. He's not like a Bolshevik, ideologically committed to bringing down the system. True. But that leaves the fact that he did something extremely dangerous.
Suppose the bus driver didn't ram into the guard rail *for the purpose* of killing everyone on the bus. Rather, he was just upset because he had a fight with his wife that morning, and he was blowing off steam by smashing into the railing. He was merely *indifferent* to whether the bus went off the cliff, not specifically trying to make it go off. I guess that's marginally less awful, but still completely unacceptable.
Maybe I'm supposed to be comforted because the sequence of events that led Trump to that dangerous action was very specific and unlikely to be repeated. True. But the character traits that you described are still there, and could pose a threat in a variety of situations.
Fantastic response. I agree. Let’s ponder what might be going on here.
Trump is doing “very dirty work” that almost no one is cut out to do. Notice that no other Republicans came close to beating him. Yet we live in a country full of talented people. Couldn’t someone do better than Trump? No one came close however.
Trump is a reflection of the situation we’re in. A reflection of the character of the red tribe and a response to the blue. A reflection of their education and of the situation. A reflection of perverse incentives and their consequences. I’m thinking mainly about the incentives in higher education, but also K-12 and all of our other learning institutions, including religious.
It’s not a coincidence that gender ideology has emerged at the same time as Trump. These are both signs of weakness. Conformity and dogma plague us.
We should be talking about Trump just as you do in your post, but what to do about him? He is a symptom of the problem though right? So the cure isn’t so much with him or the election.
Look over at the blue side. Harris is an incredibly weak candidate too. Someone willing to do the dirty work though. She is a reflection of the character of the blue tribe and response to the red.
Both Trump and Harris reflect the state of learning in our country. What are we doing in our schools and churches and homes that have produced these weak candidates?
These candidates aren’t moral exemplars, but rather attack dogs.
I’m actually not too worried about the situation, but other people should be upset and worried because things might go very poorly for them no matter who wins the election.
The debate between Trump and Harris was vicious and truly sad. Again that debate was a symptom of the problem. A reflection of the underlying problems.
Yet Harris did surprisingly well. I’m actually grateful that she did so well. And I’m grateful that the race is close to 50/50. This is a sign that “things” are working as best they can. There is competition going on here.
If one side was way out in front of the other I would be more worried.
And remember we can deal with new problems as they emerge. We have our creativity, incredible resources to draw on and most of us are in “safe places.”
My suggestion is to guide people to be prepared for crises that might emerge. For example…”If you’re not in a safe place in your life get to one. Geographically, financially, emotionally, behaviorally, etc. The symptoms that we’re seeing tell us to pay attention and to work to get to safe places in all aspects of our lives. Don’t have any vulnerabilities right now. Get all your ducks in order. Be ready for something bad to happen, on par with Covid lockdowns.”
Remember Robert Higgs: “Another crisis will emerge.” Be ready for it.
Has it not occurred to you that Trump has been indicted and faces possible jail time? Is it so hard to believe that he doesn't want to go to jail? If he fails to gain the presidency this could happen. Even if he wins the election he will be out of power in 2029 and still young enough to go to jail (his father lived to 94). His best bet is to win the election and then use the power of the presidency to ensure that the guy who replaces him is loyal, thus keeping him out of jail.
Enacting structures that produce a one-party state is Trump's best strategy to stay out of jail. Now maybe he can't, but they are still some smart, ambitious Republicans who can try to make that happen.
It’s really incredible to see how hard people work to treat the most obviously bad faith person of our times as though he were acting in good faith. And kidding themselves that a man who has repeatedly fucked over his own people out of self-interest won’t do so again, at larger scale.
So you're saying the Democrats have become so corrupt that the only way to restore something resembling a functioning judiciary is to change the system to permanently remove them from power.
If that is in fact the case, then they should be permanently removed from power. Heck, maybe then some other party like the Libertarians, or a new Reform party can become the official opposition.
No I am saying that Trump will be prosecuted unless he or a Republican is in power. That is all. YOU changed the subject to a discussion about corruption.
The Vance Walz debate made clear that Free Speech has a carve out for "hate speech" and "misinformation" that is scandalous. No, there's no carveout. Team Harris Walz appears to be on board with Infohazard Containment, a dangerous trend for any one cares about speech and democracy. I mean, speech is the gateway to EVERYTHING ELSE.
IOW, there's much more to consider in this election than Trump, the man.
(You might say "well, Trump would gladly censor!" Maybe. But recent years clearly show an ideological - not just opportunist or grifty - Big Tech-approved pivot on attitudes toward expression, and that simply isn't anywhere near as present on the GOP side.)
I'm not sure why you're writing fan fiction speculating about Trump's psychology when we have publicly available quotes from the people that worked in his administration. The voter fraud claims were debunked by his own DOJ. His Attorney General William Barr held a press conference with AP News explaining that the voter fraud accusations were all false, because Trump went on Fox News and lied and said the DOJ was MIA and not doing their job.
There's also the Raffensperger call where Trump repeats numerous accusations of voter fraud and Raffensperger and other people on the call are capable of rebutting all of them.
Then Trump tweets out and lies again that they had no clue about voter fraud:
"I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ballots under table scam, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!"
Trump was maliciously lying about voter fraud the entire time. He wasn't a clueless manchild, although he was very stupid. Now this time he's running with people like JD Vance who said they would have certified the election in his favor, and he has an executive order drafted up to replace nonpartisan federal workers with sycophantic loyalists. https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/09/trumps-second-term-agenda-breaking-bureaucracy/399533/
Ask yourself this. How does Trump stay out of jail given the strong case prosecutors have against him? Sure, if he wins, he can order to DOJ to stop his prosecution, but all that does in put it on hold until the next guy comes in. If the next president is a Dem he goes to jail for sure since they will be out for blood. Thus he has a strong motive to eviscerate them as a political force--i.e. put into place a one-party state.
Trump was never winning. Only a child would interpret the early returns as saying he won. All the polls for months showed a bigger margin for Biden than anything Clinton got in 2016. Also Trump's vote line was completely in line (actually slightly better) than what he got in 2016. The reason he won in 2016 was people who refused to vote for him voted for the libertarian because they did not want to vote for a woman who was running only because she was a former first lady. In 2020 they were voting for a standard issue while male politician who had been around forever. There was TONS of polling evidence that Biden was seen more favorably than Clinton.
Going into the election, only an idiot would think Trump had a serious chance. Republican campaign staff are not idiots. they knew he would probably lose and so did Trump. But Trump also knew he had a base that would believe whatever crazy thing he said, so he tried to stay in power. In a functional country he would be stopped and never be able to run again--no harm done. But America is no longer a functional country, and THAT, I believe, is what Huemer is concerned with.
True, Trump is immature, dishonest, disrespectful, childish, etc. Surely it’s not stupid for me to describe Trump accurately. At the same time he’s the GOP front runner. Why are you saying my comment so, so stupid?
Yawn. Boy is this played out. First of all, you assume malice on Trump's part rather than stupidity. The evidence suggests that he actually believes the 2020 election was stolen. The regime undeniably believes 2016 was stolen, they were just less stupid in how they went about responding to it. Regardless of which side wins this time, both sides will think it was stolen. Trump acted foolishly and got nowhere, and he won't get anywhere with a similar play this time around either. What would've happened if Pence went along with it? Pence would've been detained, someone else would've stepped in to preside over the proceedings, and the whole thing would've moved along on schedule. The following is far more plausible than Tronald Troomph actually pulling off a military coup with the help of a military that wasn't even willing to deploy to quell riots under him in the Summer of Floyd:
Democrats admit Puerto Rico and DC as states, grant amnesty and citizenship to tens of millions of immigrants, end the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, etc., effectively creating a one-party state and locking the conservative half of the country into permanent outsider status (even more than they already are). Are you worried about this possibility? Does it bother you less because technically it could all done be "constitutionally?" Never mind that, from the perspective of the right, Democrats don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution and violate it constantly in extremely egregious way (for instance, Joe Biden's attempt to force-vaccinate tens of millions of private-sector employees or else threaten them with job loss and unpersoning).
Let me give you my one-sentence perspective from the other side. The existence of the Democratic Party in its current state makes "the system" completely illegitimate. This is the opposite of your viewpoint; I care about the issues, and I care about them *so much* that I simply cannot be made to care very much about a so-called "system" that continues to get them so cataclysmically wrong. The fact that these things are even up for a vote causes me to check out of this "system." Let's review your "issues" because you did name some good ones:
--Abortion: Industrialized baby murder, hundreds of thousands of children killed every single year.
--Border security: The lack of a border makes a farce out of the entire concept of the United States as an actual nation rather than simply a globohomo economic zone.
--Inflation: Savings are made worthless, cost of living made unaffordable, nation and economy as a whole pushed ever onwards towards an inevitable debt-bubble crisis of unknown magnitude, because the government can't stop borrowing money it doesn't have to give people free shit and buy off various demographics. Granted, a lot of the actual voters are bad on this issue as well, this one might be an inherent fatal flaw in any mass-suffrage democracy. The other three definitely don't have to be the way they are though.
--Crime: Murderers and rapists rarely get the death penalty, and law and order in general is simply not a priority, instead we must hear concerns about how evil it is to have laws because too many black people end up in jail.
This leaves the Ukraine war as the only thing that I can't instantly identify as a system-disqualifying failure, notably it's the only one where the regime is actually fighting a foreign adversary rather than taking a dump all over its own citizens. These other four I can say bother me a whole hell of a lot more than January 6 or Donald Trump. The Republicans are mostly not good enough on these things in my view, so what do you think I feel about the Democrats? The other side of this coin is that you could make a very serious argument that actual right-wingers are compromising their values massively by *not* doing any more to rock the boat about this stuff.
You're worried about "preserving the system," I can promise you 100% our "system" can withstand the following and will function even better than before:
--Stop killing children in the womb.
--Actually have a border.
--Stop printing endless funny money to give away to people.
--Actually put criminals in jail.
You want to preserve the system, why don't you start there? You completely overlook these things and only notice that there's a problem once things get bad enough that a year like 2020 happens. This sort of dissatisfaction is how you ended up with Blumpft in the first place, remember? If the establishment simply weren't so downright evil he never would've been President, it could've been Mitt Romney or Hillary.
You want to preserve our institutions? They mostly suck. Maybe they were nice once. But until they are cleansed of woke garbage I have no love for them and won't defend them. You can rage all you want about how stupid this makes me. I don't care. The woke stuff is the enemy, period. You can't browbeat me into compliance with the sort of hand-wringing on display here. I'm sure most right wingers feel the same. You want to preserve our precious heckin' institutions? Cool, ban the woke garbage, that's the compromise. You can't expect people to support institutions that overtly hate them. It's just a non-starter and frankly it's ridiculous that someone would even try to make such a pitch.
If we want to frame this as game theory, you can't have a lasting game where one side notices that everything is increasingly rigged against them and their winrate keeps going down steadily over time, with good reason to believe that it will approach zero pretty soon. You put someone in that situation, of course they're going to start looking for a way to flip the table.
A really, really excellent account of what is fundamentally at stake in this election. I think there are many, many other reasons why no sane and responsible person should be even slightly tempted to vote for Trump, but this piece captures the most central and important one with great cogency.
I’m curious: Did this piece express something you have not already thought about? From a new angle or something? Has it only been about “policy issues” thus far?
It's the Pence counterfactual for me
Nice. A real, thoughtful reply. You are right in that’s what makes this a great narrative: A counterfactual.
It may sound like I’m being sarcastic, but what was billed by Hanania as a “case” is actually a highly-readable counterfactual.
Anyone else?
And they wondered what I was gonna do with an education in philosophy!
https://persononline.substack.com/p/i-dont-care-about-the-status-quo
First off, I don’t care who wins the US presidential election. They’re all evil in my book. And picking sides, and getting involved in politics, just predisposes one to irrational and unclear thinking.
However, I think it’s very important to point out that 2020 was the very first election in my lifetime, where many votes were not cast in person, and instead cast via mail-in, which had previously been reserved for overseas veterans and the like.
This, in itself, was a change in the norms of voting. And did benefit the democrats (Trump was leading early in the 2020 election specifically because republicans were more likely to go to the polls, whereas mail-ins took longer to count).
So all of the actions and complaints that republicans are making, should be considered in that context. Namely, you had a huge change in the norms of voting, which benefited the democrats, which (in my opinion) does justify some amount of complaint.
This doesn’t mean that there were a lot of fake votes, or that the election was fraudulent. But large changes in, even implicit, norms around institutions does justify complaint. And I think many democrats do underestimate how easy it is to tamper with mail-in votes (I could have easily disposed of, or even falsely used, my wife’s ballot without her ever knowing). And even worse, mail-in ballots lowers the quality of the median voter, which in our world benefits democrats. A point that I would have thought Huemer would be concerned about.
And, just to be clear. I’m not saying that the reasons for the large change in norms was insidious. COVID panic was still in full swing. An argument could have been made at the time that it was better for everyone to stay home and mail-in their ballots.
Nonetheless, that is still a change in norms. And changes in such norms are themselves dangerous. And I think a lot of Trump’s actions actually do make a lot of sense, once you realize the context under which things were happening.
With respect to Michael’s claims of Trump’s misbehavior in section 2b. Here are the counter-arguments:
1) The Georgia phone does sound a bit like a mafia boss ordering people with plausible deniability. Or, it could have been just Trump telling Raffensperger how many votes they needed to win, in a tight election, with a lot of late-counted mail-in ballots. It’s tough to say.
2) There is a draft executive order to seize voting machines. But the key word there is “draft”. It is unclear, and perhaps just unlikely, that Trump had anything to do with the order. More likely that someone in his administration was upset, and wrote the draft without thinking. Trump never signed it, nor is it clear that he was even aware of its existence.
3) It’s not clear that Trump had anything to do with the fake electors. These totally could have been, and again, likely were, independent actors. After all, if you were from a swing state, and you thought that the election was fraudulent (perhaps you saw several associates cast mail-in ballots for their elderly grandparents and thought this was a common occurrence), and believed in the legitimacy of the US system, wouldn’t correcting this fraud be the right thing to do (I’m not saying it is, just trying to get you into other people’s mental states at the time)?
4) I haven’t seen evidence where Trump pressured Pence to do anything on January 6th. Though, I’m open to evidence. He did make a bunch of claims about the process which are not true, or at least the constitutionality is unclear. But this makes it seem like they met in a back room, and Trump threatened Pence, which is just not true.
5) Trump did not incite a mob to riot. A fact I learned fairly recently: Trump’s supposedly inciting speech was made, several blocks away, while the break-in at the capitol was already happening. Trump must be a wizard, because it’s tough to incite a riot, in a different place and location, while the riot is already happening. Not to mention that, while his statements are bombastic, I don’t personally think they qualify in any sense as inciting-to-riot. And Trump was careful enough to tell people to be peaceful, and tell them to go home when it was clear what was happening.
This comment is basically a schizophrenic mess.
>I think it’s very important to point out that 2020 was the very first election in my lifetime, where many votes were not cast in person, and instead cast via mail-in, which had previously been reserved for overseas veterans and the like.
Literally not true in any sense of the word. Not even directionally correct.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/06/24/as-states-move-to-expand-the-practice-relatively-few-americans-have-voted-by-mail/
"States like Oregon and Washington conduct their elections almost entirely by mail (97% of voters in these states mailed in their ballots in 2016)"
"Across the five states where the 2020 presidential election will be conducted entirely by mail, nearly nine-in-ten voters cast ballots using this method in 2016 – a rate that increased 60 percentage points since 1996, as states adopted these measures."
>And I think many democrats do underestimate how easy it is to tamper with mail-in votes (I could have easily disposed of, or even falsely used, my wife’s ballot without her ever knowing).
This is not any different from in person voting. You can even go and vote multiple times in person. The problem is that you will be caught and there are huge incentives for proving voter fraud, something none of the 60+ lawsuits that were filed on behalf of the Trump administration could do. Nothing that multiple recounts or audits caught in the 2020 election. Nothing that any of the Republican poll watchers caught on election night or during any of the recounts.
>The Georgia phone does sound a bit like a mafia boss ordering people with plausible deniability. Or, it could have been just Trump telling Raffensperger how many votes they needed to win, in a tight election, with a lot of late-counted mail-in ballots. It’s tough to say.
First off, the President should not be calling a state Attorney General to pressure them to certify the state's electoral votes in their favor. This is completely inexcusable antidemocratic behavior. Throughout the phone call, the AG and others on the call debunked all of Trump's voter fraud claims - they did not fail to answer a single accusation of voter fraud. He would later tweet out:
"I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ballots under table scam, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!"
Which was a complete lie. The "ballots under the table scam" also refers to a video that Giuliani spliced to make it look like there was a hidden ballot box under the table - this is something he got sued for defamation for and lost - because his defense was that he had a first amendment right to lie about it.
https://theconversation.com/giuliani-claims-the-first-amendment-lets-him-lie-3-essential-reads-210514
>It is unclear, and perhaps just unlikely, that Trump had anything to do with the order.
Trump was trying to pressure acting AG Jeffrey Rosen into signing a similar order to confiscate voting machines from the states.
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107217243/former-doj-officials-detail-threatening-resign-en-masse-trump-meeting
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-DOC-CTRL0000014544_00012/pdf/GPO-J6-DOC-CTRL0000014544_00012.pdf
"Donoghue said Trump asked him what he would do if he replaced Rosen with Clark.
"I said, 'Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I'm not working one minute for this guy,'" he replied.
Engel echoed that: "'I've been with you through four attorneys general, including two acting attorneys general, but I couldn't be part of this," he said he told Trump.
Donoghue told Trump he would lose his "entire department" if he moved ahead.
>It’s not clear that Trump had anything to do with the fake electors.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/11/trump-fake-electors-charges-00157440
"Chesebro, however, wrote a Dec. 6, 2020 memo arguing that Trump could use the existence of false slates of electors to foment challenges to Congress’ certification of the results on Jan. 6, 2021 — even if the slates weren’t certified by legislators or backed by court rulings."
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/09/20/eastman.memo.pdf
Chesebro and Eastman (and Giuliani) were Trump's personal lawyers that he brought in to the White House. They were not part of the DOJ. They were brought in by Trump so that he could overturn the results of the 2020 election. There is no reason he would be communicating with them otherwise, since the President has multiple legal routes available to him as part of the Executive Branch,
"Within 24-48-72 hours, you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What's that going to say about you?" Donoghue remembers asking."
>I haven’t seen evidence where Trump pressured Pence to do anything on January 6th.
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/08/what-trump-asked-of-pence/
"In an interview hours after former President Donald Trump was indicted for an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election, one of his attorneys said that all Trump had ultimately asked his vice president to do was “simply pause” the Electoral College count at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
On Fox News the following night, Aug. 2, former Vice President Mike Pence called that claim “completely false.” Pence said Trump and his “gaggle of crackpot lawyers” asked him “to literally reject votes.”
“I think it’s important that the American people know what happened in the days before January 6,” Pence said. “President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes. I had no authority to do that.”"
"Dec. 25, 2020: When Pence called Trump to wish him a Merry Christmas, Trump requested that Pence reject electoral votes on Jan. 6. Pence responded, as he had in previous conversations, “You know I don’t think I have the authority to change the outcome.”"
"Jan. 1, 2021: Trump called Pence and “berated him because he had learned that the Vice President had opposed a lawsuit seeking a judicial decision that, at the certification, the Vice President had the authority to reject or return votes to the states under the Constitution.” Pence told Trump he didn’t think there was any constitutional authority for that. In response, Trump reportedly told Pence, “You’re too honest.”"
Literally mountains more quotes in that source.
>Trump did not incite a mob to riot.
Trump advertised the Jan 6 event repeatedly, said it was to "take back the country" repeatedly, and told his protestors to march to the Capitol.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/13/1111341161/how-trumps-will-be-wild-tweet-drew-rioters-to-the-capitol-on-jan-6
>And Trump was careful enough to tell people to be peaceful, and tell them to go home when it was clear what was happening.
He sat and watched TV for 3 hours, tweeted out that "Mike Pence failed us," and completely failed to deploy the National Guard to stop the protestors. He is the executive of the military and the only person at that time who could have brought in military support.
These claims are not even hard to debunk, in many cases I just searched your direct words and the first result on google completely contradicted most of what you said.
> Literally not true in any sense of the word. Not even directionally correct.
Not sure what that Pew study was even saying. My claim came from here: https://electioninnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Expansion-of-Voting-Before-Election-Day-2000-to-2024_March-2024_Vfinal.pdf
Which I found on Wikipedia.
It claims 69% of voters voted by mail in 2020. That did go down to 50% in 2022, which is still higher than anything previous to 2020.
If that’s correct, then I think my claim is true, both literally and directionally.
> Nothing that any of the Republican poll watchers caught on election night or during any of the recounts.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I did not claim that the 2020 election was fraudulent. Merely that the criticisms of people who claimed that it was fraudulent are based on this perception that 2020 was just like any other election. When, that’s not the case. Context is important.
> First off, the President should not be calling a state Attorney General to pressure them to certify the state's electoral votes in their favor.
I don’t typically like to call out logical fallacies, but this is a good example of begging the question.
The very argument in dispute was whether or not Trump called Raffensperger to pressure him.
And perhaps he did. I don’t know. I don’t think the evidence is that conclusive.
>Which was a complete lie.
Ok.
Sounds like Trump was misled to believe that there was a bunch of voter fraud going on (he is a narcissist after all), and called Raffensperger to sort it out.
Doesn’t seem all that insidious. Indeed, that’s what he should do if such claims were true, and he respected the democratic process.
>https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107217243/former-doj-officials-detail-threatening-resign-en-masse-trump-meeting
Honestly, I don’t trust NPR. They claim a lot of things in that article that they just don’t have sufficient evidence for. And I highly suspect many of these quotes are taken out of context.
But even if they weren’t. DOJ officials are going to be butthurt if you threaten to fire them. They could be exaggerating things, or even just making stuff up to make Trump look bad. Simply because he threatened to fire them.
Which, as someone with libertarian proclivities, who would fire large swaths of the federal government if I ever held power, I can totally empathize with Trump on that one.
But, even if everything in that article is literally true. Again, you have to go back to context. Trump thought the election was stolen, and there was a significant change in voting norms, that could make it easier for fraud to happen (again, I’m not claiming that it did). If you were in such a position, and your attorney general was refusing to investigate such claims, shouldn’t you replace him? After all he’s refusing to uphold the integrity of the election.
Again, I’m not saying that such an action is correct. Merely illustrating that context makes things less clear cut than is often presented.
>https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-DOC-CTRL0000014544_00012/pdf/GPO-J6-DOC-CTRL0000014544_00012.pdf
Unsure how this supports your claim.
>https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/11/trump-fake-electors-charges-00157440
Again, politico is extremely biased, so I do approach these sorts of articles with skepticism.
But it’s actually interesting that you cite this. Because my takeaway from the article is that Chesebro was the one who orchestrated the electors. Not Trump.
>They were brought in by Trump so that he could overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Do you have specific evidence of this claim?
And to be super specific. I am looking for evidence that he specifically brought these people in specifically to overturn the election results.
And not to just help with the legal battles that happen in every election. Because ballots are often difficult to collect, and often these things come down to court rulings (e.g. the 2000 election). So, I’m no expert, but I presume that every election has its elements of legal dispute.
>On Fox News the following night, Aug. 2, former Vice President Mike Pence called that claim “completely false.” Pence said Trump and his “gaggle of crackpot lawyers” asked him “to literally reject votes.”
As I said originally. There is plenty of evidence that Trump was confused about process, and thought that Pence could do things he couldn’t. Apparently, Pence interpreted this as “literally rejecting votes”.
But “pressured” is a specific word, that seems to be overstated in this instance.
>Trump advertised the Jan 6 event repeatedly, said it was to "take back the country" repeatedly, and told his protestors to march to the Capitol.
Yeah, he was conducting a rally. That’s a separate thing from the capitol riot.
After Trump ended his speech, people did march from the speech to the capitol building. But the perimeter of the building had been breeched before Trump had even ended his speech.
And yeah, Trump did tell be to march to the capitol. “Peacefully and patriotically” were the words I believed he used.
I’m not a MAGA guy. Perhaps there is some dog whistle amongst the whole community where “peacefully” actually means “violently”. But I doubt it.
And yeah, his speeches are pretty bombastic. And he uses a lot of harsh rhetoric, like “take back the country”. But that’s pretty par-for-the-course in terms of political rallies.
>He sat and watched TV for 3 hours
During that time, he also tweeted to “be peaceful”.
And after those 3 hours, he gave a speech telling people to go home.
Which are important facts that I don’t think should be left out.
>and completely failed to deploy the National Guard to stop the protestors
Good. They were destroying government property, and making a fool of themselves and the government. Not starting a civil war.
Perhaps more than the one person would have died that day if violence had escalated even more.
>These claims are not even hard to debunk
Look. I don’t like Trump. He is funny. But he’s also a narcissist. His appointments were all over the place. His policies are very hit-and-miss. And yeah, there are legitimate questions about his integrity (just like there are legitimate questions about Joe Biden’s, or basically any politician of that caliber).
But I do recognize a concerted effort to slander someone. To take things out of proportion. To twist facts for political ends.
And it saddens me that so many people have fallen for it. Even people, like Huemer, who I admire in many other contexts. To the point, where he’s outright admitting that he doesn’t care about the policies.
A rally to take back the country? After losing the election? What was the purpose of this rally?
I know you’re not actually inquiring in good faith.
But it is an interesting question. My understanding is that it’s pretty common place for politicians to hold events after they’ve lost.
Why do they do this?
It could be to raise funds for the next cycle. 2-4 years isn’t that long of a time.
It could be a way to feel better about loosing. For some reason, getting a bunch of people together to sulk about it does help.
It could be that politicians are power-hungry narcissists, and just love to hold events where they are the center of attention.
I don’t know.
> My understanding is that it’s pretty common place for politicians to hold events after they’ve lost.
Can you provide a list of presidential candidates that have ever done this on the day of the electoral vote count?
Can you provide a list of any losing gubernatorial candidates that have ever done this? (I would look for really close ones, like possibly the election that Stacey Abrams lost in 2018.)
I don't think it's as common as you suggest.
I already looked around, and it doesn’t look like there’s good records anywhere. No one likely bothered to keep track, until Trump.
So yeah, evidence is sparse, one way or another.
Still, holding a rally, even on the day of certifying the results, doesn’t seem insidious, or even strange, to me.
> But “pressured” is a specific word, that seems to be overstated in this instance.
You’re the one who used the word “pressured”. Huemer just said Trump “tried to get” Pence to do it. Pence’s testimony is certainly evidence of that. Maybe you think simply asking (or demanding, as Pence put it) your VP to refuse to accept Congress’s certification isn’t a big deal. Huemer admits that he doesn’t know what would have happened if Pence had acquiesced to Trump’s request. But I think he’s right that it’s well within the realm of possibility that it could have led to the most severe constitutional crisis since the Civil War. In which case even just asking is a very big deal indeed.
Fair. Not the best wording on my part.
All I was trying to say was that saying someone “tried to get” someone else to do something is a very broad category. Trump and Pence’s interaction could have been anything from:
“Hey, can we pause things for a second, there was an unprecedented amount of mail-ins this election, let’s make sure these numbers are accurate”.
To
“You better not count those votes if you know what’s good for you!..”
People presume the conversation was closer to the latter, when it’s not at all clear to me.
“During that time, he tweeted to ‘be peaceful’”
LMAO. Here’s what we basically know Trump did between the time he arrived back to the White House after his speech up until he finally told the mob to go home. And all the republicans who tried to get him to call it off unsuccessfully until hours later. Even the nut job MTG was trying to get Trump to call off the mob, unsuccessfully.
1:19 p.m.
Trump arrives back at the White House. During the short drive back from the Ellipse, Trump becomes irate and demands to be driven to the Capitol, but members of his security team refuse to take him there, according to Hutchinson, who testified that she was told about the exchange by Ornato and another member of Trump's security detail.
1:25 p.m.
Trump goes into the private dining room near the Oval Office, where he stays until 4 p.m., according to the committee which cited testimony from White House aides. Witnesses told the committee that Trump spent the afternoon watching Fox News' coverage of his supporters attacking the Capitol…
1:39 p.m.
Trump calls Giuliani, according to phone records obtained by the January 6 committee. It is unclear what they discussed.
Around 2 p.m.
The Capitol goes on lockdown as some of the first rioters breach the building. Back at the White House, the White House Counsel Cipollone tells Meadows that Trump needs to take action to stop the riot, and that "something needs to be done or people are going to die," according to Hutchinson's testimony.
2:03 p.m.
Trump calls Giuliani again, and the call lasts for approximately eight minutes, according to phone records obtained by the January 6 committee. It is unclear what they discussed.
2:13 p.m.
…Trump speaks on the phone with Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, who tells Trump about the frantic evacuation of senators…
Around 2:15 p.m.
At the White House, Cipollone again tells Meadows that Trump should intervene. Meadows responds by saying Trump "doesn't want to do anything" about the riot and that Trump agrees with the rioters who were calling for Pence to be hanged, according to Hutchinson's testimony.
2:24 p.m.
Trump criticizes Pence in a tweet, slamming Pence for refusing to implement his illegal scheme to overturn the election while presiding over the joint session of Congress.
2:26 p.m.
The Secret Service evacuates Pence from his office across from the Senate chamber, and he was eventually whisked away to a loading dock under the Capitol. The January 6 committee has said Pence came within 40 feet of the approaching rioters.
2:28 p.m.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican and pro-Trump conspiracy theorist, tells Meadows via text that he should "tell the President to calm people," according to messages obtained by CNN.
2:30 p.m.
2:32 p.m.
Fox News host Laura Ingraham, who promoted many of Trump's election lies, texts Meadows that "the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home," according to messages obtained by CNN.
2:35 p.m.
Trump's former acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney texts Meadows saying that Trump "needs to stop this, now," and offers to help, according to messages obtained by CNN.
2:38 p.m.
Trump tweets that the rioters should "stay peaceful," but doesn't tell them to leave the Capitol.
…
2:44 p.m.
Pro-Trump rioter Ashli Babbitt is fatally shot by a police officer while trying to break into the Speaker's Lobby, which is adjacent to the House floor, while lawmakers were evacuating. At the same time, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican who supported nullifying Biden's victory in his state, texts Meadows that "It's really bad up here on the hill," according to messages obtained by CNN.
…
2:53 p.m.
Donald Trump Jr. texts Meadows, "He's got to condem (sic) this shit. Asap. The captiol (sic) police tweet is not enough," according to messages obtained by CNN. Meadows replies, "I am pushing it hard. I agree."
Sometime before 3 p.m.
Trump speaks on the phone with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who pleads with Trump to call off the mob, but Trump takes the side of the rioters, telling McCarthy that they seem to care more about the election results than he does, according to CNN reporting.
Around 3 p.m.
White House aides draft a statement for Trump to release, which would've condemned the violence and the "illegal" actions of the rioters, according to Hutchinson's testimony. The statement was never released.
3:09 p.m.
Former Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus texts Meadows, "TELL THEM TO GO HOME !!!," according to messages obtained by CNN.
3:13 p.m.
Trump tweets that his supporters at the Capitol should "remain peaceful," but again doesn't tell them to leave the premises. At the same time, Trump's former Health Secretary Tom Price texts Meadows saying, "POTUS should go on air and defuse this," according to messages obtained by CNN.
3:15 p.m.
Ivanka Trump, the President's daughter and senior adviser, calls the rioters "patriots" in a tweet, and tells them that "the violence must stop," but does not say that they should leave the Capitol.
3:31 p.m.
Fox News host Sean Hannity, who promoted many of Trump's election lies, texts Meadows, "Can he make a statement. I saw the tweet. Ask people to peacefully leave the capital," according to messages obtained by CNN. Meadows replies, "on it."
4:03 p.m.
Trump heads to the Rose Garden to film a recorded message. His staff prepared a script for him to read, which said, "no one should be using violence or threats. ... Let's respect our institutions, let's all do better." But Trump goes off-script and improvises most of his remarks, according to a witness, who later testified to the January 6 committee.
4:05 p.m.
Trump Jr. texts Meadows, "We need an oval address. He has to lead now. It's gone too far and gotten out of hand," according to messages obtained by CNN. A few minutes later, Trump Jr. sends another message saying, "Now Biden beating us to the punch."
…
4:17 p.m.
Trump tweets out a video, where he tells the rioters that "you have to go home now," but he also praises them and repeats the lie that fueled the attack itself -- that the 2020 election was stolen.
Source:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/07/10/politics/jan-6-us-capitol-riot-timeline
I just wanted to thank you both for having this conversation. This was the first time I’ve seen the issues laid out fact by fact, dissected by one person and another—it helped me understand the two ways we’re looking at these events.
It also made me wonder: If he’s not dangerous now, at what point does he become dangerous?
Was this an epiphany?
Everything stems from 2016, when Trump won despite what the establishment desired. Then the machine went into overdrive to undermine Trump’s term, and rig 2020. Jan 6th, etc. was merely a natural, health result of the bill coming due for what the left and establishment have done.
Seeing that the establishment did not learn anything from Jan 6th, I now categorize it as an appetizer for what’s to come.
Except both of them were ignoring what actually happened in 2020.
Hint: there was an unprecedented amount of rather brazen fraud.
I haven't heard any credible allegations of this, but perhaps you saw some?
Well there's the synchronized stopping of the reporting across multiple states followed by statistically impossible jumps for Biden, the multiple instances of observers being tricked or kicked out of the counting rooms followed by the count resuming, in one case the counters literary boarding up the windows so the observers couldn't see what they were doing, the videos counters running the same set of ballots multiple times through the machines, the multiple sworn eyewitness affidavits, the miscellaneous statistical irregularities, etc.
More generally the Democrats constantly moving heaven and earth to try to prevent even basic common sense anti-fraud measures like *making sure the voter is who he says he is*.
This is extremely insulting to schizophrenics.
What’s a schizophrenic mess are people trying to rationalize how their policies are better than the others. You sir, are crazy. This election has nothing to do with politics or even whether a president shot someone on 5th Ave.
The most obvious answer to this is that if your wife tried to vote, she would have been notified that she'd "already" voted. Her original ballot would be invalidated, and she would have filled out another ballot. I'm not sure how you see yourself tampering with her ballot. If you filled it in first, obviously she would have noticed when she tried to fill it out. If you tried to fill it out after she had, the ballot would be unreadable, and discarded. Depending on where you live, she could actually view her ballot online. Every ballot has a unique number.
So while you could in theory have somehow tampered with her vote, maybe by convincing her not to vote and then secretly filling out her ballot, you must see how small bore and labor intensive this is. Nobody can do this on a large scale.
It's essentially the same as Trump claiming that people vote multiple times by wearing disguises. There is always going to be some implausible reason to disbelieve an totally unsurprising result, that an unpopular president lost.
>I'm not sure how you see yourself tampering with her ballot.
It came in the mail, which I check and she doesn’t. I could have taken it, filled it in, and mailed it without her knowing. Or even easier: just thrown it away.
She definitely wouldn’t have expended the effort to get another ballot, check online, or even notice before it was too late. Likely she wouldn’t have even asked me if I saw it.
There’s no reward for voting (other than vibes), so people aren’t going to spend a lot of effort on this.
That doesn't make sense. If she got a ballot, that means she took the trouble to register at some point, and most likely has voted since then. And there's no "too late." If she realized on Election Day that she hadn't gotten her ballot, she could simply go to her polling station and fill out a provisional ballot, which would have invalidated the one you stole.
And surely you must see that there can be no massive operation where a family member steals someone's mail-in ballot and then hopes they don't notice or fill in a second one. Maybe your wife specifically wouldn't care, but most people who take the trouble to register and vote do.
>that means she took the trouble to register at some point
Expending time and energy at “some point” does not equate to expending time and energy now.
>and most likely has voted since then
Only by the ballots that I have handed to her.
>she could simply go to her polling station and fill out a provisional ballot
Which requires figuring out where that is, drawing up the mental energy to go there, getting in the car, driving there, waiting in line, and then finally filling out the ballot.
In the modern world, that’s not an insignificant opportunity cost.
>And surely you must see that there can be no massive operation where a family member steals someone's mail-in ballot and then hopes they don't notice or fill in a second one.
I never claimed that there was.
Merely that it would have been easy for me.
I will say, though. While personal anecdote is often wrong. It’s also wrong to dismiss it entirely.
>but most people who take the trouble to register and vote do
Doubtful. I’ll let Huemer explain why:
“Why don’t they care? You know the answer: wise voting is a public good, and they know the probability that their vote will make a difference is close to zero.”
https://fakenous.substack.com/p/immoral-rulers
Granted, he was talking about why people don’t care about voting for bad rulers, not why they wouldn’t care about voting at all (given sufficiently high opportunity costs). But the same logic applies.
> Only by the ballots that I have handed to her.
Do you....do you let your wife out of the house?
He could strangle his wife and just keep on voting twice forever! It's totally a good reason for Mike Pence to Stop the Steal. What?
Well, I don’t vote. So it’d really only be voting once.
> (I could have easily disposed of, or even falsely used, my wife’s ballot without her ever knowing).
It's not just your wife. There are nursing homes and similar institutions that Democrat activists routinely target for ballot harvesting.
Not to mention it makes it much easier for the old machine politics staple of having graveyards voting.
What’s the similar institutions? How do Democrat activists routinely target nursing homes for ballot harvesting? Do they just show up and say give me all the mail in forms that you didn’t give the old folks? Did they forge the signatures , how did they know what the signatures of the voters looked like? Ballots wouldn’t be counted if they didn’t match. They would be questioned and the person whose name was on the ballot would be contacted. Maybe they helped some less than capable people fill out their ballots. Of course Republican activists could have done the same, they just didn’t.
Thousand's of activists at thousands of nursing homes across the nation. Or was it just in the states that decided the election. We’ll go with hundreds of activists and hundreds of nursing home then. What a coordinated effort. Amazing how it’s been kept quiet for the last 4 years. Tell ten people a secret and see how long it takes for one of them to talk about it. Yet hundreds have kept the secret. Not one of them had a change of heart. Not one of them thought “Hey, I could make a ton of money doing interviews, maybe even write a book!” Amazing dedication.
But hey maybe it did happen, kind of funny though in my state they had three recounts ( two by hand) and for good measure audited a large population diverse county. Investigated every voter fraud claim statewide. A Republican controlled state. If there was something to have been found they would have loved to have found it. They didn’t.
> Did they forge the signatures , how did they know what the signatures of the voters looked like?
A lot of times they don't bother to check the signatures.
> Thousand's of activists at thousands of nursing homes across the nation. Or was it just in the states that decided the election.
They tend to focus on deep blue cities in swing states.
> What a coordinated effort. Amazing how it’s been kept quiet for the last 4 years.
It's been a semi-open secret for decades.
Excellent analysis of what is at stake!
I'm really trying to understand. If you're a libertarian and a fan of Huemer, how do you care so much about democracy? Doesn't that flatly contradict Huemer's stated libertarian values?
It's not that democracy is great. It's that our system e much better than the average, so if you blew it up you should expect to end up with something worse
I don't think our system is much better than average.
Then why don't you go live in Africa? Get out of this worse than average country and live in Haiti then
The difference between America and Haiti is not the political system, it's the people.
Mike, this needed to be said and I am glad you said it.
I don't think Trump's method of challenging election results was as heinous as Michael describes. Moreover, to say that he doesn't care about Ukraine is to say that he is indifferent to the prospect of nuclear war. Russia has 6000 nuclear weapons. The u.s. is sending billions to Ukraine to buy weapons that are used to threaten Russia. Ukraine is currently seeking u.s. permission to fire those weapons into Russia. This is madness. We are risking nuclear war by threatening Russia. Biden/Harris have provoked this entire war with talk of inviting Ukraine into NATO. And a peace agreement was on the table that Biden Harris rejected. Even if you think Trump threatened our democracy, increasing risk of nuclear war is a bugger deal.
Furthermore, while I don't like Trump's method of challenging the election result, it wasn't a grave threat to democracy. Our constitution lays out the method Trump employed. He thought the election was a result of fraud. He couldn't get the courts to look at the fraud issue substantively. (The courts threw out his claims based on standing.) If Pence had refused to certify the election, congress could have done what the courts refused to do -- substantively consider the fraud claims. Were the mail-in ballots consistent with state law or the the result of unconstitutional executive orders? Were the mail-in ballots properly cast and counted? Signatures verified? Chain of custody proper? These are legit questions. Trump's Hail Mary was an attempt to vet claims of fraud NOT the end of democracy.
Lastly, if you really care about democracy, you have to protest the lawfare. Those in power have used lawfare to try to bankrupt and imprison their opponent. How can democracy survive if our rulers can use police powers to imprison political opponents? The cases are completely politically motivated and would never be brought against someone not running for president. We have to protest this lawfare, a true threat to democracy. The best way to register that protest is to vote for Trump, which is something this former Never Trumper did not do in 2016 or 2020.
Where we disagree: Trump did not think the election was a result of fraud. He knew that it wasn't. He was using one of his subtle manipulation techniques, known as "lying". He was just trying to steal the election, plain and simple.
His intention was also not that Congress substantively consider the fraud claims. His intention was that Republicans would vote on party lines to install him as President simply because he demanded it. It is extremely naive to think otherwise, on the order of thinking that a Nigerian prince you met over the internet actually wants to give you a million dollars.
Regarding "lawfare", whether you should charge political candidates with crimes depends on whether they committed crimes -- just like with anyone else. Running for public office cannot be a license to get away with any and all crimes. (If a serial killer decides to run for public office, do we then have to let him get away with murdering people?) Voting for Trump is signaling that Presidents can commit any and all crimes that they feel like.
Michael, Thank you for engaging with me on this. I hate disagreeing with the only other vegan anarcho-capitalist I know of. (For some reason, libertarians are big meat eaters.) But I remain unpersuaded by your arguments. First, you did not address my concern that funding a proxy war against a nuclear power is of much greater import than Trump's efforts to challenge an election.
Second, you claim to know what was in Trump's head. Why is it so hard to believe that Trump genuinely believed there was widespread election fraud? Not only was Trump highly motivated to believe there was fraud, but there was lots of evidence of fraud. Have you read the report from the former Wisconsin supreme court justice regarding nursing home ballots and other irregularities in WI? Have you seen the evidence presented to the GA legislature regarding the double counting of ballots in GA? Have you looked at how Cleveland voted vs. Philly or Detroit? Are you aware of the over 900 affidavits of eye-witness evidence of election fraud? Have you considered that GA did not give third parties a chance to look at the absentee ballots and verify signatures as they initially said they would. Did any jury ever get to hear the evidence of fraud? Have you compared the historical rejection rate for absentee ballots with the absentee ballot rejection rates in 2020? Unlike Trump, I have no motive to believe there was fraud, yet even I believe that thousands of absentee ballots were counted that never would have passed muster in prior years. Too many jurisdictions ignored the rules -- maybe due to being inundated by mail-in ballots from the pandemic. You have not made a compelling case for the proposition that Trump was lying. If Trump believed there was fraud, seeking redress in the courts, with state legislatures and even with Pence, is not the end of democracy. Rather, it is fighting for democracy.
Lastly, I am surprised by your straw man argument regarding lawfare. I never said presidents should be able to get away with crimes. Rather, my position is that those in power should not prosecute their opponents unless they would bring the same charges against anyone else. But look at some of the cases brought against Trump: (i) a $450 million penalty in a civil fraud case for having a high opinion of the value of unique real estate when getting a loan from Deutsche Bank, a sophisticated lender that formed its own opinion on the value of the real estate, (ii) a criminal case for characterizing hush money as legal fees on his PRIVATE company's books, and (iii) a criminal case for possessing "classified" documents that he had the power to declassify. Who else gets prosecuted on such BS charges? Our rulers are using police powers to bankrupt and imprison their opponent. We cannot let that stand. If we do, our democracy is truly in jeopardy.
The fact is Trump declared he had won the election before the votes were even counted. How could be know this? Did he have surveillance cameras in every precinct in swing states? I have seen no claims (much less evidence) that this was the case.
He was the president of the United States and had a professionally run campaign that did their own polling as well as pay attention to public polls. Even accounting for the "Trump effect" as seen in 2016, Biden still had sufficient margin to win. This would be manifest in the campaign polling. Trump had the information showing he was going to lose before the election even happened, which is why he did what he did.
That Trump lies about stuff he has no reason to lie about (like crowd size in 2017 inauguration and pet-eating in Ohio) the burden of proof falls on the campaign to show empirical proof of fraud at a level that would affect the outcome. It is not the job of those like Huemer, who see that Trump is obviously lying to answer your protestations. It is the job of those arguing for fraud to make their case in court.
Sixty court appeals were made to try to do this and 59 of then were rejected. They never had a case. Rather they threw up lots of chaff in order to persuade those in their tribe to accept the word of the chief, as you have done. Huemer simply has not fallen for it.
I wish someone could respond to my main point: funding a proxy war against a nuclear power is of much greater import than Trump's efforts to challenge an election. I suspect it is ignored because it is irrefutably and inconveniently true.
You seem to be arguing that a nuclear power should have carte blanche do what it wants with non-nuclear powers without any interference from us. This seems like an invitation for expansionary powers to expand.
It's not like you cannot have proxy wars against other nuclear powers. Back in the 1980's the US funded a proxy war against a nuclear power in Afghanistan. In the 1960's and 1980's the USSR funded a proxy war against a nuclear power in Vietnam.
So why do you think the US should roll over and let Russia, China, North Korea or Iran (once they get the bomb) to walk all over us?
Let's end the bloodshed and lower risk of nuclear war by not threatening to move NATO so close to Moscow. That was Putin's red line. No good was done by crossing it.
> It is extremely naive to think otherwise, on the order of thinking that a Nigerian prince you met over the internet actually wants to give you a million dollars.
What's naive is to believe that the 2020 election was "free and fair" despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Or do you have an innocent explanation for the synchronized stopping of the reporting across multiple states followed by statistically impossible jumps for Biden, the multiple instances of observers being tricked or kicked out of the counting rooms followed by the count resuming, in one case the counters literary boarding up the windows so the observers couldn't see what they were doing, the videos counters running the same set of ballots multiple times through the machines, the multiple sworn eyewitness affidavits, the miscellaneous statistical irregularities, etc?
More generally if they're not engaging in election fraud, why are Democrats constantly moving heaven and earth to try to prevent even basic common sense anti-fraud measures like *making sure the voter is who he says he is*?
Look I realize you want to preserve democracy, but making it so "democracy" comes to mean apologism for election fraud is not the way to do it.
> observers being tricked or kicked out of the counting rooms followed by the count resuming
This was the first claim of yours I did a search on, and this came up. Is it fair to assume all of the other things you mention are also not evidenced? Or is this article wrong somehow?
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/10/fact-check-videos-crowd-locked-out-detroit-center-lack-context/6195038002/
That was by no means the only incident. The most infamous ones being the faked gas leak and the one where they boarded up the windows.
On a quick search I can't find anything about a gas leak, but I did find this about a water leak, if that's what you mean?
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-fabricated-water-main-break-affect-vote-counting-georgia-trump-says-1558876
Thanks for laying out your thought process. I am trying to understand the rationale behind the anti-Trump sentiment.
January 6th is the final step by which a President is officially elected. So the question is, is this a check-and-balance step or a rubber stamp step of what is received from the states? I view it as a check-and-balance - humans are not angels, so extra reviews are needed to reduce the risk of nefarious political activists tainting the process. There are multiple examples that support a check-and-balance position. We have seen many recordings of Democrats raising issues on other January 6th sessions under the Bush and Trump election cycles. Even back to the 1960 election cycle, Hawaii submitted two slates of electors (the second slate called an alternate slate, not fake electors.)
When valid objections are met, the House and Senate assemble to evaluate the claims. If valid the alternate slate of electors are selected, so that's why it's important to send two slates of electors.
The U.S. Constitution delegates the powers to select electors to the state legislatures. There were multiple states where Governors, State Secretaries of State, other election officials, did not follow this selection process - basically breaking the chain of custody through drop boxes, mail-in voting, thresholds for signature verifications, etc. Who is supposed to adjudicate these issues? Answer: Congress during the January 6th certification process.
In addition, during the 2020 campaign, President Trump would have huge rallies, while Vice President Biden's were sparse. The final results of the 2020 election were in sharp contrast to what everyone saw at the rallies.
Something didn't make sense, and President Trump wanted the House and Senate to take a look. There may have been better ways to express this concern, but it doesn't negate an independent review (i.e., check-and-balance) of the electoral count.
In addition, there was no history of violence at Trump campaign rallies. But there is a history of government informants infiltrating groups and trying to entrap them to commit crimes, e.g., Governor Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot. Evidence is still filtering in, but it feels like something amiss was going on during January 6, 2021.
So, getting back the concerns you raise under your "Conduct I care about" analysis, is your view that Congress should treat January 6th as a rubber stamp?
> Even back to the 1960 election cycle, Hawaii submitted two slates of electors (the second slate called an alternate slate, not fake electors.)
Hawaii submitted two slates of electors that were certified by their state legislatures because the election was called within 150 votes and they feared that they wouldn't be able to complete a recount by Jan 6. None of the alternate slates that were submitted on behalf of Trump were approved by the states - that's why the people who falsified the documents are all being charged and sentenced for perjury.
>When valid objections are met, the House and Senate assemble to evaluate the claims. If valid the alternate slate of electors are selected, so that's why it's important to send two slates of electors.
This is not true. There is no established precedent for what to do in the case of alternate electors. From the Hawaii fiasco - "During the congressional joint session to tabulate electoral votes on January 6, 1961, Nixon (who presided over the session in his capacity as President of the Senate), presented both the Republican and Democratic electoral certificates. To head off the possibility of a floor objection by Democrats such as Representative Daniel Inouye, Nixon then requested and received unanimous consent from the joint session for the Democratic certificate to be counted and the Republican certificate to be set aside, though he specified that this was being done "without the intent of establishing a precedent"."
>The U.S. Constitution delegates the powers to select electors to the state legislatures. There were multiple states where Governors, State Secretaries of State, other election officials, did not follow this selection process - basically breaking the chain of custody through drop boxes, mail-in voting, thresholds for signature verifications, etc. Who is supposed to adjudicate these issues? Answer: Congress during the January 6th certification process.
The first part of your comment is completely untrue. The only electoral vote irregularities in 2020 were the ones that Trump falsified. The second part of your comment is also completely untrue. The Jan 6 certification process is not the right time to "adjudicate issues" - that's what the courts are for. Federal representatives don't get to decide to throw out whichever state electoral votes they want.
>In addition, during the 2020 campaign, President Trump would have huge rallies, while Vice President Biden's were sparse. The final results of the 2020 election were in sharp contrast to what everyone saw at the rallies.
Statements like these solidify what a schizophrenic mess the Republican party has become. The candidate that did all their rallies virtually had smaller in person audiences than the one that tried his hardest to skirt pandemic regulations? And this is supposed to constitute prima facie evidence that there were election irregularities? Do you also think it's weird that more mail-in ballots were for Biden than for Trump, even though Trump explicitly told his voters to vote in person and not use mail in ballots? Just completely living in lala land.
>But there is a history of government informants infiltrating groups and trying to entrap them to commit crimes
You understand that "A federal agent tricked me" is not a valid defense for committing a violent crime in court, or morally, correct?
> Evidence is still filtering in, but it feels like something amiss was going on during January 6, 2021.
There is effectively no more evidence filtering in because the people who breached the Capitol like the Proud Boys were open about it on social media, being filmed while they were in the process of breaching in, and sometimes outright filming themselves. The Oath Keepers stashed weapons in a nearby hotel like the Las Vegas shooter did. There is clear intentionality here. https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-florida-virginia-conspiracy-government-and-politics-6ac80882e8cf61af36be6c46252ac24c
>is your view that Congress should treat January 6th as a rubber stamp?
The Electoral Count Act is largely ceremonial. There isn't ambiguity about this. Congress isn't where legal disputes get settled. It's only through Trump's terrible legal advice that has resulted in his lawyers like Eastman, Giuliani, and Powell getting disbarred that we had such a chaotic Jan 6 certification ceremony.
The Electoral Count Act is not largely ceremonial. It is a certification process that serves as a check on the results received from the states. One member of the Senate and one member of the House need to lodge an objection to automatically trigger votes in both chambers on whether to overturn or discard a state’s presidential election results. It is a political process, not a judicial process. The steps President Trump took was to achieve this end. One may not approve of the means President Trump took, but it wasn’t illegal.
I’m trying to imagine you calmly making this same point if Trump wins in November and Kamala interrupts the certification with a mob of Antifa at her side. I am, surprisingly, coming up short.
That's like saying "if you're ok with self-defense, you should be ok with murder".
No, it’s like asking if you are consistent. Is it fine if Trump stages an insurrection but it’s not fine if Kamala does?
If Trump were to engage in massive election fraud on the level of what the Democrats did in 2020, it would be fine for Kamala to stage an "insurrection".
How is this difficult?
If Trump were confident he acted legally, wouldn’t you expect him to want the election interference case to go ahead without delay so that he can clear his name? Instead, he’s taken every opportunity to delay it
If the judicial system were working as it should Trump would be behind bars already.
In other words your idea of the "judicial system working as it should" consists of kangaroo trials. And to think you claim to support democracy.
It’s been four years since the offences were committed. Justice delayed is justice denied.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied
I can't tell if your naive faith in the judicial system is charming or stupid.
I suppose if you believe we are already in a fascist totalitarian state with no guard rails, then it is reasonable to say that therefore it isn't important if any of the electoral laws get followed, because you think law is already irrelevant.
Well, as demonstrated in 2020, the Democrats have no interest in actually following election law, when they haven't outright perverted it in order to make cheating easier, and the system will let them get away with it.
I would find this argument a lot more persuasive if it were consistently applied, but it never is, and that reveals something: it reveals that those opposed to Trump who make this argument are actively downplaying the actions their preferred side has taken to undermine democracy. Yes, I know you are a Libertarian Mike, but it's been pretty clear which side is your preferred one for a while now. If you can't admit that respect for democratic norms has rapidly deteriorated on both sides since at least 2016, then you can't expect me to take you seriously when you try to sell me (even part of) a solution.
For those who are unaware or need a refresher, in 2016 there were nationwide "Not My President" protests, literally denying the result of the election. The 2016 Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, has repeatedly said that Trump stole that election (and many Democrats repeated this sentiment, e.g. Hakeem Jeffries), and is currently warning people not to let Trump steal the 2024 election. In a 2018 YouGov poll, 66% of Democrats polled responded that it was "Definitely true" or "Somewhat true" that "Russia tampered with vote tallies to get Donald Trump elected." Letitia James, the Attorney General for New York, won her election in 2018 in part by claiming that Donald Trump was an "illegitimate president" and promising to use the courts to go after him. Since then, we've seen many different institutions destroy their own bipartisan trustworthiness by politically targeting Trump, the most notable examples here being mainstream media (as very well-illustrated by the recent debates) and our criminal justice system (as illustrated by some of the cases brought against Trump, especially those brought against him in New York, like the hush money case or the real estate fraud case). Some of the cases against Trump deserved to be done well (e.g. the one regarding the phone call to Georgia) but seem to me to have been mishandled by obviously-partisan actors (in that case, Fani Willis).
You may have noticed that most of the problems among Democrats began in 2016-2018, *prior to* January 6th, 2021. As a result, it should be obvious that January 6th is *not* the cause of these anti-democratic behaviors on the part of Democrats (although Trump said some concerning stuff about elections even back in 2016). Actually, Democrats improved their support for democratic norms significantly for over a year from what I could tell after January 6th, since it became politically convenient to juxtapose themselves with the autocratic actions Trump took surrounding that day. I wish that had continued, and that (for example) Biden had condemned attempts by his fellow left-wing partisans to use the courts to target Trump (compare Biden's public response to those cases to, say, his public response to the Supreme Court outlawing affirmative action) and that Kamala Harris would condemn the obviously-partisan media which breaks its own debate rules in an underhanded attempt to support her while peddling themselves as impartial fact-checkers. Alas, since at least late 2022, this has not been the direction the Democratic party has gone. It has instead regressed to the same sort of anti-democratic fervor it had from 2016-2018. Much of the Democratic establishment has gone so far as to blame the heated political environment which has led to attempts to assassinate Trump solely on Trump himself, never looking in the mirror to see whether they, too, are part of the problem. Every reasonable person should expect at this point that, regardless of who wins, the other side will spin the narrative as if the election were stolen, and now a lot of us can't even trust the media or the courts to help them adjudicate the issue.
So, yes, you have the option of two bus drivers. One bus driver tried and failed to drive off the cliff multiple times from 2016-2018, before seeming regaining sanity for a short while, but now seems to have returned to trying to drive off the cliff. They are driving around to help protect abortion rights, get universal healthcare, further regulations on guns, etc. The second bus driver has been trying to drive off the cliff since January 2021. They are driving around helping with more pro-life causes, more pro-gun causes, etc. Which driver do you choose? I honestly don't see how you can make a reasonable choice without evaluating the particular causes they support in addition to evaluating their various attempts to drive off the cliff. If one of the bus-drivers had no history of trying to drive the bus over the edge and/or wasn't currently trying to do so, then it would be pretty clear which you should choose. But that's not the actual choice before us, and, again, when you pretend that it is that simple you are actually excusing your own preferred side of the same sort of behavior that you claim is unforgiveable on the part of the other side.
I don't know how to lower the temperature, reduce polarization, and make our institutions trustworthy again. But I do know that this one-sided rhetoric (which is false precisely because it is one-sided, most of what you say about Trump is true here, and I wish the Republicans had gone in a different direction since at least 2021, too) is actively making things worse (by raising the temperature even further and, again, leading straightforwardly to things like assassination attempts). I think Jonathan Haidt might have some ideas for reducing polarization and getting us back on track, but I'm not sure that the political parties even want that anymore (see, again, the shift from 2021 Democrats to 2024 Democrats). The problem keeps getting worse on both sides over time, which should make it a problem for everyone no matter what side you are on...at least if we aren't willing to ignore the problem on our own preferred side.
Which side is clearly my preferred side? I ask because the people on the left certainly don't think I'm on their side. Among other things, I don't think they'd consider my most recent book to be consistent with their side.
I also would have voted for *any* Republican other than Trump over Harris. If the Republicans had nominated DeSantis, I would be voting DeSantis. If they nominated Haley, I would be voting Haley. I would even have voted for Doug Burghum, whoever the hell he is. But no, the Republicans had to pick the one person that I can't support, and dare me to vote Democrat.
It's pretty clear that your preferred side is the one Trump isn't on. (Are you denying that you are on Harris' side this election, and that you were on Biden's side prior?) It's also the side you are downplaying the anti-democratic actions of. You wouldn't be the first person to end up excusing Democrats from bad stuff they've actually done because you were alienated by Trump.
I agree that Trump is the worst candidate Republicans could have chosen, but that doesn't stop me from acknowledging how both sides have degraded democratic norms in egregious ways. You can't expect the country to improve at all on this front if we aren't willing to acknowledge that the root problem (namely, polarization) is corrupting both sides.
As polarization increases, people become more biased in favor of their side and more biased against the opposing side. As a result, more people are willing to endorse and vote for the candidate on their side even when their candidate is a bad actor. When they perceive institutions as belonging to the other side, they are more likely to vilify those institutions and believe that they are under the control of bad actors, even when those institutions are acting normally. Obviously, this results in people on both sides being more and more willing to endorse and vote for bad actors who attack the institutions. As partisanship continues to increase on both sides, we should expect this problem to get worse on both sides. Democracy cannot stand this in the long run: democracy crucially depends on the people trusting institutions enough to hold the people's power and to check the power of others. This is the primary problem we are facing today.
Normally I would hope that, upon being made to explicitly acknowledge Democrat's track-record of undermining democratic norms, you would agree that (1) the record is very bad, in a similar way but perhaps not to the same degree as Trump's record (perhaps even so bad that, if Republicans had a good track-record instead of having Trump, you would be calling out Democrats as the threat to democracy instead) and (2) that since both sides have quite bad track-records on this front, you need to investigate and reason carefully both about the relative badness of their anti-democratic tendencies *and* the relative goodness of their political positions to figure out whether one option is truly better than another.
But (2) is just what your post denies, so all I can do is assume that you think something to the effect that Democrats' anti-democratic tendencies are so much milder than Trump's that no set of policy positions could ever make up the difference. Yet, you don't even *acknowledge* the bad actions of Democrats in the article (or in your response to me), let alone provide any argument to this effect. Instead, you engage in the sort of one-sided rhetoric which has demonstrably eroded democratic norms (by encouraging people to assassinate Trump), making the problem worse, not better.
Wallet, I can't respond to every claim that someone makes in the comments. It is not appropriate to expect a response to every claim you made in a rather long comment. If I didn't respond to something you said, I probably didn't agree with you, but in any case, you should assume I don't want to discuss it with you further.
My complaint about Trump was not that he said that Biden's victory was illegitimate in some sense. My complaint was that he made a serious effort to *actually not leave office* after losing the election. Hilary Clinton did not do anything like that. She did not try to actually assume power in 2017. So I find the "whatabout" comparisons between Clinton and Trump completely off base and unreasonable.
Hi Mike, thanks for the responses, though I hope you can understand some of my frustration. You don't have to respond to this one if you feel like we are just going to talk past each other.
I expected some response regarding the anti-democratic tendencies because I took that to be my main point, and I appreciate getting something in your reply here. Similarly, I took your main point to be *not* that Trump did something no Democrat had done to threaten democratic norms (I agree that he did), or even that it was the worst thing anyone had done to threaten democratic norms (I'll concede that, though I think using the courts to target political opponents is similarly really bad). I took your main point to be:
"Therefore, we should not accept a serious risk of disrupting our system for the sake of getting a few moderately better policies."
In other words, I took the main threat not to be that specific action of Trump's, but the threat of regressing back to a historically normal (relatively terrible) society via undermining our democratic system. I took it that if Trump did something other than try to assume power which was still a serious threat to democracy (say, he left the office to Vance in 2028 without letting anyone vote on the matter, or he had the army kill each opposing Democratic candidate in 2028), you would strongly oppose that as well.
If so, then I don't get why you wouldn't similarly consider convincing voters that the election was literally stolen by Russia (they literally tampered with the vote tallies) a serious threat in a similar vein, or trying to impeach the duly-elected president on the basis of that hoax a serious threat (I take it that someone can be undemocratic by preventing the candidate who won the election from taking office), or politically persecuting your opponent with obviously-partisan court cases run like those in New York. Don't all these actions drastically increase the risk of our democratic system collapsing as people lose trust in that system (and so are no longer willing to trust the institutions necessary for democracy)? You can think that these are not as bad as what Trump did, but aren't they all still seriously bad, and don't we need to take that into consideration when voting?
If Trump and the Republican party had decided to target Biden in 2020 with some of court cases which seemed at face value to be ridiculous, but did so in red states where the jury members were likely to hate Biden, and as a result Trump won a narrow election in part because Biden had less funding available after the court cases...it's not obvious why it would be wrong to say that "Trump won the election because he illegitimately persecuted Biden (i.e. Biden would have won absent that persecution), so Trump did not legitimately win the election." This would constitute a serious threat to our democratic system, wouldn't it? Would you remain silent about it, if this had happened in 2020 instead? I would hope not.
Yet, to me, this seems increasingly to be the situation we are in with Harris vs Trump right now...if Harris wins a narrow victory due to her large funding advantage (which is large in part because Trump has had to spend so much on defending himself in court, in some cases over things he should not have been tried for but was tried for because of the political prejudices of officials), it might very well turn out that "Harris won the election because Democrats illegitimately persecuted Trump" and so it will be hard to convince Republicans not to conclude (and, depending on the details, it might be hard to see why it would be mistaken to conclude) "Harris did not legitimately win the election." I consider this to be a serious threat to democracy, similar to the threat posed by Trump's actual 2020 election scheme, even if you want to say that the 2020 scheme was worse.
To rephrase your concern about Trump's 2020 election scheme: At that point, if you are a Republican, what’s your move? Go along with it and welcome Harris? The system cannot be “the other side gets to illegitimately persecute their opponent in order to win." If we’re not going to have legitimate elections, free from political persecution, all bets are off, and we’re thrown into the situation of third-world dictatorships. If you (playing the Republicans) don’t want to completely give up everything, you have to fight this, and physical violence is no longer out of the question. (Why would it be, if the law can no longer be trusted to fairly adjudicate these issues?) It’s not out of the question that you have to assassinate Harris. What happens in the rest of the country? Riots across America, pro- and anti-Trump forces fighting in the streets? I would hope not, but alas the likelihood is increasing.
To be clear, I think there is a very good chance of "Riots across America" regardless of who wins. Democrats prepared narratives prior to 2020's result to the effect that Trump was going to steal the election (they said he would do it by messing with mail-in ballots), and if they lose in 2024 the narrative will be that Trump was an illegitimate candidate. Trump would assuredly claim that the current election was rigged even if there is no reason to think it was (like he did in 2020). Both sides are increasingly prone to justifying political violence (as shown in polls), which again is very predictable given the increase in polarization.
Trump is one of the worst parts of a serious problem that rests on both sides, and that problem (which is, at root, political polarization) is getting worse over time. I remember a time (around 2017) when reasonable people from all across the aisle (most of my friends then, as now, were left-wing) could admit that Democrats had a problem recognizing the results of the 2016 election. Yet, it is increasingly hard post-2021 to get anyone (who isn't a Trumper, themselves a large part of the problem) to admit that Democrats still have an awful track-record in this regard, and we need to take serious aims to address the root cause of the issue (polarization) while *also* doing our best to keep the active threats (from both sides) to democracy out of office, all while keeping in mind the very-real consequences of bad policy. If we can't do that, the situation will just get worse and worse. The problem is really difficult, but it feels like almost nobody is taking it seriously. I don't have a solution, but even if I did, it feels like nobody would be willing to implement it in this environment because it wouldn't be one-sided enough for them.
If I can't even get you, Mike, (by all accounts a very intelligent, reasonable fellow who is a pretty-staunch Libertarian and shouldn't really have a strong bias one way or the other) to recognize that the house is burning on both ends and to stop throwing gasoline on one end, how am I or anyone else supposed to convince the American people to recognize the threats (plural) and to stop burning the other side of the house down? Again, I don't know what the ultimate solution is at this point, the problem is difficult, but I know that the one-sided rhetoric isn't helping (it is, again, actively raising the temperature and leading to assassination attempts).
Let's remember that Trump was King of the Birthers. How many years did he spend loudly insisting that Obama was not a legitimate president?
> The 2016 Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, has repeatedly said that Trump stole that election
I am unaware of her having said that. Can you name an event at which she said that?
I don’t think she’s ever said Trump literally stole the election, but on multiple occasions she’s insinuated he only won due to Russian interference, called him illegitimate, etc.
It’s Hillary Clinton we’re talking about here, so it takes the form of self-serving bullshit with enough wiggle room for barely-plausible deniability in the unlikely event she ever gets called on it.
"...This is the first time any U.S. President has done anything remotely like this."You have to be uniformed about US history to make such a claim. True, in previous cases they used operatives (Mayor Daley, Cook county, Illn. 1960 election). The contested election of 1876. Some would include the 1800 and 1824 elections. Your main point still stands, but I think you are a bit off on the historical claim.
Prof. Huemer - I will consider restoring my comments on this post if you do your duty to administer respectful discourse here. This concerns not your comments, but lack of response toward the disrespectful conduct of others. I suggest the following rules of conduct: “I am here to learn. I respect myself and my rights. I respect others and their rights.” If you’re vigilant in upholding this version of the Golden Rule as an administrator I can participate in this discussion. Otherwise I’ll take my comments and money elsewhere.
If that's true, how could he have overwhelmingly won the primaries?
This is an empirical question that would seem to be resolved by data answering: “What percentage of voters voted for Trump reluctantly or grudgingly? Versus voted for him with mild enthusiasm? Versus voted for him with the utmost passion and highest esteem?
If we had this data would it help resolve a fundamental question underlying your post: what is the likelihood that Trump could damage the Republic by bringing my fears and concerns to fruition?
Why does Trump need to be popular in order to damage the Republic?
Potential to damage the Republic is proportional to one’s popularity and support. A one man army can only do so much damage. Mass shooters for example. On the other hand, a popular figure like Hitler can wreak havoc on a democracy like Germany. Can you think of exceptions?
I think one needs to be popular enough to win an election, and to not get impeached and convicted, in order to wreck a country, but Trump has cleared those bars in the past and has a 50/50 chance of clearing them again. The president has the power to wreck the country whether they're popular or not.
Yet, a bullet missed his face by an inch in Pennsylvania. Things can end quickly. All it takes is one shot.
What do you mean don't support a coup? If Trump wins and is successful at making America a one-party state like Mexico was in the 20th century, what will you do about it? I predict nothing.
As for "others" stopping him, if they couldn't stop him this fall why do you think they can stop him later after he has had four years to reduce their power? They (those that haven't left the country) will do nothing but lie low. I'm 65 and y wife is 70. In the worst-case scenario, y wife and I are old. We are both white and can pass as Republicans so I don't think they will be coming after folks who look like us, at least during the time we have left.
It is a shame it has come to this, and I am still hopeful that either Trump loses or is too inept to proceed as he would be able to. But it is what it is.
Prof. Huemer - I will consider restoring my comments on this post if you do your duty to administer respectful discourse here. This concerns not your comments, but lack of response toward the disrespectful conduct of others. I suggest the following rules of conduct: “I am here to learn. I respect myself and my rights. I respect others and their rights.” If you’re vigilant in upholding this version of the Golden Rule as an administrator I can participate in this discussion. Otherwise I’ll take my comments and money elsewhere.
> First consider the Supreme Court nominations. Such nominations endure for decades.
Kamala has been an active politician in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Trump had no prior experience in politics before becoming President. He is completely uncalibrated and has no ability to choose good fits for governmental roles - that's why nearly all his Attorney Generals quit and said he was the worst person they ever worked with, why many of his family members say to vote against him, and why the people who worked closest with him are being indicted, charged, or imprisoned for illegal actions they took on his behalf.
> Second consider that the economy might be much better under Trump, and this might be the difference in valuable start-ups succeeding or failing.
Trump wants to install 10% tariffs for all foreign imports. This will not be a good thing for the economy. He was also completely ineffective at coordinating the Republican party to pass legislation he wanted - where's the border wall at now - vs the Biden/Kamala administration that passed the CHIPs act and infrastructure bill by garnering bipartisan support to invest in the American economy. Your what ifs are undermined by Trump's inability to pass anything in his first term, even when he had control of both houses of Congress.
> People will respond to Trump’s actions. They will resist his efforts to change the election outcome. Those efforts of resistance strengthen the system. They make it more anti-fragile. They set a precedent for future generations in how to respond to such actions. These are benefits.
Were China and Russia's governments strengthened and became more antifragile when Putin or Xi Jinping continued consolidating power? What a terrible idea. Should the military strike your house so you can maybe get better at defending it?
>Your first bullet point stating that Trump tried to find the votes sounds a bit like me trying to find mistakes in my chemistry teacher’s grading notebook. Teachers make mistakes in the grading process. By finding those mistakes one might change their class grade. Not sure how applicable this analogy is in this instance but it came to mind as I was reading your post. It’s okay to check for mistakes in the voting process. Finding the votes is like finding points I deserved. An 88% might be turned into a 90%, which might mean valedictorian instead of a lower class rank, which might make the difference in attending a particular college. Unlikely but could happen.
Huemer undersold what Trump said in that call. You should listen to it yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW_Bdf_jGaA
In it he makes multiple false accusations of voter fraud that are completely debunked by the people on the call. Trump and his lawyers on the call also lie and say that other states have recalled their elections and decided to certify in his favor after being confronted with voting fraud claims - not a single state in 2020 did such a thing. Trump after this call would later go on to tweet:
"I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ballots under table scam, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!"
Again, this is malicious lying. I'm not sure why you're doing this vibes based political analysis when you could just enter into google or chatgpt "Was Trump calling a state Attorney General and pressuring them kind of like when I try to correct a chemistry teacher's grading?" and be inundated with multiple primary and secondary sources detailing his corruption.
I agree with your conclusion to vote Libertarian Party ticket. ;-)
I disagree with what is at stake. I think Trump, rightfully or not, took a legal positivist approach that didn't turn out. Whether or not he was correct is another issue. Your case is dramatic and overblown.
What we see on the left, alternatively, is the importation of voters to increase apportionment in blue states (even the non-voters will increase apportionment). Taking the dramatic interpretation of Jan 6 as presented here (one that includes the 'justification' of violence against a political candidate) gives wind to the sails of people like Hillary Clinton to push censorship programs, packing of the Supreme Court, insecure elections, etc etc.
As someone commented below, the change in methods of voting has had a material impact on election results and the possibility of cheating. There is a real chance the elections are now rigged. Furthermore, California is now paving the way to make ID's at polling places illegal.
I think most people have a visceral like or dislike of Trump and build their dramatica around that reaction.
Professor Huemer, you wrote a whole book in which you argued convincingly that democracy is bad and should be abolished. If we are going to abolish democracy in the future, at some point we will have to threaten the norms of democracy. If we take a long-term view, couldn't it be the case that eroding the norms of democracy now might be beneficial even if it causes some short-term chaos?
Also, it is true that America has been much better than the typical human society throughout history, but why should we attribute its success to its democratic government? There are plenty of other factors that may have contributed to America's unique success. And of course it is unfair to compare America to societies of the past, which were terrible mostly because they were extremely poor due to being pre-industrial. If we look at the best current societies, they are democratic, but there are also other commonalities; it isn't clear that democracy is the causal factor. So overall, I think the worry that America will regress to the "normal state for human societies" if its democracy is destroyed is a bit exaggerated.
In the book, I described how the transition to anarcho-capitalism might come about. It would not come about by someone simply blowing up our institutions. Rather, we need to gradually build the alternative institutions while the government is shrinking, essentially outsourcing more and more of the government's work to private businesses.
Regarding democracy, it is well established in general that democracies do better than dictatorships. We have solid theoretical reasons for this, and many examples. See my post, https://fakenous.substack.com/p/i-cant-believe-this-is-the-best-we-can-do-but-democracy. That post spends the most time talking about the flaws of democracy. But the flaw of undemocratic government is much worse -- that it tends to lead to immediate, obvious, widespread disasters.
I feel as though a similar argument could be used against any action taken to move the government in a more libertarian direction. E.g. if someone proposes a bill to privatize social security, you could just say “well, I advocate for gradual transition, not blowing up the institution!”
And perhaps that is a valid response, but the goalposts are very moveable.
I think the more constructive argument is to say that Trump’s actions aren’t actually moving the government in a more libertarian direction.
It’s unclear to me if that’s true, though. Mail-in ballots increase the number of lower-quality voters. Lower-quality voters are less libertarian. So doing anything to undermine the legitimacy of these votes very well could shift policy in a more libertarian direction.
Prof. Huemer - I will consider restoring my comments on this post if you do your duty to administer respectful discourse here. This concerns not your comments, but lack of response toward the disrespectful conduct of others. I suggest the following rules of conduct: “I am here to learn. I respect myself and my rights. I respect others and their rights.” If you’re vigilant in upholding this version of the Golden Rule as an administrator I can participate in this discussion. Otherwise I’ll take my comments and money elsewhere.
I don't see how all that is supposed to be comforting. It seems like you just described an extremely bad and childish person. Why would that be comforting?
Perhaps it's supposed to be comforting because Trump didn't do it *for the purpose* of destroying America. He's not like a Bolshevik, ideologically committed to bringing down the system. True. But that leaves the fact that he did something extremely dangerous.
Suppose the bus driver didn't ram into the guard rail *for the purpose* of killing everyone on the bus. Rather, he was just upset because he had a fight with his wife that morning, and he was blowing off steam by smashing into the railing. He was merely *indifferent* to whether the bus went off the cliff, not specifically trying to make it go off. I guess that's marginally less awful, but still completely unacceptable.
Maybe I'm supposed to be comforted because the sequence of events that led Trump to that dangerous action was very specific and unlikely to be repeated. True. But the character traits that you described are still there, and could pose a threat in a variety of situations.
Fantastic response. I agree. Let’s ponder what might be going on here.
Trump is doing “very dirty work” that almost no one is cut out to do. Notice that no other Republicans came close to beating him. Yet we live in a country full of talented people. Couldn’t someone do better than Trump? No one came close however.
Trump is a reflection of the situation we’re in. A reflection of the character of the red tribe and a response to the blue. A reflection of their education and of the situation. A reflection of perverse incentives and their consequences. I’m thinking mainly about the incentives in higher education, but also K-12 and all of our other learning institutions, including religious.
It’s not a coincidence that gender ideology has emerged at the same time as Trump. These are both signs of weakness. Conformity and dogma plague us.
We should be talking about Trump just as you do in your post, but what to do about him? He is a symptom of the problem though right? So the cure isn’t so much with him or the election.
Look over at the blue side. Harris is an incredibly weak candidate too. Someone willing to do the dirty work though. She is a reflection of the character of the blue tribe and response to the red.
Both Trump and Harris reflect the state of learning in our country. What are we doing in our schools and churches and homes that have produced these weak candidates?
These candidates aren’t moral exemplars, but rather attack dogs.
I’m actually not too worried about the situation, but other people should be upset and worried because things might go very poorly for them no matter who wins the election.
The debate between Trump and Harris was vicious and truly sad. Again that debate was a symptom of the problem. A reflection of the underlying problems.
Yet Harris did surprisingly well. I’m actually grateful that she did so well. And I’m grateful that the race is close to 50/50. This is a sign that “things” are working as best they can. There is competition going on here.
If one side was way out in front of the other I would be more worried.
And remember we can deal with new problems as they emerge. We have our creativity, incredible resources to draw on and most of us are in “safe places.”
My suggestion is to guide people to be prepared for crises that might emerge. For example…”If you’re not in a safe place in your life get to one. Geographically, financially, emotionally, behaviorally, etc. The symptoms that we’re seeing tell us to pay attention and to work to get to safe places in all aspects of our lives. Don’t have any vulnerabilities right now. Get all your ducks in order. Be ready for something bad to happen, on par with Covid lockdowns.”
Remember Robert Higgs: “Another crisis will emerge.” Be ready for it.
Has it not occurred to you that Trump has been indicted and faces possible jail time? Is it so hard to believe that he doesn't want to go to jail? If he fails to gain the presidency this could happen. Even if he wins the election he will be out of power in 2029 and still young enough to go to jail (his father lived to 94). His best bet is to win the election and then use the power of the presidency to ensure that the guy who replaces him is loyal, thus keeping him out of jail.
Enacting structures that produce a one-party state is Trump's best strategy to stay out of jail. Now maybe he can't, but they are still some smart, ambitious Republicans who can try to make that happen.
It’s really incredible to see how hard people work to treat the most obviously bad faith person of our times as though he were acting in good faith. And kidding themselves that a man who has repeatedly fucked over his own people out of self-interest won’t do so again, at larger scale.
So you're saying the Democrats have become so corrupt that the only way to restore something resembling a functioning judiciary is to change the system to permanently remove them from power.
If that is in fact the case, then they should be permanently removed from power. Heck, maybe then some other party like the Libertarians, or a new Reform party can become the official opposition.
No I am saying that Trump will be prosecuted unless he or a Republican is in power. That is all. YOU changed the subject to a discussion about corruption.
> No I am saying that Trump will be prosecuted unless he or a Republican is in power.
Trump isn't the only person who will be maliciously prosecuted if the Democratic party in its current form ever returns to power.
> YOU changed the subject to a discussion about corruption.
Corruption is the reason for these prosecutions, it is very relevant to the topic.
So that raises the question of why you don't want to discuss it.
The Vance Walz debate made clear that Free Speech has a carve out for "hate speech" and "misinformation" that is scandalous. No, there's no carveout. Team Harris Walz appears to be on board with Infohazard Containment, a dangerous trend for any one cares about speech and democracy. I mean, speech is the gateway to EVERYTHING ELSE.
IOW, there's much more to consider in this election than Trump, the man.
(You might say "well, Trump would gladly censor!" Maybe. But recent years clearly show an ideological - not just opportunist or grifty - Big Tech-approved pivot on attitudes toward expression, and that simply isn't anywhere near as present on the GOP side.)
I'm not sure why you're writing fan fiction speculating about Trump's psychology when we have publicly available quotes from the people that worked in his administration. The voter fraud claims were debunked by his own DOJ. His Attorney General William Barr held a press conference with AP News explaining that the voter fraud accusations were all false, because Trump went on Fox News and lied and said the DOJ was MIA and not doing their job.
https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d
There's also the Raffensperger call where Trump repeats numerous accusations of voter fraud and Raffensperger and other people on the call are capable of rebutting all of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW_Bdf_jGaA
Then Trump tweets out and lies again that they had no clue about voter fraud:
"I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ballots under table scam, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!"
Trump was maliciously lying about voter fraud the entire time. He wasn't a clueless manchild, although he was very stupid. Now this time he's running with people like JD Vance who said they would have certified the election in his favor, and he has an executive order drafted up to replace nonpartisan federal workers with sycophantic loyalists. https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/09/trumps-second-term-agenda-breaking-bureaucracy/399533/
I’m not writing fan fiction. Trump is a bad guy with better policies than Harris. I don’t find Huemer’s bus analogy compelling. It seems simplistic.
Ask yourself this. How does Trump stay out of jail given the strong case prosecutors have against him? Sure, if he wins, he can order to DOJ to stop his prosecution, but all that does in put it on hold until the next guy comes in. If the next president is a Dem he goes to jail for sure since they will be out for blood. Thus he has a strong motive to eviscerate them as a political force--i.e. put into place a one-party state.
> Ask yourself this. How does Trump stay out of jail given the strong case prosecutors have against him?
Strong case? Prosecutors had to twist the law into a pretzel to make the case they did.
So, your position is Trump faces zero threat from his legal troubles and so has no more incentive to win the election than any other politician?
He has legal troubles because the Democrats are weaponizing the judicial system (three felonies a day) against political opponents.
> The voter fraud claims were debunked by his own DOJ.
No, they weren't, at best they were denied. Sounds like you don't even know what the word "debunked" means.
Wow that call was something else, especially starting here: https://youtu.be/AW_Bdf_jGaA?si=0Bo0XadmTboWrgvS&t=2785
I find it surprising people still are claiming that Trump wasn't pressuring people, like lol, lmao.
Trump was never winning. Only a child would interpret the early returns as saying he won. All the polls for months showed a bigger margin for Biden than anything Clinton got in 2016. Also Trump's vote line was completely in line (actually slightly better) than what he got in 2016. The reason he won in 2016 was people who refused to vote for him voted for the libertarian because they did not want to vote for a woman who was running only because she was a former first lady. In 2020 they were voting for a standard issue while male politician who had been around forever. There was TONS of polling evidence that Biden was seen more favorably than Clinton.
Going into the election, only an idiot would think Trump had a serious chance. Republican campaign staff are not idiots. they knew he would probably lose and so did Trump. But Trump also knew he had a base that would believe whatever crazy thing he said, so he tried to stay in power. In a functional country he would be stopped and never be able to run again--no harm done. But America is no longer a functional country, and THAT, I believe, is what Huemer is concerned with.
“Trump was never winning. Only a child would interpret the early returns as saying he won.”
“Going into the election, only an idiot would think Trump had a serious chance.”
No need for me to respond beyond highlighting your ad hominem. A sign of weakness.
True, Trump is immature, dishonest, disrespectful, childish, etc. Surely it’s not stupid for me to describe Trump accurately. At the same time he’s the GOP front runner. Why are you saying my comment so, so stupid?
Brilliant response from Person Online https://persononline.substack.com/p/i-dont-care-about-the-status-quo
Yawn. Boy is this played out. First of all, you assume malice on Trump's part rather than stupidity. The evidence suggests that he actually believes the 2020 election was stolen. The regime undeniably believes 2016 was stolen, they were just less stupid in how they went about responding to it. Regardless of which side wins this time, both sides will think it was stolen. Trump acted foolishly and got nowhere, and he won't get anywhere with a similar play this time around either. What would've happened if Pence went along with it? Pence would've been detained, someone else would've stepped in to preside over the proceedings, and the whole thing would've moved along on schedule. The following is far more plausible than Tronald Troomph actually pulling off a military coup with the help of a military that wasn't even willing to deploy to quell riots under him in the Summer of Floyd:
Democrats admit Puerto Rico and DC as states, grant amnesty and citizenship to tens of millions of immigrants, end the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, etc., effectively creating a one-party state and locking the conservative half of the country into permanent outsider status (even more than they already are). Are you worried about this possibility? Does it bother you less because technically it could all done be "constitutionally?" Never mind that, from the perspective of the right, Democrats don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution and violate it constantly in extremely egregious way (for instance, Joe Biden's attempt to force-vaccinate tens of millions of private-sector employees or else threaten them with job loss and unpersoning).
Let me give you my one-sentence perspective from the other side. The existence of the Democratic Party in its current state makes "the system" completely illegitimate. This is the opposite of your viewpoint; I care about the issues, and I care about them *so much* that I simply cannot be made to care very much about a so-called "system" that continues to get them so cataclysmically wrong. The fact that these things are even up for a vote causes me to check out of this "system." Let's review your "issues" because you did name some good ones:
--Abortion: Industrialized baby murder, hundreds of thousands of children killed every single year.
--Border security: The lack of a border makes a farce out of the entire concept of the United States as an actual nation rather than simply a globohomo economic zone.
--Inflation: Savings are made worthless, cost of living made unaffordable, nation and economy as a whole pushed ever onwards towards an inevitable debt-bubble crisis of unknown magnitude, because the government can't stop borrowing money it doesn't have to give people free shit and buy off various demographics. Granted, a lot of the actual voters are bad on this issue as well, this one might be an inherent fatal flaw in any mass-suffrage democracy. The other three definitely don't have to be the way they are though.
--Crime: Murderers and rapists rarely get the death penalty, and law and order in general is simply not a priority, instead we must hear concerns about how evil it is to have laws because too many black people end up in jail.
This leaves the Ukraine war as the only thing that I can't instantly identify as a system-disqualifying failure, notably it's the only one where the regime is actually fighting a foreign adversary rather than taking a dump all over its own citizens. These other four I can say bother me a whole hell of a lot more than January 6 or Donald Trump. The Republicans are mostly not good enough on these things in my view, so what do you think I feel about the Democrats? The other side of this coin is that you could make a very serious argument that actual right-wingers are compromising their values massively by *not* doing any more to rock the boat about this stuff.
You're worried about "preserving the system," I can promise you 100% our "system" can withstand the following and will function even better than before:
--Stop killing children in the womb.
--Actually have a border.
--Stop printing endless funny money to give away to people.
--Actually put criminals in jail.
You want to preserve the system, why don't you start there? You completely overlook these things and only notice that there's a problem once things get bad enough that a year like 2020 happens. This sort of dissatisfaction is how you ended up with Blumpft in the first place, remember? If the establishment simply weren't so downright evil he never would've been President, it could've been Mitt Romney or Hillary.
You want to preserve our institutions? They mostly suck. Maybe they were nice once. But until they are cleansed of woke garbage I have no love for them and won't defend them. You can rage all you want about how stupid this makes me. I don't care. The woke stuff is the enemy, period. You can't browbeat me into compliance with the sort of hand-wringing on display here. I'm sure most right wingers feel the same. You want to preserve our precious heckin' institutions? Cool, ban the woke garbage, that's the compromise. You can't expect people to support institutions that overtly hate them. It's just a non-starter and frankly it's ridiculous that someone would even try to make such a pitch.
If we want to frame this as game theory, you can't have a lasting game where one side notices that everything is increasingly rigged against them and their winrate keeps going down steadily over time, with good reason to believe that it will approach zero pretty soon. You put someone in that situation, of course they're going to start looking for a way to flip the table.
> The evidence suggests that he actually believes the 2020 election was stolen.
I should hope so, given that it was.