#Democracy vs authoritarianism

[seansmithauthor]

Your #1 Beach Read?

Sean Smith reads a section of his newly published science fiction novel The Legendary Magistrate of Zar (script I: Molla's Pebble).

You can find the YouTube video by following the link below:

[t-jfh]

Illustration: Rebecca Chew/The New York Times

A Warning About Donald Trump and 2024

At the outset of this election year, with Donald Trump leading the race to be the Republican presidential nominee, Americans should pause to consider what a second Trump term would mean for the country and the world.

Opinion by the Editorial Board

The New York Times - January 6, 2024

•

•

Joe Biden and Donald Trump are headed for an election rematch in 2024.

(Photo: Matt Rourke/Associated Press)

America’s hell: A tyrannical Trump who can’t be conquered

With the disreputable Donald Trump challenging the disfavored President Biden, the 2024 race has become the embodiment of Oscar Wilde’s witticism about fox hunting: “the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.”

Opinion by Maureen Dowd

The New York Times - January 6, 2024

•

•

Attendees prayed during a Commit to Caucus event held by former President Donald J. Trump’s campaign in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in December 2023. Evangelical voters have long supported Republican candidates, but who identifies as an evangelical Christian has changed over the years. (Photo: Jordan Gale for The New York Times)

Trump Is Connecting With a Different Type of Evangelical Voter

They are not just the churchgoing, conservative activists who once dominated the G.O.P.

By Ruth Graham and Charles Homans

Ruth Graham, a Times religion reporter, and Charles Homans, who covers grass-roots politics, spoke to voters and pastors in nine towns and cities across Iowa.

The New York Times - January 8, 2024

•

•

President Biden’s visit to Charleston, S.C., was the second part of his two-stage opening campaign swing of the election year.

(Photo: Pete Marovich for The New York Times)

Biden Tries to Rally Disaffected Black Voters in Fiery Condemnation of Trump

The president visited Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., the site of one of the most horrific hate crimes in recent years, to denounce racism and extremism.

President Biden sought to rally disaffected Black supporters on Monday with a fiery condemnation of former President Donald J. Trump, linking his predecessor’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election to the nation’s history of white supremacy in what he called “the old ghost in new garments.”

By Peter Baker

The New York Times - January 8, 2024

•

[contemplatingoutlander]

"That 'republic not a democracy' slogan is especially dangerous because it persuades Republicans that democracy and democratic practices don't matter to a free society. It went from being a clever slogan to a justification for voter suppression, authoritarian practices, January 6, and everything else."

--Marque Tres, commenting on the NY Times column Mitt Romney Has It Half Right

[emperornorton47]

[captaingimpy]

Framing Freedom and Authoritarianism: A Spectrum-Based Approach to Governance

This is a very rough draft of an idea that I’m working on. I appreciate anyone who takes the time to read this and leave a comment down below. Or if you know me in real life, knock on my door and talk about it over a cup of coffee LOL. Thank you for your time. Traditional academic discourse often frames governance within a binary opposition of freedom versus authoritarianism. Democracies are…

[qqueenofhades]

Obviously the main contrasting narrative of the Harris campaign is (rightfully, the ads almost write themselves!) prosecutor vs convict. But I keep thinking about how, in one of her first campaign speeches, she had Biden on the phone and he said something like "I'm here, I love you Kid" and she said "I love you too" and just... That compared to the Jan 6th Mike Pence situation. Like this election is about democracy over fascism but it's also about love and kindness and sincerity on the level of person-to-person relationships.

Well... yeah. As Minnesota governor Tim Walz put it when he was doing the TV rounds for Kamala the other day, the Republicans are just weird people. They are mean, petty, reactionary, focused on revenge and retribution and making people suffer, their rhetoric is about shame and violence and punishment, they are all about Who Your Enemy Is, and their drift into ever more extreme fascist positions is a reflection of that. And strongman/fascist authoritarianism is often popular during moments of chaos and upheaval in the rest of the world, because the unknown feels so scary and people keep falling for the lie that a helpful dictator strongman will turn up and make it all better. It never happens, but it is a powerful lie and it can work for several years at a time, as we have (unfortunately) seen. (And Tim Walz is definitely climbing the list of Old White Guys I Like; supposedly he is on Harris' initial VP shortlist, and while I certainly have favorites of my own, she could very much do worse.)

However, and this is why fascist movements always plant the seeds of their own destruction, this constant garbage spew of hate and vitriol never ever works forever, and usually not even all that long. Because once you spend your time destroying everyone else on your mean stupid crusade of mindless bigotry, you lose friends, you alienate the ordinary people who are more interested in having something to be FOR rather than just constantly against, and eventually you eat your own. And while it will shore up your ever-dwindling cult base, it will not be able to expand beyond the people who are already fully indoctrinated, and it will lose more people than it attracts. As I have said before, one of the key tenets of fascist movements is presenting themselves as powerful, inevitable, and almighty: just surrender to them now before We Crush You (tm) later! But they are not! They are goofy, stupid, mean, and just plain (thanks Gov. Walz) WEIRD! Nobody wants to be those guys!

So yes. With the whole fact of a party where one guy tried to get his first VP killed and now has picked another reactionary loser who is the least popular VP pick in 50 years, and the other is joyfully supporting his VP, a woman of color (after serving loyally to the first Black president, Biden has set the way for the -- knock on wood -- second, and that is also amazing), it's really easy to see the difference, and very clearly, people do. Kamala offers something to rally FOR, and that is always, always more powerful than mindless hate. Sucks to be the GOP. (As usual.)

[stillnaomi]

people buying into the "democracy vs authoritarianism" framing let themselves get tricked into supporting every US backed war

[tanadrin]

What if the judicial safeguards are an important tool of consensus building and coordinating political action to prevent someone like Trump winning the presidency? Like I think laws and institutions and norms have a complicated backreaction with other kinds of political activity—in practice, a society with strong legal rules supporting democracy is probably going to find it easier to coordinate politics activity against authoritarianism than one without those rules, all else being equal.

@jadagul also the problem I have with the framing "the law requires disqualifying Trump but the law is bad" is, like

okay, the law should be interpreted consistently, right? And as a matter of policy it seems not bad to have a law saying that, in general terms, people who want to end constitutional government can't hold office under the constitution (though Congress has discretion to let them anyway)

which is why Congress (and the states) ratified the 14th amendment in the first place.

so we are left saying that either the original policy was bad (seems dubious to me, I'm a big fan of the rule of law) or that because he is uniquely popular the law is uniquely bad in the case of Trump, which seems like a complicated way of saying Trump should be excused from this law. and that's really bad, because then it means Trump is above the law!

but there is a political solution in Congress if there really is a strong democratic will to let Trump run: he can get excused by a two-thirds vote of both houses! so we could easily reverse the political problem and say to Trump supporters, hey, it's your job to convince a supermajority of the House and Senate to clear the guy.

and maybe you can say "oh but reconstruction was a different time, the law shouldn't have stayed on the books," but then the time to repeal it was any point since the 1870s.

it is reasonable to me that democratic systems put robust safeguards of many different kinds in place to protect democracy, and if those safeguards exist they ought to be used. otherwise you get systems like in authoritarian republics where the constitution makes lots of flowery guarantees that don't mean anything, because the judiciary isn't empowered to rule on any issue of consequence or wade into any issue where there is political disagreement.

[bonaesperanza]

This may be a Bad Take but I think a lot less people would have issues with Padmé Amidala's RotS characterization if they realized that her role in that movie is largely symbolic and that Anakin's attitude towards her is meant to represent the inherent tension between liberty and security (which is clearly one of the main themes in a movie that has Anakin quote George W Bush as he falls to the Dark Side).

Padmé represents the best of democratic values: the capability to perceive everyone's inherent worth, the trust in state institutions, the morality, the benefits and drawbacks of resolving issues in a democratic manner and within the system (she often finds herself helpless in the face of corruption, for example). Padmé's ideals are the core of her character, to the point that she basically is her ideals. Basically, Padmé is to the Galactic Republic what Marianne is to the French Republic.

Now, you may have issues with a female character being used as a personification of a state or a political system, but not only is this a millennia-old narrative tradition, I also feel like you're probably barking up the wrong tree, because George Lucas LOVES using characters as symbols for abstract concepts: Luke as the Hero with a Thousand Faces, the Good vs. Bad Father dynamic with Obi-Wan and Vader, etc. This is completely on brand for the way George Lucas in particular constructs characters.

Even Padmé's most famous line, "So this is how Liberty dies," is indicative of this (and I love the concept of a former slave boy falling in love with Liberty herself).

Padmé dies because Liberty dies, not because she's a weak useless woman.

And Anakin's relationship to her potential death is very much... an indictment of reactionary politics and the War on Terror?

Anakin loves Padmé because she is fair-minded and understanding even when he doesn't deserve it, because she is tolerant, because she is kind, because she fights for justice, because she uplifts people. This is what he is in love with and what he is trying to preserve.

But in the face of nebulous threats, some real and some manufactured, he tries to save her by trampling all over what she stands for. And what she stands for is her. Therefore the very act of trying to save her is what ends up killing her, just like trying to keep your democracy safe by increasingly cruel and authoritarian measures inevitably kills it. Anakin claims that he loves her, that he's protecting her, but he is unwilling to listen to anything she has to say about it, just like plenty of people whose mouths are full of freedom but don't want to think about or apply the values that they are supposedly defending. What she believes no longer matters as long as she loves and comforts and uplifts him (and when she doesn't he goes into a rage).

Everything Padmé stands for, her very way of life and her very way of doing things, no longer exist at the end of RotS. She was becoming increasingly static and helpless during the movie because her way of doing things no longer works as the Republic becomes mired in cruelty and corruption, she cannot do anything but set foundations for an eventual rebellion and hope that a spark of hope survives. She can no longer survive in this new system, and it is in her nature to rather die than compromise herself in order to work within it. In a symbolic way, she quite literally cannot survive if she has to exist within it. She IS Liberty, and it would be a paradox if she survived. She dies and their children - another thing Anakin is fighting to protect, like many people who are "defending freedom" "for the children!!1!" - are made orphans, left to their own devices, forced to fight and rebuild things from scratch because she can no longer nurture them or protect them. This is a political metaphor y'all.

And in this reading, even Shmi's death ends up working better if you squint? Because even though Anakin's anger over her death stems from clear injustice and is fundamentally righteous, the fear and rage that this creates in him, and his inability to cope with it, is what directly causes him to both fear for Padmé's safety and to eventually smother her due to that fear. And to eventually become what he fears, killing Liberty, depriving himself of liberty in the process by becoming Sidious's blind slave, and literally destroying the future of an entire generation of (Jedi) children.

Now, I'm not saying that this makes a more psychological analysis of Padmé's character invalid or that this is the only role that she plays (for example, while Obi-Wan is the "good father figure" in ANH, he's clearly many different things across all the movies and clearly has an established characterization beyond that, and so does Padmé), but I think looking at it through this particular lens does make the choices made for her character less baffling and more indicative of the larger themes of the prequels.

[i-am-dulaman]

petition for that long rant on revolutions here, i really enjoyed the way you laid out your facts and explained the first rant and am not too good at reading theory myself (i am still trying tho) thanks!!

Okay okay so the problem with revolutions is they get messy. Real messy. You get counter-revolutionaries, moderates, extremists, loyalists, and everything in between. One revolution turns into 5, and even if your side wins, its almost guaranteed to have been tainted some way or another along the way.

Take the first french revolution. It started as civil unrest, the estates general initially called for reform of the french state into a constitutional monarchy similar to Britain. Even king louis XVI was in support of this. But extremists wanting a republic and counter-revolutionaries wanting absolute monarchy clashed and things became more and more chaotic and violent. Eventually the extremists won, the jacobin reign of terror ensued, and 10s of thousands of people were executed. Now don't get me wrong, i am all for executing monarchs and feudal lords, but look what happened a few years later; Napoleon used the political instability to declare himself emperor, a few more years later his empire had crumbled, and the monarchy was back with Louis XVIII.

Or take the 1979 iranian revolution. It started as protests against pahlavi, who was an authoritarian head of state and an American pawn. As the protests turned into civil resistance and guerilla warfare it took on many different forms. There were secularists vs islamic extremists. There were democrats vs theocrats vs monarchists. Etc. Through all the chaos, Khomeini seized power, held a fake referendum, and declared himself supreme leader and enforced many strict laws, particularly on women who previously had close to equal rights. Many of the millions of women involved in the revolution later said they felt bettayed by the end result.

Or the Russian Revolution. It started as protests, military strikes, and civil unrest during WW1 directed at the tsar. He stepped down in 1917 and handed power over to the Duma, the russian parliament. This new provisionary government initially had the support of soviet councils, including socialist groups like the menshiviks. But they made the major mistake of deciding to continue the war. Lenins bolsheviks were originally a very tiny group on the fringes of russian politics, but they were the loudest supporters of peace, so they gained support and organised militias into an army and thus began the russian civil war. Lenin won and followed through on his promise to end the war against germany, but its a bit ironic that they fought a civil war, that killed about 10 million people, just to end another war.

Im not saying any of these results were either bad or good. They all have nuance and its all subjective. But the point i am trying to make is that they get messy. The initial goals will always be twisted.

France wanted a constitutional monarchy, they got an autocratic emporer.

Iran wanted democracy and an end to American influence, and well they ended american influence alright but also got a totalitarian theocrat.

Russia wanted an end to world war 1 and got one of the bloodiest civil wars in history.

I cant think of a single revolution in history that achieved the goals it set out to achieve.

But again, im not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, just a warning against revolutionary rhetoric and criticisms of reformism. Sometimes revolution is the only option, when you're faced with an authoritarian government diametrically opposed to change, then a revolution may be worth the risk. But it is a risk.

But if you live in a democracy, claiming revolution is the only way is actively choosing both bloodshed and the risk of things going horribly wrong over the choice of peaceful reform.

So when i go online in some leftist spaces and see people claiming revolution in America or UK or wherever is the only way out of capitalism I cant help but feel angry.

I know our democracy is flawed, and reform is slow and can even go backwards, but we owe it to all the people who would die in a revolution to try reform first.

I know socialist reform is especially hard in our flawed democracy where capitalists own the media, but if we can't convince enough people to vote for socialist reform what hope do we have of convincing enough people to join a socialist revolution. Socialism is supposed to be for the people, but how can you claim your revolution is for the people if you can't even get the support of the people?

So what I'm trying to say is; if youre one of those leftists that are sitting around waiting for the glorious revolution, doing nothing but posting rhetoric online - at least try doing something else while you wait. Join your labour union, recruit your coworkers, get involved in your local socialist parties, call your local representatives (city council, senator, governor, member of parliament, whatever) and make your opinions known, push them further left, and keep pushing.

[short-wooloo]

I have thoughts on the constant assertion by thrawn stans that Dave filoni "retconned" him from being "morally gray" into just an evil villain

This claim mostly comes from perceived dissonance between thrawn's portrayal in Rebels/Ahsoka vs his portrayal in his novels

Ok, 1.

Rebels/Ahsoka and any other movie/show thrawn may appear in are higher canon, they are more canon then the books, if there's a contradiction between them, movie/show wins, or put simply, the movies/shows are canon to the books, but the books are not canon to the movies/shows, the books must fit with the movies/shows, not vice versa

And 2.

I think people entirely miss the point of the new thrawn trilogy

Aside from the fact that Rebels came first, and is thus the primary source for thrawn's characterization, the books are in the past tense (even the ones that are supposed to run parallel with the Rebels seasons, since they would have been written after those seasons were, any inconsistencies are the fault of the books)

They're prequels

Thrawn's characterization in them is who he WAS, his characterization in Rebels/Ahsoka/future high canon is who he became

You're not supposed to take away from the books that thrawn is a "morally grey but ultimately good character who dies bad things for good reasons" (and that "fIlOnI rEtCoNnEd tHrAwN"), the takeaway should be "look how far he's fallen, look at what he's become, look at what the empire turns people into, look at what constant rationalizations of "the ends justify the means" leads to, look at how the dark side can even corrupt and twist people who cannot use it"

Thrawn before he joined the empire was inclined to believe that democracy was bad and only by brutally forcing it can there be order and "peace", the chiss ascendancy is a xenophobic authoritarian military-oligarchy, it has a lot of common ground with the empire (and it's successor states)

And that brings us to what the empire is

In the empire, bad people are rewarded, you cannot get ahead without being so, tyranny, brutality, and ruthlessness are encouraged, it gets you promotions, authority, and favor of the emperor, it's a system designed to bring out the worst in people, good people in the empire end up powerless, dead, or they turn against it

And thrawn is a grand admiral, one of the highest ranks in the empire, the only people who definitely had more authority than thrawn were tarkin, Vader, and Palpatine

He could not have gotten there without committing to the empire and it's values

Maybe he did have a good reason for joining the empire, maybe he really did believe he was protecting his people

But that all rings hollow to the people who were oppressed by the empire that he supported

[t-jfh]

Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin have their own reasons for ongoing war.

(Photo: ABC News, Reuters)

Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin have something in common – ongoing war is a distraction they need

In an increasingly troubled world, two men have a clear incentive to keep their wars going – Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin.

By global affairs editor John Lyons in Jerusalem

ABC News - 13 December 2023

•

[contemplatingoutlander]

How to cover an abnormal presidential race

Could the media coverage adhere closer to reality? Hard questions must be asked.

Jennifer Rubin offers a much needed road map as to how journalists should be covering an election between a politician who upholds democratic values (Biden) vs. a politician who is determined to undermine the Constitution and create a dictatorship (Trump). I wish mainstream journalists would follow her advice. Below are some excerpts, but you can use the gift🎁link to read the entire article.

The United States has never had an election in which: a felon runs for president on a major party ticket; a presidential candidate lays out a detailed plan for authoritarian rule; an entire party gaslights the public (e.g., claiming the president was behind their candidate’s state prosecution; pretending they won the last election); and, prominent leaders of one party signal they will not accept an adverse outcome in the next election. Yet, the coverage of the 2024 campaign is remarkably anodyne, if not oblivious, to the unprecedented nature of this election and its implications. [...] How could the coverage stick more closely to reality? Obsession with early polling that inevitably becomes meaningless after big events such as Trump’s conviction (stuff happens!) and that cannot yet gauge who is likely to vote should go by the wayside — or at least come with caveats and not drive coverage. What would be informative: A minute or two of unedited video showing Trump’s rambling, incoherent and deranged rants. Rather than merely “fact check” the nonsense blizzard, reports can explore the unprecedented nature of his rhetoric, illustrate the deterioration in his thinking and speech, and discuss how an obviously irrational and unhinged leader casts a spell over his devoted following. The media also can refuse to entertain laughable MAGA spin, such as claiming that Trump’s conviction will help him win the election.... When such incidents pop up, informative journalism would examine what else MAGA forces lie about (e.g., crowd size) and how authoritarians depend on creating a false aura of invincibility. When supposedly normal Republican officials parrot Trump’s obvious falsehoods and baseless accusations, interviewers must come prepared to debunk them. Republicans cannot be allowed to slide past hard questions about their election denial, false data points, baseless attacks on the courts and hypocrisy (the law and order party?). Treating Republicans as innocent bystanders in the democracy train wreck distorts reality. And instead of endless harping on President Biden’s age, some honest comparison between the disjointed, frightful interview responses from Trump and the detailed, policy-laden answers from Biden in Time magazine’s two interviews might illuminate the obvious disparity in acuity....There is simply no comparison between Biden, who talks in detail about policy, and Trump, who cannot get through a Newsmax(!) interview without sounding nuts. Likewise, treating Hunter Biden’s case (having nothing to do with the president) as though it were as significant as Trump’s criminal conviction betrays a lack of perspective and a hunger for clicks. Insisting this poses a problem or embarrassment for Biden amounts to amplifying MAGA spin. Finally, given voters’ misunderstanding of the economy, news outlets should focus on the results of Biden’s policies and the likely effect of his opponent’s shockingly inflationary plan. Focusing on the gap between public opinion and economic reality (to which coverage contributes) unwittingly reveals the media’s own shortcomings in educating voters. [emphasis added]

[mariacallous]

TBILISI -- Georgian voters are heading to the polls on October 26 for parliamentary elections that all sides see as a crossroads in the country's modern history. Tension has been high ahead of the vote, and with no reliable polls the outcome is anyone's guess.

The ruling Georgian Dream party has been in power since 2012 and is seeking another four-year term. They have framed the election as a choice of peace or war; the party's campaign messaging has been dominated by the argument that if the opposition were to come to power it would drag Georgia into war against Russia.

Russia Vs. The West

For the opposition, the vote represents a choice between the West or Russia and between democracy and authoritarianism. That narrative has been echoed by officials in the United States and Europe.

The elections "will be the moment of truth and the Georgian people will have to decide which way they want to go: toward Europe or getting apart from Europe," the EU's foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said."It's the future of the country which is at stake."

Democratic Backsliding

The vote will take place following an unusually tumultuous period even by Georgian political standards. Georgian Dream has embraced increasingly anti-Western rhetoric and adopted controversial laws that they justify as a means of combating foreign influence in the country.

They include laws banning "LGBT propaganda" and requiring NGOs and media that get funding from abroad to register as"foreign agents." The reintroduction of the latter law sparked huge protests this spring.

Opposition Challenge

The vote will be held under a new electoral system in which parties or coalitions have to meet a threshold of 5 percent to make it into parliament. That has motivated Georgia's numerous and fractious opposition parties to cooperate to some degree to form coalitions with a reasonable chance of making it over the threshold. In the end, four likely viable opposition forces have emerged:

Unity -- To Save Georgia, a coalition led by the former ruling United National Movement (ENM) party once headed by imprisoned former President Mikheil Saakashvili

Coalition for Change, largely made up of other former ENM-affiliated figures

Strong Georgia, an ideologically eclectic coalition that has tried to position itself as neither ENM nor Georgian Dream

For Georgia, a party led by Giorgi Gakharia, who was prime minister under Georgian Dream from 2019 to 2021 but then broke with the party

While the four manifest some differences in their preelection promises, they are largely united on their overarching priority of ousting Georgian Dream and have, for the most part, directed their fire at the ruling party rather than each other.

They all have signed a Georgian Charter proposed by President Salome Zurabishvili, in which they agree, in the case of an opposition victory, to let her form a technocratic government that would restore good relations with the West and repeal the most authoritarian laws that Georgian Dream has passed in the run-up to the campaign.

Zurabishvili, whose term ends this year, was elected president as an independent candidate in 2018 but was supported by Georgian Dream. She has since distanced herself from the party.

Ruling Party's Advantage

Ruling parties in Georgia traditionally have an electoral advantage in that they can cajole government employees and their families to vote for them. Western observers have judged past Georgian elections as flawed but legitimate.

But Georgian Dream's authoritarian turn and its particular targeting of election-monitoring groups as foreign agents have raised fears there may be more outright fraud this time around.

Georgian Dream leaders have said their goal is to win not merely a majority but a constitutional majority (113 out of 150 seats), which would allow them to rule more unilaterally. They have promised that, with a constitutional majority, they would strengthen anti-LGBT laws and ban all the major opposition parties, deeming them responsible for provoking the 2008 war against Russia and trying to drag the country into war again.

Given the high stakes and the uncertainty around the results, many worry about the prospect of unrest following the elections. For the first time, Georgia will be using a new electronic ballot-counting system (with a paper backup), and results are expected one to two hours after polls close at 8 p.m. Georgian time.

[spiderlegsmusic]

Future generations will look back on this time period like we do the dark ages. Religion, in its death throes, is fighting to make a comeback in relevance by banning women’s healthcare because they want more babies born whose health and well being they won’t contribute to.

And fuck you if you were raped and molested by a stranger or family member resulting in pregnancy. Even if you’re 12. You have to carry your rape baby, especially in Texas where we lead the nation in rape babies doubling the next highest state.

Like we view the dark ages

We have a depraved degenerate piece of shit subhuman claiming to be ordained by god, confirming that yes, religion is bullshit and just a way to control the superstitious masses. If god existed, it would in no way want to be associated with trump and would actively distance itself.

The fact that that traitor insurrectionist piece of shit is allowed to run for president after trying to overthrow the govt by force (jan6), bureaucratically(fake electors scam), and by extortion (the Georgia find me more votes scam), is beyond me.

The whole country saw what he did. It’s just that republicans have gotten sick of losing elections so now they embrace fascism. They will support trumps authoritarian autocratic dictatorship because it means they won’t lose anymore elections.

And we will just let him.

See, this election isn’t Trump vs Biden. The democratic challenger could be a flaming bag of shit, it wouldn’t change the stakes. Every year, people say this election is so important and they’ve been wrong. But this year they are correct. This isn’t Trump vs Biden. It’s dictatorship vs democracy. Trump wins and he’ll crown himself king for life. Anyone who opposes him will be thrown in prison. Listen to his speeches, he says the quiet part out loud. Everyone in his campaign is saying trump’s next term will be all about retribution. RETRIBUTION against those who wouldn’t allow him to steal the last election.

There is no love, no goodness in Trump. He’s an asshole to everyone. He quotes Hitler and counts Putin, Kim, and the Hungarian dictator Orbàn as friends. He’s a scumbag using religion to solidify his cult status over the simpleminded racists who support him. He’s not a christian, he’s not friendly and he thinks Hitler did good things

Even if you hate Biden, it’s not him you are voting for by voting for him. You’re voting for a continuation of democracy, which may be battered by things like horrible Supreme Court rulings (citizens united, repealing Roe v Wade, corporate personhood) but it’s better than a Trump led dictatorship. Once democracy is gone, it’s never coming back without war and death. Is this what you want? Do you think you will survive bombs hitting your neighborhood, your apartment building? Ask people in Ukraine what that’s like.

It’s not Biden vs Trump. It’s dictatorship vs democracy. It’s black and white, no shades of gray. If trump wins, you will never vote in a meaningful election again. And if you or anyone you know complains, they will disappear. Those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it. And history is repeating itself. Hitler won by one vote. Trump won in 2016 despite getting fewer votes because of the electoral college. And if he loses again, he’ll pull the same shit as in 2020, but more forceful.

Keep trump out of the White House.

For fucks sake!

[the-voice-of-night-vale]

whatever ur electoral decision is. can we PLEASE stop pretending america is a democracy. it is, and has always been, a farse of a democracy at best. the electoral college? the supreme court? anyone?? i remember finding those things distinctly undemocratic in middle school.

saying that 'we're choosing between fascism and democracy' is just patently untrue and frankly disrespectful to the vulnerable people who have been harmed by the authoritarian state even (and in some cases ESPECIALLY) under democrats.

(and before you say, "okay, fascism vs worse fascism" please take a moment and think about how fucking insane that is.)