The attacks on voting and elections are going to get more and more intense as long as the polls keep looking unfavorable to Republicans.
We really need an awakening across this country about what we're facing, which is an anti-democracy, authoritarian, supremacist party.
We really need an awakening across this country about what we're facing, which is an anti-democracy, authoritarian, supremacist party.
Their clear premise is 1) some people matter; 2) others don't, 3) those that don't should be made useful to those that do; 4) if they can't be made useful, they are disposable.
The premise that people who don't matter should have a share in our decision-making offends them.
The premise that people who don't matter should have a share in our decision-making offends them.
Republicans use elections only to the point elections entrench their power; past that point, they attack and demolish:
Ease of voting
Access to polling places
Right to vote
The votes themselves
Even the election results
Popular elections offend their supremacy.
Ease of voting
Access to polling places
Right to vote
The votes themselves
Even the election results
Popular elections offend their supremacy.
They leverage or change rules to win with a minority, and treat the result like an overwhelming mandate to push their agenda.
Or lose in a landslide, and treat the result like an overwhelming mandate to negate the result and push their agenda.
For them the result is incidental.
Or lose in a landslide, and treat the result like an overwhelming mandate to negate the result and push their agenda.
For them the result is incidental.
I find myself alarmed by an opposition party that either doesn't realize what they oppose, or is afraid to admit it, or is for whatever reason unwilling to meet the challenge.
My point isn't to attack them. My point is to raise the alarm about what we're facing, which is this:
My point isn't to attack them. My point is to raise the alarm about what we're facing, which is this:
Let's revisit the premise they're increasingly saying out loud:
1) some people matter; 2) others don't, 3) those that don't should be made useful to those that do; 4) if they can't be made useful, they are disposable.
This isn't an ideology people of good intent can work with.
1) some people matter; 2) others don't, 3) those that don't should be made useful to those that do; 4) if they can't be made useful, they are disposable.
This isn't an ideology people of good intent can work with.
We vote. Yes. Of course.
Then we win—we fervently hope.
And then?
Cooperation? Bipartisanship? Compromise?
No.
Not because these are bad things.
Because they are impossible things.
How do you cooperate with somebody for mutual survival who doesn't want your survival?
Then we win—we fervently hope.
And then?
Cooperation? Bipartisanship? Compromise?
No.
Not because these are bad things.
Because they are impossible things.
How do you cooperate with somebody for mutual survival who doesn't want your survival?
What compromise do we make with an ideology of supremacy, that isn't an abandonment?
What hope do we put in their cooperation with an election result that doesn't favor them, when we know they're indifferent to result?
What aisle would we reach across?
What hope do we put in their cooperation with an election result that doesn't favor them, when we know they're indifferent to result?
What aisle would we reach across?
A dinner party is a fine thing, but it requires every guest to agree to not use the steak knives for murder.
If even one guest starts stabbing, you don't have a dinner party, you have a knife fight.
You can't make it a dinner party again by asking the stabber to pass the salt.
If even one guest starts stabbing, you don't have a dinner party, you have a knife fight.
You can't make it a dinner party again by asking the stabber to pass the salt.
Trump's lawyer made the argument, on the Senate floor, that he can break any law to get himself elected. All but 1 Republican agreed.
He threatened yesterday to withhold funds from states for making voting safer.
He's building a case to reject an honest result.
He threatened yesterday to withhold funds from states for making voting safer.
He's building a case to reject an honest result.
We're dealing with an ideology that rejects the claim of every person's right to participate fairly in civic life.
Yes, we vote—of course. We accept the premise of fair and open elections. But we must understand what it is we're facing, and demand our representatives understand.
Yes, we vote—of course. We accept the premise of fair and open elections. But we must understand what it is we're facing, and demand our representatives understand.
We cannot cooperate with people for mutual survival who despise the idea of a mutual survival, who'd sink the lifeboat rather than share it with certain of our friends and family.
No compromise.
Not because compromise is bad.
Because we recognize it has been made impossible.
No compromise.
Not because compromise is bad.
Because we recognize it has been made impossible.
We can fight to demolish this ideology's power before and after the vote, and demand our leaders recognize that truth and act accordingly.
Or not.
That's the choice.
Not the choice we want; just the one we have.
Don't ask the person stabbing your neighbor to pass the salt.
Or not.
That's the choice.
Not the choice we want; just the one we have.
Don't ask the person stabbing your neighbor to pass the salt.
Wealth, along with a clear overlay of populist supremacy to determine who gets access to and control over wealth.
My point: believe in equality, demand it, fight for it—but never mistake: we're facing an ideology that rejects equality outright.
My point: believe in equality, demand it, fight for it—but never mistake: we're facing an ideology that rejects equality outright.
