Poll: Democrats are trying to convince voters that democracy will die if Republicans win because?

[UNI88]

Democrats (and other biased individuals) are trying to convince voters that democracy will die ("if you vote for Republicans your kids will be murdered and democracy will die") if Republicans win because?

[kalm]

One example. I don’t think Democracy will die but this doesn’t sound nice at all.

[UNI88]

One example. I don’t think Democracy will die but this doesn’t sound nice at all.

No it doesn't sound nice. Stacy Abrams denying the results in 2018 wasn't nice either and she appears to be setting it up to blame Georgia's voting requirements and deny the results in 2022. Why aren't reasonable Dems calling her out?

The "democracy is at stake" rhetoric is inflaming liberals. How is it different from Republican statements that might incite violence?

Each side uses a double-standard to justify why their words and actions are okay but the other side's aren't.

[kalm]

One example. I don’t think Democracy will die but this doesn’t sound nice at all.

No it doesn't sound nice. Stacy Abrams denying the results in 2018 wasn't nice either and she appears to be setting it up to blame Georgia's voting requirements and deny the results in 2022. Why aren't reasonable Dems calling her out?

The "democracy is at stake" rhetoric is inflaming liberals. How is it different from Republican statements that might incite violence?

Each side uses a double-standard to justify why their words and actions are okay but the other side's aren't.

Abrams and any politician should accept their defeat in a free and fair election.

And your example is not the same. Hopefully the R’s will regain some sensible leadership but right now, it’s Trump’s, Cary Lakes, Steve Bannon’s party. That’s who you’re siding with here.

Bill Maher sums it up quite well. (he’s legit now that he’s recently attacked the left quite a bit, no?)

[UNI88]

No it doesn't sound nice. Stacy Abrams denying the results in 2018 wasn't nice either and she appears to be setting it up to blame Georgia's voting requirements and deny the results in 2022. Why aren't reasonable Dems calling her out?

The "democracy is at stake" rhetoric is inflaming liberals. How is it different from Republican statements that might incite violence?

Each side uses a double-standard to justify why their words and actions are okay but the other side's aren't.

Abrams and any politician should accept their defeat in a free and fair election.

And your example is not the same. Hopefully the R’s will regain some sensible leadership but right now, it’s Trump’s, Cary Lakes, Steve Bannon’s party. That’s who you’re siding with here.

Bill Maher sums it up quite well. (he’s legit now that he’s recently attacked the left quite a bit, no?)

What do you mean my example is not the same? It might not be exactly the same but it is close enough. Unless you want to argue that telling people that democracy will end if Republicans are elected isn't risking inciting people to violence.

I like and respect Maher but I don't always agree with him. He's entitled to his opinion, no matter how wrong it is in this instance.

Democrats, "historians", the MSM, etc. are spreading lies about the risk to democracy because they've blown it and they're afraid of losing.

[kalm]

Abrams and any politician should accept their defeat in a free and fair election.

And your example is not the same. Hopefully the R’s will regain some sensible leadership but right now, it’s Trump’s, Cary Lakes, Steve Bannon’s party. That’s who you’re siding with here.

Bill Maher sums it up quite well. (he’s legit now that he’s recently attacked the left quite a bit, no?)

What do you mean my example is not the same? It might not be exactly the same but it is close enough. Unless you want to argue that telling people that democracy will end if Republicans are elected isn't risking inciting people to violence.

I like and respect Maher but I don't always agree with him. He's entitled to his opinion, no matter how wrong it is in this instance.

Democrats, "historians", the MSM, etc. are spreading lies about the risk to democracy because they've blown it and they're afraid of losing.

So zero chance, nothing to see here…or does MAGA at least increase the odds?

[SuperHornet]

Democrats, "historians", the MSM, etc. are spreading lies about the risk to democracy because they've blown it and they're afraid of losing.

[Winterborn]

What do you mean my example is not the same? It might not be exactly the same but it is close enough. Unless you want to argue that telling people that democracy will end if Republicans are elected isn't risking inciting people to violence.

I like and respect Maher but I don't always agree with him. He's entitled to his opinion, no matter how wrong it is in this instance.

Democrats, "historians", the MSM, etc. are spreading lies about the risk to democracy because they've blown it and they're afraid of losing.

Power-hungry politicians are all the same no matter the allegiances they claim to have.

[kalm]

What do you mean my example is not the same? It might not be exactly the same but it is close enough. Unless you want to argue that telling people that democracy will end if Republicans are elected isn't risking inciting people to violence.

I like and respect Maher but I don't always agree with him. He's entitled to his opinion, no matter how wrong it is in this instance.

Democrats, "historians", the MSM, etc. are spreading lies about the risk to democracy because they've blown it and they're afraid of losing.

Power-hungry politicians are all the same no matter the allegiances they claim to have.

Sure…but historians are the real threat.

[UNI88]

Power-hungry politicians are all the same no matter the allegiances they claim to have.

Sure…but historians are the real threat.

Does something carry more weight when a historian says it? If yes, historians have a professional duty to be careful about what they say about present-day events. To equate Republicans winning elections with the death of children and the end of our democracy was irresponsible and unprofessional.

That also applies to elected officials saying similar things. They're as bad as trump when it comes to making sh!t up and trying to bully people into doing what they want.

[GannonFan]

Sure…but historians are the real threat.

Does something carry more weight when a historian says it? If yes, historians have a professional duty to be careful about what they say about present-day events. To equate Republicans winning elections with the death of children and the end of our democracy was irresponsible and unprofessional.

That also applies to elected officials saying similar things. They're as bad as trump when it comes to making sh!t up and trying to bully people into doing what they want.

Historians are best at what they do best, i.e. say what happened in the past. They are less skillful at saying what is happening now or what will happen. That is the province of historians who come after us and look back at those events once they become history. Historians will of course try to speculate on present events, especially if prodded to by an interviewer, but they aren't any better equipped to prognosticate than any other educated person.

[kalm]

Does something carry more weight when a historian says it? If yes, historians have a professional duty to be careful about what they say about present-day events. To equate Republicans winning elections with the death of children and the end of our democracy was irresponsible and unprofessional.

That also applies to elected officials saying similar things. They're as bad as trump when it comes to making sh!t up and trying to bully people into doing what they want.

Historians are best at what they do best, i.e. say what happened in the past. They are less skillful at saying what is happening now or what will happen. That is the province of historians who come after us and look back at those events once they become history. Historians will of course try to speculate on present events, especially if prodded to by an interviewer, but they aren't any better equipped to prognosticate than any other educated person.

Eh…especially when it comes to topics like human nature of which nothing, nada, zilch can be be learned by looking back.

Am I right?

[houndawg]

One example. I don’t think Democracy will die but this doesn’t sound nice at all.

No it doesn't sound nice. Stacy Abrams denying the results in 2018 wasn't nice either and she appears to be setting it up to blame Georgia's voting requirements and deny the results in 2022. Why aren't reasonable Dems calling her out?

The "democracy is at stake" rhetoric is inflaming liberals. How is it different from Republican statements that might incite violence?

Each side uses a double-standard to justify why their words and actions are okay but the other side's aren't.

Aren't you supposed to lose before you oveturn an election?

[kalm]

This post is NOT for the historian deniers…

(But gives a concise example of the democracy threat)

Remember, though, this election is full of wild cards. Traditionally—but not always—the party of the president does poorly in the first midterm election. But we are in uncharted territory: never before in our history have more than half of Americans lost the recognition of a constitutional right, as the Supreme Court took from us with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision in June, overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized the constitutional right to an abortion.

Never, too, have we had to vote in an election where more than half the candidates of one of the parties deny that the president was fairly elected. Those candidates have suggested that, had they been in power in 2020, they would have put former president Donald Trump in power even though he lost the popular vote by more than 7 million and lost in the Electoral College. Their position is a profound attack on our democracy.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.c ... dium=email

[Winterborn]

This post is NOT for the historian deniers…

(But gives a concise example of the democracy threat)

Remember, though, this election is full of wild cards. Traditionally—but not always—the party of the president does poorly in the first midterm election. But we are in uncharted territory: never before in our history have more than half of Americans lost the recognition of a constitutional right, as the Supreme Court took from us with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision in June, overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized the constitutional right to an abortion.

Never, too, have we had to vote in an election where more than half the candidates of one of the parties deny that the president was fairly elected. Those candidates have suggested that, had they been in power in 2020, they would have put former president Donald Trump in power even though he lost the popular vote by more than 7 million and lost in the Electoral College. Their position is a profound attack on our democracy.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.c ... dium=email

More histrionics. This is what happens when ones emotion overrules all else.

I have read other articles by Heather Richardson and she is great at pushing her partisan beliefs. At least she is entertaining to read.

[kalm]

This post is NOT for the historian deniers…

(But gives a concise example of the democracy threat)



https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.c ... dium=email

More histrionics.

I have read other articles by Heather Richardson and she is great at pushing her partisan beliefs. At least she is entertaining to read.

Histrionics? Or quite literally what they talked about doing, actually did, and what they plan next.

How bout faulting the people actually responsible?

[Winterborn]

More histrionics.

I have read other articles by Heather Richardson and she is great at pushing her partisan beliefs. At least she is entertaining to read.

Histrionics? Or quite literally what they talked about doing, actually did, and what they plan next.

How bout faulting the people actually responsible?

Yes, histrionics. Defined as "melodramatic behavior designed to attract attention."

She has a few half facts mixed in with loads of conjuncture, spiced together with her thoughts and feelings. It is an emotional feel good article designed to drum up support for the author and her thoughts.

The only thing she remotely got right is the following:

Aside from tomorrow’s election, there is an epic fight brewing in the Republican Party. Former president Donald Trump threatened to announce tonight at a rally in Ohio that he is running for president in 2024, likely because he believes such an announcement will make it harder for the Department of Justice to indict him for his theft of classified documents when he left the White House. He is also concerned that Florida governor Ron DeSantis will steal his thunder and capture the 2024 nomination, but because they are competing for the same voters, an announcement from Trump will undercut DeSantis.

[HI54UNI]

This post is NOT for the historian deniers…

(But gives a concise example of the democracy threat)

Remember, though, this election is full of wild cards. Traditionally—but not always—the party of the president does poorly in the first midterm election. But we are in uncharted territory: never before in our history have more than half of Americans lost the recognition of a constitutional right, as the Supreme Court took from us with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision in June, overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized the constitutional right to an abortion.

Never, too, have we had to vote in an election where more than half the candidates of one of the parties deny that the president was fairly elected. Those candidates have suggested that, had they been in power in 2020, they would have put former president Donald Trump in power even though he lost the popular vote by more than 7 million and lost in the Electoral College. Their position is a profound attack on our democracy.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.c ... dium=email

You really have a boner for her don't you?

[kalm]

Histrionics? Or quite literally what they talked about doing, actually did, and what they plan next.

How bout faulting the people actually responsible?

Yes, histrionics. Defined as "melodramatic behavior designed to attract attention."

She has a few half facts mixed in with loads of conjuncture, spiced together with her thoughts and feelings. It is an emotional feel good article designed to drum up support for the author and her thoughts.

The only thing she remotely got right is the following:

Aside from tomorrow’s election, there is an epic fight brewing in the Republican Party. Former president Donald Trump threatened to announce tonight at a rally in Ohio that he is running for president in 2024, likely because he believes such an announcement will make it harder for the Department of Justice to indict him for his theft of classified documents when he left the White House. He is also concerned that Florida governor Ron DeSantis will steal his thunder and capture the 2024 nomination, but because they are competing for the same voters, an announcement from Trump will undercut DeSantis.

Your opinion on the entire piece writ large. The two paragraphs I posted are quite true and demonstrate a threat to democracy….quite clearly.

[kalm]

This post is NOT for the historian deniers…

(But gives a concise example of the democracy threat)



https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.c ... dium=email

You really have a boner for her don't you?

Boing!

[GannonFan]

Yes, histrionics. Defined as "melodramatic behavior designed to attract attention."

She has a few half facts mixed in with loads of conjuncture, spiced together with her thoughts and feelings. It is an emotional feel good article designed to drum up support for the author and her thoughts.

The only thing she remotely got right is the following:

Your opinion on the entire piece writ large. The two paragraphs I posted are quite true and demonstrate a threat to democracy….quite clearly.

I don't know, the second paragraph doesn't appear to be factual. I haven't done the math so I'll need a link, but have "more than half" of all the GOP candidates on tickets nationwide today denied the 2020 election? That seems to be a swag without any data behind it. Also, how would they have actually kept Trump in power? This is still the thing that those fools storming the capitol building that day didn't seem to have a grasp of - there was and still is no magic gavel. Our Democracy is far more robust than you, this author, or others would seem to want it to be. It's why Trump had no prayer of staying in power after losing the election - it wasn't even a close thing that he was or not. Just like we didn't surrender to Democratic party voices that the 2016 election was fraudulent and we didn't dismantle the government (discarding the Electoral College, packing the SCOTUS, ramming in DC and Puerto Rico as states to pack the Senate) as those voices wanted to do and still do today.

The fools who stormed the capitol in support of Trump and the fools who support the whacko side on the left who swear that the US Constitution is an intractably racist document that should go away both aren't anywhere close to achieving their goals. If Trump gets back to the White House it will be via a democratically conducted election, and he'll just have 4 years before he's gone again (thank you US Constitution). The world isn't ending, and the Republic we've had for 240 some years isn't ending either. We'll vote today, we'll vote two years from now, and we'll keep voting for as long as any of us are alive to do so. We'll have good times and bad times, but the Republic isn't ending anytime soon no matter how many loons we elect to office.

[Winterborn]

Yes, histrionics. Defined as "melodramatic behavior designed to attract attention."

She has a few half facts mixed in with loads of conjuncture, spiced together with her thoughts and feelings. It is an emotional feel good article designed to drum up support for the author and her thoughts.

The only thing she remotely got right is the following:

Your opinion on the entire piece writ large. The two paragraphs I posted are quite true and demonstrate a threat to democracy….quite clearly.

Again that is an opinion by the author (and yourself).

What uncharted territory? Roe v Wade is a made up a constitutional" right in '73. It didn't exist before as it was a states right issue and now it is back to how it was originally. Author is projecting. First point dismissed.

Half the voters deny a fair election occurred? Repeating a claim does not make it true. Where are the facts to back it up? Polls? Evidence? Until that happens, it is so much opinion. That they would of somehow "installed" Trump as President is more opinion. Talk is cheap. If one assume Jan 6th was the accumulation of such an event, then the "effect" is laughable. Buffalo Head guy was a real master mind. There must be loads of treason convictions, no? Stupidity isn't against the law. Second point, noted and logged as opinion.

It is a fluff piece plain and simple. That you defend and hold it up as an example of virtuous reporting by a so-called historian is telling. I will not judge if that floats your boat, but it detracts from your overall arguments here on this board. Emotion is a good (and necessary) thing but not when it overrules facts and clouds judgement.

This emotional appeal rather than factual is a interesting data point in your last few years of posts. I find the use of emotional rather than factual to be a lack-luster debate point and shows cases the weakness of ones argument. But that is my

[Winterborn]

Your opinion on the entire piece writ large. The two paragraphs I posted are quite true and demonstrate a threat to democracy….quite clearly.

I don't know, the second paragraph doesn't appear to be factual. I haven't done the math so I'll need a link, but have "more than half" of all the GOP candidates on tickets nationwide today denied the 2020 election? That seems to be a swag without any data behind it. Also, how would they have actually kept Trump in power? This is still the thing that those fools storming the capitol building that day didn't seem to have a grasp of - there was and still is no magic gavel. Our Democracy is far more robust than you, this author, or others would seem to want it to be. It's why Trump had no prayer of staying in power after losing the election - it wasn't even a close thing that he was or not. Just like we didn't surrender to Democratic party voices that the 2016 election was fraudulent and we didn't dismantle the government (discarding the Electoral College, packing the SCOTUS, ramming in DC and Puerto Rico as states to pack the Senate) as those voices wanted to do and still do today.

The fools who stormed the capitol in support of Trump and the fools who support the whacko side on the left who swear that the US Constitution is an intractably racist document that should go away both aren't anywhere close to achieving their goals. If Trump gets back to the White House it will be via a democratically conducted election, and he'll just have 4 years before he's gone again (thank you US Constitution). The world isn't ending, and the Republic we've had for 240 some years isn't ending either. We'll vote today, we'll vote two years from now, and we'll keep voting for as long as any of us are alive to do so. We'll have good times and bad times, but the Republic isn't ending anytime soon no matter how many loons we elect to office.

Highlighted portion deserves

[kalm]

Your opinion on the entire piece writ large. The two paragraphs I posted are quite true and demonstrate a threat to democracy….quite clearly.

Again that is an opinion by the author (and yourself).

What uncharted territory? Roe v Wade is a made up a constitutional" right in '73. It didn't exist before as it was a states right issue and now it is back to how it was originally. Author is projecting. First point dismissed.

Half the voters deny a fair election occurred? Repeating a claim does not make it true. Where are the facts to back it up? Polls? Evidence? Until that happens, it is so much opinion. That they would of somehow "installed" Trump as President is more opinion. Talk is cheap. If one assume Jan 6th was the accumulation of such an event, then the "effect" is laughable. Buffalo Head guy was a real master mind. There must be loads of treason convictions, no? Stupidity isn't against the law. Second point, noted and logged as opinion.

It is a fluff piece plain and simple. That you defend and hold it up as an example of virtuous reporting by a so-called historian is telling. I will not judge if that floats your boat, but it detracts from your overall arguments here on this board. Emotion is a good (and necessary) thing but not when it overrules facts and clouds judgement.

This emotional appeal rather than factual is a interesting data point in your last few years of posts. I find the use of emotional rather than factual to be a lack-luster debate point and shows cases the weakness of ones argument. But that is my

Facts:

She wrote 1/2 the candidates not the voters. That part was Roe. Regardless I’m guessing thaws type of statistics can be taken from polling and/or public statements by candidates.

Now go cry in your cheerios you big emotional sap.

[Winterborn]

Again that is an opinion by the author (and yourself).

What uncharted territory? Roe v Wade is a made up a constitutional" right in '73. It didn't exist before as it was a states right issue and now it is back to how it was originally. Author is projecting. First point dismissed.

Half the voters deny a fair election occurred? Repeating a claim does not make it true. Where are the facts to back it up? Polls? Evidence? Until that happens, it is so much opinion. That they would of somehow "installed" Trump as President is more opinion. Talk is cheap. If one assume Jan 6th was the accumulation of such an event, then the "effect" is laughable. Buffalo Head guy was a real master mind. There must be loads of treason convictions, no? Stupidity isn't against the law. Second point, noted and logged as opinion.

It is a fluff piece plain and simple. That you defend and hold it up as an example of virtuous reporting by a so-called historian is telling. I will not judge if that floats your boat, but it detracts from your overall arguments here on this board. Emotion is a good (and necessary) thing but not when it overrules facts and clouds judgement.

This emotional appeal rather than factual is a interesting data point in your last few years of posts. I find the use of emotional rather than factual to be a lack-luster debate point and shows cases the weakness of ones argument. But that is my

Facts:

She wrote 1/2 the candidates not the voters. That part was Roe. Regardless I’m guessing thaws type of statistics can be taken from polling and/or public statements by candidates.

Now go cry in your cheerios you big emotional sap.

Candidates or voters. Still takes proof to back up the claim she made. There are some that have made that statement, but not half (at least that I have seen).

If I shed any tears tonight, it will be tears of joy and because the wine and meal are so good. It was mussels in a blue cheese broth last night. Tonight I am thinking some type of seafood ravioli and a good local French wine.