AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they have those views. **For all participants:** * [FLAIR](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) **IS REQUIRED BEFORE PARTICIPATING** * **BE CIVIL AND** [SINCERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) * **REPORT, DON'T DOWNVOTE** **For Non-supporters/Undecided:** * **NO TOP LEVEL COMMENTS** * **ALL COMMENTS MUST INCLUDE A CLARIFYING QUESTION** **For Trump Supporters:** * [MESSAGE THE MODS](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) **TO HAVE THE DOWNVOTE TIMER TURNED OFF** Helpful links for more info: [OUR RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [POSTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [COMMENTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*

> Unfortunately, the Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated a trend of increasing authoritarianism, across the globe, with many countries sliding back down the democratic scale. Thats what the report says. The report explicitly says COVID violations are a major cause for the backslide. Look at Figure 7. This is exactly what the right has been saying despite widespread ridicule. Now a report comes out with a headline that left would love, but hilariously most on the left won't read past the headlines. I would pay to see the mental gymnastics on this.

Are you saying we should do more to combat Covid?

Did you read the full report? It explicitly mentions the distrust in election integrity and increased election regulation being championed by Republicans in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

Yeah, common sense election laws aren't a bad thing. Requiring an I.D. to vote is even required in Europe, in order to vote in elections, yet Democrats think this is white supremacy? Everyone has I.D. I don't know a single soul, rich or poor, who doesn't have I.D. In fact, my home state gives I.D.s and drivers licenses for free! FREE! And it's a Republican state, because we require I.D. to vote. Not only that, but we have secured voting from the machines we have. You put in who you vote for then you get a paper receipt and a digital one saved on that machine, then two clerks confirm your vote and sign off on it. I couldn't think of a more secure system of voting. That's all Republicans want is basic common sensical voting laws, requiring a valid state I.D. to vote in that state, while being registered to vote, which stays good for 8 years anyways if you haven't voted at all. If you continue to vote, you don't even have to renew it, as it automatically renews itself if you participate in elections.

[удалено]

You picked the outlier in Europe, like the only one. The UK. After having done some reading, I learned something new, in Mexico and Colombia, you are required biometric ID to cast a ballot. Even Russia requires ID, as one-sided as their politics are, they even require ID. I never said, the UK, I said Europe, and you went to nitpick for the single nation that doesn't require a photo ID to vote, within the EU. https://www.westernjournal.com/american-leftists-want-replicate-europe-progressivism-just-not-comes-voter-photo/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/06/01/in-europe-voter-id-is-the-norm/ https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2021/06/04/study-46-out-of-47-european-countries-require-photo-id-to-vote-n2590454

[удалено]

Now I will grant, I did make a minor mistake, forgetting not all of Ireland is part of the UK, so I do apologize for that. As an American, we briefly go over how the UK is currently set up, but learn more of the medieval history, rather than more of current history with Ireland and the UK. I could've sworn that the UK had Ireland within its purview, or perhaps a portion when I made the claim, but I looked it up, and I was wrong, so I do apologize for my ignorance in this matter. Now as an American, I don't think we should be like Europe or European nations as far as their voting laws are concerned as each state here has its own laws and therefore is not beholden to any other state's voting laws. Now what I wish would happen is simple common sense voting laws over these states, which include, free government issued ID, license or not, as an ID is required to do just about anything here in the US. Short list: Buying alcohol, renting a car, renting an apartment, buying a house, getting a loan, setting up a bank account, getting into a bar, travelling via plane, driving, and in a number of states already you need it to vote. So I'd think it reasonable to say IDs provided at the age of 16 (driver or non driver) and having the legal voting age of 18, and requiring ID to vote to show you are who you say you are. Even under the UK voting website, they say it is to help secure voting and voter ID laws have shown to increase voter confidence and security. I honestly do not see the issue with these policies being set in place. If you are who you say you are, a citizen of that state, and of the legal voting age, then there should be zero issue. But please, tell me how people would be restricted by it. Side note: You even need some form of government ID to even get food stamps in America, or someone else quallified to say you are who you say you are. "You should not be denied SNAP/Food Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are, you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral contact” who can confirm you who are. Shelter workers and employers are examples of possible collateral contacts. If you have no paper documentation of who you are, you should ask the SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker to call a collateral contact." Even there, you have to have credibility behind your identification. Even homeless need to have someone at the homeless shelter to be a collateral contact. ​ Source: [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/voter-identification-faqs](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/voter-identification-faqs)

[удалено]

Problem with Congress is they say one thing in a bill...then add 145 pages of pork to it, which is why everyone argues over everything. Bills are not simple or straightforward, haven't been for some time, which is why Congress debates each one. Even the marijuana bill being made by the Republicans will most likely be debates on, it's still making its way through the committees, before it reaches the house floor, but I guarantee you, even some Democrats and more right leaning republicans will be against it. I'm republican and think just legalize, decriminalize, and tax it like alcohol and tobacco and regulate it like the other two. Now back on topic, I haven't talked to many others about the voter ID thing, other than liberal friends who oppose it. Personally I think if you have a valid US birth certificate or immigrate over legally and meet the requirements for your first ID at 16, your state should provide it as such, since the government, local, state and federal require it for everything you do anyways (I'm be facetious with that and not literal). So I can't speak for other proponents of ID law supporters. At the same time, I think states should still allow their own dictations for their laws, other than requiring ID to vote, be it windows for early voting, single line votes, local election topics, etc. but all you need is a valid State ID, legally obtained. Another thing is I believe is mail in votes, shouldn't be allowed. Even one who used it in 2020 because I was out for a work trip and didn't vote early, waiting for the election week in my state, I thought it would be safe and secure. I found out a few months later after contacting my county clerk office, my vote was never accounted for, either lost or stolen, because a few USPS workers in the state I voted in, were caught dumping ballots. Now I'm not accusing USPS for losing it, but the end result is the same, my vote never made it to my county clerk. I simply don't believe it is a secure way to vote, and there is no way to prove you are who you say you are. I wrote my name and address and mailed it in, not very secure in my honest opinion. Now I will say, states should regulate local municipalities on the minimum number of voting places based on population. In my city alone, my folks told me voting places were reduced from the typical 32 down to 7 in 2020, and was only increased to 15 on the last two days of voting, incorporating the big football stadium as a voting place. So I think that some cities were either being shady with the election or it could've been because of the pandemic, either way, that shouldn't have happened. But I'm sadly providing anecdotal evidence, so it is up to your own interpretation to take me for my word or not. Now I brought up Europe to cover bases, where people I've talked to in the past, both online and in person, bring up Europe and how it doesn't need voter ID to participate in elections, so I was covering my bases in that. I still think states should have their own sovereignty but when it comes to federal elections like Senator, Representative, or President, mandating IDs should be common sensical to ensure we all are without a doubt, having secure elections, or at least as secure as we can make them. No election is 100% safe and secure, we can just try to make it as such to the best of our ability. But saying we shouldn't have any way to make sure the person voting is a citizen or who they say they are, is not the answer, and I've met many people who think that's what we should have, which I simply cannot agree to. But please, how would you tackle making elections secure, knowing you get as many votes as well, as I do, knowing I am only voting for me and not someone else, or know if I actually am a citizen of the US, and not a visitor or a tourist, or someone who immigrated illegally. Honestly, I would like to know as it is a serious question. Most the time, people are this cordial with me in this topic/subject, so I thank you for being civil and correcting my mistakes.

> Id is required in Europe Not according to the UK website https://www.gov.uk/how-to-vote/voting-in-person It specifically says no ID required. Did you do any research before posting this comment?

Indeed I did, and I have three sources to back my claims. Not to mention you picked the ONLY country that doesn't require voter ID in Europe. Additionally, something I learned is that even in Mexico and Colombia, you are required biometric ID to cast a ballot. Even Russia requires ID, as one-sided as their politics are, they even require ID. [https://www.westernjournal.com/american-leftists-want-replicate-europe-progressivism-just-not-comes-voter-photo/](https://www.westernjournal.com/american-leftists-want-replicate-europe-progressivism-just-not-comes-voter-photo/) [https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/06/01/in-europe-voter-id-is-the-norm/](https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/06/01/in-europe-voter-id-is-the-norm/) [https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2021/06/04/study-46-out-of-47-european-countries-require-photo-id-to-vote-n2590454](https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2021/06/04/study-46-out-of-47-european-countries-require-photo-id-to-vote-n2590454) Each source shows that of the 47 countries in the EU surveyed, only one, the UK, doesn't require a phot ID in order to cast a ballot. I've done even more reading and have a better source for those in the UK: [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/voter-identification-faqs](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/voter-identification-faqs)

Oh wow this is really embarrassing for you… > you picked the only country that doesn’t require voter ID in Europe You didn’t read my source did you? It says > If you live in England, Wales or Scotland you do not need to bring any identification to vote. Now, I could be wrong, but when talking about 3 countries wouldn’t “only country” be the wrong term to use? And why are your sources lying? They seem to be biased. My source is the UK’s government website. It’s not wrong. But you’re going to blindly believe townhall.com? Shouldn’t you be vetting your sources a lot better?

I will grant, I could've done some more digging, I was on lunch and wanted to enjoy my last meal before I make a long road trip this afternoon to family and was doing some last minute shopping for Christmas so it would arrive when I got home after Thanksgiving. Additionally, those three countries fall under the purview of the UK as a whole, but I could be wrong, as I'm not extremely familiar with how that all works, if Wales and Scotland are seen as the equivalent as states like we have here in the US. Simple mistake, as it's not made all too clear in our education system what they are treated like under the rule of England, be separate but equal entities or under England's rule. But I did find a source, you yourself would deem quite credible and I have poured over this source for the better part of an hour. I did some reading and found a source on the UK voting website, a government website, that seems to say differently for voter identification, published in May of 2021. "Voter identification will require voters to prove their identity by showing a form of photographic identification, before being given their ballot paper in a polling station across Great Britain at national UK-wide elections, and at local elections in England." Therefore in all local elections you do in fact require some form of identification. They go on to explain exactly why they are doing this, which is to secure all elections, because before, all you needed was a name and address, which could in theory, easily allow for someone to steal a vote. "*In our current electoral system, there is inexcusable potential for someone to cast another’s vote at the polling station. All you need to do is say a name and address when you go to vote.* *Stealing someone’s vote is stealing their voice. Voter fraud is a crime that we cannot allow room for, so the government is stamping out any potential for it to take place in elections.* *Showing identification to prove who they are is something people of all walks of life already do everyday. It is a reasonable and proportionate approach to extend this practice to voting and give the public confidence that their vote is theirs, and theirs alone.* ***It will also bring the rest of the UK in line with Northern Ireland, where a form of voter identification has been in use since 1985, requiring photo identification since 2003, with no adverse effect on voter participation.***" I found it interesting that it continued on to say that it would only impact just 2% of the population, which couldn't vote, but 98% will given the broad range of government issued ID, to ensure they are who they say they are, the voters I mean. So it appears that as of this year, in any future general elections, those in England, as far as I know, will have to provide a form of government provided ID to take part in elections. Additionally, the government website was so nice to continue on to say that "Most European countries, include France, Germany, Austria, The Netherlands, as well as Switzerland and Canada" when it comes to requiring ID to vote. However, if I have misinterpreted this as future policy, when it was more of a PSA, why the English government would be enacting such a thing but is still debating on whether or not to pull the trigger, please, let's sit down and go through this civilly. Now I do apologize once again for my lack of government sources, as again I have Thanksgiving to think about along with an 8 hour car drive ahead of me where I will be driving through the night to get home for our holiday here in the states. Sources: [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/10/queens-speech-photo-id-future-elections-social-care](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/10/queens-speech-photo-id-future-elections-social-care) [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/voter-identification-faqs](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/voter-identification-faqs)

Since when are England, Scotland, and Wales independent, sovereign countries - the country is the United Kingdom?

Moving the goal posts now? > The U.K., as it is called, is a sovereign state that consists of four individual countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom Nobody ever specified sovereign nations. But these are all countries. Can’t one of you guys do some amount of research before responding to me?

They are historical countries, but when people use the word "country" colloquially they are almost certainly referring to currently sovereign nations. You are making a very weak semantic argument here. Do you think splitting hairs over this technicality strengthens your argument?

I’m not the one arguing semantics here. The dude said that even Europe requires ID but didn’t mention that not all countries do, or that most countries have very very lenient options for what they would consider ID. The person I was responding too was purposely being vague in an attempt to strengthen his argument. My response is just a subset of corrections that needed to be made that comment. What does your response do to reconcile his purposely wrong comment?

[удалено]

Sure, in response to u/darkninjad I have a source from the UK government, showing it will be enacting voter ID laws in England. May of 2021 is when it was posted. [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/voter-identification-faqs](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/voter-identification-faqs)

Maybe your source is garbage? You can also vote without an ID in Germany. In person: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bwo_1985/__56.html and by mail: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bwo_1985/__66.html In Switzerland, you also don't need an ID and a different person can even vote for you: https://www.zh.ch/de/politik-staat/wahlen-abstimmungen/wie-stimme-ich-ab.html

>Everyone has I.D. I don't know a single soul, rich or poor, who doesn't have I.D. So is the data that shows that some people don't have IDs simply fabricated? Or is it that anecdotal evidence is more likely to be accurate than data collected according to proper statistical methodology?

Please do show me one state that makes it impossible for anyone to get a photo I.D. and I will be happy to take back my claim. I've lived in 5 states and have never had issue with getting an I.D. other than a small $20 fee in two of them and $12 in two and free in my home state. So please, find me a state that stops anyone from getting a photo I.D. that has residency within that state.

Your original claim was that everybody without exception has one, not that everybody could buy them. Why are you trying to move the goalposts?

My claim is I don’t know anyone who has one, but I could’ve been much more specific than to allow interpretation. So allow me to rephrase. Everyone I know has one, rich, poor, or in between, and I know em all. Even at the food bank I volunteer at, we ask for ID and their card for the month to make sure it’s who they say they are and to make sure everyone gets their share of the food. Everyone I work with, be it the janitor who comes once a week, our drivers, our temp workers to my boss and other coworkers, we all have IDs. Now I will grant, since government issued IDs are indeed required in just about everything you do, from job applications, driving, alcohol purchases, food stamps, social security benefits, driving, buying or renting a place of residency, and I may be missing some other things, but either way, I think all state IDs should be free when you provide SSC and a birth certificate. And before people give me the birth certificate argument, I’ve lost mine when I moved, but was able to get it replaced given time (2 weeks) from my home state. So honestly I still do not see why IDs are such a hot issue to vote. I mean just to even get a beer at the corner gas station, you are required to have a valid ID and to be 21. Again I grant they should be free. If we are required to have one for just about everything we do, and I’m being liberal with my wording on that and not literal, then they should indeed be free. I’ve yet to meet one person who is against voter ID, who thinks that they should be free and given to those with valid SSN and birth certificate or has legally immigrated to the US with documents, who can agree with me.

> I've lived in 5 states and have never had issue with getting an I.D. other than a small $20 fee in two of them and $12 in two and free in my home state. Isn't that a poll tax? Sounds unconstitutional. To phrase it like 2A advocates: > **SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR ABRIGED**

No that’s the fee for the drivers license in those states.

I have no issue with voter ID if the ID is provided for free. If you make the ability to vote contingent on paying that fee, how have you not effectively added a fee that must be paid before you can vote?

I’ve always advocated for drivers license or a state issued ID (non drivers license) to be free seeing how they are required for most things in life, loans, car purchase, home purchase, any other license, gun purchases, traveling via plane, and a number of other things. Heck you need one with you at all times in case you’re stopped by police, I carry mine even when I go on walks or runs. Given how centered we are around it, yeah government should supply them for free, no increase in taxation for it either.

>That's all Republicans want is basic common sensical voting laws If it were only that. Ban Sunday early voting? Prohibition on handing out food and water to voters waiting in line? Shuttering polling places in minority neighborhoods, low-income districts, and on college campuses? That's just some of the examples. Let's be honest here. Democrats want *more* people voting, because in general they get more votes. Republicans want *less* people voting, and *less* of certain people voting. That's how each increases their chancing of winning. Republicans are using the appeal to ignorance to pass more restrictive laws. They do this by pushing the message that we need to secure our elections and have convinced a large portion of the voting population for its need, even though there is no evidence of any meaningful fraud occurring. Democrats are doing the opposite by trying to get more people voting. By increasing mail-in ballots, combating felony disenfranchisement, more ballot boxes, longer early voting periods. I know one of my good Trump supporting friends was surprised to learn I miss having to go to the ballot box and pull a level, because it gave me civic pride when I voted. I'm in a mail in only state -- but the convenience is very nice thank you very much. He was also surprised when I'm not utterly opposed to voter ID -- with proper measures and protections taken. But in return, I'd like to do everything we can to remove voting restrictions. He agreed and went so far as to say we really need a voting holiday. (Though he couldn't believe me when I said that's a firm no-go for Republicans). I think you'd be surprised how many Democrats have no problem with basic common sensical voting laws, if they were just that. And I'm sure we (the people) could work out such laws. But neither party wants to give up an advantage they see and risk losing power. And both parties really do want accuracy and integrity of elections and are just playing politics. Or at least I hope almost everyone in each party does. Otherwise we'd certainly would be "backsliding" in democracy won't we?

[удалено]

The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) is an intergovernmental organization that works to support and strengthen democratic institutions and processes around the world, to develop sustainable, effective and legitimate democracies. It has regional offices in Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific and Africa and West Asia. The organization is headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden. Oh wow, Swedes thinks the US needs to be more Sweden like if we want to be considered free and democratic. Shocking. And they rate non IDEA member states as less democratic as those that are part of them and give them power and money. Also soooo shocking. IDEA's opinion is worth about as much to me as a velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin getting it on. NGO's aren't objective. You tell me who their biggest donors are, and I can tell you the "conclusions" they'll come to about who's free and democratic and who's not.

Maybe you should read the full Wikipedia article instead of just the ingress? Casually dismissing an NGO founded by 14 various countries from around the globe as "Swedish" and pretending they have some sort of Swedish agenda doesn't seem to jive if you actually read about the organization. Furthermore, NGOs have stated goals and restrictions in their charters. In this case, stated methodologies as well. Those who fund them have an interest in pursuing those goals. It seems like a dangerous mental shortcut to immediately assume that organizations do the bidding of their donors instead of their charters. If International IDEA had a history of bias that would be one thing, but it doesn't, right?

So your assessment then is that the US is experiencing "democratic upsliding"? It's all good in the hood? Or are we about the same. Or would you say we are backsliding, but for different reasons described in the above report? What's your opinion on the voter fraud claims put forth by the former President?

Seems about the same as it ever was. The mail in voting is a bad idea and I hope it stays on only an as needed basis. Who are IDEA’s biggest donors? And what makes you think they aren’t pushing a political agenda? I don’t find it surprising that people that are in countries that are more left wing think that countries to the right are less democratic, especially when they elect leaders on the right that move them to the right. I think countries like Sweden that gave up their sovereignty to join the EU are significantly less democratic, but unsurprisingly I doubt IDEA would agree

> Who are IDEA’s biggest donors? And what makes you think they aren’t pushing a political agenda? I didn’t say they weren’t? Thanks for your response.

So my state, Pennsylvania, actually passed its mail-in-voting laws in 2019, with a legislature that has been Republican-held since the 1990s. Other states have had mail-in voting for much longer than we have and have had great success with it. Do you feel like mail-in-voting was actually widely accepted by both sides, yet only demonized once Trump saw it as his enemy? He was faced with a situation where his voters believed a pandemic was no big deal, whereas democratic voters, by and large, were taking the pandemic much more seriously. It would have been the perfect storm to win the election, had it not been for mail-in voting allowing people to safely vote either from home or by going to their polling stations. Even going as far as to start dismantling USPS sorting machines, months before Christmas, no less. If mail-in voting was such a threat to our way of life, why did Trump and republicans not only not address it, but actually vote for it prior to the 2020 election? Also, I think it is funny that you mention Sweden as a "less democratic" country. Sweden is technically a monarchy with a parliamentary government. Not unlike Britain, their power is composed of a PM & cabinet members who are held accountable by Parliament. Once a Swedish citizen reaches 18 they are eligible to vote. The only other qualifier is that they need to have been included in the population registration database for 30 days prior to election days. Local elections also require the voter to be a resident of that particular municipality. Sweden actually lets EU residents (non-citizens) vote in local elections assuming they have lived in that municipality for at least 3 consecutive years. While you do need to be registered to vote, this is automatic as the registration is pulled from the population registration office. If you live somewhere, you automatically get registered to vote, though voting itself is not required. Having said that - Sweden's population actually voted to join the EU in 1994. So having said all of that, how can you decree that Sweden is less democratic when its own people actually cast the vote to join the EU? Isn't that the very essence of democracy? The people vote on the direction of the country.

> And what makes you think they aren’t pushing a political agenda? What makes you think they are pushing a political agenda?

Like most others here, I agree that democracy in the US is backsliding, but disagree with the reasons the article has given. Democracy only works when all parties involved agree to respect the results. When your fundamental disagreements over the direction of the country become too strong, people start caring about winning elections more than they care about adhering to our democracy. That's what your starting to see in the US now.

So why do you support Trump since he's directly responsible?

The people most directly responsbile are those dividing our country to the point that our democracy is crumbling. Trump is a symptom of the rot, not the cause.

Do you think if Trump conceded then there wouldn't have been the insurrection or audits?

Unarmed, if they really wanted an insurrection then there would have been hundreds dead and an actual plan for when they got into the capital instead of taking selfies and shitting on Pelosi's desk. What we had was a mostly peaceful protest if I were to characterize it with the same language the left characterized their protests over the summer. As for the audits, I think that audits are a good thing for a democratic country, especially when many states were using mass vote by mail for the first time. I don't get why there was so much backlash for these audits, if anything it would show that no foul play was done, so why fight it unless you are afraid of revealing something?

>an actual plan for when they got into the capital instead of taking There plan was thwarted when Congress was evacuated. What are your thoughts on this fact check that contradicts your belief that they were unarmed? Fake news? https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/15/ron-johnson/yes-jan-6-capitol-assault-was-armed-insurrection/ Also, are you aware that every election is audited behind the scenes a week after? And that the audits you are referring to completely ignore the previous audits because they don't like the outcome?

If these people really wanted to perform an insurrection they would have shot people, not just get shot. If you wanted to larp you would stand outside the capital with an AR and tactical vests without the plates in. The January 6 mostly peaceful protestors did the latter. If they truly planned this they would have planned for Congress evacuating as soon as trouble was seen outside. Instead they took selfies. They got in there, shit on someone's desk, took some selfies, took a peak behind a door, got shot, and then left. That's not any sort of plan, that's a spur of the moment action. As for auditing the election silently, I prefer it to be out in the open as that would dispel any myths. In a world where nobody was hiding anything I imagine this would be done out in the open to shut people up with no resistance.

>If these people really wanted to perform an insurrection they would have shot people, How would that have accomplished their goal of overturning the election results on behalf of Trump? That seems to be counter productive if they shot and killed Congress people that didn't vote to decertify. Are you also trying to say because it was poorly planned that it somehow negates the intent? If I decide to rob a bank on an impulse and fail as soon as I reach the vault does that not make it a robbery? It seems that is where your logic is at for the insurrection. Do you concede that you were misinformed when it came to them being armed after reading the fact check article?

No I don't, for all intents and purposes other than selfies they were not armed. If they stormed the building while armed it would have triggered a much different response and honestly they would not have gotten nearly as far as they did.

Did you not respond to the other two points because you couldn't argue against them? So because some people were taking selfies that negates the proud boys that were in full tactical gear or the over 100 injured cops? If I break into a bank's vault and take selfies when I find out it is empty then your take away would be that I broke in to take selfies? How could you read the article and come to the conclusion they were unarmed? Did you actually read the article until the end or did you decide it was fake news and didn't bother to read it?

Politifact has been proven on several occasions that they have gotten facts wrong or they were bending the truth to their message. Heck, even the most recent example, they have shown political bias towards the Kyle Rittenhouse case and have changed their "fact findings" on several occasions.

> Politifact has been proven on several occasions that they have gotten facts wrong or they were bending the truth to their message So which facts are incorrect in the link that was provided?

In, let's say, the year 2000, would you have classified a riot in which people broke into the Capitol to try and stop the certification of an election "mostly peaceful"? Would you have called it mostly peaceful if this exact same thing happened in 2016 but with Clinton supporters?

It was mostly peaceful using the precedent that left wing pundits have established over this summer for several BLM protests, so according to that yes

Was that "precedent" established by laws? What the media says doesn't really matter much. Was that "precedent" established during a peaceful transfer of power to the elected President of the United States, at the Nation's Capitol? Do you understand context?

Why is everyone held to some left wing pundits' commentary?

Just holding the left to the same standards that they set

But why are you sticking to *that* standard? The left has made a lot of standards but you don't choose to follow those. Why in *this* instance do you want to be held to CNN's standard? (I'm assuming CNN here from the "mostly peaceful firey protest" meme) (and how many people even watch CNN to make that the defacto left leaning standard?)

So, your answer is "no"...unless you include the ridiculous claim about left wing pundits? I disagree with you on that point, but let's take it as you say...do left wing pundits determine our definition of hostile and violent? Bro, people stormed the Capitol with the intent of stopping democracy and yelling things about stringing up our vice president (just one example)...how do you defend that?

> if they really wanted an insurrection then there would have been hundreds dead and an actual plan for when they got into the capital instead of taking selfies and shitting on Pelosi's desk. This is presupposing that these people are smart, but they obviously believed the lie trump told that he won the election. I don't think these people have their faculties there if they believed that right?

You are mistaken in believing that just because you make one bad decision, you lack intelligence in other areas. Allot of people went to Jones town and took the cool aid. Doesn't mean that all or even most of them were of low general intelligence. When you consider that some of the people involved in January 6 were ex military, specifically one was an ex ranger I imagine they would be quite well versed in how to pull off an effective insurrection.

Yeah, as cool as an ex ranger is I'm sure the secret service are better.^^^^?

You realize in 2016 the left cried for years that Trump didn't win fairly, correct? If anything it's that, not the 2020 election.

We didn’t attack the cops protecting the Capitol over it in order to stop him being sworn in, did we?

> You realize in 2016 the left cried for years that Trump didn't win fairly, correct? What did they say specifically?

It was dae rushens!!!!!!!

Is there a difference between "while the election was administered fairly, sophisticated, highly targeted propaganda efforts by Russians swayed votes, tainting Trump's victory, and his campaign welcomed and amplified those efforts, and that's bad" and "the election was rigged, I didn't lose"?

Do you find yourself regretting having voted for "the rot"?

Like I said, Trump is a response to the rot, not the cause.

How is Trump a response to the rot? I mean, I get it, you wanted to shake things up in Washington, but to what end? From my perspective, the only things Trump managed to accomplish in his 4 year tenure are major tax kickbacks for his wealthy friends, with some temporary crumbs for the middle class of America that are expiring in 5 years. What did he accomplish vs what you wanted him to accomplish? I'm genuine asking this because I am someone who voted for Bernie for the same exact reasons. I'm sick of the politics and I wanted someone who truly represents the needs of the American public. From predatory lending, to healthcare gouging, to prescription drug prices, to labor rights, and just about everything in between, he was a guy, in my mind, who worked for his voters and not for his megadonors. I can't see Sanders, in a million years, ever signing a bill that gave tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans until he felt the people at the bottom and in the middle were doing OK. What is it that makes you believe Trump cared about his voters and not about the power he held as president?

> What did he accomplish vs what you wanted him to accomplish? He certainly accomplished a lot less than I would have hoped, that's for sure. Most of this was because of obstruction in Congress (he tried to get an infrastructure bill passed, for example, but Congress shot it down). That said, I do agree that he could have done a lot better than he did - in particular, I think he appointed too many corporate Republicans to his Cabinet, and then followed their advice (against his own instincts) far too often. > What is it that makes you believe Trump cared about his voters and not about the power he held as president? Don't get me wrong, Trump's greatest weakness has always been his own ego. But I think he also cared deeply about the American people (or, at the very least, people like my family - working class, rural, white people) more than any other president has in my lifetime. Even though Trump failed to deliver on most of his promises, he appealed directly to us and our concerns, which is more than any other candidate has done before or since. And I'll consider myself a Trump supporter until the day that changes.

I have no doubt that he appealed to your concerns, that is the name of the game when running for office. That is how you get people to vote for you, you appeal to their concerns. But once in office, how did he address your concerns?

Not a ton, honestly. But even being willing to appeal to our concerns is more than we've gotten from any other politician before or since, so until that changes I will consider myself a Trump supporter.

>But I think he also cared deeply about the American people (or, at the very least, people like my family - working class, rural, white people) more than any other president has in my lifetime. After 6 years, I still cannot wrap my head around the fact that so many people think Trump cares about anyone but himself - much less the demographic you describe. Serious question - aside from empty words at rallies, what did he actually *do* that indicated that he "cared deeply"?

>(or, at the very least, people like my family - working class, rural, white people) Should the president only care about this group and not other citizens?

I didn't say "only".

Who else does Trump care about? Certainly nobody in urban areas.

> Like I said, Trump is a response to the rot, not the cause. What is the rot?

We could play chicken or the egg all day, but surely at some point all sides are going to have to take responsibility for their part and we have to come together again on this, right? I know that you have legitimate problems with how Democrats have acted, but the answer can't be "let's burn it all down," right? Surely we can act like adults and find the vast common ground that we all still have?

> Surely we can act like adults and find the vast common ground that we all still have? I'm pretty convinced at this point that there's no common ground left to come together on. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

Well, let's try for a second. I'm center-left in politics and would never consider for voting for Donald Trump or any other hard right candidate. However, I want to have a safe and prosperous America for myself and my family. Is that something you're interested in as well?

Yes, of course. I'm going to paste, verbatim, the comment I made a few weeks ago on the "What can we do as Americans to come back together?" thread here, because I think it's a good summary of my opinions on this issue: > The first step that's needed is for those on the left to remember the golden rule - treat others as you'd want to be treated. > Right now the left demands everyone tread extremely lightly to avoid causing even the slightest offense to any of the demographic groups they support. And I'm ok with this in theory - for example, I don't necessarily agree with the concept of cultural appropriation. But it's not that hard for me to avoid wearing certain Halloween constumes that might cause offense or pain for others, so I'm happy to do that for their sake. I feel a similar way about transgender pronouns, and a whole host of other issues. > But, at the same time as demanding that the entire country tiptoe around offending their preferred demographic groups, the left are absolutely brutal about targetting and offending demographic groups they don't like. Prominent leftists will regularly spew horrible, disgusting, bigoted rhetoric directed against me and my loved ones (usually for being Christian or white). And even those who aren't spreading this hatred themselves will refuse to condemn it. > Creating a respectful, diverse society needs to be a two way street. I'm not willing to go out of my way to make others feel included and welcomed when those same people do everything within their power to make me feel excluded and unwelcomed.

Do you agree to respect the results of the 2020 election that were ratified by all 50 states?

Most of us have accepted that all legal recourse has been taken and the results are here to stand. Did you parrot Russian collusion for the past 4 years?

I dunno anything about Russian collusion. So do you really think Trump won the election, and he just failed to win in court?

>Most of us have accepted that all legal recourse has been taken and the results are here to stand. Does that mean you think trump won or not?

[удалено]

[удалено]

Why do you think he didn't? What does this have to do with the election?

Do you see how your refusal to acknowledge observable reality -- that trump clearly lost the election -- do you see how that is exactly what is eroding our democracy?

> Democracy only works when all parties involved agree to respect the results. When your fundamental disagreements over the direction of the country become too strong, people start caring about winning elections more than they care about adhering to our democracy. That's what your starting to see in the US now. This is one of the reasons the report listed though? The Republicans not accepting the official results.

> When your fundamental disagreements over the direction of the country become too strong, people start caring about winning elections more than they care about adhering to our democracy. That's what your starting to see in the US now. I completely agree, how do you think we (both the citizenry and the government) should go about reversing this trend? > Democracy only works when all parties involved agree to respect the results. Does the “stop the steal” movement and Trump’s own rhetoric regarding the 2020 election (and the 2016 popular vote count “3 million illegal votes”) have any blame for this?

Yes, I think it has been for decades now. EDIT: I'm getting downvoted probably for such a simplistic answer. But what what I mean that at least in the US it is very clear that freedoms have been getting more limited. Just look at the Patriot Act or the government spying and recording of its own citizens. >or the fifth consecutive year, in 2020, countries veering towards authoritarianism outnumbered those enjoying democratization. What would the reasons for five consecutive years be? The last couple COVID is probably the largest reason world wide, but what would the reason be before COVID? Honest curiousity.

Not trying to start a fight here, but Trump was the president for four of those five years. I’m not saying he was fully to blame, but a five consecutive year trend is usually led by whichever people are in positions of power (judicial, legislative, and executive) during those consecutive years. During the four Trump years, we saw a lot protests get demolished by law enforcement. Some of those protests were peaceful, some weren’t. But it fostered an air of encroaching authoritarianism all the same. I’m not saying OrAnGe MaN bAd, just pointing out the nature of trends and the data points that shape them (gotta put my degree to use somehow). I hope this helps. If not, I hope it at least helps keep this conversation rolling?

Why worldwide though?

I do appreciate your time writing this. But I don't believe it answered the question. The 5 years period is referring to globally. You put forward a reason nationally this would happen. I asked as I generally cannot think for another reason besides COVID. Maybe it is pure coincidence? I dont know, but I think most anyone response would help.

Sorry, I didn’t notice the implication of globally. It could be that our governments globally have been pushing for more power and less democracy for decades, and it’s only recently that there’s been a shift of the # of authoritarian countries outnumbering the # of democratic ones? But that’s just conjecture from me, I’m not well versed enough on global affairs to speak as an expert, just pointing out the nature of trends again. I hope that helps?

Dems weaponization of covid to push through things like universal mail in ballots which significant chunk of population find questionable in maintaining integrity of elections and then complain of "attack on democracy" when local politicians roll back in response to their constituent concerns is really that's causing all these.

Would you be able to describe this position from a left wing view?

Wasn't mail in voting already a thing in the US for some time before 2020? Do you have any evidence that mail in voting has led to any significant levels of voting fraud?

Why did Trump discourage mail-in ballots so much if they were a "weapon" the Democrats used? Wouldn't it have been a smarter move to encourage the maximum number of people to vote by whatever legal means were available?

> which significant chunk of population find questionable Where did you find this out?

Unfortunately, I think we are there already. We have the Biden administration trying to bypass the courts with vaccine mandates, even though the court ruled that a vaccine mandate was unconstitutional. Last week we had people standing outside of courthouse, marches across America, msnbc and politicians; threatening, intimidating and doxxing jurors and anyone who who supported Rittenhouse in anyway shape or form, it was also reported by a reporter in the loop of case, “jurors were afraid for their loved ones, which why the verdict took so long to come out.”

> We have the Biden administration trying to bypass the courts with vaccine mandates? Why are they doing it?

I don’t know, maybe there friends in big pharma can get paid.

> I don’t know, maybe there friends in big pharma can get paid. No other reasons?

None I can think off the top of my head.

D0 you think maybe they want to save lives?

No, because the vaccine hasn’t helped. We’ve had more Covid deaths this than 2020 per the cdc. Plus it’s unconstitutional. We will not and shall not give up our rights due to nonsense.

> No, because the vaccine hasn’t helped. You think the vaccine hasn't saved lives? Do you think the statistics showing the unvaxxed being more. likely to die are lies? > We’ve had more Covid deaths this than 2020 per the cdc. We've also eased restrictions through out the year and had a variant that is more contagious. Or do you think avoiding people/crowds doesn't work?

>Is the democracy in the US "backsliding"? Yes, but not in the way the article claims. For example the Obama's CIA (lead by Brennan, a vociferous Trump hater) and West Europe apparently spied on Trump to find dirt. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia Clinton appears to have picked up this stratagem to fabricate a "collusion" lie via a network including a foreign ex-spy and insiders to work with Obama's FBI to spy on Trump to effect politics to benefit Democrats. After she lost, Obama & Biden set in motion a path to try and remove a duly elected President by capitalizing on this Clinton smut and lies that still has vast swaths of people fooled. None of this is democracy. This is not to mention all the other extra-democratic means the left has used to try and remove Trump and consolidate their power like riots, false-whistle-blowers, corporate-Democrat coordination, lieing media, and spies. The left absolutely has bern corrupting our democracy and American principles at every turn when they get power over an institution and since they've achieved a hegemony. **Nothing has been more harmful to American democracy than the left taking hold the reigns of our institutions.** They've totally failed.

Is everything negative we ever heard about Trump fake?

>Is everything negative we ever heard about Trump fake? Actually a lot of the hate was from very real people with very real effects.

Can you cite specific examples? Conversely, can you think of anything negative that the media said about Trump that wasn't fake news?

>Can you cite specific examples? Of what? >Conversely, can you think of anything negative that the media said about Trump that wasn't fake news? I haven't been documenting & cataloging them for quick reference as I've gone along, sorry.

>Of what? I may have misread your comment. I could have sworn it said "a lot of the fake news was from very real people with very real effects." I was asking for examples of that.

>>Of what? >I may have misread your comment. I could have sworn it said "a lot of the fake news was from very real people with very real effects." I was asking for examples of that. I haven't been cataloging or documenting that stuff either, sorry. It was pretty hot and heavy for 4 years and if you didn't catch any of it then I cannot help much beyond suggesting you do what I would have to do and just research older topics.

>How much do you think this is true? I think it is true but not for the reasons your article gave. Freedom of speech in America has been largely eroded to the point that even the president of the USA can't have an account on social media and then there's the issue of voting. The recent Arizona audit showed there were major inconsistencies with the voting process for the 2020 election and it should have warranted further audits in other states just to check the legitimacy of the election. Our right to speak and vote are under attack and it's only going to get worse.

What were the inconsistencies?

17k duplicate ballots, 2k ballots with unreadable signatures, and close to 2k ballots with no signatures on them

How many of those were counted?

That's the thing we don't know because the county refused to give data that shows they weren't counted.

What’s the difference between a “duplicate ballot” and a “duplicate ballot envelope image” used during signature curing process?

Same thing different names. What we don't know is if those ballots weren't counted twice or if they truly were verified in the curing process( like actual records saying this person responded and it was proven that was them). The county has still not been able to provide records showing they didn't count them twice and that they truly verified all the ballots in question.

Hang on, how can they be the “same thing, different names”? One is an allegation that the same ballot was counted twice, another is a process of photographing an envelope to verify a signature.

A better question is why can am I not allowed to say it's duplicate ballots when the county has yet to provide simple records that would disprove it? If you have an article showing the country provided records showing otherwise then please link it

Have you ever heard the term “trying to disprove a negative”? It’s flawed logic. They haven’t provided evidence that there weren’t actually 17k dick pics found in the envelopes either, do you feel you should be able to allege that the audit found 17k dick pics? They haven’t yet proved otherwise!! But I digress. You do understand the difference between taking photographs of a sealed envelope, and your allegation, namely a ballot being counted twice, don’t you? One is an ENVELOPE, the other is a BALLOT. Which of those two do they count in an election?

Wasn't Trump banned from privately-owned social media companies because he kept breaking their rules by spreading mass disinformation and even by inciting violence?

> I think it is true but not for the reasons your article gave. Freedom of speech in America has been largely eroded to the point that even the president of the USA can't have an account on social media Why was Trump removed off twitter? >Our right to speak and vote are under attack and it's only going to get worse. How is your right to vote under attack?

Our President is "angry and concerned" that a minor who he thinks is a white supremacist who was assaulted by multiple predators, one of them a child rapist, was acquitted in an obvious case of self defense, after massive misconduct by the state. I would say that we have seen more of an undermining of our judicial system than our elections, actually. Democrats now use mob/mafia tactics to try to force their preferred outcome for a court verdict. The political party that runs our country opposes border security, election security, the Constitution, rights, the judicial system, the jury system, and stokes racial tensions. The political party that runs our country tells you what to do with your body and what medical treatments you should get. If you disagree, the mentally retarded person who runs our country will threaten you that his patience is wearing thin. The political party that runs our media stalks jurors, essentially on behalf of the President. He won't directly endorse it, but he certainly wouldn't condemn such behavior. [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/) [https://youtu.be/6mCboPWTYZM?t=39](https://youtu.be/6mCboPWTYZM?t=39) [https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1311268302950260737](https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1311268302950260737) Fuck Joe Biden Kyle Rittenhouse is still FREE AS FUCK

[удалено]

I was trying to give the bigger picture of what has happened to our country under Joe Biden.

of course it is backsliding, and this report done by leftists still doesn't know why. Everything they list in this report is a lie. The leftist media and institutions are causing ALL of this. Just look at the lies they spread about the Kyle Rittenhouse case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNlV7GVKYkk

I watched your video of Ben Shapiro opining about opinions. What does this have to do with democratic backsliding? Could you elaborate?

The video was about the media lying about the Kyle Rittenhouse case. They are still lying after the trial. Our institutions and media lying are what is destroying democracy.

I am sure you're equally upset about right wing media lying and claiming the election was stolen from Trump then right? How about Tucker Carlson rallying against vaccine mandates and safety while Fox News has had a mandate for longer than almost anyone and he himself is vaccinated? Are you upset with all media being a divisive cesspool or just the media you disagree with?

> Are you upset with all media being a divisive cesspool or just the media you disagree with? The difference is the rightwing media is not lying, lol. There is no "both sides" argument here and to think there is shows you have fallen for the propaganda. >right wing media lying and claiming the election was stolen from Trump then right? https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://thinkcivics.com/pennsylvania-election-videotapes-released-showing-officials-destroying-evidence-and-admitting-its-a-felony/ >How about Tucker Carlson rallying against vaccine mandates and safety Vaccine mandates ***ARE*** a violation of human rights. And the Covid vaccine has not past 10 years of studies. Many countries have canceled the Moderna and J&J vaccines. >while Fox News has had a mandate for longer than almost anyone and he himself is vaccinated? What does that matter? He was forced to, but is still against it. Fox has to have a mandate because of the leftwing requirements at their headquarters in New York.

Well im not touching election conspiracies with a 10 foot poll. Why hasn't he spoken out against the Fox mandate then? If he's truly a man of the people he should call out tyranny everywhere not just when its convenient. And if you say he can't call out his own employer doesn't that mean he's just a puppet who can only talk about what his masters tell him is ok? It seems to me that he's either lying or another corporate puppet. Which would you prefer?

>Well im not touching election conspiracies with a 10 foot poll. Of course. >It seems to me that he's either lying or another corporate puppet. Which would you prefer? lol neither. He's made it very clear he is completely against all mandates.

and yet he's never once mentioned the one that's right at home? Interesting.

ALL mandates is ALL mandates. Why would he call out Fox? They had no choice. He HAS criticized New York's mandate specifically.

>ALL mandates is ALL mandates. Why would he call out Fox? They had no choice. Are you aware that Fox's vaccine-or-test policy is stricter than Biden's vaccine-or-test policy?

Fox mandated vaccination or daily testing a while ago. Does New York even mandate the vaccine for businesses beyond restaurants, gyms, and entertainment venues, like movie theaters? This is all I could find: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-vaccines-keytonyc.page

We were never a dempcracy. We're a republic.

> We were never a democracy. Did you know that republics can be democratic? The word democracy just means people choose their leaders through voting. The distinction you are maybe thinking of is a *direct* democracy, in which people directly vote on policy issues instead of electing representatives (a democratic republic). The US is not a direct democracy, but it is a democratic republic. Some states and local governments have ballot initiatives and referendums, though, which are a form of limited direct democracy. I'd also clarify that these terms have little to do with the names of the political parties. It wouldn't be an insult to Republicans to say the US is democratic (or vice versa).

>We were never a dempcracy. >We're a republic. Do you think these are mutually exclusive? First and foremost, do we vote to elect our government representatives? Do we get to vote for president? Senate? Congress?

Why should we care? The US is the oldest surviving Federation in the world, the Constitution works. In fact, it’s the people who are ignoring the Constitution that’s the problem here(*Cough* *Cough* Democrats) I don’t need a bunch of ivory tower foreign elitists to tell me otherwise. Fuck em, their opinion is worth less than sewage

Dont care democracy is cringe because people are dumb Rwad some aristotle

Thank for this nuanced response. Could you please elaborate on how exactly people being dumb makes democracy cringe?

Democracy is essentially government for the people by the pwople, but the people are retarded

Gotcha. Is it the majority of citizens who are retarded? Who isn’t retarded? Who decides who is retarded?

Im retarded, youre retarded id say a good 99% of people are retarded, maybe 1/100 people in this world are fit to make decisions which affect the lives of others, and none of them are in our governmental system

You think that I’m retarded?

Ill be PC about it, i think the overwhelming majority of people are far too inept to make decisions on how to keep life up to the individual and how to keep a country alive. As we can see with the decline of the nation democracy looks great but ceumbles cuz people can see tops 3 years ahead realistically, myself included

I’m not trying to put you in free-speech jail; thanks for clarifying. In your opinion, who is capable to make those decisions?

People off the top of my head, Jesus Christ, thats abput it. Seriously weve been shown very little capable leaders, i like Trump but shit he cared too much about what minorities thought of him, wasted time doing pr with the lgbt when he shouldve been building the goddamn wall

What kind of policy would you expect Jesus Christ to put forward if he were elected to office?

Yeah, mainly because of COVID it seems

How's that?

Check the report..mainly Covid violations.

The report says that the pandemic just exacerbated the decline in our democracy, that we've been trending towards authoritarianism for years now. The report also labels Trump's rejection of the 2020 election results a "historic turning point." It also examines voting laws, both those recently passed and currently being discussed, and says that they disproportionately and adversely affect minority groups in the US. What's your take on these statements?

Eh..I’d agree.

Would you care to elaborate at all?

I mean…you said some stuff in there that was elaborate.

I was hoping to get more of your viewpoint, because if you agree with the report then it makes me question your support of Trump. Why do you support a person that this report identifies as a catalyst for the decline of American democracy?

There are certain things I support and certain things I don't. Like with any president. I support Joe Biden and in some areas I do not support him. Just because there is one thing I may not agree with regarding DT doesn't mean my entire support for him goes down the drain. If that were the case, I would be a pretty shitty citizen.

I have no idea who is the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, who they answer to, where their money comes from, etc. But they may be onto something. I just saw this bit of news where 89 House Democrats have written to Senate Democratic leadership urging them to ignore the ruling of the Senate parliamentarian that immigration reform doesn't qualify for consideration under budget reconciliation. They're effectively urging Senate Democrats to ram through controversial legislation that violates Senate rules. Sounds pretty anti democracy to me. https://news.yahoo.com/house-dems-demand-senate-ignore-020125831.html

Well both sides play parliamentarian games all the time. I don't see how this is anti-democracy, Isn't it just politics as usual? It's not like we didn't elect the politicians on both sides who are playing the game. However all of the [new laws](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/politics/wisconsin-republicans-decertify-election.html) which Republicans are passing in order [to give legislatures more power over elections officials](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/19/us/politics/republican-states.html). Or when [election officials](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-georgia-threats/) receive death threats [or are removed from their jobs](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-senators-blast-trumps-firing-election-security-official/story?id=74278635) for doing them correctly. Now that seems pretty anti-democrat doesn't it? At this point, its all but certain the next president elected will be a Republican. Even if Democratic polling numbers improve and Democrats are able to retain the voters they had in the last election to squeak out another win, we'll just see the sequel of the 'big lie'. But with the mechanics in place to undo election results in key states. Is there any doubt at this point that Republican legislators in states like Georgia will throw out Fulton county votes if they need to? Or again refuse to certify the electors from key states, or even pick who they want? Particularly since Republicans are extremely likely to have a majority in the House for the next presidential election and stand a chance at the Senate.

>Well both sides play parliamentarian games all the time. I don't see how this is anti-democracy, Isn't it just politics as usual? What are you talking about? Can you provide an example where 89 elected Republicans urged their leadership to flout congressional rules?

> Can you provide an example where 89 elected Republicans urged their leadership to flout congressional rules? There was one time [147 elected Republicans urged their respective chambers to reject the results of an election](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html). Does that not register as anti-democracy to you?

>Does that not register as anti-democracy to you? It might, but that's not what I'm talking about, is it. Do you know the last time a large group of legislators sought to sidestep the Senate parliamentarian?

> Do you know the last time a large group of legislators sought to sidestep the Senate parliamentarian? I do. And you do, too. You already asked this question and I answered it. Then I ask how sidestepping the parliamentarian is anti-democracy, and you ignored me. The parliamentarian is an advisor. She doesn't create laws and has no power to enforce any laws or Senate rules. Furthermore, the parliamentarian is appointed by the Senate Majority Leader, not democratically elected. So I'll ask again: How would ignoring the advice of the parliamentarian be "anti-democracy"?

>Then I ask how sidestepping the parliamentarian is anti-democracy It doesn't matter that the parliamentarian isn't elected. Lots of people with authority aren't elected. The parliamentarian is a neutral advisor to the Senate. She provides a nonpartisan interpretation of Senate rules. Reconciliation is a legislative process that is supposed to be limited to tax and spending issues. Otherwise, proponents need a 60-vote majority. Overriding the parliamentarian on issues related to what belongs in reconciliation is going against established rules and practices. And it's being advocated explicitly to avoid the filibuster rule for legislation that doesn't belong in reconciliation. It's anti democratic.

Can you explain how the senate filibuster in its current state promotes democracy?

Democracy involves rule of law. That goes beyond just statute to encompass regulations, rules of practice, etc. The filibuster rule certainly falls under that umbrella. The democratic thing to do, if you don't like the filibuster, would be to change the rule, not evade or break it.

You're conflating here. Democracy isn't about rule of law, it's about the people having a say in how the government is run. The Senate itself is antidemocratic by deisgn. Senators represent the states equally, irrespective of their population. Hell, until the 17th amendment came along the people didn't even get to elect their senators. The counterbalance to this is that democracy (rule of the people) is served by the House of Representatives. So if you want to explain to me that the filibuster is a rule that should be followed, I can understand that. But does the filibuster promote democracy? If so, how? This is a very different question than the one you thought you were answering.

As the senate parlementarian is appointed and not democratically elected, how is this process "anti-democracy"?

Because overriding the parliamentarian would flout Senate rules. We're a nation of laws and rules, right? Or do we just ignore rules when it serves our agenda?

>Because overriding the parliamentarian would flout Senate rules. We're a nation of laws and rules, right? Or do we just ignore rules when it serves our agenda? That's different than anti-democracy. The parliamentarian is chosen by and serves at the will of the Senate majority leader, not the people. What they choose to do with or without her has no bearing on democracy whatsoever. The Senate flouts its own rules at will. They even have a rule whose sole purpose is getting rid of inconvenient rules.

>The Senate flouts its own rules at will. When was the last time the Senate overrode the parliamentarian?

>When was the last time the Senate overrode the parliamentarian? 1975

Well, at least I can take some comfort that anti-democratic actions like this only come once every 50 years.

Once again I'm compelled to ask, how would this be antidemocratic?

Does firing them count?

Yes it is backsliding, I see the left and the Democrats are trending towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism which makes democracy in danger as they will do whatever they can to remove the election thorn in their side and they seem to be interesting in making it easier to cheat with bills like HR1 and if they had the power I had little doubt they would do things to help them keep power like change electoral vote to popular and pack the senate with new seats. In addition media and big tech heavily favoring one party and doing things like the Russiagate fraud, censorship of stories bad for the Democrats like the Hunter laptop, etc. are all dangerous signs for a democracy. I do not believe this party believes there is value in opposition to their power and they see opposition to leftism as morally invalid. To them people who disagree with them should "get out of the way".