Trump v. Biden - How worried should I be?

[CaptainFritz28]

How would you explain Trump's efforts to invalidate the election before it even took place (e.g., telling his voters mail-in ballots would be fraudulent constantly for months before the election)? It seems obvious that he was ready to throw the whole thing into question before voting even started to ensure he could contest a result he didn't like.

I mean... if you think that a method of voting will lead to fraudulent elections, then shouldn't you say something about it?

Not saying you're wrong about everything else, but this seems to be a silly argument. If Trump though that mail-in voting would result in voter fraud, then it is logical that he would say so. Why would you want to invalidate the results before it takes place? Because you think it's going to be rigged.

[CaptainFritz28]

What you describe as "theatrics and delay tactics" were abhorrent and borderline treasonous. "Find the votes" is an absolutely insane thing for a President to say to an election official. "Don't certify the result" is an unprecedented request for a President to make to a VP. His own AG had already confirmed there hadn't been voter fraud. These "tactics" were not only moronic, they severely degraded the norms of what's acceptable for a President to do following an electoral loss.

I do agree with this, although I think you're throwing around accusations of treason way too lightly.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

To me that's an extremely naive view of what Trump was doing.

Trump's goal was to create as much uncertainty about the election results as possible. Then, if he won, he wouldn't say shit about it. But, if he lost, he was ready to make a big stink about how it was all rigged from the start. This strategy worked for him because he could be certain hisopponent wouldn't engage in the same tactic. No other modern president or major candidate has ever sought to publicly undermine confidence in the voting system.

Besides, why is Trump given so much leeway to act on his "beliefs" (I'm not so sure they're genuine, but whatever) in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? There was no evidence of systematic voter fraud so it was extremely irresponsible to say there was on the basis of a hunch.

And on the treason part, what else would you call trying to steal the presidency after all the evidence says you lost fair and square?

[CaptainFritz28]

The coming election is, in part, a referendum on whether or not Americans care at all about this sort of conduct. If Trump is re-elected, I suspect one result is that the boundaries on this type of behaviour will get pushed even further throughout his term / when it's time to pick his successor.

I'm curious what specifically you mean here. As Oct noted, things have been worse before, and it's not like the President can just singlehandedly abolish term limits.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The coming election is, in part, a referendum on whether or not Americans care at all about this sort of conduct. If Trump is re-elected, I suspect one result is that the boundaries on this type of behaviour will get pushed even further throughout his term / when it's time to pick his successor.

I'm curious what specifically you mean here. As Oct noted, things have been worse before, and it's not like the President can just singlehandedly abolish term limits.

Trump tried in advance to erode trust in the election results on the basis of no evidence.

When he lost, he tried to pressure election officials to invent votes in his favour.

He attempted to create a constitutional crisis by instructing his VP to not certify Biden's win.

If he is elected again, it says Americans do not give a fuck about democracy so long as their guy wins. It would give Trump's admin the political cover to try all sorts of other shenanigans to stay in power and skirt the normal checks on executive authority with the reasonable expectation that not enough Americans care. The eye-opening part of the first Trump term is that legal and procedural norms really only work so long as the American public care about them. The US would not be the first country to hollow out its norms and institutions by indulging a leader who openly disdains them.

[CaptainFritz28]

And on the treason part, what else would you call trying to steal the presidency after all the evidence says you lost fair and square?

I call it foolishness. If you do it peaceably, it's conspiracy. If you do it with weapons, then it's treason. According to Wikipedia at least, there have only been 17 convictions of treason in U.S. History. This is meant to be the highest crime in all of America, given only to those who lead or support armed rebellion against the United States. January 6th was a riot, not a rebellion.

[CaptainFritz28]

Besides, why is Trump given so much leeway to act on his "beliefs" (I'm not so sure they're genuine, but whatever) in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? There was no evidence of systematic voter fraud so it was extremely irresponsible to say there was on the basis of a hunch.

If he did something illegal, he should be punished for it. If you're talking about things he said, we have a first amendment. Certainly there are some restrictions to that, but the fact that he uses the same tactics as most other politicians (complaining about something unless it goes their way) is... common of most other politicians. Look at 2016. They tried to impeach him over "Russian collusion" because he won, even though there ended up being no evidence for that.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

And on the treason part, what else would you call trying to steal the presidency after all the evidence says you lost fair and square?

I call it foolishness. If you do it peaceably, it's conspiracy. If you do it with weapons, then it's treason. According to Wikipedia at least, there have only been 17 convictions of treason in U.S. History. This is meant to be the highest crime in all of America, given only to those who lead or support armed rebellion against the United States. January 6th was a riot, not a rebellion.

So at best it's conspiracy, at worst it's treason. We would use the latter if events on Jan. 6 had played out differently - real political violence was a plausible outcome of the "riot" Trump encouraged and we're lucky it didn't take place.

And the man still has a coin toss chance of genuinely winning the next election. It's unbelievable to me.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Besides, why is Trump given so much leeway to act on his "beliefs" (I'm not so sure they're genuine, but whatever) in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? There was no evidence of systematic voter fraud so it was extremely irresponsible to say there was on the basis of a hunch.

If he did something illegal, he should be punished for it. If you're talking about things he said, we have a first amendment. Certainly there are some restrictions to that, but the fact that he uses the same tactics as most other politicians (complaining about something unless it goes their way) is... common of most other politicians. Look at 2016. They tried to impeach him over "Russian collusion" because he won, even though there ended up being no evidence for that.

The courts have been fairly clear that this wasn't a jailable offense, though his team was found guilty of defaming Dominion voting.

But "illegal" isn't the only line the electorate should care about.

The Constitution assumed a moral American public would be interested in defending the values of its new democracy, so they didn't explicitly prohibit all sorts of plausible bad presidential behaviour. An absolute charlatan of a president got caught in huge and irresponsible lies for his own benefit. This should have naturally been disqualifying, assuming the US public cared to defend their own norms. But a cult of personality around Trump, hyper partisanship, extremely poor strategy from the Dems, etc. have convinced a significant share of voters to either go along with the lies or just simply not care about them.

[CaptainFritz28]

Trump tried in advance to erode trust in the election results on the basis of no evidence.

As I already said, this is done by politicians all over the place. And claiming there was no evidence is a bit naive. Enough to overturn the election? No. Enough to raise a question? Yes. Trump, in his usual way, raised the question... loudly. I don't like it, but it's his methods. If you think something is wrong, you say something about it, and you try to get people to vote against it.

When he lost, he tried to pressure election officials to invent votes in his favour.

Yeah, that was silly. He should've just left it alone. Even if there was fraud, and there probably was some (even if very little), he should've realized that he was only going to cause further divide.

But if you simply mean the statement you keep referring to of "finding the votes," I don't think that's illegal. If he threatened people or did something, well, illegal, to change the election outcome, then it's a different story.

He attempted to create a constitutional crisis by instructing his VP to not certify Biden's win.

Same thing as before. He acted rashly, yes. It shows that his character is... wanting. But it's not really different from a lot of other politicians.

If he is elected again, it says Americans do not give a fuck about democracy so long as their guy wins. It would give Trump's admin the political cover to try all sorts of other shenanigans to stay in power and skirt the normal checks on executive authority with the reasonable expectation that not enough Americans care. The eye-opening part of the first Trump term is that legal and procedural norms really only work so long as the American public care about them. The US would not be the first country to hollow out its norms and institutions by indulging a leader who openly disdains them.

I could make the same claims about the other side. I won't, because I think we've seen worse (espionage and sedition acts come to mind) and I think that your worries here, while based in some truth, are applied to an extent which I think is irrational.

[CaptainFritz28]

But "illegal" isn't the only line the electorate should care about.

Of course not, and his character sucks. The trouble is it's not a comparison of good and bad, it's a picking between the lesser of two evils.

The thing I have trouble with is not recognizing Trump's flaws, and he has many, but the claims that a few stupid public statement about the election are "the end to democracy." Like really, we've seen worse.

[CaptainFritz28]

So at best it's conspiracy, at worst it's treason. We would use the latter if events on Jan. 6 had played out differently - real political violence was a plausible outcome of the "riot" Trump encouraged and we're lucky it didn't take place.

And the man still has a coin toss chance of genuinely winning the next election. It's unbelievable to me.

If there were legitimately no evidence, then sure. But I think there was some, and while, as I've already said, I don't think it was enough to overturn the election, it was certainly enough to warrant investigation.

There's a reason January 6th didn't play out differently. It's because people weren't revolting. They weren't trying to overthrow the government or take control of the legislature. They were rioting, and chose to do so in a really stupid place. If they wanted rebellion, they could've had it, and it would have ended in a lot of bloodshed.

Meanwhile, in cities all across the U.S., things worse than January 6th happen every day. Businesses are looted, cars are burned, police and civilians alike are attacked, and nobody does anything about it. These are a direct result of policies like defunding the police, made by lawmakers who Biden supports.

The thing is that people's lives are being destroyed by policies that Biden has put in place and is supporting. These are things like the border crisis, which he has done nothing to stop, the ever worsening inflation, which he has only spurred on, his weaponization of the justice system/intelligence agencies, and the failure that is his foreign policy.

If the threat of Trump making more stupid statements and being mean is what it takes to solve these issues, it's worth it. He can't abolish term limits, he can't "destroy democracy." The worst he can do is be biased towards his own political party and do some rash but ultimately inconsequential things, which I'm sure nobody else ever does. Plus, if he gets elected now, he can't run again.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Your willingness to excuse this behaviour would ultimately never constrain a President who genuinely was hoping to skirt democracy.

It's always possible to say there are election irregularities. Doesn't mean it's proper to blow them out of proportion without evidence in what appears to be a calculated attempt to undermine the process for one's own benefit.

Saying "the other side does it to" in response to things the other side actually does not do is an excuse too far. For all his other faults, Biden has never claimed to have won an election that he actually lost.

What you are calling "rash" behaviour has no modern precedent and should be among the factors that convince voters he's not well suited to the most important job in the world.

To me, the risk is not that Trump stays on forever. It's that he so thoroughly erodes norms around elections and the constraints on presidential power that the actual power of the people gets deeply subverted.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

To be clear, I'm not some big blue booster.

Prominent Dems talking about changing the size and composition of the Supreme Court were playing with fire.

The whole Russia-gate thing was a fiasco, with folks grasping at straws they had to know weren't actually there.

The attempts to de-certify Trump in some states were extremely wrong-headed. I'm very glad the SC gave that a unanimous "no".

These abhorrent actions still don't raise to the level of claiming to win after a loss, directly pressuring election officials, and pressuring a VP to not certify a provably accurate election result. They do, however, show how as norms erode both sides will just get shittier and shittier about democracy unless voters show they care. In this election, I think there could be no clearer signal they really don't care than the re-election of Donald Trump.

[CaptainFritz28]

The power of the people is already deeply subverted. I believe that a large part of that has been due to the party which Biden is being controlled by. And I say "being controlled by" because it's clear that the old man doesn't make the big decisions.

Again, if dealing with Trump blow things out of proportion and make bizarre statements that ultimately have no consequence is what has to be done to fix the mess that this nation has become under Biden, then it's worth it.

You claim that Trump wishes to skirt democracy. The only evidence you've given for that is three statements that Trump made. I'm sure there are other things he's done, and I don't excuse his behavior. Quite frankly I don't want him in office. I don't like Trump. But for some absurd reason, he's one of only two options, and the other has caused a huge amount of damage to the American economy, people, foreign policy, and divided us just as much if not more than Trump did.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

You claim that Trump wishes to skirt democracy. The only evidence you've given for that is three statements that Trump made.

He tried to invalidate the election before it took place.

He said he won when he lost.

He directly pressured an election official to find votes for him.

He tried to get the VP to not certify an election that provably went against him.

I'm sorry but what other evidence do you need here? There will never be stronger evidence than this.

[CaptainFritz28]

To be clear, I'm not some big blue booster.

And I hope you'll be glad to hear that I'm no big Trump supporter either. I've stated multiple times that I wish he weren't running; I don't like the guy.

Prominent Dems talking about changing the size and composition of the Supreme Court were playing with fire.

The whole Russia-gate thing was a fiasco, with folks grasping at straws they had to know weren't actually there.

The attempts to de-certify Trump in some states were extremely wrong-headed. I'm very glad the SC gave that a unanimous "no".

Biden said, when asked about packing the SC, that the American people didn't deserve to know his decision unless he got elected.

Grasping at straws he had to know wasn't actually there was exactly what Trump did. Sure, he claimed the election was stolen, but he didn't actually do anything about it. He tried to convince people to do things, but he as well as anyone else knew that he wasn't going to get anything done. Same thing as with the claims of Russian collusion.

They're the same thing. Just because no one got up on a podium and said "the election was stolen" doesn't mean that the actions taken by the Democrats didn't prove that that's exactly what they believed.

These abhorrent actions still don't raise to the level of claiming to win after a loss, directly pressuring election officials, and pressuring a VP to not certify a provably accurate election result. They do, however, show how as norms erode both sides will just get shittier and shittier about democracy unless voters show they care. In this election, I think there could be no clearer signal they really don't care than the re-election of Donald Trump.

Here's the thing. You're saying here that launching three years of investigations, trying to impeach a president with no evidence, and taking direct action to de-certify election results, which had to be shut down by the Supreme Court, are just as bad as Trump making statements calling for the VP not to certify the election, when he knew full well that that's exactly what Pence was going to do, and Trump claiming that the election was stolen.

Sure, he shouldn't have done that. I totally agree, and I think it was stupid and rash of him to do so. I think it reflects extremely poorly on his character, and that if there were any better candidate I would vote for them (and that's not a high bar).

But voting for Biden is a vote for a president who can hardly give a speech, much less make major decisions about global politics, a man who has caused major damage to our country through his policy, both foreign and domestic, and a party which has proven that it doesn't care that its cities are going up in flames and will take whatever action is necessary to get their way in an election, not just make silly statements about it.

I hate the fact that Trump is the only better option, but that's the way things are.

[CaptainFritz28]

You claim that Trump wishes to skirt democracy. The only evidence you've given for that is three statements that Trump made.

He tried to invalidate the election before it took place.

He said he won when he lost.

He directly pressured an election official to find votes for him.

He tried to get the VP to not certify an election that provably went against him.

I'm sorry but what other evidence do you need here? There will never be stronger evidence than this.

What were each of those actions? They were speech. He did not actually take action, he knew that Pence wouldn't side with him, and his pre-election concerns may have been based on some evidence that he had seen which he admittedly overblew.

"There will never be stronger evidence than this." I don't know, how about spending a whole presidency on investigations based on no evidence and then trying three times to impeach the president on nothing when that doesn't work? All the while your supporters are rioting in the cities because you lost while your party calls for the police to be defunded?

A single riot at the capitol and some statements that you know will have no effect is miniscule compared to this.

I don't like Trump. But for all his many, many faults, he's at least better than that.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I guess all I can say is yikes.

I still find Trump's abuses worse than the Dems and so I hope Biden wins.

The "it's only speech" argument is nonsensical to me. Trump could absolutely try to subvert democracy in his favour without being Lee Harvey Oswald himself lol.

But I don't disagree with your points above re: the Dems and, if other Americans feel the same way, then your democracy is already functionally over. It's just a series of might-makes-right games that will be less-and-less meaningfully constrained by voters and the courts over time.

[CaptainFritz28]

I still find Trump's abuses worse than the Dems and so I hope Biden wins.

I still disagree here, but I don't suppose I'll be convincing you otherwise.

The "it's only speech" argument is nonsensical to me. Trump could absolutely try to subvert democracy in his favour without being Lee Harvey Oswald himself lol.

Sure, his speech has power. I'm not saying it doesn't. But what I am saying is that he could've done more than just speech. If he really wanted to, he could've taken actions that would have much greater effect, even if still failing, such as the Democrats did in response to 2016.

He said some stupid stuff. But if he wanted to destroy democracy, he would've done more than saying stupid stuff.

But I don't disagree with your points above re: the Dems and, if other Americans feel the same way, then your democracy is already functionally over. It's just a series of might-makes-right games that will be less-and-less meaningfully constrained by voters and the courts over time.

And to a certain extent I agree. I really don't like either party, especially not while Trump is still with the Republicans, and I think the decline that our democracy has experienced will continue unless something changes. But I don't think voting for Biden (or Trump) will change it, or slow it down, and I don't think voting for Trump will speed it up.

To save our nation, there has to be a change in its society as well as its politics. As long as the average American continues to decline, so will our democracy.

This election won't decide the fate of our republic. It's going to take a lot more.