Democrats Just Can't Quit Saving Our Souls
Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton bring millenarianism—and messianism—back.

Say what you will about the otherwise calorie-lite first fortnight of the Kamala Harris/Tim Walz campaign, at least it eased for a moment the shrill catastrophizing that has marked Democratic messaging against former President Donald Trump over these past nine years.
"Gone are [President Joe] Biden's sober exhortations about the battle for the soul of the nation and a democracy under attack," The Washington Post observed earlier this month. "In its place are promises of 'freedom' and 'a brighter future' and, at times, audible giggles and laughter."
Well, the darkness came back with a vengeance in Chicago during Monday's opening night of the Democratic National Convention. Staged as a somewhat awkward and late-running "Thank you Joe" celebration, Day One demonstrated that the party remains in thrall both to the millenarian temptation and its flip side of messianic zeal.
"We're facing inflection point, one of those rare moments in history when the decisions we make now will determine the fate of our nation and the world for decades to come," Biden barked, familiarly. "That's not hyperbole. I mean it literally. We're in a battle for the very soul of America."
As puzzling as it may seem to those scores of millions of us who never once voted for the man during his half-century in elected office, we heard serial testimonials during Biden's valedictory night about the president's soulcraft. "He has brought us together, and revived our country, and our country's soul," Convention Chair Minyon Moore claimed, improbably. Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) extolled the president's "determination to heal the soul of our nation." Daughter Ashley reassured us that "He never stops thinking about you."
If only these sentiments were merely the good-natured embellishments of retirement banquets. Democrats, as they did massively for former President Barack Obama and are already cranking up for Harris and Walz, positioned Biden as a benevolent, borderline omniscient parental figure, ennobling citizens with meaning through the munificence of their gaze.
"They saw us, they fought for us, they heard us," Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison said of Biden and Harris. The 2024 ticket, Harrison continued, "will invest in our hopes, and our dreams, and our futures." Hillary Clinton posited that "We're not just electing a president. We are uplifting our nation." California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis testified of the Democratic nominee that "She cares. She cares so much that if you are lucky enough to be her friend, she called you on her birthday, and sometimes she sings to you."
It was only the Democrats' miserable show-running organization that prevented Biden from being serenaded by James Taylor with a rendition of "You've Got a Friend," a song he also performed for Obama at the 2012 Democratic convention, and that Carole King dedicated to both Clinton and Bernie Sanders in 2016. These politicians seeking access to the nuclear codes are not some distant, calculating power-seekers, but rather neighborly types who just want to lend a hand!
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D–Ga.), a Baptist pastor, was the most effective at tying together the Democratic strands of millenarianism and messianism. After busting Trump's chops for hawking Bibles ("he should try reading it"), and alleging that the GOP nominee "is a clear and present threat to the precious covenant we share with one another," Warnock reached for the stars.
"I'm convinced tonight that we can lift the broken even as we climb," he said. "I'm convinced tonight that we can heal sick bodies. We can heal the wounds that divide us. We can heal a planet in peril, we can heal the land."
George Will produced a memorably relevant metaphor in the 2014 Ken Burns documentary The Roosevelts: An Intimate History. "The presidency," Will mused, "is like a soft leather glove, and it takes the shape of the hand that's put into it. And when a very big hand is put into it and stretches the glove—stretches the office—the glove never quite shrinks back to what it was. So we are all living today with an office enlarged permanently by Franklin Roosevelt."
So too goes the stretching of presidential speechcraft. Obama, with significantly more charisma than Biden or Harris could ever muster, expanded the modern rhetorical template with his 2008 convention speech, delivered against a backdrop of Greek columns in a 76,000-seat stadium, that climaxed with this rapturously hubristic close:
I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless. This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. This was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.
Just prior to Obama's rise, Gene Healy warned us about executive branch omnipotence in his terrific book (and Reason cover story) The Cult of the Presidency. "The chief executive of the United States," Healy wrote, "is no longer a mere constitutional officer charged with faithful execution of the laws. He is a soul nourisher, a hope giver, a living American talisman against hurricanes, terrorism, economic downturns, and spiritual malaise. He 'or she' is the one who answers the phone at 3 a.m. to keep our children safe from harm. The modern president is America's shrink, a social worker, our very own national talk show host. He's also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth."
Obama's successor Trump, after having campaigned on a Great Man Theory of politics, continued the modern tradition of playing overpromiser in chief. "Dying industries will come roaring back to life," he predicted in his 2017 speech in front of a Joint Session of Congress. "Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways gleaming across our very, very beautiful land. Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and ultimately stop. And our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety and opportunity." Or not.
As Reason Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward remarked at the time, "This weirdly grandiose rhetoric is a reflection of a weirdly grandiose bipartisan conception of the powers of the president….Presidents do not make the earth move. They do not turn back tides. They do not heal the sick, or eliminate vice, or remake the nation. They are humans with human failings, and one of those failings is the inability to resist taking a big slurp of their own Kool-Aid in moments of triumph."
Investing our very souls into the fortunes of politicians is not the habit of a healthy civic culture. The people who compete for the right to control $7 trillion of money extracted from taxpayers upon threat of imprisonment are not your friends. The executives who sit atop the Justice Department, who have control over history's most powerful military, are not responsible for your hopes, your dreams, your healing. Imbuing elected officials with such spiritual potency is a recipe for self-infantilization, disappointment, and terrible executive-branch governance.
Presidential candidates will only stop promising to heal our souls when we stop asking them to. The long, slow climb out of our national sump hole requires not only that we treat pompous pols with the derision they deserve, but that we stop pouring our own aspirations into the career prospects of the politically ambitious.
Democrats will spend these next three days scaring voters both about Trump's legitimately scary behavior, and such Potemkin threats as Project 2025 (or as Sen. Jim Clyburn (D–S.C.) called it last night, "Jim Crow 2.0"). Such darkness is the regrettably typical stuff of politics, on both sides. It's when they imagineer a government headed by Kamala Harris to be an agent of spiritual healing that you should really reach for the gong.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Most Important Election of Our Lifetime™
For Republicans, maybe. If Trump loses, which looks increasingly likely, it may split into two irreconcilable parties. With the Democrats seemingly moving to the left (as evidenced with the Walz pick), the never Trumpers in the middle, (pissed at their party elevating a senile TV celebrity to represent them) and a pro-Trump rump of true believers on the right. That would make for a significant shakeup in the political landscape.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
FOAD, steaming pile of shit.
Most of the Trump supporters are the middle class working people the Democrats left behind when that party lurched to the left.
"Most of the Trump supporters are the middle class working people the Democrats left behind"
That was probably true in 2016 when those who voted for Obama switched to Trump away from Clinton. It was no longer true in 2020 when they switched back to Biden.
I think the rejection of Clinton was about her corporatism and enthusiasm for endless war, also a personality deficit. Clinton was hardly a lurch to the left, any more than her husband was. It still today isn't a 'lurch' as the Democrats still can't even bring themselves to supporting socialized medicine/insurance.
If Obama's working class supporters can get sick of Trump, it's not too much of a stretch to think working class Republicans can do the same. Nobody likes a three time loser. (2018 midterms, 2020 general, 2022 midterms) The good news for Trump is that many of his supporters show no sign of abandoning him.
Everything in this retarded post is just wishcasting.
Democrat fan fiction.
Your retarded post is rude, poorly written and doesn't even have any wishcasting.
A very retarded take from a very retarded leftist. Why don’t you stick to fantasizing about nine year olds masturbating.
Retard? Masturbation? I'm not gonna answer that. It's stupid. It's a sick question and you're a sick fuck and I'm not that sick that I'm gonna answer it.
People know who you are.
They only think they know me. I've been accused of supporting funding for Ukraine's war, hating Jews, women, men, blacks, whites, straights, gays, you name it. You've done this yourself, haven't you? Not that I take it seriously, but I'd never accuse you of 'knowing me.' Bluster and insults sum up your interactions with me.
Retard? Masturbation? I’m not gonna answer that. It’s stupid. It’s a sick question and you’re a sick fuck and I’m not that sick that I’m gonna answer it.
LOL, suddenly the marxist is acting as if he didn't say that children are "sexualized from birth" or that he thought about nine-year-olds masturbating.
" if he didn’t say that children are “sexualized from birth”"
They are. And before birth even, sex is already determined.
"or that he thought about nine-year-olds masturbating."
No, I was that masturbating nine year old. It's a source of innocent merriment, as W.S. Gilbert would say. It's OK if you didn't, though. I won't think any the less of you. Although your obsessing over children's sexuality is not a good look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWKrAQAhu-k
They are. And before birth even, sex is already determined
No, they aren't "sexualized." But your side sure loves doing so.
Although your obsessing over children’s sexuality is not a good look.
LOL, you're the one who talked freely about nine-year-olds masturbating. Maybe you marxist vermin should stop thinking about sexualizing children.
"No, they aren’t “sexualized.”
They aren't sexually mature, if that's what you are trying to say, and I agree with you. Sexual maturity comes with puberty, at the age of 12 or 13, typically. Before that though, the sexual organs are capable of intense pleasurable feeling. That's why children touch themselves in those regions, and yes, even masturbate. You have a puritanical streak and sex makes you uncomfortable. I don't.
Now, what do you think of the prospects for the Republicans to split after they lose the election? That's something that surely interests you, if not as much as children touching themselves.
"Maybe you marxist vermin should stop thinking about sexualizing children."
Maybe you redbaiters should stop trying to desexualize children, or denying them pleasure. Masturbation doesn't cause blindness or lead to mental illness. It is merely a source of innocent merriment. High time you accepted as such.
Trump won 46.1% of the vote in 2016 and 46.8% of the vote in 2020. It's not like there was some massive swing of voters away from him.
"It’s not like there was some massive swing of voters away from him."
I don't think the number of Obama voters who switched to Trump in 2016 was a massive swing, either. It didn't have to be. It's the Electoral College that elected Trump despite his achieving less than 50%.
Can always tell who failed history and civics in middle school by this take.
This is where the frog jumps into the pond.
Among so many other things.
Yes there was, it happened at 2am.
Zing!
Nobody "switched back to Biden". The Democrats just proved that it actually was possible to win an election by boosting turnout on your own side, not by having an attractive candidate of your own, but just encouraging your base to massively hate the opposition.
They used to say that you can't beat something with nothing. The Democrats proved in 2020 that you actually could, if you invested enough effort into demonizing the something.
"The Democrats proved in 2020 that you actually could, if you invested enough effort into demonizing the something."
Trump made it easy for the Democrats to demonize his term. Covid19 was enough to bury him. In addition you might remember all the turmoil in the streets Trump did nothing to quell. Voters were sick of him and his antics.
The Democrat and Republican parties are like Tom Doniphon and Liberty Valance—they can exist only in relationship to each other. If one party breaks up, the other will shortly follow. There are plenty of "unchurched" voters out there for new parties to draw from. It would be the extremists from both who would be left out in a realignment.
I was assuming that the winning party wouldn't split. Besides, the Democrat's leftist wing seems a lot tamer and more willing to toe the party line than their Republican counterparts. (See the struggles over the selection of majority speaker.) It's all just speculation and musings, though. Don't take it too seriously.
Don't worry; no one here takes you seriously.
I am not worried. I am happy that you and others continue to read my comments and deem them worthy of response. It's not something I expect, honestly. I wish you'd try harder, though. Your comments are often boring and juvenile, and rude, too. Sorry to be such a negative nelly, but it's best to be honest, don't you agree?
Your comments are often boring and juvenile, and rude, too.
Marxist vermin deserve it.
Let Verrnon Depner speak for himself. He can do better, I'm sure, without your idiotic redbaiting.
Marxist vermin deserve it.
If government doesn't tell us what to do and what to think, why even have one?
"is no longer a mere constitutional officer charged with faithful execution of the laws. He is a soul nourisher, a hope giver, a living American talisman against hurricanes, terrorism, economic downturns, and spiritual malaise."
Vote for Pedro; he will make your wildest dreams come true!
With the right mix tape, Pedro can win!
And some people want me to believe it's the MAGA crowd that sees a messiah.
The convention chair is named "Minyon".
Perfect.
Maybe they're deserving of some sort of 'Red Wedding', Welch?
A red wedding from a pinko like Welch?
On the right you have Beelzebub, on the left there is Baphomet. Both demonic parties want to collect our souls for their master.
In the flaming imbecile bucket, you have brandyshit.
Yet you have promised your soul to the one on the left.
"That's not hyperbole. I mean it literally. We're in a battle for the very soul of America."
Yes, you have told us repeatedly that you and your party don't want an America, that it's not worth saving and should be *looks at old twitter feeds of the DNC-aligned* "burned down".
But sure, Joe, let's save the systemically racist, patriarchal America.
They keep repeating this "battle for the soul of America" like a religious mantra, which puts to lie pretty quick their fork-tongued assertion that the culture war is divisive and needs to be avoided.
They crave conflict. They just don't want resistance.
That must be where Joe's been for the majority of the past couple weeks. Engaged in Mortal Kombat to possess the very soul of America. Good of him to take time out to let America know.
the USA is the ancestral inheritance of whiteness through the colonization of stolen indigenous lands.
(I think I’m doing this right and it’s kind of fun:-)
America literally has a soul? Have any theologians commented on this?
you should really reach for the gong.
Matt misspelled "bong".
I feel sorriest for Ashley, having to shower her father with such shameful and unearned glory.
Perfectly done!
No, about ten minutes later I wanted to call it "such naked glory" or "standing tall" or something.
Good clean family fun!
I'm glad to see they are brave enough to use goofy between-frame shots of Biden now.
"Democrats Just Can't Quit Saving Our Souls."
Well, Glory Be!
The democrats demanding all us peasants to worship on the altar of The State.
Only through massive government intervention, huge, dangerous, needless and expensive bureaucracies and "law enforcement" agencies can the people be saved from themselves, freedom and capitalism as any closet fascist will tell you.
It is only through The State can one find salvation, love and acceptance.
Just ask Comrade Kamala.
I find democrats to be much easier to tolerate if they’re piled into landfills.
Woodchippers are handy for compacting trash like that.
I’m not looking for a pastor or role model or anything like that, and certainly not a savior.
I’m looking for someone to do a job. Like hiring a dental surgeon or a lawyer, I want them to do the job.
The job is this: to slash federal government to the bone, and bring back federalism. Oh, and stop ruining/degrading autos, appliances, and other products with federal regulations. Allow free markets, among similar actions and policies.
"We're in a battle for the very soul of America."
Challenge accepted.
“Daughter Ashley reassured us that "He never stops thinking about you."”
Especially if you’re a tween girl with sniffable hair.
Did she shudder while saying that? It wasn't a cheery, "he never stops thinking about you!" but a grim, predatory warning that he never stops thinking about you.
I’m sure her narcotics consumption has helped her cope.
"She cares. She cares so much that if you are lucky enough to be her friend, she called you on her birthday, and sometimes she sings to you."
Does she write you love letters?
Was the BFF of Kamala so drunk that she said the line wrong? You would think that Kamala would call you on YOUR birthday, not Kamala's birthday.
I've forgotten; did Welsh 'strategically' vote for leakin' Joe?
All that matters is that the bankrupt blue state ~3% of wealthly residents get the SALT deduction back- Chuckie Schumer
Meanwhile the standard deduction for 97 percent of everyone else gets cut in half. Tax the proles dammit.
Oh the joy!
In 1992, the DNC had Fleetwood Mac's Don't Stop (1977) as the theme song for a Prez campaign. 32 years later, the D Prez had a 1971 song as what would have likely been a theme song.
Damn Talk about sinking into gerontocracy. Still listening to Classic Rock radio v1.0. Very easy to see why Harris got a huge pop just for not being old and tired.
Fortnight = Two Weeks.
Chat GPT ≠ A Real Editor
The use of "fortnight" threw me at first, too. When you read it more carefully, though, it makes sense, as he's talking about the first two weeks of the Kamala/Walz CAMPAIGN. Walz was named the running mate about two weeks ago. He wasn't referring to the first night of the Convention.
I hate having to defend Matt "Red Wedding" Welch, though.
Ah, that makes more sense!
Breaking: RFK might join Trump campaign
The democrats will have to ramp up their smear machine to compensate.
Saving democracy from the voters.
But I think they've sold their souls to someone else already.
They even had a child sacrifice van outside the DNC.
Do you have to bring your own child?
After busting Trump's chops for hawking Bibles ("he should try reading it"), and alleging that the GOP nominee "is a clear and present threat to the precious covenant we share with one another," Warnock reached for the stars.
The "precious covenant" that we share over our form of government is that of a democratic republic. The essence of this form of government is that the body of the people hold the power of government and chooses its leaders in elections. That cannot work if the losing side doesn't accept losing any more than it can work if the winning side had cheated. Nor can it work if a minority works to manipulate the electoral system to get control of the government despite the majority wanting something else. Most of all, it cannot work if the voters themselves don't trust it to work.
And Trump has worked to undermine trust in the electoral process since the beginning. Long before he was even in office, he was saying that he could only lose to Hillary because of fraud, and he explained Hillary getting almost 3 million more total votes than him by claiming that 3 million illegals voted for her.
The rhetoric of Democrats talking in such dire terms about Trump is entirely suitable to who he is and what he has done.
So, the blame for undermining trust in electoral process falls not on those manipulating the elections for their own benefit, but on those who insist on pointing out the elections are irregular and inauditable. Let’s all pretend that everything is fine with the elections, so that the voters don’t lose faith in them? It’s like trying to keep the peace in a household with an abusive narcissistic father.
https://hereistheevidence.com/
And if Trump manages somehow to win in Nov (meaning he isn't assassinated or thrown in prison, overcomes whatever "fortifications" the Dems have planned, and legitimately pulls in more than 269 E.C. votes), you will hear the left say the election was stolen. All their talk since 2020 about how questioning elections is paramount to treason will go away.
So, the blame for undermining trust in electoral process falls not on those manipulating the elections for their own benefit, but on those who insist on pointing out the elections are irregular and inauditable.
You are begging the question. You said, "those manipulating the elections" as if it is unquestioned that the elections were manipulated. You said, "those who insist on pointing out the elections are irregular and inauditable," as if it is unquestioned that the elections were irregular and were inauditable.
Election processes don't just pop up out of nowhere. They evolve and are modified in state legislatures and by the supervisors of elections and state officials constantly. There is ample opportunity for representatives of all political parties to be involved ahead of elections and challenge procedures that they view as being inadequate. Those kinds of lawsuits are always occurring. Many are occurring as we discuss this. With elections for at least two of the states disputed by the Trump side in 2020 fully in the hands the GOP at the state level, there was plenty of time before a single vote was cast to challenge what they believed to be in error.
If you want to wade through every claim from your link and check to see which of them have a reliable basis in fact and which don't, that is your prerogative. For my part, I have seen enough of those types of claims fall apart under any skeptical scrutiny that I don't feel like wasting my time trying to rebut all of them. Instead, I will assume that Trump and his GOP allies had more than sufficient financial resources to hire competent election lawyers to pursue anything with enough credibility to be heard in court.
If you want to believe that elections in the U.S. are corrupted by Democrats, despite no one having proven that in a court where rules of evidence insist on sources of claims be verified and those claims to be cross examined, again, that is your prerogative. We shouldn't be putting people in jail without their guilt being proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and we shouldn't be dismissing the results of elections without at least close to the same level of proof.
But Trump and his conspiracy minded supporters disagree with that. It was good enough for them that they believed the claims of fraud in order for Trump to stay in office despite the official results. That is not at all consistent with the purpose of holding elections in the first place.
There’s a lot of proof that has trickled in since 2020. You’re just willfully obtuse and ignorant of that because it doesn’t support your bullshit democrat narrative.
as if it is unquestioned that the elections were manipulated.
It's questioned by people like you who refuse to look at the evidence.
I don't refuse to look at the evidence. I followed some of the claims made by Trump, Powell, Rudy, Dinesh D'Souza, and random people on the internet for years. Eventually, when every single thing they claimed didn't pan out, I decided that it was no longer worth my time to check them anymore.
Your summary is false, as usual. Their claims were protected from discovery under threat of criminal law. GA just reopened 2020 investigations. Thousands and thousands of illegal votes from people who moved and voted in old districts. Arizona had 11k voters use federal only forms with no verification of citizenship. 3k provisional ballots there not counted as well from Hobbs changing peoples voter location to their vacation homes. Fulton county had 3 different tallies during recounts. 100% vote rates at Wisconsin nursing homes. Ballot harvesting in violation of law. Multiple courts ruling election clerks violated the law.
Since 2020 3 election is have been ruled invalid by judges from the same claims as 2020, all in blue areas. Multiple convictions of people falsely registering and voting as other people.
You’re just a leftist moron who blindly pushes narratives.
Their claims were protected from discovery under threat of criminal law.
This doesn't make sense. Discovery occurs when someone files a lawsuit or similar legal action. But a court will only require discovery if the case moves forward. If the responding entity moves for the case to be dismissed before discovery and that motion is granted, then the plaintiff isn't entitled to anything. It is like probable cause in criminal investigations. If a judge doesn't think law enforcement has sufficient reason to suspect a crime, then they won't grant a search warrant or subpoena. If someone is suing because they think there was election fraud (such as suing the voting machine company, or a county election office), and the judge dismisses the case because there isn't a sufficient basis for the suit, then no one gets discovery.
GA just reopened 2020 investigations.
If you're talking about the state election board that got a Trump-aligned majority installed recently, they called on the state AG to reopen investigations of Fulton county and the AG said no.
Thousands and thousands of illegal votes from people who moved and voted in old districts.
Which states and counties had this supposedly happen? That's not enough specifics for me to even enter into Google to look to see if evidence backs it up.
Arizona had 11k voters use federal only forms with no verification of citizenship.
So what? Arizona is the only state I've heard of that even tries to require proof of citizenship. They started that decades ago, and the courts ruled that they couldn't require proof of citizenship for federal elections since (I believe it was) the Voting Rights Act standardized voter registration. The federal registration form requires potential voters to sign and affirm that they are citizens, with it being a felony if they were not. There have been a few green card holders that have been prosecuted for voting and they get jail time and can be and are likely to be deported. (They often claimed that it was a mistake, that they thought they could vote because a DMV clerk asked them if they wanted to register, or something like that.)
So, what is the incentive to do that? Seriously, let's say that individual voter fraud is really hard to catch, and there was only a 0.1% chance that you'd get caught casting an illegal ballot. Why would you bother? What does someone gain that makes it seem worth taking a 1 in 1000 chance of spending years in prison? If you really think that a significant number of those 11k 'federal only' registered voters risked a felony conviction to lie on their registration form, show me the evidence of that.
3k provisional ballots there not counted as well from Hobbs changing peoples voter location to their vacation homes.
I spent several minutes trying to figure out what this refers to and couldn't find it. Let me know more detail if you want me to consider it.
Fulton county had 3 different tallies during recounts.
So what? Recounts regularly change totals slightly, as it is really hard to count large numbers of things with perfect accuracy by any method, machine or human. (Try counting how many pennies are in a gallon milk jug of mixed change saved up over ten years and tell me that you'd get it 100% accurate.) How different were the counts in Fulton, and how does that compare to the different recounts in GOP controlled counties in Georgia?
100% vote rates at Wisconsin nursing homes.
Sure, that sounds implausible, but surely that got investigated if it is such obvious proof of fraud, right? What was found?
Ballot harvesting in violation of law.
Where? What laws? What counts as "harvesting"? If I drop off my wheelchair bound neighbors absentee ballot, is that illegal harvesting in my state? (I don't know and would only care if I actually wanted to help a neighbor do that.)
Multiple courts ruling election clerks violated the law.
What courts? Which election clerks? What laws were violated?
Since 2020 3 election is have been ruled invalid by judges from the same claims as 2020, all in blue areas.
Which 3 elections? Which specific claims? As you've just shown, there are all kinds of claims being made, so "the same claims" tells me nothing.
Multiple convictions of people falsely registering and voting as other people.
Okay, so it does happen, apparently, if I am going to take your word for it. But I'd still want to know how often it occurs, and what the exact circumstances were. After all, if very few people try it, and the system easily caught them, then it doesn't seem like a big problem.
You’re just a leftist moron who blindly pushes narratives.
And you're a conspiracy minded partisan that just throws out dozens of claims hoping to overwhelm my skepticism through sheer volume of things I'd have to debunk. This is a well-known tactic that conspiracy theorists use regularly. Look up Gish Gallop if you're not familiar with it.
What you are describing is exactly how elections always work. Elections are based on gathering an actionable outcome from 50%+1. IF there are options that are much more widely agreed upon, then those who don't agree with that will not just agree to keep losing. They will use the strategy of divide and conquer to whittle the vast majority (who oppose them or who they oppose) down to size by pitting them against each other. To create a factional hatred and fashion election strategy around it.
ALL elections devolve to this. Elections do not and cannot unify. The only strategy that can unify is one that strives for consensus. Might not achieve consensus but the search/process for it is completely different than a majoritarian one and resolves itself differently.
IF there are options that are much more widely agreed upon, then those who don’t agree with that will not just agree to keep losing.
It is hardly likely that a consensus that could encompass all citizens can be reached on very many issues, if any. Any government decision will always leave some portion of the voters on the "losing" side that disagrees with that decision. What makes majoritarian democracy function is that decisions don't have to be final. The losing side can try again to persuade "50% + 1" to agree with them. Factional alliances can shift as people change their minds or enough time goes by the population simply has a significantly different group of people in it. Some of the voters that lost might even be the ones to change their mind and come to like the decision that was made.
It is the people that aim to hold power for its own sake that will view elections as battles in more than a purely metaphorical sense, They will think about trying to "divide and conquer" as almost literally conquering and then using government power to solidify their hold on it. For them, creating "factional hatred" isn't just a tool for when they are in the minority, it is a normal way of doing politics. These are political actors that don't actually want an informed public to have the power to choose their own government.
I know that a lot of the regulars around here are ready to jump on me as say that it is the Democrats that I am talking about. But that would still miss the point. There's a saying that if you don't know who the mark is, then it is you that is the mark. But in politics, if you think that only the other side's voters are being fooled by their party's politicians, then it is you that is being fooled.
It is hardly likely that a consensus that could encompass all citizens can be reached on very many issues, if any.
a) That’s not really true.
b)If a consensus can’t be reached, then a decision of ‘let’s wait until we can figure out a better approach that we can agree on’ is probably a pretty wise decision.
Sweden is an example of a deeply consensus minded society. Back in the 30’s, Marquis Childs wrote about a Sweden that could juggle – a monarchy, a socialist government, a capitalist economic system at the same time. Even though he called it the Middle Way – that’s not how consensus works there or how it evolved. Paradoxically decisions tend to go to extremes because they tend to postpone decisions at the line between persuasion and coercion – but when persuasion tips it tends to tip fast. If you’re OK with 50%+1, then that’s the line where you’re ok with coercion and ramming something through even if it fails half way and persuasion stops at that point.
Japan has a similar consensus objective for many things – but a very different approach to getting there. Switzerland as well. Really a lot of places – including places in tribal/kin cultures where decision making at the national level is dysfunctional precisely because it is a tribal/kin culture not a national culture.
Juries are the perfect example where we require consensus before the state is allowed to make a coercive decision. Many sortition or random selection assemblies will also tend to work this way even if they aren’t restricted by rules that make them work that way. It is elected assemblies that create an agenda based on some mandate they think they have.
Another example is the notion of fairness that every child understands. One cuts, the other chooses. That is a process to reach consensus.
It is the people that aim to hold power for its own sake that will view elections as battles in more than a purely metaphorical sense,
Those people are not aberrations in an election process. They are the permanent players who in fact do hold power and hang on to it.
Really? Because it probably didn’t help when democrats started doing shit like forum shopping in radical courts to get illegal rulings that changed election rules allowing for ballot harvesting and lowering barriers to election fraud.
So don’t be a little bitch now and start crying about undermining election integrity. Because if you democrats pull that shit again it won’t be election integrity you have to worry about.
Enough is enough.
Yeah, sure, because a blow hard like Trump speculating out loud is just as bad as a Democratic political machine that actually bent and broke election laws in shaking our confidence.
Words are worse than actions. Do you even Democrat bro?
Are going to believe Jason or your lying eyes?
Photo caption: “Its Godzilla!”
“Only MORE Gov-Guns in your face can save you!!!!”
They’ll repeat endlessly.
As-if a ‘Gun’ was suppose to be a tool of salvation.
What separates 'government' from any other entity again?
What you're seeing is like Judas throwing a 4 day "going away" party for Jesus. The featured speakers are members of the Sanhedrin. They all sing praises of Jesus, hailing him as the savior and uniter of Jews. He literally saved us! And then here comes the Romans to take him away to be crucified just as they had arranged.
And we're all supposed to clap and go along, like trained seals. We're not supposed to see that the DNC is headlined by coup leaders who blackmailed a sitting president from reelection. We're supposed to ignore that they protected their senile pawn for 4 years, only to turn against him when his implosion became impossible to hide. We're expected not to see the irony of these people uplifting their deposed pawn to the heights of Mt. Rushmore. Gee, why isn't this genius who created millions of jobs and saved the American economy NOT the dem nominee? Why did they threaten him with 25th, when they claimed he was of sound mind?
This is all Orwellian stuff. We'd laugh at Vladimir Putin or Kim Jung Un if they said their economy was thriving. But half the American population won't do that on Biden. We live in some scary times.
"Gee, why isn’t this genius who created millions of jobs and saved the American economy NOT the dem nominee?"
The answer is obvious. He was too old, feeble and senile. The real question is why haven't the Republicans followed suit and replaced their candidate with someone fit for the job. Senility is a real turn off for most voters. Time you took this lesson to heart.
Biden's problem wasn't so much age as it was his mental capacity. Obviously as he got older his metal faculties declined. But Dems and their legacy media mouthpieces spent all of 2024 (and before) telling up that Biden was sharp as a tack when they KNEW that wasn't true. It was obvious to anyone who watched him speak. But the Dems and their media stooges thought they could still beat Trump with Biden, so they gaslight everyone. It wasn't until the proof of Biden having a mush brain was so over the top with his performance at the debate that the Dems all began thinking they couldn't gaslight this away and it WOULD HURT THEIR ELECTION CHANCES that they effected the soft coup to replace him with Kamala.
Now to hear you and other Dems go on about a candidate like Trump being too old for the job is just the final "Fuck You" to everyone. They (and you) knew they were lying the whole time about Biden. We know they were lying the whole time. Everyone knows Kamala was lying the whole time. But you want everyone to accept that and then accept that *this time* you're serious about what's good for the country (not having an aging president).
XM asked why Biden is not the Democrat nominee. I answered.
"They (and you) knew they were lying the whole time about Biden. "
I knew Biden was told old. I stated so in this pages last year when I predicted neither him nor Trump would be running. You evidently thought he was up to the job, hence all this whining about how the media deceived you. You simply weren't paying attention, or putting all your hopes on Biden as an easy opponent for the slightly younger and less senile Trump.
" you’re serious about what’s good for the country (not having an aging president)."
I don't really care about the age. Clearly Biden and Trump are too senile and feeble for the job. Some 80 year olds are probably capable. I reject them both primarily for their cheer leading and enabling the genocide in Gaza. I oppose genocide, murder, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid. I oppose politicians like Trump and Biden because they support what I oppose.
"they effected the soft coup"
That's not a coup. I didn't see any armored personal carriers speeding through the streets of Washington. Coups don't get any softer than this:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/2/myanmar-aerobics-instructor-dances-through-military-coup
Some more details on the soft coup and the music that accompanied it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM6EVAUEU3E
Read my post more carefully this time.
I didn't say they deceived me. I clearly stated that they knew Biden's brain was done, I and almost everyone knew Biden's brain was done, but they were going to gaslight regardless if they thought they could still win with Biden. I'm commenting on the chutzpah of the legacy media and the Dems to try to gaslight everyone about Biden being "fit as a fiddle" or "sharp as a tack" (actual phrases used), then forcing him out of the running and talking about how unwise it is to have a candidate who is old.
And you obviously don't know what a SOFT coup is if you negate it for not having military vehicles involved.
I didn't watch any of this clownshow but my wife did. She told me she muted the audio because everyone on the stage was screaming. From Joe telling his apochcryphal stories about Charlottesville and hooded Klansmen coming out of the woods (yeah I know this shit is popular with mythology enthusiasts at Reason) to Hillary yelling "lock him up" , something Trump declined to do to her despite documented evidence of her criminality. I know Liz told us it was all pretty cool but it seems like the whole thing was just screeching to the choir. Those souls are already saved. Doesn't seem like they give a shit about the rest of us.
And thus, Biden tells me that Heaven holds a kinkmeter that perfectly embraces the bizarre economic perversions of the next trendy industrious presidential candidate with full assurance that the deviation and overall incoherency resulting from the Apathetic who learned a prior trendy economic deviation kink can be settled by simple acts of faith such as by increasing the national debt limit and shooting people, forced to recover in houses of administrated care, with mind-altering medicines that no one may evaluate legally under federal law unless given a medical right to do so via the rite of medical monopoly diagnosis.
Quick, learn the truth before ye fare too late!