the person just elected promised to rig every election
Quote, please?
I believe you're referring to what Trump said about in the future, New Yorkers won't have to vote.
That's not saying they won't be allowed to vote. It's saying that the folks who think they need to vote to defend their way of life won't feel that way anymore.
Of course, whether those folks are right, or whether Trump really would do anything about it, are different questions. But in any case, it's nothing like the widely-reported statement that Trump will (somehow, through undescribed FUD) put an end to elections.
I may be slaughtered here for saying so, but I can't see J6 as a "coup".
There's too much of an underpants gnome quality, with no clear path leading from "unruly mob pushed its way into the Capitol" to "Trump is inaugurated with the acceptance of (at least a majority of) the country".
It follows much more logically if we model it as an irrational rioting mob. This doesn't make it right, but it moves the suspicion from "subverting democracy" to (simply?) inciting a riot.
It was an irrational rioting mob sent by Trump and allowed to continue for hours while he sat on his rear hoping they would be successful in forceably preventing the transfer of power. He and his co-conspirators knew exactly what they were doing. The insurrectionists that he told to stand back and stand by implemented stack formations to breach the capitol.
>It's saying that the folks who think they need to vote to defend their way of life won't feel that way anymore.
Why do folks think that now? Propaganda and lies from politicians.
What would need to happen in order for them to NOT feel that way?
The eradication of the Dems and the roughly half the voters that support them, and/or the further rigging of elections to ensure the half of Americans they disagree with are disenfranchised and/or the further entrenchment of the courts in an ideology only shared by half the country with mechanisms to prevent the 'left' from being able to take it back.
To pretend that statement is anything but directly threatening the pillars of democracy is absurd.
Even trumps own explanation shows the above to be true:
>Trump: So with respect to like a statement like I made that statement is very simple. I said, vote for me. You're not going to have to do it ever again. It's true, because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group. They don't vote, and I'm explaining that to them: You never vote — this time, vote. I'll straighten out the country. You won't have to vote anymore. I won't need your vote. You can go back.
Emphasis on:
>I'll straighten out the country. You won't have to vote anymore. I won't need your vote. You can go back.
Why wouldn't he need the vote. What changes could he make that would result in that outcome that are democratic?
Why do you vote now? I guess one reason is just that it's your civic duty. But also, I think that a big reason for voting is defensive, to ensure that the other voters aren't screwing you first; or at least to make sure that your way of life isn't threatened. Isn't this exactly what "get out the vote" efforts are trying to do, convince potential voters that there's a threat that they need to address by casting their vote? So people vote for gay rights, or for self-defense rights, or for "pro choice" rights, etc.
So if you've preemptively had some putative Defender Of The Faith like Trump memorialize your values in legislation, then you've got relatively less fear driving you to vote defensively.
> So people vote for gay rights, or for self-defense rights, or for "pro choice" rights, etc.
Exactly! That whole paragraph was well stated.
>So if you've preemptively had some putative Defender Of The Faith like Trump memorialize your values in legislation, then you've got relatively less fear driving you to vote defensively.
"memorialize" is a interesting word choice because that covers over the entire "devil is in the details". There is virtually no democratic way to enshrine a set of values in law that can't be overturned by those that disagree, as the supreme court has shown in the decisions on Right of Privacy, Roe v Wade and other landmark legislation and precedence that underpinned American law for decades.
Those were overturned because a concerted and united effort by conservative groups to swing courts to the right by voting in politicians that agreed with those end goals to nominate and select justices that would agree with their values and then immediately began a concerted effort to push cases bringing those laws and precedences they disagree with to the supreme court.
That shift all went back to voting (and voter suppression and gerrymandering but I digress) and they would in a democracy only be able to maintain this shifted balance in the courts and in the government by continuing to vote and win. This was the group Trump was talking to and telling them they wouldn't need to vote anymore. There is no squaring that circle.
While the media has lied about a lot of shit he says and taken it out of context, This statement alone and its anti-democratic meaning would have destroyed any candidates viability in the decades before Trump... That it hasn't shows that its no longer about values or morals, its about sides and identities now.
Thanks. So it was the statement I referred to, and as you'll see in my explanation above, this is nothing at all like saying that people won't be able to vote.
Saying "you won't need to vote because things will be fixed" is absolutely nothing like saying "you won't be allowed to vote anymore".
No one is saying you won't be allowed to vote. Russia has elections and people vote. The election is just "fixed" so the votes don't matter. I also have no reason to give this a charitable interpretation but hey, I hope you're right. You aren't but I hope you are.
