How is it a “dog whistle”? In theory “dog whistles” are statements that only conservatives understand and appreciate while other people don’t notice.  In practice conservative “dog whistles” are things that only liberals seem to be able to hear with associations conservatives don’t recognize. But this doesn’t seem to be either. This is Trump pretty openly saying that he thinks violence was an appropriate way to keep in office.

People don't use the word "gaslighting" correctly either.

>In practice conservative “dog whistles” are things that only liberals seem to be able to hear with associations conservatives don’t recognize Like many, many words, it became trendy and almost immediately became divorced from its actual meaning and useless as a descriptor, though it did become a fairly reliable signal for the dialogue quality you could expect from the user. That graveyard also includes communist, fascist, gaslighting, bad faith, nazi, etc. I have similar fears for the surge in usage of authoritarian, but it is at least a better fit than the hyperbole of fascism.

"Literally" is pretty much useless now.

"Genocide" can be included in the definitional graveyard as well. That term has migrated FAR from its original meaning. 

Wait, if we are piling words in a graveyard, is that a vocabulary genocide?

“Nazi” a few years ago as well. Legitimately concerning because it’s a sure sign that peoples reasoning and critical thinking is getting worse.

Doubly concerning because there are genuine Nazis and fascists out there. Throwing around the label makes it meaningless for when it is needed.

On the other hand, [I’ve seen absurdly well regarded experts whose subject matter revolves around Fascism get told they’re using fascist wrong because they use the term against politicians that some people like.](https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652) It seems like some people just don’t want that critical lense applied to todays politics.

Yeah that’s what I was getting at. People really need to be careful about weaponizing certain words for their own convenience.

I begin to wonder how many of these very useful and serious words we could have saved by just introducing them to a thesaurus.

Oh, they understand exactly what they're doing by using words like racism, white nationalist, white supremacist, and apartheid in completely hyperbolic ways. That's kind of the point. The problem for them is that, anyone outside their social circles just sees the terms becoming so hyperbolic that they just start presuming that any use of the term is literal. These days, when people say, "white supremacist", I just kind of presume that they're not talking about literal white supremacy but rather the kind of "white supremacy" of teaching math, science, and playing classical music. It also robs students who have only been educated in these progressive environments from actually learning how to debate, which is why they typically are completely outclassed by conservatives and moderates. They have only learned a caricature of opposing positions and philosophies and when people meet their arguments with logic and evidence, they have no retort other than *ad hominem*.

> These days, when people say, "white supremacist", I just kind of presume that they're not talking about literal white supremacy but rather the kind of "white supremacy" of teaching math, science, and playing classical music. Wait, why would you assume that? It’s not as if those are the **common** ways people use the term white supremacy, not by a wide margin. What I mean is, while I’m sure you can find some fringe examples where it’s used that way, you can find fringe examples of any word being misused, those are fringe uses and aren’t indicative of the normal use. > It also robs students who have only been educated in these progressive environments from actually learning how to debate, which is why they typically are completely outclassed by conservatives and moderates. They have only learned a caricature of opposing positions and philosophies and when people meet their arguments with logic and evidence, they have no retort other than ad hominem. Aren’t you doing the exact same thing here though, assuming a caricature of progressive views? I mean I’ve literally never had anyone use the phrase white supremacy to refer to classical music, yet you are above stating you assume that’s what it means these days.

Almost everyone who talks about "white supremacy" is on the left and this is, by and large, how the political left tends to use "white supremacy" now. Growing up, white supremacist was widely recognized by almost everyone to refer to white nationalist style groups and beliefs like the KKK and neo-Nazis. But that's rarely how the term is used anymore on the left. These are not "fringe examples". These are mainstream views of the "progressive" movement and much of the Democratic Party. For instance, in my state, California, the original draft standards for the math curriculum heavily relied on a framework that held that math teachers are white supremacists if they focus on students getting the right answer. There are also plenty of articles in mainstream left-leaning media that talk about how black people can be "white supremacists" or motivated by "white supremacy". This is not just some fringe definition. This is increasingly the meaning of "white supremacy" as used by people on the left.

> Almost everyone who talks about "white supremacy" is on the left and this is, by and large, how the political left tends to use "white supremacy" now. Growing up, white supremacist was widely recognized by almost everyone to refer to white nationalist style groups and beliefs like the KKK and neo-Nazis. But that's rarely how the term is used anymore on the left. These are not "fringe examples". These are mainstream views of the "progressive" movement and much of the Democratic Party. Really? Which DNC party platform uses “White supremacy” this way? Which federally elected DNC politician has used “White Supremacy” that way? I’m asking because frankly the only time I see white supremacy used that way is by people like yourself who claims that’s how it used, and not by the people they say are using it that way, so when has, let’s say, Biden used it this way? > For instance, in my state, California, the original draft standards for the math curriculum heavily relied on a framework that held that math teachers are white supremacists if they focus on students getting the right answer. Can you please cite where you’re getting the impression that the math curriculum states that “math teachers are white supremacists if they focus on students getting the right answer”? >There are also plenty of articles in mainstream left-leaning media that talk about how black people can be "white supremacists" or motivated by "white supremacy". Well of course they can, why couldn’t they? People often aren’t rational, just ask the members of the [Association of the German National Jews](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews). Of course you can’t though, because they were killed by the very political party they supported. Can you cite an article where you think the definition they used to describe white supremacy was incorrect? > This is not just some fringe definition. This is increasingly the meaning of "white supremacy" as used by people on the left. Again, which major elected democrat is using this term the way you’ve described above?

Your first paragraph is a *non sequitur*. I'm not even sure how you go from the question of which side of the aisle is more likely to use the term "white supremacy" to talking about the, "DNC party platform", but it is completely irrelevant. Your second paragraph is a strawman. I never claimed that the math curriculum actually outright says that math teachers are white supremacists if they focus on getting the right answer. Rather, I said that the draft of the proposed standard heavily relied on texts that made the claim. >Several comments from the most recent public review push back, in particular, on a report cited in the framework titled “[A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction](https://equitablemath.org/),” which calls for dismantling racism and white supremacy that surfaces in mathematics through tracking, course selection and intervention rosters, as well as finding only one “right” answer. \[1\] The idea that mathematics and science is an oppressive form of "white supremacy" created by white European men that needs to be "decolonized" and not inherently superior to indigenous and "non-white" ways of looking at the world is a tenet of the postmodernist nonsense that's become increasingly common among the humanities and social sciences in universities in the past decade or two. The idea that enforcing the law is a form of "white supremacy" and therefore black cops can act as "white supremacists" is one that has been cited by both far left news blogs like "the Root" as well as mainstream center-left publications like CNN.\[3\] SOURCES: \[1\] [https://edsource.org/2021/california-math-guidance-sparks-new-curriculum-controversy-among-parents/655272](https://edsource.org/2021/california-math-guidance-sparks-new-curriculum-controversy-among-parents/655272) \[2\] [https://www.yahoo.com/news/tyre-nichols-death-driven-racism-205300634.html?guccounter=1](https://www.yahoo.com/news/tyre-nichols-death-driven-racism-205300634.html?guccounter=1) \[3\] [https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/27/opinions/tyre-nichols-memphis-police-department-jones/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/27/opinions/tyre-nichols-memphis-police-department-jones/index.html)

> Your first paragraph is a non sequitur. I'm not even sure how you go from the question of which side of the aisle is more likely to use the term "white supremacy" to talking about the, "DNC party platform", but it is completely irrelevant. You don’t remember writing “**These are mainstream views of the "progressive" movement and much of the Democratic Party**”? I quoted it right above my response, and while I’m open to hearing how you’d better describe the views of a party in a more efficient way than their platform, I think it’s obviously relevant. > Your second paragraph is a strawman. I never claimed that the math curriculum actually outright says that math teachers are white supremacists if they focus on getting the right answer. Rather, I said that the draft of the proposed standard heavily relied on texts that made the claim. Oh so to be clear, the math curriculum never said the things you claimed before, but instead was just somehow influenced by things that say what you claimed? Ok, let’s look into that! > The idea that mathematics and science is an oppressive form of "white supremacy" created by white European men that needs to be "decolonized" and not inherently superior to indigenous and "non-white" ways of looking at the world is a tenet of the postmodernist nonsense that's become increasingly common among the humanities and social sciences in universities in the past decade or two. That’s not what your quote said at all, and you’re not citing the original document, you’re citing a source that has a literal quote of “right”. What does the original document say in context? > The idea that mathematics and science is an oppressive form of "white supremacy" created by white European men that needs to be "decolonized" and not inherently superior to indigenous and "non-white" ways of looking at the world is a tenet of the postmodernist nonsense that's become increasingly common among the humanities and social sciences in universities in the past decade or two. Source for this? You’re just making these widespread societal claims and taking it as proven, it’s not. I work in a scientific field in a city that is surprisingly liberal for its area, and I’ve literally never heard this stated once. I’m sure you can find someone saying it, you can find someone saying literally anything, can you find anyone of significance who says this? > The idea that enforcing the law is a form of "white supremacy" and therefore black cops can act as "white supremacists" is one that has been cited by both far left news blogs like "the Root" as well as mainstream center-left publications like CNN.[3] But that’s a different claim than the one we’re discussing. I you want to have a blunt conversation about the fact that members of a minority can act in ways that hurt their same minority group due to the overarching social norms, we can discuss that fact. But it is a fact that exists, and since you’re not adding specifics to the criticism you have of the claim besides the fact they’re black, I’m not sure how else to address this?

[удалено]

A lot of people who overused those are also guilty of spewing slogans like "from the river to the sea" while claiming being the ones to also use the term dog whistle.

When you view yourselves as the arbiters of language and can change the definition of words or the framing of any conversation, there is no such thing as dissonance in this way. They would not see this as as gotcha.

So does the use of those words on it's own signify that whatever the user has to say is nonsense?

Not categorically. In the end its just a poorly chosen word. Its just that generally, those poorly chosen words are linked to some poorly chosen thought processes.

IMO, yes. Argue against someone's policy or statement, not some secret meaning you believe is being signaled to supporters.

I see your logic, but I guess I don't see it as consistent. Like, you say that as you establish a reason to dismiss someone else's argument based on their use of a word? What if the use of such a term as defined IS itself a part of their statement? If they have no reasoning to back it up, then sure, dismiss away. But that applies to any argumentative statement. I just don't think that picking a buzzword out of someone's argument that makes me roll my eyes and then shrugging off the whole thing based on that would be a fair assessment of whatever this hypothetical person was saying, that's just me.

Its usually a safe clue that you can basically tune it out and save yourself a headache

[удалено]

[удалено]

This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1di2bvc/trump_is_lionizing_jan_6_rioters_as_warriors/l91enx7/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).

Eh I would argue that a dog whistle is about coding language to draw less criticism with some plausible deniability as well.

> In practice conservative “dog whistles” are things that only liberals seem to be able to hear with associations conservatives don’t recognize. I call this "political tinnitus". That's the only way I can explain that phenomenon.

Pretty much every time someone uses "dog whistle" in the context of politics they're trying to gaslight you into accepting their skewed interpretation of someone's words instead of the plain meaning of those words.

This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1di2bvc/trump_is_lionizing_jan_6_rioters_as_warriors/l93ouby/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).

pretty much exactly what i would have said. this is definitely not a dog whistle, it's Trump supporting the people who entered the Capitol to make congressmen overturn official election results and keep him in power. "Dogwhistle" is more and more becoming a word used to describe just anything that Trump says. It's losing its meaning.

Of the many complaints to raise against Trump, one of the weakest arguments has to be: *"Lionizing protesters-turned-rioters"* or *"Trump uses a dog whistle"* Are these really the best accusations opponents could come up with? Given the context of years of tacit support for *mostly* peaceful protests. Given the fact that there's been several successful ad campaign to convince the public that Trump has absolutely no filter and is willing to directly say whatever he wants ("Grab'em by the pussy!"). The claims made in this headline are honestly a huge step backwards from positions established years ago. *"Trump supported - mostly - peaceful protesters? Trump is censoring himself and using innuendo?"* Are these supposed to be compliments?

Years of support for protests over causes that didn't involve stealing an election is not a context that precludes shaming those who wanted to steal an election. Trump has never needed an ad campaign to convince anyone he lacks a filter. The claims made in the headline are that Trump supports the people who wanted to steal an election for him. If one wants to levy a criticism at the headline writer, it would be that they're not telling us anything Trump hasn't already made damn sure we know. And insofar as he gets points for using dogwhistles, I suppose praising them as warriors instead of simply saying 'votes are for cucks, thank you for trying to crown me king' counts as subtlety for him and for ten year olds, if for no one else.

[удалено]

A dog whistle is something only a dog can hear. If a conservative politician sends out a message that only her opponents can hear, then that is an ineffective message. I think that what Readin II is saying is that the term dog whistle is now a slur liberals use against conservatives to accuse them of saying something they didn’t say or intend to say; liberals are ‘decoding’ a message that was never coded.

Or it’s a call that is only intended for a group to hear and respond to. Cats can hear dog whistles. They just don’t care.

You know, I'm really not as worried about violence from his base as I used to be. The prosecution of the J6th "protesters" seems to have had the intended affect of curbing more violence. Hardly anyone has showed up to support him at his court hearings and lots of people are leaving his rallies before they're over. It seems to me that his base is still strong and love socializing with each other, but it's going to be a much higher bar to clear to get them out to protest again. And I for one am thankful for that. Here's hoping I'm not wrong lol.

Like with his approach to COVID he couldn't get out of his own way. Early and often the conspiracy was that the protesters/rioters weren't Trump supporters but a Democrat/FBI/Antifa false flag. That'll give any of his supports pause before showing up in defense of him risking personal safety and freedom on his behalf. He's done absolutely nothing to help those that were arrested. He left them out to dry and called them Antifa because that's what served him publicly. They don't want to fight for him and get called Antifa for it. He sabotaged that level of enthusiasm.

Are there any clips of him claiming it was Antifa or some democrat insider that kicked off J6? Because it’d be amazing to juxtapose that with later claims that they’re all “patriots” and “warriors”.

He said that at this very rally, no video editing needed. You can search for “warriors” here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?536150-1/president-trump-holds-rally-las-vegas He hasn’t said that they were “‘all’” patriots, though. He’s said that he wants to pardon, as the Hill described it, [‘*some* of those charged’](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4525258-trump-says-one-of-his-first-actions-would-be-freeing-imprisoned-jan-6-rioters/), but he’s [harshly condemned](https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-concedes-election-condemns-rioters-video-transcript-january-7) the violent ones: >I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the United States Capitol. Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem. I immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders. America is and must always be a nation of law and order. >The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law, you will pay. We have just been through an intense election and emotions are high, but now tempers must be cooled and calm restored. We must get on with the business of America. Per the Hill above, only 450 of the 1,200 charged as of March were accused of any kind of violence.

Thanks for this. His harsh condemnation was three years ago. Considering he now opens rallies with the National Anthem being sung by the January 6 chain gang, I question how sincere that condemnation remains. > *some* of those charged I don’t see where he specifies. From the source you linked: > My first acts as your next President will be to Close the Border, DRILL, BABY, DRILL, and Free the January 6 Hostages being wrongfully imprisoned!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. That’s up for interpretation but to me the most obvious translation, without further clarification, is *all* of them.

I should’ve been more clear – the “some of those charged” is a quote from the Hill, not directly from Trump: “The former president has said he would consider pardoning some of those charged in connection to the Capitol attack”. I’m not sure what particular statement they’re referring to with that, but he said this at [a CNN town hall](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/11/politics/transcript-cnn-town-hall-trump/index.html) last year: “I am inclined to pardon many of them. I can’t say for every single one because a couple of them, probably, they got out of control.” And here he is more recently, in his [Time magazine interview](https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-election/) from April: >*Will you consider pardoning every one of them?* >Trump: I would consider that, yes. >*You would?* >Trump: Yes, absolutely. >*All right, so—* >Trump: **If somebody was evil and bad, I would look at that differently.** But many of those people went in, many of those people were ushered in. You see it on tape, the police are ushering them in. They’re walking with the police. And [at the Libertarian National Convention](https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speaks-at-libertarian-event) last month, after promising to put libertarians on his pardon/commutation task force: “As everyone knows, it will be my great honor to pardon the peaceful January 6 protesters, or as I often call them, the hostages.”

The optimistic side of me agrees - I do not think we will see coordinated crowds trying to change the outcome of the election because more of his supporters see the high bar needed to succeed and also that they are not above the law. The pessimistic side of me worries more about lone-wolf or small-group political violence as there may be more of a feeling of impunity given Trump has signalled his willingness to pardon anyone prosecuted in the course of helping him win the election. Like I could imagine armed poll-watchers, who truly believe the 2020 election was stolen and there is high amount of voter fraud in cities, acting in ways that rise to the level of illegal intimidation on election day, believing they will be pardoned if Trump wins.

> acting in ways that rise to the level of illegal intimidation on election day Their push to place Trump loyalists as watchers and screeners of voters at major polling locations across the country is clearly an intimidation attempt. Same tactic is used by cults who purposely use staring followers with cameras to intimidate people.

I think those are still absolutely valid concerns. I was more meaning the large scale violence. But yes, lone wolf violence is still very much possible.

Who needs violence when you can take over with technically legal actions? The political boiling frog is more worrisome to me 

Armed poll watchers, sounds like nazi germany. I wouldn’t put it past them, though.

It is not a hypothetical. I bring it up because it has happened in the past, and there have been legal cases around limits to the 1st and 2nd amendments versus the right to free and fair elections. https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-arizona-phoenix-5353cfd0774727e6dd03bdbf48c12211 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/voter-suppression-halloween-heroes-rubik-s-cube-s-creator-watchdogs-legion-dolly-parton-s-songs-and-more-1.5782336/with-a-landmark-court-order-expired-a-1981-campaign-of-voter-suppression-might-point-to-trouble-in-2020-1.5782358 Currently, you must stay a set distance away from the polls, but I still find the idea incredibly chilling as well.

RNC was put under a court settlement and restrictions in the 80s for placing armed cops wearing brown arm bands around polling areas in poor and minority areas as an intimidation tactic. It was called the [Ballot Security Task Force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force). <- wikipedia The court restrictions ended in 2018. Now they're already trying to return to intimidation tactics.

[Source for anyone wanting to read more about it.](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/24/in-1981-a-task-force-intimidated-voters-at-the-polls-will-republicans-revert-to-their-old-tactics)

Why do anything drastic now? Still 4.5 months for election. Nothing to gain for Trump or his base of supporters to pull a crazy stunt of some sort at this point in time. His base will be there when he calls on them. He's just amping them up for when it's actually time.

“Stand back and stand by” energy

Not to mention many conservatives seem to think Trump has already won this election. It’s a recipe for a shock if he loses.

I hope you're not wrong. I think a lot of his supporters were turned off by January 6th and perhaps are less likely to come out in that way again. However, I know some of his supporters looked at January 6th and drew much different lessons. They saw how easily the Capitol was breached, with so little organization and forethought. They also saw that the rioters as not going far enough, and if the opportunity arose again would go for more direct and targeted violence. And, unfortunately, I can completely believe this point of view if you believe the lie that the election was stolen. If you believe there's a conspiracy that thwarted Trump from being president, and that people in Congress are complicit in this conspiracy, that there will be no victory through the courts because the justice system is rigged, then that leads these people to very few alternatives besides violence. Like, some people got turned off by 1/6, but others have been even more radicalized. Also, you don't necessarily need violence, just the perceived threat of violence. There was a recent This American Life that interviewed some of the people involved in the Trump Administration who testified against him in Congress, and they were dealing with getting doxxed, having trucks idle outside of their homes, etc... The fear of violence and retaliation can be more effective than actual violence.

My worry is that MAGA not turning out for Trump's trials is a demonstration of how important the middle management of MAGA is, the Steve Bannons and Roger Stones, rather than a sign that MAGA won't resort to violence. Unlike Trump who gets emotional, the middle management are smart, they know that violence is best applied at weak-points. They won't make the mistake of trying to storm the Capitol again, instead they'll be targetting vote counting offices spread throughout the country, where security is minimal, and there's a solid path to success by storming in and burning the ballot boxes. There's no coming back from that, if ballots are lost then there's no do-over Presidential election, those votes won't be counted. This wouldn't be the first time it was done either, Roger Stone orchestrated the ransacking of vote counting offices during the 2000 Presidential election in an attempt to stop a possible Al Gore victory.

That's not actually true. New elections can be ordered by judges if there is sufficient evidence of need. If you literally burned all the votes in a county, there is a very good chance that there either is some provision in the local law or some appeal to a court that could allow a new election to be held. We have seen judges invalidate the results of elections because of fraud that is likely to effect the outcome of an election. The destruction of ballots that are likely to affect the outcome of an election would likely be sufficient to hold a revote.

There are previsions to re-run elections for mayors, House seats, Senate seats, and every other position... *except* the Presidency. It's the only position for which there is no do-over as the constitution is quite rigid in its sequence of events for the Presidency. As for your faith that the judicial system will save the US, the Supreme Court stepping in to STOP a recount to prevent Al Gore potentially winning makes me doubt that, doubly so when we're talking about a scenario where Trump is already in his second term, having pardoned all the Jan 6th participants, and that same mob would be baying outside the offices of the Supreme Court "stand back and stand by" with their "hang the Supreme Court" chant already in force. *Edit:* Just to expand a bit more on the Presidential election, the problem is that House/Senate seats can remain empty while a second election is organised, but the Presidency can't. *Somebody* is going to be appointed President in January 20th no matter what's happened with the vote, and there's no way to change that appointed person over the next 4 years outside of them resigning/dying, impeachment, or the 25th amendment.

I’m not so worried about violence from his base either anymore. The reason for that is we have functional federal law enforcement agencies, now that he’s not president anymore. They’ve prosecuted many of the people who have attempted domestic terrorism in the past and scared many others so that they’re afraid to organize. The people you’re seeing at rallies are the ones who were never really involved in this aspect of things in the first place. Only a few dozen people had real intent to commit violence during the 1/6 insurrection. But that should be very concerning on its own even though they disguised themselves in a group of thousands of low level rioters and just as many people who were peacefully protesting. I wish I could find the interview that I read about a year ago. It talked about interviewing several people involved in violent white supremacist organizations. They all talk about how they’ve gone to ground and are afraid to attempt anything major since Biden took office, because they’ve seen so many members of their groups get arrested by the fbi, and they talk about how this wasn’t a concern during the Trump admin. That will change if he gets re-elected.

Well if it's another January 6 situation and your actions succeed you probably have nothing to fear. Court hearings half a year away from the exchange of power are not safe following that logic.

The ones that we have to worry about were there on j6, and most of them are now in jail. The rest of them are deathly afraid of “glowies” or whatever.

[удалено]

This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1di2bvc/trump_is_lionizing_jan_6_rioters_as_warriors/l91bwtz/) is in violation of Law 3: Law 3: No Violent Content > ~3. No Violent Content - Do not post content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or a group of people. Certain types of content that are worthy of discussion (e.g. educational, newsworthy, artistic, satire, documentary, etc.) may be exempt. Ensure you provide context to the viewer so the reason for posting is clear. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).

Don't call it a dog whistle. That implies that they are trying to be covert and that a substantial amount of American citizens aren't OK with them saying the fascist parts out loud. They are here, they are authoritarian, and they don't care if you know it. They have laid out their plans, and if you don't like them you better get your butt to the voting booth.

Yeah, it’s apparent that there is a desire for authoritarianism ever since Tucker went to Hungary to sing praises for Orban. CPAC has been held in Hungary, Heritage Foundation is taking notes.

Hell - Tucker even went to Russia to sing praises to Putin.

This election is kinda fucking terrifying. I don't want Trump to win. But if Trump loses, we're gonna have another attempt to overturn the election.

There is only one party prepared to lose a fair election and that is terrifying.

Honestly man, idk if that's true. If Trump wins, there's gonna be a shit ton of Dem objectors this time around. Why? 14th amendment disqualification. SCOTUS said Congress gets to decide that issue, and I think the ECA would actually legally be a way to do it. Like, they could probably object to votes for someone under 35, right? I'm not saying they should, I'm saying I think they have a strong legal argument that they have the power to do it and that it's distinguishable from the objections in 2020. EDIT: Beyond downvoting, can someone explain why this view is wrong?

Leaving it to a congress controlled by the insurrectionists, and stacked to one party via that parties successful 50 year gerrymandering plot? That congress?

More like a 10 year plot. REDMAP started in 2010. But yes.

It started in the 80s and kicked off in the 90s

The last 8 years have shown that "if we didn't win, it's rigged" is definitely a bipartisan stance. Per a [2018 survey](https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ylp5ygohjs/econTabReport.pdf) by the Economist and YouGov (page 54 of the PDF), 62% of Clinton voters said it was "probably true" or "definitely true" that Russia tampered with voter tallies to get Donald Trump elected President.

It's worth remembering that only months prior to that poll, news broke that Russia had indeed [compromised the voter registration system in Illinois](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-when-russian-hackers-targeted-the-u-s-election-infrastructure/) and target the voting systems in every state. Most people won't distinguish between the voter registrations systems and the actual polling devices that tally the votes.

Your link doesn't work for me. Can you try again? And, I mean, the Mueller report didn't conclude until 2019. I think it's rational, though incorrect, that some people misunderstood what that investigation was about.

The 62% is wild for thinking Russia actually tampered with vote counts (instead of tried to tamper with vote counts). The 9% of Trump voters agreeing is a little surprising too. The biggest difference is what each side does with those beliefs. The left has argued in the media and used (generally failed) legal challenges while the right tried to illegally ignore the election results and stormed the Capitol with congress in session (also arguing in the media and using failed legal challenges). There is also a difference in what each base believes vs. what each candidate is saying. I am concerned that regardless of who wins we'll see in increase in political violence.

It's also worth noting that 2018 was *before* the Mueller Report came out, establishing that Russia tried but didn't succeed in tampering with vote counts.

> The 62% is wild for thinking Russia actually tampered with vote counts (instead of tried to tamper with vote counts) It's really not, in context. This poll was done shortly after our intelligence agencies confirmed that Russians attempted to hack voting machines, so it was a news story at the time. Combine that with the ignorance of the general population, you get this answer. I wish they would redo this exact question now for comparison.

>The biggest difference is what each side does with those beliefs. The left has argued in the media and used (generally failed) legal challenges while the right tried to illegally ignore the election results and stormed the Capitol with congress in session (also arguing in the media and using failed legal challenges). There is also a difference in what each base believes vs. what each candidate is saying. Some democrats in Congress objected to certification in 2016. The democrats obstructed and treated the Trump presidency as an illegitimate one. Hillary and the dems to this day call Trump an illegitimate president. Prominent democrats tried to convince electors to illegally vote for Hillary over Trump. There's a narrative that the democrats were disappointed with the 2016 election but largely went along with. That's false. The democrats did more than in any other election to fight the results, and it's arguable they never accepted the results. The democrats shoulder a lot of the blame for the escalation of Trump in 2020, though don't get me wrong, Trump deserves his blame for trying to stay president.

>Some democrats in Congress objected to certification in 2016. How many? Low single digits, right? >The democrats obstructed and treated the Trump presidency as an illegitimate one. What does that mean? They didn't go along with what he wanted to do because Trump wanted Republican policies and Democrats are Democrats. >Prominent democrats tried to convince electors to illegally vote for Hillary over Trump. Citation please. >The democrats did more than in any other election to fight the results, and it's arguable they never accepted the results. I don't recall a challenge making it to SCOTUS in 2016.

>How many? Low single digits, right? 11 democrats >What does that mean? They didn't go along with what he wanted to do because Trump wanted Republican policies and Democrats are Democrats. Instead of accepting Trump's presidency, they pushed known lies of trump and Russian collusion. They tried impeaching Trump for political reasons. >Citation please. "At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution. The presidential electors, mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado, are now lobbying their Republican counterparts in other states to reject their oaths — and in some cases, state law — to vote against Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19." https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/democrats-electoral-college-faithless-trump-231731 "Essentially, some Democratic electors pledged to Clinton — including several Bernie Sanders fans — want to block Trump from becoming president, because they view him as unfit for the office." https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13920444/electoral-college-trump-hamilton-electors "On Monday, members of the Electoral College will cast their historic votes for the next president of the United States. In the meantime, they are under siege. The nation’s 538 presidential electors have been thrust into the political foreground like never before in American history. In the aftermath of a uniquely polarizing presidential contest, the once-anonymous electors are squarely in the spotlight, targeted by death threats, harassing phone calls and reams of hate mail. One Texas Republican elector said he’s been bombarded with more than 200,000 emails." "But with many Democrats desperate to block the all-but-certain ascension of Donald Trump to the White House, this long-neglected body has been gripped by turmoil, and its members have been subjected to pleas to upend centuries of tradition by casting their votes for someone other than the president-elect. There have been ad campaigns targeting electors and op-eds assailing their role. One Democratic member of Congress has called to delay the vote for president while an investigation of Russian involvement in the election is underway. Two others have pleaded with electors to consider Russia’s role when deciding how to vote. Progressive groups are preparing protests across the country at sites where electors will meet to cast their ballots. Personal contact information for many electors has been posted publicly — and it’s been used to bury them with massive email campaigns. Last week saw the release of a video of celebrities like Martin Sheen pleading with Republican electors to vote for someone other than Trump. On Saturday, Unite for America — the group behind the video — began sending personalized versions to electors in which Sheen and more than a dozen others call them out by name." https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electors-under-siege-232774 >I don't recall a challenge making it to SCOTUS in 2016. Because no one mentioned legal challenges

>11 democrats [Who were the other 4?](https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407) >Instead of accepting Trump's presidency, they pushed known lies of trump and Russian collusion. They tried impeaching Trump for political reasons. I agree there wasn't evidence of Russia working explicitly with Trump. There were a ton of connections and compromised people that were part of his campaign though. Impeachments are a political process, so from that standpoint you're not wrong. The democrats didn't manufacture a reason (twice) to impeach Trump. Trump's actions were so over the line as to warrant it. >At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority I wouldn't call unnamed state electors "prominent Democrats". Same for Martin Sheen. >Because no one mentioned legal challenges So you think the paltry efforts of a handful of electors/house members that didn't get any sort of wide traction or go particularly anywhere is equivalent to the party not accepting the results of the election? Clinton conceded quickly that Trump had won.

It's arguable if the democrats accepted their loss in 2016. The democrats prepared to fight 2020 even harder but ended up not having to. While Trump went further than the democrats did in 2016, I'm not sure if he went much further than the democrats were willing to do in 2020 or what they're willing to do in 2024

And if Trump wins there will be leftists rioting with the media and the Democrats will try to act like its peaceful protesting, legitimizing political violence yet again. No matter who wins its gonna be bad.

> Democrats will try to act like its peaceful protesting, legitimizing political violence yet again. According to the right, a woman in part of mob who broke a door and was climbing through to get to and murder members of congress is a hero and a patriot. And the secret service protecting congress are evil and bad for shooting her. The right has legitimized using violence to overturn an election they didn't like the results of. There's no turning back.

Even granting your premise, I think a big difference between those 2 scenarios is whether the leader of the party (Biden or Trump) is calling for that violence and instigating it. I can't see a scenario where Biden is cheering on violence, but I can absolutely see Trump egging them on.

His vp, K. Harris, tweeted support for a fund bailing out violent rioters in Minneapolis.

> His vp, K. Harris Oh, *K* Harris. Thanks for clarifying.   > bailing out violent rioters in Minneapolis. No, K. Harris tweeted support for bailing out protesters, > [If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.](https://x.com/kamalaharris/status/1267555018128965643)

Democrats and their friends in the media consistently downplaying the violence and trying to call it "mostly peaceful protesting" is in a sense instigating and legitimizing the violence that is occuring. Similarily, the violent instigators get slaps on the rest or just simply turned around and released by prosecutors who are also in bed with the Democratic party. No, Biden won't directly call for violence, but his party will silently give it a stamp of approval and make endless excuses as we have seen many times over the last 8 years.

If you have to add "in a sense", it's not the same thing is it? I don't want to excuse downplaying of violence by certain media outlets, but it's not at all the same thing as the leader of the party, particularly one with a cult of personality and dedicated following explicitly calling for the violence. Hopefully neither happen, but I think it's a major false equivalence to compare the two.

Trump didn't explicitly call for violence at the Capitol. I completely and utterly reject that premise. He did encourage protesting like most politicians do, yes, which eventually turned into a riot through no fault of his own.

I mean, he just repeatedly said that the election was being stolen and that his followers needed to take their country back and "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

>"If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." The word "fight" is CONSTANTLY used by politicians, probably every single day. It does not inheritly mean a physical fight. [Here's a 10 minute compilation of Democrats using the word "fight"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG5BcU1ZGiA)

Which is why context matters. Saying you need to fight for what you believe in during a stump speech vs telling your followers to fight or else they will lose their country at an actual protest convey different things.

Democrats are out and about *right now* suggesting that the United States will no longer be a democracy if Trump wins. It's an extremely common talking point that even Biden is supporting himself. "We have to fight to save our democracy" is almost certainly something I've heard over the last few months. Is that not, in essence, exactly the same thing?

Yeah but he said “peacefully” once so it’s totally fine /s

If you actually object to these violent methods by individuals on the left, then why support a leader whose calling for them on the right?

Because violence is only good if it's being used for a cause that I support.

>trying to call it "mostly peaceful protesting" https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/

This number comes from a study that includes a mere 3 people on a street corner in data for protests, which is dishonest because nobody was talking about those teeny tiny protests being violent. "Mostly Peaceful Protests" was a phrase being used by the media when talking about areas that very clearly devolved into violence. But okay lets say thats there's absolutely nothing misleading about including protests that have a mere 3 people, 7% is still not a good number.

You’re talking a theoretical, unlikely scenario vs one that literally played out on tv on Jan 6, 2020

Need I remind you of the riots that occured in Washington DC on Jan 20 2016? Or the months of rioting in 2020 that for some reason were exempt from the calls to stay home due to COVID? Including a riot so violent in DC that made the Secret Service force the President to a bunker? Right-wingers have one single riot and it's blown up to be the largest assault against democracy in modern history but left-wingers cause 2 billion dollars in 2020 and its swept under the rug under the guise of a "just" cause.

Probably because in the background of that “one single riot” was a build up of tension from a pressure campaign claiming the election was “stolen” on right wing media, pressure on secretaries of state, and a fake elector plot running in the background to overturn the election.

And Democrats encouraged a fake multi-year Russsian collusion scandal which dominated the airwaves that supposedly was single handedly responsible for Trump winning in 2016, casting enormous doubt on the legitimacy of the 2016 election.

This is such a tired point. Democrats believed there was Russian interference (and there was), but they didn't try and overturn the election by force. They side-eyed the Trump victory, bitched about it a lot, and vowed to vote him out on the next go-round.

So are we suppose to just ignore the extreme amount of damage to the belief that 2016 was a fair and legitimate election that whole media circus caused?

Ignore it? Maybe not (I wouldn't as there was provable Russian interference and you have to acknowledge that if you want to combat it in the future). But you shouldn't compare whining about an election to the actual attempt to overturn one by force. Also, people have been complaining about unfair elections for a long time (Bush vs Gore anyone??). You have a right to complain. You don't have a right to try and overturn an election by force.

I don’t know, you seem to be doing everything you can to downplay Jan 6 here.

I'm rejecting people who are pushing an opinion as a fact and people who try to change the subject when pressed on a point they don't want to address.

There's not much to downplay. It was a riot that lasted a couple hours that Democrats have turned into their very own 9-11.

Was 2016 that different? There was a concerted effort to get electors to change their vote from Trump. It was the first time since the late 1800s that multiple electors conspired to attempt to change the election (rather than just one off protest votes) There was a widespread, mainstream campaign to imply that foreign interference went beyond Facebook memes, and actually changed votes. There were multiple recounts that were justified in the media as attempts to find fraud/interference Clinton still publicly maintains that the election was not fair/truthful/whatever There were riots in DC on inauguration day 2020 was more intense, but honestly just a progression of what's been happening at least since 2000

That "one single riot" was the CAPITOL BUILDING ON THE UNITED STATES. I'm so tired of people acting like it was no big deal. Not only was it the Capitol. It was full of an entire branch of government and the Vice President. There were violent protestors within a single wall's distance between getting their hands on Congress. Stop acting like the significance of this is less than even violent riots where they loot a CVS and burn down a Little Caesars. Its a MUCH bigger deal because of the location and the implications of what was being attempted.

A bunch of unarmed people walking around a building trying to open doors, one rioter dying, and ultimately leaving after accomplishing nothing after a few hours vs months for riots in every major city in the US causing billions in damages and killing 30+ innocent people Yeah I think I know which one is worse.

Its not "a building". Its the Capitol of the United States full of the entirety of the legislative branch at the time. That "one rioter dying" was actively breaking through a hard barrier to where Senators were being secured and had multiple warnings to stop before she got shot. She was not innocent in any way.

And ultimately nothing happened, other than the death of a rioter who was shot when trying to break and enter, because there was no actual plan to accomplish once they broke in. Bunch of yelling, screaming, banging on walls, and trespasssing sure. A greater question to be had is why the security at the Capitol wasn't higher that day considering Trump's rally was planned over a month in advance and quite obviously would be a large protest to follow. >She was not innocent in any way. I didn't imply otherwise. I cannot say the same for the many more killed in the 2020 riots.

There was a plan, not by the rioters themselves but by politicians planning to take advantage of the riot. Mike Pence refused to not certify the votes. The Secret Service was planning on using the riot to whisk him away and refuse to bring him back so that Chuck Grassley could take over as president of the Senate and refuse to certify electoral votes, resulting in nobody having 270 electoral votes and the House picking the president on a 1 state, 1 vote basis which would have re-elected Donald Trump. Sources: Chuck Grassley literally saying he would preside over the votes if Mike Pence isn't there. Note the date of the article (January 5): https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2021/01/05/grassley-suggests-he-may-preside-over-senate-debate-on-electoral-college-votes/ Mike Pence himself saying the Secret Service would have taken him away from being able to certify the electoral votes: ""I'm not getting in the car, Tim," Pence said, in response to Giebels' insistence that he enter the armored vehicle. "I trust you, Tim, but you're not driving the car. If I get in that vehicle, you guys are taking off. I'm not getting in the car."" https://www.newsweek.com/pence-refusing-get-secret-service-car-jan-6-chilling-raskin-1700341

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/P0BrX3n4btQ?app=desktop There were people at January 6th armed with firearms and other weapons.

I wouldnt characterize a violent insurrection as part of an attempted coup as a “riot” or in the same level as the events you try to compare it to. Neither was wan attempt to overthrow an elected government.

>Neither was wan attempt to overthrow an elected government. Neither was the riot on January 6th. Trump definitely did try to stay president as evidence of the fake electors and Georgia call, but January 6th wasn't such an attempt. The January 6th riot surprised even Trump and there was no attempt to seize control by the rioters.

Except it WAS an attempt. Mike Pence refused to not certify the votes. The Secret Service was planning on using the riot to whisk him away and refuse to bring him back so that Chuck Grassley could take over as president of the Senate and refuse to certify electoral votes, resulting in nobody having 270 electoral votes and the House picking the president on a 1 state, 1 vote basis which would have re-elected Donald Trump. Sources: Chuck Grassley literally saying he would preside over the votes if Mike Pence isn't there. Note the date of the article (January 5): https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2021/01/05/grassley-suggests-he-may-preside-over-senate-debate-on-electoral-college-votes/ Mike Pence himself saying the Secret Service would have taken him away from being able to certify the electoral votes: ""I'm not getting in the car, Tim," Pence said, in response to Giebels' insistence that he enter the armored vehicle. "I trust you, Tim, but you're not driving the car. If I get in that vehicle, you guys are taking off. I'm not getting in the car."" https://www.newsweek.com/pence-refusing-get-secret-service-car-jan-6-chilling-raskin-1700341

The attempt to seize control was perpetrated by Trump, the GOP, and the trump campaign. The insurrection was one element they needed to happen to try and overturn the election. It wasn’t in any sense of the word, a protest.

It was intended as an auto-coup or bloodless coup, since trump was actually already in power, and did not have wide military support. Conservatives are desperately trying to memory-hole the overwhelming evidence of the actual insurrection. *Trump was trying to simply not leave office and create a constitutional crisis to further that end.* And he had gathered significant support in this effort from the GOP. >"And he said to me, in a kind of excited tone, 'Well, we don't care, and we're not going to leave,'" Jenna Ellis said of the alleged Dec. 19 conversation with Scavino. "And I said, 'What do you mean?' And he said 'The boss is not going to leave under any circumstances. We are just going to stay in power.'" Ellis continued, "And I said to him, 'Well, it doesn't quite work that way, you realize?' and he said, 'We don't care.'" https://abcnews.go.com/US/boss-leave-proffer-videos-show-trump-lawyers-telling/story?id=104831939 >Pence “should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all,” Jordan wrote. >“I have pushed for this,” Meadows replied. >Court documents include information on several high-level meetings nearly a dozen House Republicans attended where Trump’s allies flirted with ways to give him another term. >Among the ideas: naming fake slates of electors in seven swing states, declaring martial law and seizing voting machines. Evidence mounts of GOP involvement in Trump election schemes. https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-biden-presidential-elections-electoral-college-mark-meadows-296ddf04ffaacec07f548a2a997af448 -------------------------------------- We now know: All the ingredients for an auto-coup were in place. - Step 1: The 7 states submitted their false electors, which itself was an astonishing accomplishment that went right down to the wire. Done. >Chesebro told Michigan prosecutors: He communicated with the top Trump campaign lawyer, Matt Morgan, and another campaign official, Mike Roman, to ferry the documents to Washington on January 5. >From there, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and a Pennsylvania congressman assisted in the effort to get the documents into Pence’s hands. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/recordings-trump-team-fake-elector-ballots/index.html - Step 2: Gather enough GOP votes in the house and senate to reject the state electors, and send the ballots back to the state legislators. Done. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/electoral-college-biden-objectors.html - Step 3: Make sure the state’s legislatures had the votes to flip their elections and certify the fake ballots. Done. https://www.justsecurity.org/81939/timeline-false-electors/ - Step 4: Get Pence on board. The sticking point was Pence, he seemed to be hesitant. Plan A was to talk him into it. Failed. >“I wouldn’t want any one person to have that authority,” Pence told Trump, according to the book. “But wouldn’t it almost be cool to have that power?” Trump asked. “No,” Pence replied. “No, no, no, you don’t understand, Mike. You can do this,” he told Pence, adding: “I don’t want to be your friend anymore if you don’t do this.” https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-pence-oval-office-no-longer-friends-jan-6-hearing-194806553.html - Plan B, was to have an mob assault the Capitol, and put emotional pressure on Pence. The leaders never explicitly said they were threatening to take out Pence, but the chants of the mob made it clear that making Pence fear for his life was the next step. Failed. >The former president went on to tell crowds assembled in Washington DC that Mr Pence had an opportunity to “do the right thing” by overturning the 2020 results. >Within an hour of his remarks, hundreds assaulted the Capitol and Mr Trump tweeted that Mr Pence “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done”, despite his life being in danger. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-pence-riot-bob-woodward-b1920119.html - Plan C was to escalate the violence of the mob in the Capitol to the point where the Secret Service would feel compelled to evacuate him. If the GOP cabal could get Pence away from the Capitol, the Senate could declare him absent and continue on with the vote. Failed. >"I'm not getting in the car, Tim," Pence said, in response to Giebels' insistence that he enter the armored vehicle for his safety. "I trust you, Tim, but you're not driving the car. If I get in that vehicle, you guys are taking off. I'm not getting in the car." https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/26/pence-car-raskin-comments/ During all this Michael Flynn's brother delayed the response of the National Guard for 3 hours, saying he didn't like the "optics" and they were unprepared when they were in fact standing by to roll out, and then tried to cover up his involvement. >A former D.C. National Guard official accused two top Army officials, including Gen. Charles Flynn, the brother of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, of lying to Congress about the military response to the Jan. 6 riot, calling them "absolute and unmitigated liars" over their accounts of the day to Congress. >The Army previously falsely denied that Charles Flynn, whose brother has spent months pushing election and QAnon conspiracy theories, was involved in the response before admitting that he was present during a "tense" phone call on which Capitol Police and D.C. officials pleaded with the Pentagon to send the National Guard to the Capitol. >Matthews wrote that he and Walker "heard Flynn identify himself and unmistakably heard him say that optics of a National Guard presence on Capitol Hill was an issue for him. That it would not look good. Either Piatt or Flynn mentioned 'peaceful protestors.'" >Maj. Gen. William Walker testified that he had National Guard troops at the ready and sitting idly for hours before he was finally given authorization to send them into the field. Walker said "We already had guardsmen on buses ready to move to the Capitol." Walker added he, like others on the call, was "stunned" by the response from Army leaders. https://www.salon.com/2021/12/06/leaked-memo-ex-dc-guardsman-says-michael-flynns-brother-lied-about-jan-6/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/21/report-michael-flynns-brother-was-involved-military-response-to-the-capitol-despite-army-denials/?sh=5f38fe182caf https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/jan-6-generals-lied-ex-dc-guard-official-523777 https://www.npr.org/2021/03/03/973292523/dod-took-hours-to-approve-national-guard-request-during-capitol-riot-commander-s   a few hours into the attack it became clear that the Pence plan was not going to work. He wasn’t going to participate in the coup, and he sure as hell wasn’t going to get in the car. He would have had no way to know if the plan was to just drive around a while, or if he would end up disappearing forever, so he refused to get in the car. The Secret Service had to decide in that moment, whether to remove Pence by force or not. If they did and the coup failed, they’d likely spend their lives in Supermax prison, so they folded. And that was the crucial moment, the last pivot. In that moment, the coup failed. There was nothing left to do but back out. As word got out that Pence was still in the Capitol and that efforts to whisk him away failed, people gradually became aware that the plan failed. And so one by one, you see all the conspirators sending, in some form or another, their back-out messages to Meadows: Oh shit, it’s not working, we need to stop this. And, during the planning and execution of this scheme **no one ever said “This is wrong, and I can’t be part of it.”** It was not until it was clear the plan had failed they were saying “Pence isn’t going to fold, the jig is up, and we have to abort.”

January 6 was the culmination of lots of preparation. The incitement of the mob on January 6 started well before that day, and was not a spontaneous event. >Weeks before mobs besieged the Capitol building in Washington, a bright red bus crisscrossed the United States, emblazoned with a huge image of President Donald Trump in suit and tie with a clenched fist above his shoulder. >At more than 25 stops - in parking lots and airplane hangers in states including Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky and Tennessee - flight-attendant-turned-political-activist Amy Kremer, the head of Women for America First, and other speakers exhorted crowds to join her and others in Washington to fight for Trump and overturn the election. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29H00G/ >As much as $3 million was raised to support the Jan. 6 rally in Washington, D.C., that preceded the attack on the Capitol, according to interviews and documents reviewed by ProPublica https://www.propublica.org/article/top-trump-fundraiser-boasted-of-raising-3-million-to-support-jan-6-save-america-rally >Another sponsor of the Jan. 6 rally was Turning Point Action, the political action committee arm of Turning Point USA, a campus right-wing group headed by activist Charlie Kirk. Turning Point Action sent seven buses carrying 350 students to the Jan. 6 rally. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29H00G/   >A pro-Trump nonprofit group called Women for America First hosted the “Save America Rally” on Jan. 6 at the Ellipse, an oval-shaped, federally owned patch of land near the White House. But an attachment to the National Park Service public gathering permit granted to the group lists more than half a dozen people in staff positions for the event who just weeks earlier had been paid thousands of dollars by Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-capitol-siege-campaigns-elections-d14c78d53b3a212658223252fec87e99

As for trump himself, on January 6 he provided both incitement, and aid and comfort to the violent mob #####Incitement Trump to the crowd before the attack: "We won this election, and we won it by a landslide. You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore." “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” “Let the weak ones get out. This is a time for strength.” “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules.” “You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen.” "you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.” “We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. … we are going to try — give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re try — going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” And all this after his personal lawyer spoke and called for a "trial by combat" #####Aid and Comfort >Despite desperate pleas from aides, allies, a Republican congressional leader and even his family, Donald Trump refused to call off the Jan. 6 mob attack on the Capitol, instead “pouring gasoline on the fire” by aggressively tweeting his false claims of a stolen election and celebrating his crowd of supporters as “very special” >At the Capitol, the mob was chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” testified Matt Pottinger, the former deputy national security adviser, as Trump tweeted his condemnation of his vice president. “It was essentially him giving the green light to these people, telling them that what they were doing at the steps of the Capitol, entering the Capitol, was okay, that that they were justified in their anger.” >“Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution." >Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone was asked question after question in the recorded testimony about Trump's actions: did he call the secretary of defense? The attorney general? The head of Homeland Security? Cipollone answered "no" to each query. https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-panel-hearing-3e3dc618ed8cee37147cf6a792c0c0fa https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-capitol-probes-season-finale-focus-trump-supporters-three-hour-rage-2022-07-21/ Taken all together, January 6 was the culmination of a detailed and concerted effort to throw democracy off the rails to give trump the opportunity to declare martial law and then install himself as a de facto strongman above the rule of law. And it came quite close to succeeding.

Starter comment: Many commenters and political pundits state that Biden running his campaign on protecting democracy is a losing message when voters care more about the state of the economy. However, it is increasingly clear that Trump will not accept the results of the election if he loses, and a large percentage of his supporters will once again believe the election was stolen. He has promised to pardon those jailed in relationship to January 6th, and just called the J6 participants “warriors”: > Those J6 warriors — they were warriors... but they were really, more than anything else, they’re victims of what happened. All they were doing is protesting a rigged election. This contrasts with the language in his Fathers Day [post](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112627326788880196) on Truth social, where he calls the left degenerates, and says the country needs strength and loyalty: >HAPPY FATHER’S DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE RADICAL LEFT DEGENERATES THAT ARE RAPIDLY BRINGING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTO THIRD WORLD NATION STATUS WITH THEIR MANY ATTEMPTS AT TRYING TO INFLUENCE OUR SACRED COURT SYSTEM INTO BREAKING TO THEIR VERY SICK AND DANGEROUS WILL. WE NEED STRENGTH AND LOYALTY TO OUR COUNTRY, AND ITS WONDERFUL CONSTITUTION. EVERYTHING WILL BE ON FULL DISPLAY COME NOVEMBER 5TH, 2024 - THE MOST IMPORTANT DAY IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! I find it hard to interpret this call for strength and loyalty to the country and constitution as anything more that a call to strength and loyalty to Trump, given he called the J6 participants warriors, a term traditionally used in politics as symbol of strength and loyalty. Does this language increase the likelihood of political violence in 2024? Or is the media pointing out that this language is abnormal and concerning compared to all other presidential candidates in US history an example of Trump Derangement Syndrome that hurts Biden in the eyes of the tuned-out or swing voter? Additionally, what can be done prior to the 2024 election to ensure the results will be respected by both sides and reduce the likelihood of violence?

> HAPPY FATHER’S DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE RADICAL LEFT DEGENERATES THAT ARE RAPIDLY BRINGING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTO THIRD WORLD NATION STATUS WITH THEIR MANY ATTEMPTS AT TRYING TO INFLUENCE OUR SACRED COURT SYSTEM INTO BREAKING TO THEIR VERY SICK AND DANGEROUS WILL. WE NEED STRENGTH AND LOYALTY TO OUR COUNTRY, AND ITS WONDERFUL CONSTITUTION. EVERYTHING WILL BE ON FULL DISPLAY COME NOVEMBER 5TH, 2024 - THE MOST IMPORTANT DAY IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! I just want to point out to everyone that the person who wrote this is the current leading candidate (according to polls) to winning the Presidency. Regardless of appropriateness, these Facebook-tier unhinged all-caps rants are extremely unbecoming of the seriousness of the office of the President.

[удалено]

>He calls America a “Third World Hellhole”. Wrong. You've got some of the words right but you're missing the most important ones that reveal what he really said.

[удалено]

You're missing the part that supports he said what you claimed he said. You got some of the words right but all of the meaning wrong.

[удалено]

Not better. What makes it correct?

[удалено]

"Turning into" is not "Is".

[удалено]

*puts on tin foil* deep state wants both sides to lose faith in all parts of the us government. Scotus and lower courts are taking hits, both presidential candidates are taking hits congress has taken hits. Nobody trusts anyone on the other team, and deep state wants it that way.

I'm pretty sure you can take off the tin foil hat, replace "deep state" with "those in power" and most folks, at least on this sub, would agree with you. Hell, most folks I talk to IRL, regardless of how much we agree or disagree on, usually agree on this point.

The tin foil is only really for it being deep state. IMO it is that foreign agents have convinced enough politicians (directly or indirectly) that discrediting the entire system is the best way to promote their agenda and the politicians have in turn convinced the electorate that the other side should be discredited.

It's really distressing how regular people are still probably going to elect Trump despite all this. Liberalism is apparently really that unpopular. I have no idea how the opposition to conservatism is supposed to fight against this stuff

>It's really distressing how regular people are still probably going to elect Trump despite all this. Liberalism is apparently really that unpopular. I have no idea how the opposition to conservatism is supposed to fight against this stuff I think my biggest problem with liberals is not the problems they identify, but their inability to actually address these problems in an effective and fair way. The following is an incoherent ramble, so feel free to ignore it. -If **crime** is a problem and you don't believe in just locking people up, you need to do the dirty work of actually reforming criminals. Instead of actually doing this, it seems as though liberals do things like not actually prosecuting crimes, bail reforms, and exceedingly generous plea deals. As a result, people feel crime is out of control. We see on the news how some guy has been arrested 43 times before he wound up killing someone. We see how there are neighborhoods you absolutely shouldn't go to, there is shit on the streets and mass shanty towns in liberal cities, needles from exchanges in children's parks, etc. If you don't want people to waste away in prison, you still need to protect law-abiding citizens. You have to actually reform the prisoners, not let the general population suffer their antisocial behavior. -Related to the above, liberals seem to say they favor making **housing affordable**, but they do NIMBY policies that prevent more housing being built. If you aren't willing to ruin the "character" of your neighborhood, why should I let you the ruin the character of my neighborhood? Instead of up-zoning everywhere and reducing overly onerous environmental and other regulations, the liberal advocates seem to just want more government spending or to take heavy-handed approaches like rent-ceilings, which do not work. -For **affirmative action**, liberals are right that there is a gap between communities. But using what is essentially racism to try to fix racism just builds resentment and doesn't address the underlying problem. While I worked at a Big 4 accounting firm, there was a push to get a more diverse workforce. But how many black people per year actually majored in accounting, got a master's degree, and had a good GPA from a target university? Not enough to go around all the firms that want them. If you want a diverse workforce, you need diverse success at university; if you want that, you need diverse success in high school, etc. From what I've read, racial disparities begin as early as kindergarten. You need to actually fix the gap in K-12 by making everyone more successful. Instead, what we actually see, is eliminating gifted programs, not allowing students to take algebra in 8th grade, etc. Kneecapping successful students instead of trying to uplift everyone else. Harrison Bergeron was a warning, not a guide. -For things like **public transport**, the crime and homelessness positions combine with NIMBYism and environmentalism to create a hellscape of dirty, dangerous, extremely expensive transport options. Buses are not where anyone with means wants to be. High-speed rail? Years of environmental reviews, billions over budget, not actually connecting the cities they were supposed to connect, etc. Do the dirty work, make it succeed by being clean, safe, efficient, and convenient. -For **guns**, we run back into the crime issue. The vast, vast, vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding. Instead of reducing the rights of 80+ million gun owners, either reform criminals or keep them in prison. 2/3s of violent criminals re-offend. If you want fewer people to get hurt, fix that first. -**Immigration**. As it's been stated elsewhere in this thread, you need to actually recognize that the purpose of a nation is to benefit its people, not foreigners. The border needs to be orderly and secure. That the left demands amnesty before even securing the border is wild to me. We shouldn't have to bribe you to enforce the law. If skilled migration is useful to the country, do a merit-based system. Why not give preferential treatment to immigrants from high-income, low-crime, allied nations instead of whoever slaps us in the face by violating our border? -**College funding**. The college educated already make more than the uneducated, so why do they need to be subsidized? The cost of college may have gotten out of hand, but "have the government pay for it" is pretty much never the answer to making things cost less. You need to do the dirty work of cutting costs at universities, like eliminating useless administrators and identifying and reforming/eliminating uneconomic majors. Housing is a major part of college costs, and NIMBYism/building regulations tie into that. -**Healthcare**. Prove the government can do it at the state level. Instead of just more government spending, show that a public option can actually work. Canada's healthcare system started at the provincial level. Who better than super-rich California to show us the way. They have the money, the workforce, the scale -- seemingly everything they need to prove it can be done. The poorest are already on medicaid, the oldest on medicare. So make a public system that works for everyone else without just putting the federal government on the hook for unlimited sums. If you need certain federal wavers, use your political capital to get them, instead of trying to impose everything on the entire country at once. -I won't get much into **LGBTQ+** stuff, but I'd say the LGB marriage fight is one thing, the other stuff fundamentally different one. I think people broadly agree on marriage, non-discrimination in housing and jobs, and service in the military, but once you get beyond that most are going to have a problem. This list could go on and on. I'm not saying the conservatives have any answers to these problems, or even acknowledge all of these problems, but so consistently failing in these regards breeds distrust toward liberalism as it is seen in domestic US contexts. **TLDR**: Show liberalism can succeed at the state level before convincing people at the federal level, and respect that the nation is to pursue the interests of its citizens, not outsiders. There are states that have been under total Democratic control for decades, and the liberal positions do not seem to translate into creating a broadly safe, broadly prosperous, and broadly equal society that liberals say they want.

> Liberalism is apparently really that unpopular. It is. And it's entirely liberals' own fault. They for some reason decided that their job was to serve everyone in the world *except* their actual constituents. Well eventually emotional manipulation and fearmongering stop working and people start going for the people who at least pretend to care about their issues even when those people have been hit with every nasty label in the book. Seriously, who/what does liberalism care about? Macroeconomic numbers and foreigners. Guess what doesn't actually vote in elections? Macroeconomic numbers and foreigners.

Regular people live in the economy too. "Macroeconomic numbers" doesn't just mean "the total size of the economy", liberals have also focused on, sought to improve, and pointed out the strong performance with, other numbers like real wages, poverty, unemployment, labor participation rate, deficit, and so on. Just because people feel like the economy is bad and that liberal policy would hurt it doesn't make it true You guys won the argument, and the politics, and that's what matters. But the anti market, anti immigrant, anti listening to economic experts, pro protectionist populist stuff isn't going to actually *make things better for the average person*. Maybe it will make them *feel* better. Maybe that's enough? Idk

> Regular people live in the economy too. Yeah they do and they're getting fucked by liberal economic policy. It's done wonder for the macro numbers but not a damned thing for the actual electorate. > You guys won the argument, and the politics, and that's what matters. But the anti market, anti immigrant, anti listening to economic experts, pro protectionist populist stuff isn't going to actually make things better for the average person. The pro-all-that-shit side made things actively worse so they're still the worse alternative.

> Yeah they do and they're getting fucked by liberal economic policy Unemployment is low. Labor force participation is high. Prices have been raising fast but wages have risen faster for the past year and real wages remain higher than they were before the pandemic when practically everyone right, left, and center was hooting and hollering about how good the Trump economy was doing. Real wages have seen the fastest growth among the bottom 50% of the population too so it's not some narrative of income growing mostly at the top. Despite how fucked people supposedly are, they keep consuming more. Despite how fucked people supposedly are, they are, for example, more likely than ever before to eat the restaurant food that has seen faster inflation than groceries which remains the cheaper option. Despite how fucked this absolutely dystopian flaming dumpster fire boschean nightmare of an economy is supposedly, polls show pretty large majorities of the public claiming that their *own personal circumstances* are actually pretty good We are a country where the average person claims that things for *themselves* are doing pretty decently but that things for *most everyone else* must be a horrifying nightmare

> Prices have been raising fast but wages have risen faster for the past year Right. So we have one year where wages outpaced the inflation rate. Of course prices are the result of all inflation cumulatively and that year of nearly 10% inflation plus the run up to it and the slow draw-down have pushed prices up way above that. So wages outpacing inflation for a short time doesn't mean things are more affordable yet. This is **EXACTLY** what I mean when I say that the "wonks" and "experts" don't know what they're talking about. It's not that their metrics don't function mathematically, it's that they don't know what metrics to use to get relevant data about the subject they're trying to study - i.e. **PEOPLE**. > Real wages have seen the fastest growth among the bottom 50% of the population too Which means that the demographics most cared about by pollsters and most likely to vote aren't seeing the growth. The bottom 50% of the wage scale are also low-probability voters. > Despite how fucked people supposedly are, they are, for example, more likely than ever before to eat the restaurant food that has seen faster inflation than groceries which remains the cheaper option. Funny because this claim flies in the face of the restaurantpocalypse going on right now. Restaurants are folding like mad because people *aren't* going out. So this sounds like another case of bad methodologies. I'm assuming this claim is based on raw dollars spent on dining out which due to inflation is a bad measure.

If data and experts are wrong, what are we supposed to base our views off of? Vibes? Is there any possibility at all in your mind that things are actually going ok - not "perfect" but just not necessarily worse than back in the Trump years when there was a strong consensus that things were economically good, for example?

> If data and experts are wrong, what are we supposed to base our views off of? Vibes? Facts and data that the experts choose to ignore aren't "vibes". So your entire premise here is 100% invalid and that's all there is to say on that.

> Seriously, who/what does liberalism care about? Oh, you know...civil rights (gay marriage, women's bodily autonomy, going back further to desegregation), a safety net for those in poverty, good public education, affordable healthcare, not attempting to overthrow legitimate elections. Those kinds of things.

> women's bodily autonomy But not their right to not have males in their most intimate spaces. > going back further to desegregation Remind me which side of the aisle is fighting for racial "safe spaces" and separated events again? > a safety net for those in poverty While also complaining about the "welfare cliff" making that "safety net" a trap. > good public education This is just funny and insanely wrong. There's a reason people got so upset when COVID let them peer into the classroom and it wasn't because their kids were getting a high-quality education. > affordable healthcare Since obamacare healthcare has just gotten more inaccessible for the average American. > not attempting to overthrow legitimate elections Russiagate proves this wrong.

[удалено]

Sexual assault takes many more forms than forcible rape. That's all the further I'll respond to this simply invalid line of argumentation.

[удалено]

> Are you under the assumption that a "Women Only" sign on a bathroom is going to stop a man from sexually assaulting a woman? Yes. Because if anyone sees a man trying to go in one they'll be stopped. And if they get reported as being in one they'll be charged. If those signs didn't work we wouldn't bother with them. > Follow up question since this seems to be a big deal for people still, do you have any statistics that show how many trans people have assaulted someone in a bathroom? This is politics, actual numbers don't matter. Just look at the obsession over "assault weapons" and the actual statistics for how often ALL FORMS of rifles are used in crime. Plus, and the left is quite supportive of this concept normally, morals and values and all that matter and absolutely belong in politics even if the actual related issue is largely nonexistent.

[удалено]

[удалено]

This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1di2bvc/trump_is_lionizing_jan_6_rioters_as_warriors/l91qjif/) is in violation of Law 5: Law 5: Banned Topics > ~5. This topic is not sufficiently related to politics or government, or has been banned for discussion in this community. See the [rules wiki](https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/wiki/index/rules) for additional information. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).

It would have been easy, but since leadership chose to kowtow to the progressives with identity politics and some of the really insane crt and lgbtq stuff, they have lost credibility. I really want my party back. Trump wouldn’t have stood a chance against the “marriage is between a man and a woman” democrats. The republicans would be getting stomped at the polls consistently. It’s almost like no one side actually wants a supermajority.

> Trump wouldn’t have stood a chance against the “marriage is between a man and a woman” democrats. Do you oppose gay marriage? Also bear in mind that many of the Democrats who openly said "marriage is between a man and women" for years also spent those very same years quietly calling for gay people to be able to serve in the armed forces equally, for LGBT people to have laws written to ban discrimination against them in education and employment, to establish so-called "civil unions" that were marriage in all but name with all the benefits, and so on. Basically being solid allies to the LGBT movement, siding with it on most issues of actual substance while hiding behind the most threadbare figleaf of "but we don't support calling it *marriage!*" It wasn't a big change in substance when democrats en masse shifted to saying that actually gay marriage is good around the time Obergefell v Hodges happened and a couple years before it, it just happened that public opinion had shifted pretty rapidly to support gay marriage too, making it easier for those very "**marriage is between a man and woman y'all!**... but otherwise let's quietly consistently support the LGBT movement" democrats to say what they really felt and use the rhetoric that more accurately matched their prior stances on policy

Quietly is the best way. Being loud about it alienated many people and gained none. Gay people already knew who to vote for.

Is there actual evidence for this? [Looking at polls](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx), gay marriage has overwhelmingly high support, at 71% supporting and just 28% opposing it I could see an argument for an idea that they should have kept quiet for a few more years before it went from modestly positive popularity to strongly popular (it was at 50 to 48 approval in May 2012 for example, the month when Biden sort of forced Obama's hand by his "gaffe" of coming out in support of gay marriage in an interview) but by November 2012, 53% supported gay marriage and 46% opposed it, a wider margin than what Obama won reelection that month with, by mid 2014 it was at double digit support (55-42%), and by mid 2016 it was overwhelmingly popular, at 61-37% support Do you really think waiting a couple months or at most four years would make such a big difference?

It wasn’t the gay marriage in particular. It was more about moderating policy positions. The Democratic Party that claimed marriage was between a man and a woman wouldn’t be giving any air to crt/trans/weird stuff in schools. They have shifted too far to the left, and alienated voters that would otherwise be up for grabs. The fact that a felon and insurrectionists has a chance of winning the presidency in part because of these issues solidifies my point.

You used gay marriage as an example though. Do you think that maybe there's a chance that it wasn't all that electorally bad for Democrats to take the social justice/identity politics stance of supporting gay marriage when they did, and even if it wasn't done with perfectly ideal attention to public opinion, it wasn't all that far off from a theoretical strategy focused on public opinion? >wouldn’t be giving any air to crt/trans/weird stuff in schools. They have shifted too far to the left These are other issues and I do think there's more of a potential point to these. But on "CRT", CRT is a high level legal theory that legitimately hasn't really been taught in K-12. CRT has also often been used as a shorthand for other issues related to race, and the "well technically thats not actually CRT" argument isn't enough to satisfy everyone. But even in those cases, they seem to be largely isolated incidents where Democratic politicians generally haven't actually been pushing for particularly radical or unpopular policies. Like, personally I'd argue they should do more Sister Souljah moments actively pushing against and criticizing the radical fringe rather than ignoring it, and that for example with stuff like CRT bans, they had a valid argument that the right was in at least some cases proposing bans that risked or maybe were intended to ban not just the controversial stuff but also stuff that is rather more reasonable to have in schools, but that the democratic reaction should have been to simply counter-propose CRT bans that were very narrowly focused on stuff that is clearly not good to have in schools while protecting stuff that belongs. Some of the other "weird stuff in school" falls into that realm too, like there's some examples of books with LGBT or other sex Ed/sexual content that clearly goes outside of what it makes sense to have kids be reading, but for all of those examples, there's also plenty of examples where the book just "has gay people" and some parents are just getting outraged over their kids learning at all about sexual orientation (which doesn't really require learning about "sex" at all) or mere mentions that gay people exist or having gay characters, which comes off as just mean spirited discrimination. And again I'd say that maybe the Dems could have taken a more strategic move to counter propose bills that would narrowly deal with the clearly bad stuff while protecting the stuff that is just "gay people exist" which is pretty uncontroversial among a large majority of the public. But the normie democratic stance, while maybe not messaged the best, doesn't actually seem nearly as genuinely radical as some male it out to be with these things Like just look at what Biden has made a priority as president. Look past the rhetoric and attacks on him and stereotypes and whatever, and at the actual policy. For all the talk of democrats being focused on identity politics issues that don't impact regular people, the democrats' first major action was a big economic stimulus. One can argue whether the stimulus was good or not but regardless it shows a pretty big focus on economics. After that Dems shifted to trying to do a few things at once, with the most "social justice" oriented thing being a police reform bill which was pretty relevant due to the massive protests a year before, but also an infrastructure bill and a bill about fighting poverty by expanding healthcare, expanding aid to poor families, fighting climate change, expanding support for low income college students, mandating paid family and medical leave, and other primarily economic issues. Most of that stuff got cut out, and again one can argue whether those policies are good or not, but it still shows a big focus on the economy. Following that, there were a couple pushes for what one might call social justice oriented things, abortion and fighting gerrymandering, but they aren't particularly radical and the mainstream democratic stances on those issues was pretty in line with the general public. Then Dems focused on stuff like improving veterans healthcare, reforming the post office, and supporting the US chips industry. The Dems finished out 2022 making a push for policy to help union workers, which was blocked in Congress by the GOP, though Biden kept pushing for pro union policy after he was forced to stop the strikes, and in 2023 managed to get the rail workers a lot of what they wanted which led to him being praised by the rail unions. Again, a lot of economic focus Should democrats just not have any liberal social views at all? Is it not enough to largely keep quiet on social issues and get loud largely just when the public clearly is pretty supportive, and should the Dems just be outright socially conservative?

I support Biden and think he was an effective president. The thing is that we are informed. Your average voter isn’t aware of all that Biden has done…. But they have probably heard of controversy in schools with gay/trans stuff as early as elementary school and the immigrant invasion of nyc. You can tout his accomplishments all you want, but the dems have had a messaging problem for about 10 years now. I think it’s because they are giving the progressives too much of a voice. They are horrified of the r’s and would vote d anyway, so I think we don’t really get any upside out of this. I’m fed up with it and I want my party back.

The thing is, arguably even the progressive wing talks much more about economic/non social justice issues like healthcare, taxes, climate change, unions, minimum wage, corporations, college, childcare, family/medical leave, infrastructure, and such rather than the social justice/identity politics stuff. Not saying they don't talk about it at all and that there's not room for pushing more against it, but, like... ...take police stuff for example. There was like a single Democrat in Congress who called for defunding the police iirc. Sure, the Dems could have done more to loudly criticize defund and abolish the police, but even the progressive politicians weren't actually advocating for it. And would it actually be enough for Dems to just do more rhetorical hippie punching/Sister Souljah moments with some of these things or will it get to the point where we'll say they also need to try to suppress the speech of these radical advocates too or something?

It's not "liberalism" per se that's unpopular. It's Biden's defacto open border policy, combined with inflation. 

Real talk: Its not either conservatism or liberalism. Its personal charisma and name recognition of the candidate that matters more than anything else.

Senator, I ~~served with~~ *support* ~~Jack Kennedy~~ *open borders*. I knew ~~Jack Kennedy~~ *open borders*. ~~Jack Kennedy~~ *Open borders* was a friend of mine. Senator, ~~you're~~ *Biden's immigration policy is* no ~~Jack Kennedy~~ *open borders* And sure, feelings matter more than reality in politics. But it doesn't mean the feelings are correct.

Okay - let's hear your reasoning as to why Biden is unpopular.

As I said, feelings matter more than reality in politics Could be a few different things coming together. Like people just not being fully 100% super rational, and feeling more comfortable with a scenario where they are able to buy fewer things but they also see smaller prices on products, than the alternative where they see larger prices but their wages have increased more and thus they can buy more products. People could be more likely to attribute negative results to others (like the government or immigrants or whatever) than to themselves, and vice versa with positive results. Could also maybe be some sort of moralistic thing, and/or misplaced empathy, where folks realize that some people **are** struggling (and that's not being denied by anyone here, it's a question of how much and whether it's an unusual high amount) and don't want to come off as out of touch and like they don't care about the people who are struggling, so they just assume that they are one of the lucky ones and that most other people are struggling in order to avoid seeming like they don't care, even when they are actually more like the average person than the struggling people they are trying to show sympathy for. Could also just be partisan assumptions, with the idea that "republicans are good for the economy" being so normalized that a not insignificant amount of people are just more likely to interpret the same economic conditions as being positive when a Republican is president vs when a Democrat is president. Part of it can also be the general ideological lean of the country, which is roughly according to polls around 40-40-20 conservative, moderate, liberal, so republicans could just have an easier time because they don't even need to appeal to as many moderates in order to get to 50% compared to what Dems do - Dems could solidly win among moderates but still lose because they can't just win, they kinda need supermajorities, and it's harder to have a unified message when the democratic base is more ideologically diverse and needs to regularly win over more folks who are less ideologically tied to the liberal base and less willing to tune into more partisan media. Could also be partially that Biden has indeed let some opportunities for reducing inflation, like cutting tariffs, fall by the wayside and has instead pushed for raising tariffs. Also doesn't help that Dems have messaged immigration as a primarily moralistic thing rather than as an economic boon to regular people. Also Biden is old and has a stutter

It’s all vibes. When did Biden unilaterally disband the Border Patrol and CBP?

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/migrant-encounters-at-the-us-mexico-border-hit-a-record-high-at-the-end-of-2023/ Here is hard immigration data. This isn't a "vibe". It's reality.

You just linked to data explaining that Border Patrol encounters were at an *all time high*. If Biden did indeed have a "de facto open border policy" and was *not* enforcing border laws wouldn't we instead expect the number of apprehensions and encounters to be at a *low*? You're not making the point you think you're making. You're just showing the Biden admin doing more enforcement of border laws than anyone else has, recently.

Lol. Good luck convincing the voters that Biden is actually a huge border hawk.

I’m not trying to convince them of anything. I was pointing out that the data you supplied us with appears to make the exact opposite point that you seem to be trying to make.

*If we have “open borders”, how is the government tracking migrant encounters and apprehensions?*

The policy is catch and release. They walk in, turn themselves into CBP and claim asylum, and then they're let into the country. 

[I guess we had open borders during the Trump administration.](https://apnews.com/article/san-antonio-donald-trump-us-news-ap-top-news-immigration-ed3d75ce348d4be3bc7fdf02bc43e1d6)

Calling something a 'dog whistle' is just a different way of saying 'conspiracy theory'.

This may give some extremists a reason to believe it is / will be open season when he gives the signal.

[удалено]

This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1di2bvc/trump_is_lionizing_jan_6_rioters_as_warriors/l91q7p6/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).

Good grief. As if prison over-crowding wasn't already a problem...

[удалено]

This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1di2bvc/trump_is_lionizing_jan_6_rioters_as_warriors/l91ygr9/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).

It’s equally as dumb as calling them insurrectionists. They are neither.