tl;dr Sorry, I know this is long, and I won't attempt to summarize. But if we only attend to brief talking points and slogans, what's the point of reading at all? Too many on both sides of politics already begin, earnestly and in good faith, to mistake carefully crafted, and often repeated, talking points for reality, as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@kyanite111 , with all due respect, I did read that post (#18, above). It, too, was delightfully lengthy!
And close to its very beginning it seems (to me, at least) to imply that Trump does not "cherish democracy." It states, in pertinent part, that President Biden and former President Trump are "different," and that "[O]ne decisively does not cherish democracy and does not adhere to the peaceful transfer of power while the other one does".
Trump stepped down at the end of his term. Peacefully. He did not summon the army to keep him in power. President Biden took over, right on time. Trump already had whatever opportunity he'd ever have to "be a dictator." He didn't become one. As
@Thalassokrator fairly noted in one of his or her sentences, Trump did, in fact, support some "peaceful" protest. Trump spoke of protesting "peacefully." And, incidentally, presidents don't directly control local, non-federal law enforcement in our cities. State and federal law are distinct.
Did Trump question the election? Well, many in the past have questioned elections. Many Democrats, in fact. Do you remember how Trump's own election was questioned? How he was called an illegitimate president, and by whom? Do you remember how Bush's election was questioned even with legal action? Do you remember how a Democrat claimed to have won an election after the election had been called for another? Do you think any of that's a crime? Do you think doubt, even if mistaken, is a "threat to democracy" ? Are you aware of the history of questioning elections in America? It hardly began with Trump. Indeed, even the presidential election of 1876 makes for an interesting read.
And "finding" votes is not "manufacturing" them. The words are importantly different. Democrats, too, in the past have spoken of the need to "find" votes. Sometimes in elections votes ARE found, days later.
When Trump left office and before, inflation was quite low, despite odd claims to the contrary recently. Since then, over the course of the last nearly four years, it has risen considerably -- cumulatively, I believe prices have risen, generally, by about twenty percent - causing the value of our currency to decline quite a bit. Because that's what inflation really is -- a loss of purchasing power in the currency. A transfer of value away from those who hold the currency. I am not trying to imply that any one person is solely responsible for that. But Trump hasn't been president for years.
Since Trump left office, America's southern border seems to have become more insecure. And while I actually favor and would no doubt like most of the people who have come across, the massive nature of the migration has had real consequences. The load on America's federal and local institutions has unexpectedly skyrocketed. Cities are struggling. A surprising number of military-aged men -- divisions-worth (in number) of them -- from countries to the east, and coming without families, have entered (although, of course, many with families have come in, too).
Since Trump left office, the peace that prevailed worldwide has disappeared. Again, I'm not trying to blame that all on any one person. I earnestly try to be fair.
Since Trump left office, Mir a Lago was raided and he has been hauled into court again and again. A misdemeanor (if anything) that was apparently, or at least arguably, past the statute of limitations was argued, with a seemingly novel legal theory, to be treatable as supposed "felonies." Some people ran for office saying, apparently as a campaign promise, that they would pursue Trump -- the leading opposing candidate for Biden -- in court.
And yet some claim that Trump does not "cherish democracy" ?
Trump's presidency was real. It was not that long ago. We can remember it. Throughout that presidency, Trump simply did the job, and enough people were sufficiently content that democrats (if we believed the press) were genuinely worried he'd win a second term easily. Remember? He did not "threaten democracy." Then Covid hit and that was parlayed by many into an argument against him, and that prevailed.
But now we're going to trumpet that he's somehow a "threat to democracy" ? That's our real problem? That's what's really keeping people up at night -- not high prices, crime and the threat of war?
I will not deliberately distort the facts to try to make president Biden look bad, as some clearly do. Indeed, I respect him -- as I respect all presidents -- for taking on the burdens of the presidency, which are enormous. And our government was designed to run with three branches, not just one -- so what it does requires at least the acquiescence of Congress and can ordinarily not be blamed upon (or credited to) a president alone.
Indeed, in several ways I am more likely to agree with Democrats than with Republicans. And I think Bill Clinton became a remarkably effective president, particularly because he learned better than most to genuinely work "across the aisle" to compromise (not merely pretend to) and get things done. Remember a balanced budget? It was lovely. Bill and Newt ended up forging a pretty successful period of tenure together. And I think the impeachment of Clinton was a mistake that explains much of the subsequent political rancor that has plagued us ever since.
But I am troubled by the distracting narrative, widely pushed by many in politics and the media, apparently with much success, that Trump does not cherish, and is actually a threat, to "democracy." Doubting, being disappointed, supporting "peaceful" protest, hoping to "find" help, is any of that genuinely threatening to "democracy"? Unrelentingly trying to jail those with whom we disagree politically would seem like much more of a threat, wouldn't it?
I could be wrong. Don't rely on anything I say. Check it. Think carefully and research for yourselves, using a reasonable variety of sources. I think that having a diversity of sources and considering a variety of viewpoints is often helpful when seeking to arrive at truth rather than merely to win an argument or to confirm a preexisting viewpoint. It's one of the reasons I try to read well-written posts made by those with whom I might not always agree.
