What I'm suggesting is that rhetoric should reflect the actions people plan to take. Or we just won't be taken seriously ever. It's also demoralizing. "Our country was stolen...and we did nothing."
If people really believe this, and god forbid the "steal" is successful, it would be rather degrading for the end result to be a lot of whining and little more. Its unbecoming.
It comes down to a difficult Constitutional question:
If, based on bad information, the Electoral College casts their votes for a candidate who did not truly win the popular vote in their state, does that constitute an invalid election?
Was there coercion or bribery? That would be an ironclad case for illegitimacy. But the election we held yesterday was the one that officially counted, not the one on November 3rd.
You're going to need to convince tens of millions of people to answer the first question or the second in the affirmative in order to build momentum.
Personally, I don't know whether what has happened in the last six weeks constitutes a moral obligation to uphold my oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic — because there are most certainly both in play.
I don't think this particular flavor of fraud will work in two years' or four years' time if honest men and women overwhelm the corrupt local officials who facilitated it. Flooding every polling station and counting center with people who will count only the votes cast by citizens and report only the true counts should be sufficient to force them to change tactics, if not prevent it entirely because the strategy relies on individual corrupt actors singing from the same sheet of pre-programmed music.
Your rhetoric is matching the actions you are proposing, in that you aren't suggesting an existential threat to the Republic and are also suggesting that the fraud can be addressed.
Someone who states that the fraud and the manipulation of procedure to "launder" the fraud is an existential threat to the Republic...well there are certain expectations to the sorts of actions one ought to the willing to support to address an existential threat. "All cards on the table" as it were, even if playing a particular card may not be strategically wise.
The GOP is playing an extremely dangerous game playing up the "existential threat" rhetoric, and they better mean it because they're awakening a sleeping giant. For example the talk of secession in Texas and the State Police blocking electors in Michigan. If that's all just bluster meant to drive donations and get out the vote, it's extremely stupid to bluster in such a way that suggests political parties and voting aren't the solution to our problems.
If State Police truly are blocking State officials from doing their duty on the orders of another State official, the resolution to that standoff doesn't involve voting. If the Texas GOP is serious about "forming a more perfect union of states that uphold the Constitution", we've seen twice in our history that preserving such a union involves more than just voting.
in that you aren't suggesting an existential threat to the Republic
The Republic is dead. I'm just waiting for the shooting to start (it won't be me firing the first salvo), and I expect it won't be that long. The only question is, what will be the straw that shatters this camel's broken back?
Will it be more fraud in the Georgia runoffs, so they can secure a compliant and complicit Senate?
Will it be a month-long federally-imposed lockdown?
Will it be the 2022 election, that makes this one look clean?
We're at five seconds to midnight (or perhaps more accurately, five seconds to Rwanda) here. It won't take much to convince people the only box they have left is 'ammo', and the ruling class seems convinced they can white-knuckle their way through this and permanently cement themselves atop the power structure, unconcerned with the possibility of people objecting to their utter subjugation.
This thread in its entirety summarizes my views on this subject. The non-fedposty bits below:
It comes down to a difficult Constitutional question:
If, based on bad information, the Electoral College casts their votes for a candidate who did not truly win the popular vote in their state, does that constitute an invalid election?
Was there coercion or bribery? That would be an ironclad case for illegitimacy. But the election we held yesterday was the one that officially counted, not the one on November 3rd.
You're going to need to convince tens of millions of people to answer the first question or the second in the affirmative in order to build momentum.
Personally, I don't know whether what has happened in the last six weeks constitutes a moral obligation to uphold my oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic — because there are most certainly both in play.
I don't think this particular flavor of fraud will work in two years' or four years' time if honest men and women overwhelm the corrupt local officials who facilitated it. Flooding every polling station and counting center with people who will count only the votes cast by citizens and report only the true counts should be sufficient to force them to change tactics, if not prevent it entirely because the strategy relies on individual corrupt actors singing from the same sheet of pre-programmed music.
Your rhetoric is matching the actions you are proposing, in that you aren't suggesting an existential threat to the Republic and are also suggesting that the fraud can be addressed.
Someone who states that the fraud and the manipulation of procedure to "launder" the fraud is an existential threat to the Republic...well there are certain expectations to the sorts of actions one ought to the willing to support to address an existential threat. "All cards on the table" as it were, even if playing a particular card may not be strategically wise.
The GOP is playing an extremely dangerous game playing up the "existential threat" rhetoric, and they better mean it because they're awakening a sleeping giant. For example the talk of secession in Texas and the State Police blocking electors in Michigan. If that's all just bluster meant to drive donations and get out the vote, it's extremely stupid to bluster in such a way that suggests political parties and voting aren't the solution to our problems.
If State Police truly are blocking State officials from doing their duty on the orders of another State official, the resolution to that standoff doesn't involve voting. If the Texas GOP is serious about "forming a more perfect union of states that uphold the Constitution", we've seen twice in our history that preserving such a union involves more than just voting.
The Republic is dead. I'm just waiting for the shooting to start (it won't be me firing the first salvo), and I expect it won't be that long. The only question is, what will be the straw that shatters this camel's broken back?
Will it be more fraud in the Georgia runoffs, so they can secure a compliant and complicit Senate?
Will it be a month-long federally-imposed lockdown?
Will it be the 2022 election, that makes this one look clean?
We're at five seconds to midnight (or perhaps more accurately, five seconds to Rwanda) here. It won't take much to convince people the only box they have left is 'ammo', and the ruling class seems convinced they can white-knuckle their way through this and permanently cement themselves atop the power structure, unconcerned with the possibility of people objecting to their utter subjugation.