Attack Greenland! Is he Crazy?

Troops from allies of the United States, including France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden, are being sent to Greenland to prevent an invasion of Greenland by the United States.

That is a fact, not some insane conspiracy. Actually, it is not the United States that wants to invade and seize Greenland; it is just Donald Trump.

He recently told all of us that the only constraints on him as president are his morality and his mind. He is telling us that the Constitution, laws, Congress, the courts, international law, voters, treaties, and so on do not apply to him.

I do not know what his rationale is for asserting that he is unconstrained, but it is clear that he is physically and mentally impaired.  He must be stopped. The only people who can stop him are his MAGA supporters and the feckless Republican Senators and Representatives who have, up to now, failed to honor their oath of office and their constitutional duties as an equal branch of government to provide a check and balance on an out-of-control president.

Liberal Democracy Constitutional Changes

The United States is governed by our Constitution which I believe contains many of the ideas behind the concept of a liberal democracy (click on this for a description of a liberal democracy).  The "liberal" in "liberal democracy" is not directly tied to the Democratic Party, but I suspect that Democrats agree with many of the core principles that would define a liberal democracy. 

I asked ChapGPT "How should the US Constitution be changed to make it more in tune with the ideals of a liberal democracy?"  Its responses are below.  I provide ChatGPT's response here because it provides a starting framework for a discussion of changes that Democrats should think about enacting when they once again get control of the presidency and Congress. 

I've added some additional suggestions after ChatGPT's list.

 

The U.S. Constitution is already a foundational document that reflects many liberal democratic ideals, such as the protection of individual rights, the separation of powers, and the rule of law. However, there are several potential changes or reforms that could make it more in tune with modern liberal democracy, ensuring it aligns better with evolving standards of fairness, inclusivity, and accountability. Here are some suggestions:

1. Electoral Reforms

• Abolishing the Electoral College: The Electoral College can distort the will of the people, as a candidate can win the presidency without securing the popular vote. A direct popular vote for president would align better with democratic principles of majority rule.

• Reforming or Expanding Voting Rights: Making voting more accessible by eliminating voter ID laws that disproportionately affect marginalized groups, restoring voting rights to people with felony convictions, and ensuring automatic voter registration for all eligible citizens.

• Proportional Representation: The U.S. operates under a "winner-takes-all" system in most elections. Implementing proportional representation (for Congress or local elections) could better reflect the diversity of political opinions and allow for more minority party representation.

2. Strengthening Civil Liberties

• Guaranteeing Economic and Social Rights: While the Constitution emphasizes political and civil rights, it does not explicitly guarantee rights related to healthcare, education, or economic security. Adding these protections could enhance the liberal democratic promise of equality and human dignity.

• Privacy Protections: In the age of digital information, stronger constitutional protections for privacy and data security would align the document with modern values around personal freedom and security.

3. Campaign Finance Reform

• Reducing the Influence of Money in Politics: Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United have led to the proliferation of "dark money" in politics, undermining democratic accountability. Constitutional amendments or reforms that limit campaign spending and increase transparency in political donations could help reduce the influence of wealth on the political process.

4. Judicial Reform

• Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices: Currently, Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. Introducing term limits or a set retirement age for justices could prevent the court from becoming too politicized or entrenched in ideologies for too long. This could help ensure that the court remains in touch with contemporary values and challenges.

• Increasing Judicial Accountability: Implementing reforms for greater oversight of judicial actions and ensuring that courts reflect broader societal diversity could help make the judicial branch more responsive to the evolving principles of liberal democracy.

5. Clarifying or Expanding Rights for Marginalized Groups

• Strengthening LGBTQ+ Rights: Although the U.S. has made strides in recognizing the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, clearer constitutional protections could further protect against discrimination and ensure equal treatment under the law.

• Addressing Racial Justice: Amendments could be made to specifically address systemic racism, ensuring that equal protection under the law applies robustly and with focus on rectifying historical inequalities.

• Women’s Reproductive Rights: After Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, an amendment to explicitly protect a woman’s right to choose could strengthen reproductive freedoms and align with liberal democratic ideals of bodily autonomy.

6. Decentralizing Power

• Strengthening Local Governance: A stronger emphasis on federalism could allow local governments to make more decisions that directly affect their communities, increasing political participation and ensuring that diverse viewpoints are represented.

• Reforming the Senate: The current system gives disproportionate power to smaller states due to equal representation for all states, regardless of population. This could be reformed to ensure that the Senate better represents the people, reducing the influence of smaller, less populous states.

7. Improvements to the Impeachment Process

• Clearer and More Accessible Accountability: The impeachment process could be clarified to ensure that it is not used for partisan purposes and that presidents and other high-ranking officials are held accountable for serious misconduct. This would reinforce checks and balances, a key feature of liberal democracy.

8. More Inclusive Amendments Process

• Making Constitutional Amendments More Accessible: The current amendment process is intentionally difficult, requiring either a two-thirds majority in Congress or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. Making this process more accessible could allow for the Constitution to be more responsive to the evolving needs of a liberal democracy, especially as social and political dynamics change over time.

Conclusion:

Changing the U.S. Constitution to make it more in tune with the ideals of a liberal democracy would require balancing the foundational principles of democracy with modern concerns around equality, accountability, and inclusion. Many of these changes would make the political system more responsive, transparent, and representative of the diverse population, ensuring that the Constitution continues to serve its purpose as a living document in a modern democratic society. 

Above are the suggestions from ChatGPT to the question "How should the US Constitution be changed to make it more in tune with the ideals of a liberal democracy?".

Other constitutional or legal changes I would suggest:

• Restrictions on gerrymandering.
• Restrictions on presidential power.  The Supreme Court was obviously wrong when it said that a president could not be held accountable for illegal actions taken as part of his official duties.  The failure of Republican congressional men and women to perform their constitutional requirement to provide checks and balances on the executive branch shows the need for some way for citizens to demand change more frequently than every two years.
• Better restrictions to prevent presidential influence over or dismantling of independent agencies.  For example, The Department of Justice and FBI should not report to the executive branch.

Feel free to comment if you have any additions or issues with the improvements suggested in this entry.  Anonymous comments are allowed, but please keep them civil.

Why Do Republicans Hate CPB, PBS and NPR?

The Republicans in Congress just voted to de-fund the public media organizations CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting), PBS (Public Broadcasting System, domestic TV service) and NPR (National Public Radio).  These media organizations were established by Congress decades ago.  For much of the time since then Republicans have complained that they are biased "liberal" media and they are unfair to Republicans and Conservatives.  

As a long time regular viewer of PBS and a listener of NPR, I disagree.  PBS shows a wide variety of shows including Sesame Street, Daniel Tiger, Ken Burns documentaries, Master Piece Theater, and some news, political and cultural shows.  The news shows seem to me to be very fair and balanced unlike FOX news or MSNBC.  NPR provides many shows including news, weather, science, entertainment, etc.  In many rural areas NPR may be a primary provider of news and weather.

I have been confused by the vehement hatred of these public media outlets by Republicans/Conservatives.

I think I've figured out why Republicans hate them. 

I asked ChatGPT to summarize principles of Democrats and  Republicans.  You can click on the links to see its answers.  I also asked ChatGPT to make a summary list to compare Democratic and Republican principles.  Finally I asked ChatGPT to define the principles of a Liberal Democracy.  You can read these to get a more detailed description of each.

According to ChatGPT":

Democrats tend to emphasize:

• Collective responsibility through government action,
• Equity and inclusion for historically marginalized groups,
• Public investment in health, education, and the environment,
• And a belief that government can and should help level the playing field for all Americans.

In essence, a liberal democracy blends majority rule with minority rights, ensuring that even unpopular groups have their basic freedoms safeguarded.

The principles of the "liberal" Democratic party seem to more closely align with ChatGPT's description of a liberal democracy.  So Republican's consider any institutions that believe in the ideals of a liberal democracy to be biased towards and aligned with Democrats.  But sorry Republicans, the U.S. Constitution was designed to define a liberal democracy for the United States.  This was long before the Democratic Party was created.  The founders fell short of a liberal democracy in some areas (slavery, universal suffrage), but until recently we have been moving forward to complete the project (more about this in future posts).

We have a First Amendment which guarantees free speech, but which party likes to ban books?  Which party believes in an historical interpretation of the Constitution and then chooses to ignore the opening clause of the Second Amendment?  

Which party is the worst proponent of gerrymandering?  I know Democrats have also been guilty of gerrymandering, but it is Texas Republicans who are trying to take gerrymandering to a new level.  

Which party would like to implement universal health care?  Which party wants to cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP?  In the current environment, which party is standing up for rule of law and due process?  Which party is trying to destroy the principle of separation of powers?  Which party has neutered congressional oversight?  Which party is trying to make courts impotent?  Which party is trying support medical science? Which party is trying to keep independent agencies like the DOJ and FBI truly independent and not subject to executive pressure? Which party believes in the unitary executive?  Which party is trying to mitigate climate change?  Which party has been more willing to get big money out of politics? Which party is more interested in funding early education (like Head Start).   Which party is trying to fund food for school children?  Which party is trying to destroy our world class higher education system?

So Republicans hate CPB, PBS and NPR because these organizations work very hard to provide objective information and services that reflect the ideas of Constitution and the people of this country.  They may not always be perfect, but they are always working to be provide facts and objective truth. 

And Republicans hate them for this.

Maybe Trump Isn't Bound By The Constitution

On Meet The Press yesterday, Kristen Welker asked Trump if, as president, he needed to uphold the Constitution.  He said he "didn't know" and he would have to ask his lawyers.  I immediately thought, what an idiot.

After I thought about it for a minute I realized he may have a point.  Maybe he can't be held to his oath to uphold the Constitution.

On inauguration day he took the presidential oath of office which includes ""I Donald John Trump do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...".

There you go.  He has a point.  He said he would "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...".   He has no ability to be president.  He is a liar, a con, a grifter, an extortionist.  Add your favorite pejorative.  Those are his abilities.  He has no ability or competency to be president.  He doesn't begin to understand the duties, requirements and responsibilities of a real president.  He couldn't even play one on television.

Trump thinks of himself as the leader for the average person and people believed him.  Trump has no empathy.  In fact, he is callously cruel. He recently claimed kids have too many dolls so it is no big deal if the new Trump economy may mean they can't buy so many more or they might cost more.  This from the man who has golden toilets.

So he can't be blamed for not performing as a president because he really doesn't understand what a president is supposed to do.

We can blame the MAGAs who should have been smarter than Trump and knew that they shouldn't have voted for him.  He constantly made it clear that he had no presidential abilities. What we need now is for those people to realize how incompetent he is and do what Trump often says,  help us "get him the hell out of here!" 

Don't Give In To Threats Of Political Violence

I've been seeing comments that using the 14th Amendments to keep Trump off the ballot is unconstitutional and will lead to violence.

As everyone should know, the 14th Amendment is part of the United States Constitution.  So using the 14th Amendment is literally constitutional!

As for violence, Trump lied about the 2020 election being stolen from him and then attempted to stop the transfer of power and in doing so incited violence.

So if he is kept off the ballot we can expect violence.

If he loses the 2024 election we can expect claims the election was stolen again and violence.

If he wins the 2024 election he will implement the plans he has been telling about and we can expect violence.  Violence from Trump's retribution and, possibly, violence from people who refuse to let him: 

 

* Destroy the non-partisan FBI

* Destroy the independent DOJ

* Destroy the rule of law

* Destroy our non-partisan and independent judiciary (he will ignore the courts)

* Use the military for domestic control

* Put his political opponents in jail

* Shut down media that criticize him.

Basically the same goals he had for his first administration, but now with better execution and still no Republican party that will rein him in.

Threats of violence should not be allowed to further any domestic political goals. So I vote to keep him off the ballot and use our intact FBI, DOJ and independent judiciary to handle any domestic violence he incites.

14th Amendment Was Written For Trump

After carefully reading the 14^th Amendment, Section 3, I was struck by how it seems to be perfectly written to fit the situation we currently find ourselves in.

I'm obviously not a Constitutional or legal scholar, but as I hear the comments from people who are experts I'm taken by how we are facing issues similar to those that legislators faced after the Civil War when the 14^th Amendment was written and adopted.

The South was defeated and brought back into the Union, but there were many southerners who would never concede they were wrong or they actually lost (sound familiar?). What was to stop these people from picking up where they left off before the war started and again elect people to state and federal offices to continue to try to break or harm the Union?  Congress believed laws were needed to prevent this. I've heard several ideas were floated and rejected before the 14^th Amendment was adopted (with some later changes). I'll admit the amendment language seems somewhat out of step with other parts of the Constitution, but I think it was intentional.

Let me conjecture why I think the amendment was written as it was and so clearly matches our current needs. The 14th Amendment applies to certain federal and state office holders (civil and military).  For this discussion I'm focusing primarily on the presidency.

The amendment says people are disqualified from holding office again "if previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.".

These are people who have shown they can't be trusted.   They broke their oath.

The amendment does not require that an insurrectionist be convicted of a crime. I'm guessing that this may have been for several reasons.  The number of people who could have been taken to court for engaging in an insurrection or rebellion after the civil war would have been in the millions.  How could you find enough unbiased jurors in the south to hear the cases?  Most southerners were themselves insurrectionists or had given aid or comfort to an insurrectionist.

Another reason for not requiring a conviction was that in general it was obvious who was an insurrectionist.  Most people did not hide what they believed and what they did.  In fact they were defiantly proud of their actions.  Again, sound familiar?

Since the vast majority of the population of much of the country were obvious insurrectionists the authors set the bar low for disqualification. If a person has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. the 14^th Amendment finds the person is disqualified from holding office again. That disqualification could then be appealed to Congress. This put the onus for prompt action to reverse their disqualification on the insurrectionist rather than on election officials or courts.

Why didn't the authors add text that said if an insurrectionist were elected by voters, that should override the disqualification language of the 14^th Amendment? As stated above, in former Confederate states, how many Confederate officers (civil or military) would be overwhelming elected or selected again?  Many voters would clearly believe that insurrectionists had done nothing wrong. They agreed with the insurrectionists. So the 14^th Amendment does not disqualify insurrectionists from voting, it just says you can't vote for a former insurrectionist. Punish the oath breakers not the average voter.

Trump brags that he could shoot someone in a public space and his followers would still vote for him. Or he could be convicted of a felony and they would vote for him. Those supporters are telling us clearly that many of them will vote for him even though his participation in an insurrection is obvious to anyone willing to objectively look at the facts. These voters seem to believe that a person who did not honor their oath to uphold the Constitution or the rule of law should be allowed to further damage our country.

Donald Trump publicly tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. If you don't believe that, you have to be willfully ignorant. On an almost daily basis he tells us how little he believes in the Constitution and the democratic institutions that have made us the leader of the world. He tells us how he will use his presidential and political power to remake our country. He had one term as president and we know how it went.  It ended with him trying to stop the peaceful transfer if power, a hallmark of our country

If we allow him to be elected again, and he begins to reshape our country in the illegal ways as he is promising, what do we do? (And no, he is not joking. Trump is only about Trump. Anything he says or does is just to help Trump.). Unless Democrats have super majorities in the House and Senate the constitutional solution of impeachment will not be an option (remember, we already tried that).  That will leave Donald Trump free to work very hard to remake this country in his image (as he is telling us he will) with few restrictions on his efforts. 

The Constitution make is clear that there are some candidates that are disqualified from holding office (age, citizenship, impeachment conviction, insurrection). Why should we make an exception for an insurrectionist Donald Trump?

14th Amendment Is Not Unfair to Trump Or Voters

This blog entry is a follow-on to my previous blog on whether the 14^th Amendment should be used to prevent Donald Trump from being president again.

Many Republicans believe that voters should be allowed to make the decision about Trump's fitness to be president again. They think it is unfair and possibly undemocratic to keep him off the ballot using the 14^th Amendment.

Of course they know that the Constitution disqualifies people from the presidency who were not citizens from birth or who are less then 35 years of age. I can only guess why the authors of those provisions thought it was important to include those restrictions in the Constitution. Certainly there are many foreign born, naturalized citizens who are obviously fully qualified to run for the position, but those restrictions are in the Constitution and will be enforced until they are amended.

Conviction in the Senate of impeachment carries the possibility of a sentence that includes the disqualification from holding office again.

So the argument that the use of the 14^th Amendment is merely a political maneuver by Democrats is false. Using the 14^th Amendment is proper use of Constitutional law just as disqualification based on age or citizenship status.

Should Voters Determine Trumps Fate?

Many Republicans are upset with the possibility that Donald Trump may not be allowed to run for the presidency because of his participation in an attempted insurrection. They believe the voters should decide whether or not he is fit to be president.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument. But then I believe Al Gore and Hilary Clinton should have been president because more voters voted for them then for their opponents. Unfortunately, the Constitution and the archaic Electoral College dictated different winners.

I would be more sympathetic to Republican voter complaints of the unfairness of the 14^th Amendment if they coupled it with calls to replace the Electoral College with a simple counting of the votes for each ticket. 

I think the authors of the 14th Amendment specifically meant to exclude voters being allowed to vote for an insurrectionist candidate.  More to come...

14th Amendment Disqualifies Trump From Presidency

You don't see presidential candidates who are less than 35 years old or who are not US citizens by birth because those qualities are required by our constitution. Thanks to former president Trump there is another constitutional requirement that applies to presidential candidates that needs to be considered this cycle.

The 14th Amendment, Section 3 of the US Constitution makes it clear that a former office holder who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution and then participates in an insurrection or gives aid or comfort to a participant is disqualified from holding office. The 14th Amendment does not specify the criteria for imposing disqualification. It also does not require the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or a conviction. We may eventually want an amendment, law or Supreme Court ruling to make this more clear, but for now we are faced with an immediate need and the Constitution provides a solution.

One obvious answer of who would enforce this requirement and decide what criteria they would use might be the person or offices in each state who would determine if a candidate meets other requirements to be on the ballot (such as age and citizenship).  I think the person who makes those decisions in most states is the Secretary of State.

Another option is a court ruling. A court in Colorado was asked to remove Trump's name as a presidential candidate from the Colorado ballot. The judge agreed that former president Trump “incited” the January 6, 2021 riots and backed that with evidence including testimony given to the House January 6^th Committee.

After clearly stating that former president Trump had participated in an insurrection, the judge accepted the defense claim that the presidency was not an office as required in the amendment. The judge agreed that if the authors of the amendment intended for it to apply to a former president they would have explicitly said that. The judge then refused to remove Trump from the ballot.

Granted that the amendment wording is very vague, but that sounds like a judge searching for a way to not remove Trump's name from the ballot. This will have to go to the Supreme Court and would have even if the judge's decision had gone the other way and had removed Trump's name from the ballot.

The most important thing is the judge clearly said former president Trump had participated in an insurrection. Of course, the January 6^th Committee also proved he incited an insurrection. I would argue there is stronger and more timely proof that Trump incited an insurrection.

Former president Donald Trump was impeached by a bipartisan majority in the House (including ten Republicans) for “incitement of insurrection”. Although there were not enough votes in the Senate to convict him, there was a bipartisan majority in the Senate (including seven Republicans) who believed he was guilty as charged. Every Representative and Senator who voted to impeach or convict knew that their vote would not remove former president Trump from office. President Biden had already been sworn in before the final Senate impeachment vote. However, their vote did show they believed former president Trump had participated in an insurrection and should not be allowed to be president again (impeachment conviction means the person is removed from office and disqualified from holding office again).  Their votes had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, but they clearly declared he had participated in an insurrection and should not be allowed to serve again.

I believe the bipartisan majority votes for impeachment in the House and Senate are enough by themselves to satisfy the constitutional requirement to disqualify former president Donald Trump from becoming president again on a national basis, not just the state level. As I said, this will need Supreme Court approval, but a clear reading of the text should support his disqualification.

I hear a lot of claims that Trump's fitness to hold office again should be decided by voters.  I'm sympathetic to that claim, but the 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War to prevent southern sympathizers from electing people to offices in a government they violently tried to destroy.  That sounds close to the situation we face today.  We have a large segment of the citizens who seem very willing to re-elect a man who lies that the last presidential election was stolen, incited an insurrection, tried to overthrow the validly elected government (as certified by all state governments and many court cases) and continuously brags he will take unconstitutional actions if re-elected. The 14th Amendment is still in the Constitution and until it is revised  or revoked we should use it to counter a charlatan who seriously threatens our country.

 

Text of the 14^th Amendment, Section 3, to the United States Constitution

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

The highlights are mine.

Repeal The Second Amendment

The United States Constitution is in many ways an amazing document. It has allowed our country to become the envy of the world, but it was not and is not perfect. There have been amendments to correct some flaws and it is now time to fix a remaining flaw.

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed. Just take it out of the Constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Repealing the second amendment doesn't mean all guns become illegal and will be confiscated. What it means is that the laws about guns must be legislated from the perspective of how we as a country want them to impact our society and not from the perspective of a constitutional right where we argue about what the founders actually meant. Gun ownership and use should not be some inalienable right. It should not be a foundational part of our country and enshrined in the Constitution. It's inclusion in the Constitution is one of the reasons we have such a terrible gun violence problem.

Most us drive cars and depend on cars to support our daily lives. But we also know that operating a car is not a right. We have to be licensed and provide insurance among other restrictions. There are rules for different types of vehicles and when and how they can be operated. Those rules are determined by legislation to fit our changing needs. For example, self-driving cars will require many new laws and regulations.

This is the way gun laws should be handled. Laws to define how guns can be used for self-defense, hunting, target shooting can be legislated just like laws that govern drivers, driving, cars, trucks, ATVs, motorcycles, etc., and without needing to quote the founding fathers or the Federalist Papers.

I believe the Second Amendment was written to provide the country with a service; citizen soldiers in militias to defend us from foreign threats which we no longer face. We now have well trained people in the military services, National Guard and Reserves that provide for our defense.

For the constitutional originalists/textualists, I don't see anything in the Second Amendment that provides guidance about personal self-defense or suggest that the amendment was meant to provide ready weapons for citizens to overthrow a misguided government. I also don't understand how the initial dependent clause can be ignored, although that is convenient since militias were male only institutions so the Second Amendment wouldn't apply to women.

And how well has the Second Amendment worked? Are we better off having it? How is our record on gun violence and the number of citizens killed by guns compared to the rest of the industrial world? We've been told for years that all we need is more good people with guns. Yet while gun purchases continue to sky rocket, gun violence increases and still more and more people are killed by guns. Clearly more and more guns are not making us safer or decreasing gun violence.

In my city we have an interstate highway where people are wary to drive for fear of being shot for an awkward lane change or just by a stray bullet. Kids are being killed in their homes from stray shots coming from outside their houses. Do we really want to live this way? And the situation keeps getting worse.

What does it say about us that guns are now the leading cause of childhood deaths? We should be ashamed. More importantly, we must do something about that.

Let's repeal the Second Amendment and start creating laws that allow reasonable ownership and use of guns.

 

Save Our Democracy, STOP THE BIG LIE

Republican Elephant Shit

It is clear the violent insurrectionists who attacked the Capital on January 6th were hoping to prevent the certification of the election of Joe Biden to the presidency and have Donald Trump reinstated as president.  It is becoming clear that former president Donald Trump and his allies (including some elected officials) were also trying to use quasi-constitutional schemes to prevent the certification of the election of Joe Biden and instead certify that Donald Trump had won.  How closely these two groups were working together to complete an insurrection is still being investigated.

These subversive actions were planned even though Joe Biden won the election by roughly seven million popular votes and 76 electoral college votes.  There were various recounts, court cases and certification by all states which affirmed that there was very little if any voter fraud and Joe Biden was the winner.

Yet Donald Trump and most Republicans keep spreading the Big Lie that there was widespread fraud and the election was stolen.  This lie is ominous because it seems to be setting the stage for future manipulation of election results.

The courts and congress will have the final say on how the insurrectionists should be punished and what changes are required to defend our constitution, but I have a different question.

What did the insurrectionists and the people who support them think would happen if they had been successful on January 6th?

Do conservatives think the Democrats would just say something like "Aw shucks, lost again", give up and walk away?

In 2000, Al Gore and the Democrats used all the legal actions at their disposal to get an accurate count of votes in Florida which they believed would show Al Gore won and would be the next President of the United States.  Yet when the Supreme Court (on a purely political split) stopped the Florida count and therefore gave the state to George W. Bush by a roughly 800 vote margin, Gore graciously conceded and Democrats reluctantly accepted the result.

If today's conservatives were on the losing end of a vote count like 2000, what would they do? Keep in mind former President Trump has no intention of ever conceding the 2020 presidential election.  He has made it clear that he does not believe in the peaceful transition of power.  More upsetting are the number of his supporters who agree with his actions.

Now we see Republicans in many areas trying to change state laws to make it easier to manipulate election results in the future to favor them and possibly override election results.  

Speaking for myself, if Republicans someday succeed in overruling voters and changing the results of elections, I, and I expect many other Democrats and independents, will not calmly walk away.

I would prefer that we put in laws and rules that prevent the subversion of our democracy.  If there are differences in how our democracy should be run, I would prefer that those differences be settled in the courts and legislatures, but if those processes fail to defend our democratic principles and processes, extraordinary remedies may be required.  Once a democracy is lost it is difficult to bring it back because the insurrections are even more emboldened to use their illegally won power to retain their positions.

I beg all voters, especially Republicans, who understand how radical and dangerous the Big Lie is to help defend our constitution and country.  Do not support politicians that are willing to damage our democracy to retain their political power.  Don't accept changes to election laws that are claimed to be needed to stop future election fraud.  If a politician won't publicly and clearly state there was no wide spread fraud and Joe Biden is the properly elected president, don't vote for them.  Don't accept a mealy mouthed, elephant shit answer that there were irregularities or state laws were not followed.  Politicians need to say that the states all certified their votes and Biden won. Any other answer damages our democracy.