How do we maintain our democracy when Repulbicans have given up on democracy and now want authoritarianism? (2 Viewers)

[coldseat]

It's hard to believe how far down the road we've gone towards authoritarianism. Republicans are not even trying to hide anymore. If they are able to recapture control of the House in 2022, I have serious concern about how much longer we'll be able to maintain our democracy. Just look at how far they're willing to go in the article below. How can we stop this speeding train towards authoritarianism and nationalism in the Republican party and get them to defend and support democracy once more?

Their polls found that after the election, a supermajority of Republicans backed Trump's efforts to overturn the results: 86% said his legal challenges were appropriate, 79% said they weren't confident in the national vote tally, and 68% said Trump really won. Another 54% said Trump should never concede, and a plurality said state legislatures should override the popular vote.
This set the stage for Trump, GOP lawmakers, and right-wing media outlets to continue pushing the lie that the election was "rigged," which Trump did yet again in a press release this week.


Additionally, only 34% of Trump voters said they would accept Biden as the legitimate president, according to the post-election polls. That pales in comparison to similar surveys conducted by Gallup after previous controversial elections -- 68% of Al Gore voters in 2000 accepted George W. Bush's legitimacy, and 76% of Hillary Clinton voters in 2016 accepted Trump's as president.
The organization was among the first to raise the alarm last summer about the potential for unprecedented political violence if the 2020 election was disputed -- warnings that became a reality with the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. They released the new polls as part of a series of reports about the manufactured "crisis of confidence" in US elections.

New polls show GOP willingness to subvert 2020 election

New polls released Thursday show just how far Republicans were willing to go to support then-President Donald Trump's unprecedented efforts to subvert the 2020 election.

www.cnn.com

An excellent podcast on how Hungary's democracy has fallen and the similarities between what Orban and his party have done and how Republicans are doing the same thing here in the US.

 

[Paul]

No thank you

It depends how you mean it. The cable news networks? Probably not, but I don’t watch cable news to know for sure.

Actual news? Yes, absolutely. The problem is too many people take these cable networks as fact, and that’s just not what they’re about. They exist to discuss fact in a partisan manner. Facts aren’t partisan, it’s the presentation that is. Most of what I read comes from AP/Reuters/BBC/NPR, there’s not really bias in the reporting. However, when I listen to the NPR politics podcast, I can tell the hosts lean left. It’s up to the listener/viewer to cut through that, which is something we sorely lack in this country.

This “MSM”* fantasy has too many people not taking the time to look beyond their own confirmation biases.


*Fox is mainstream despite what they want to tell you

I have tried to watch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. I will say that CNN and MSNBC are now on the left 24/7. Fox is on the right during prime time. They seem to have some guys that behave normal like Neil Cavuto . I can only watch Hannity, Tucker, or Al Sharpton for a fraction of a second. NPR, is worse because they pretend to be objective. At least the righty and lefty networks do not hide the fact that they are not objective.

 

[Paul]

How many people watch news on cable vs see online ads or misinformation / memes on Facebook?

If we assume the Russians can control the election because they place adds on Face Book, then we also have to assume the voters are dumb.

 

[JRad]

I have tried to watch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. I will say that CNN and MSNBC are now on the left 24/7. Fox is on the right during prime time. They seem to have some guys that behave normal like Neil Cavuto . I can only watch Hannity, Tucker, or Al Sharpton for a fraction of a second. NPR, is worse because they pretend to be objective. At least the righty and lefty networks do not hide the fact that they are not objective.

Just to be clear, I’m talking about “print” when I mention neutrality. I don’t trust many “live” sources as a direct source of information without some sort of confirmation.

 

[coldseat]

I have tried to watch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. I will say that CNN and MSNBC are now on the left 24/7. Fox is on the right during prime time. They seem to have some guys that behave normal like Neil Cavuto . I can only watch Hannity, Tucker, or Al Sharpton for a fraction of a second. NPR, is worse because they pretend to be objective. At least the righty and lefty networks do not hide the fact that they are not objective.

NPR or any other major news media is not worse than Fox. Fox, in the evening opinion lineup push and promote outright lies and conspiracies. That is the bulk of their ratings and what most of the people that go to Fox want to see.

Bias is everywhere and should be something and if you're informed and understand how media works, then you should be able to filter through. But when you're going to a network to consume lies and conspiracy theories, you're not interested in factual information.

The Wall Street Journal is an example of a legitimate conservative media outlet that has bias, but still has journalistic standards. Fox is a mianstream propaganda media empire.

Also, most of the time people complain about bias, they're complaining because they don't like the information or opinion expressed because it doesn't fit within what they want to believe is true. Not because it's actually bias. It's a catch all complaint for "I don't like what you're saying. "

 

[zztop]

lol saying NPR is worse than faux news is pretty absurd

then again maybe my gauge is different. But last I checked NPR didn't willingly participate in promoting lies, disinformation and conspiracy theories which lead to helping instigate the insurrection.

 

[Paul]

NPR or any other major news media is not worse than Fox. Fox, in the evening opinion lineup push and promote outright lies and conspiracies. That is the bulk of their ratings and what most of the people that go to Fox want to see.

Bias is everywhere and should be something and if you're informed and understand how media works, then you should be able to filter through. But when you're going to a network to consume lies and conspiracy theories, you're not interested in factual information.

The Wall Street Journal is an example of a legitimate conservative media outlet that has bias, but still has journalistic standards. Fox is a mianstream propaganda media empire.

Also, most of the time people complain about bias, they're complaining because they don't like the information or opinion expressed because it doesn't fit within what they want to believe is true. Not because it's actually bias. It's a catch all complaint for "I don't like what you're saying. "

I suspect the lefty and righty networks have that bias because there is money to be made. They also push racism stories because the ratings go up. Sadly, the Dems and Reps are the same but the commodity are the voters.

 

[Nebaghead]

If we assume the Russians can control the election because they place adds on Face Book, then we also have to assume the voters are dumb.

I took some graduate level classes on Data Science and they talked about how bots can push stories that are fringe and make them mainstream. Look at the Qanon conspiracies. Russians have honed their ability to manipulate stories in social media.
A large number of people do rely on FB and Twitter about breaking news. They see a story, click on it because the site looks legit. People are influenced by what they see and share it. Essentially a snow ball effect.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Why is a strange request to show proof in the laws that up for a vote or voted on favor voter suppression when the laws in questions have been called 'Jim Crow 2.0' or '2021 Jim Crow'? It is only logical that if MLB pulled an allstar game, the DNC and their media arm have been comparing these laws to segregation that there is proof. If there is not proof, isn't that just by definition hyperbole? If it is not, then show me the law or policy that takes someone's right away to vote?

Because it's exactly the opposite of what it should be when trying to make it harder to exercise a fundamental right. We all agree that voting is a fundamental right, correct?

So, if you're going to make it harder to vote, (and taking away drop boxes, restricting absentee voting, etc is making it harder to vote) - then you should provide proof of why it's necessary.

The fact of the matter is, you are just as ok making assertions without positive proof as anyone else. It's ok, we just should all be aware of what we're doing. But essentially, if you support these laws to make it incrementally harder to vote, then you fundamentally believe it is ok to restrict fundamental rights without proof of it's benefit.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I was going to vote, but someone possibly connected to a politician couldn't give me free water, so I decided not to vote. I was suppressed.

I should be able to drop off my ballot in a box. Maybe I was the person who filled out the ballot, maybe I wasn't. Maybe the ballots will be collected and delivered, maybe they won't. Maybe the person opening and scanning the ballots is honest and does everything correctly, maybe not. Who cares? It's not important.

As I said above... you've got it backwards. You need to show proof that making it harder to vote is necessary to protect election integrity, not the other way around. We already have ways to protect ballot integrity without the restrictions you support, so you need to prove why they are inadequate. Not the other way around.

 

[Sun Waves]

As I said above... you've got it backwards. You need to show proof that making it harder to vote is necessary to protect election integrity, not the other way around. We already have ways to protect ballot integrity without the restrictions you support, so you need to prove why they are inadequate. Not the other way around.

That's silly. It's vulnerable to fraud. Do you wait until after you've been robbed to buy a lock for your front door?

 

[Sandman]

I was going to vote, but someone possibly connected to a politician couldn't give me free water, so I decided not to vote. I was suppressed.

We had an election in Texas not that long ago. Most of the precincts in Houston were "combined" in one location. So, unlike the suburbs where you have your nice precinct in the local elementary school that is separate from all the other precincts (and you can just walk up and vote in 15 minutes at the most), you had people standing in line for 8 hours. 8 hours. In Houston. It gets hot here. People need water if they are standing outside for 8 hours.

So, imagine that you have been standing in line for 4 hours, and you aren't even half way to the voting booth. You are thirsty as hell, and maybe even feeling a little ill. Someone tells you it is going to be at least 4 hours before you go in. I can easily see you saying, "to heck with this," and leaving.

I would love to see the voter turnout for the typically Republican voter precincts if they had to go through what most African-Americans have had to go through in the past.

The reason the Republicans want to get rid of mail in ballots isn't for "election integrity." It is to make sure that the people they don't want to vote are standing in line for 8 hours with no water waiting to vote. If you can't see that then you either having been paying attention to voter suppression tactics of the past 150 years, or you just don't want to see it.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

That's silly. It's vulnerable to fraud. Do you wait until after you've been robbed to buy a lock for your front door?

Prove it. Prove that it's vulnerable to fraud. You do know they already added fraud prevention measures to drop boxes and absentee ballots. Prove that they are insufficient. Prove how you would defeat the measures in place.

Your analogy is silly. We already have a lock on the door. This is akin to requiring trip alarms, and 24 hour monitoring service in a suburban neighborhood on a house that has never been robbed.

 

[JRad]

People need water if they are standing outside for 8 hours.

I’d really like to know who these people are whose votes can be swayed by a bottle of water. You don’t stand in this kind of line to be bought off by some branded Dasani.

 

[JRad]

Prove it. Prove that it's vulnerable to fraud. You do know they already added fraud prevention measures to drop boxes and absentee ballots. Prove that they are insufficient. Prove how you would defeat the measures in place.

Prove that it‘s so rampant restricting options is the only choice.

 

[V Chip]

Prove it. Prove that it's vulnerable to fraud.

C’mon Jim, Republicans have proved it with all the recounts they demanded in so many states to show that there was fraud and turned up — hold on let me verify the numbers — exactly zero cases of mail-in, absentee, or drop-box ballot fraud.

Oh wait there was one absentee ballot fraud case found in Pennsylvania (not in a recount location, though). Seems there was a Republican who voted absentee for his dead mother, casting an illegal vote for Trump.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Oh wait there was one absentee ballot fraud case found in Pennsylvania (not in a recount location, though). Seems there was a Republican who voted absentee for his dead mother, casting an illegal vote for Trump.

And he was caught with existing measures in place, not all the audits or any of that. He was caught in the first go around, which kind of proves that the existing measures in Pennsylvania (which are very similar to what Georgia has) are sufficient to allow mail in voting AND prevent fraud.

 

[SaintForLife]

In my opinion the media is a billion times more powerful than Russia in terms of manipulating voters. Just watch FOX, then watch MSNBC. All the others fall in between including NPR. Do you know any media that is neutral?

The media is way more powerful and has way more influence than Russia and it's not even close. Some people on the left have been conditioned to think that Russia's influence in our country is more substantial than it actually is.

 

[SaintForLife]

How many people watch news on cable vs see online ads or misinformation / memes on Facebook?

Don't forget than many people see those cable news stories all over Facebook and social media.