If you resort to violence to try to impose the outcome you want, it is. And you I am sure do understand that, whether you choose to admit it or not.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fascism - Why...
- Thread starter Secret Chief
- Start date
And what you seem to have trouble understanding -- or are deliberately trying not to see -- is that peaceful demonstration against the injustice of not being allowed to vote is not "rejecting democracy" at all -- it is asking to be included in it!
Taking violent action against an election that has already been decided IS rejecting democracy.
Violence has nothing to do with rejecting something or not. Just because it is done peacefully does not mean it is not a rejection
Violence has nothing to do with rejecting something or not. Just because it is done peacefully does not mean it is not a rejection
I think the crux of the issue here is not so much that they were "rejecting democracy," but more along the lines that they believed that the election was somehow fraudulent or rigged. Why did they believe that? The contention by some is that Trump goaded them and riled them up, along with some of his other cohorts like Sidney Powell, who initially claimed they had "mountains of evidence" to prove fraud. But then, when it came to bringing their evidence to court, it was like "Sorry, my dog ate my homework."
Rush Limbaugh was still around, and he, Sean, and some of the others on the right-wing radio circuit also kept harping on it incessantly all through November and December of 2020. They're still going on about it to some extent. Of course, they'll say that they don't reject democracy and instead make the reverse accusation and claim that it was the Democrats who did that by rigging the election. Here in Arizona, Kari Lake is still fighting her case after losing in the gubernatorial election in 2022.
As for the January 6 incident, it was bad, although I don't think the U.S. government was in any real danger of being overthrown, mainly because it was clear that the military was going to uphold its sworn duty to the Constitution. They made that clear weeks earlier. One of the strengths of the U.S. system is having checks and balances built in to be able to allow the government and system to still operate - even in the face of some catastrophic event.
Peaceful violence?
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Do you suppose Trump wants to share power with anyone. Or ever does anything at all for anyone else's benefit.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Stop and think: if elections don't matter, then what do you get? Three choices only are possible: 1.a dictatorship 2.an oligarchy or 3. a combination of both. Democracy would clearly be dead.
Let us go back, since you seem to have lost yourself, to your own question in post #445. Here is your argument:
Now, what were those black people protesting back in the Jim Crow South? Were they saying, "we don't want democracy?" Were they arguing that they wouldn't accept a democratic result that they did not like? Nope, neither of those -- they were protesting that they were being unfairly excluded from actually PARTICIPATING IN DEMOCRACY. This is not a "rejection of democracy;" in fact it is the exact opposite. I don't know what is making you so averse to accepting this simple fact.
Now, in the case of January 6. Were they peaceful in their protest? Were any of those rioters protesting that they were not permitted their vote? Not at all -- they were rioting because they did not like, and would not accept, the results of a free and fair election.
Here is the deal with democracy, for those of you who don't seem to understand it very well: we all get our vote, and most of us cast our vote in good conscience according to our own values, principles and political leanings. And when the dust clears, we all agree (yes, that's part of the contract) to accept the result. Period, end of story.
Yes it absolutely does. If you use violence to attempt to replace a duly elected person with your own choice that is clearly a rejection of democracy.
Using non violent means to express a complaint is not a rejection of democracy, on the contrary, using non violent means to express a complaint is part of the democratic process.
I don't know about you, but at this point it seems to me that this discussion has devolved to "yes it is" "no it isn't". This is pointless.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What do you call it then, when a person who was not democratically elected, is installed as the President, while the person that was democratically elected, is booted out?
What do you think a violent mob that erects a gallows and chants "Hang Mike Pence" is all about?
They were attempting to STOP THE PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER TO THE NEW DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT so that the guy who lost could remain President. This isn't rocket science.
Good lord.
WOW! Finally; somebody who is actually making sense. Now if you can somehow convince some of those other posters who have invested so much into this idea that they were rejecting democracy, which means they wanted to overthrow the government and install Trump as dictator. You've explained it better than I did; perhaps they will believe you.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
They quite clearly wanted to install Trump. And we're prepared to break the law to do so. As those that have been convicted for it have found out, to their cost.
That they were fooled by Trump into doing so was no excuse, as their sentences demonstrated.
Oxymoron
Even as President, he had to share power with the other 2 branches of Government. As far as if he wished he did not have to share? I don't know.
But elections do matter. Don't assume that because they disagreed with that particular election, therefore they believe elections don't matter
Unless the proud boys (et al) attack the other two branches and kill a bunch of people. If they can install a President, what is to stop them from installing a Senator or 10?
They were protesting how the democratic election process was being conducted.
I agree.
Not quite; they were convinced it was not a free and fair election.
Not always; some people are sore losers and will come up with any excuse to say the process was unfair. With these kind of people, nothing except for the results they wished for will convince them the process was fair. But just because these people are sore losers does not mean they want a dictator.
Your first point -- exactly so, as many of us have said to you over and over and over again. But that is not protesting against democracy, it was a protest against a process that was unfair and unjust. Perhaps that doesn't concern you, but it does me.
Now, as to your comment about "they were convinced it was not a free and fair election," you need to remember this: you cannot be convinced that your neighbour raped your wife and be justified in shooting him. You at least need some evidence -- BUT EVEN THAT WON'T HELP YOU! You don't get to shoot him on the basis of your belief no matter how well evidenced. That is called ILLEGAL.
But even worse, regarding their conviction about the election, they already had the results of 61 court cases -- court cases that did examine whatever evidence the nay-sayers cared to produce. Being ignorant is not, I'm sorry to say it, an excuse in law.
Again; there was no attempt to replace any elected person with Trump. Trump wasn't even there! All they wanted to do was to temporarally stop the process. Once they achieved that, they left. This was no rejection of democracy, this was an attempt to disrupt things.