There is no moving the goal post, I asked a simple question, since the premise was the same in 2020, "vote Biden to defeat the rise of fascism", I'm asking how effective that was. Did it work? Was the rise of fascism stopped? Altered? Slowed down?
Hey, the Earth won't last forever. Eventually all life will end. So maybe we should just let it all end asap. Keeping it going is nothing to brag about since we'll lose in the end anyway. Is that right?
Or maybe we should make the best of the time we have. Maybe we should push back against fascism and corruption and destruction, even if our victories don't last forever. What do you think? Is it worth defeating a fascist leader once even if fascism can still eventually return, or is it all just a waste of effort and we should just roll over and die?
But you didn't defeat the fascist leader. He's in power now. And a lot of people told you this would happen if you kept the same strategy. Yet you insisted it was the right one.
You're saying that people me stuff and that I insisted on whoever... who exactly do you think I am? I haven't insisted on anything like what you're talking about.
In any case, I think you'll find that in the previous election the fascist leader did in fact lose. That does count as a defeat for them, doesn't it?
One of the reasons Kamala failed was that her central message was crippled from the start. Her main campaign plank was that Trump was a threat to democracy. The problem with this was that Biden didn't treat him like a threat to democracy.
Trump should have been arrested on day one of Biden's term. He should have been rapidly tried in a military tribunal, had the book thrown at him, and quickly been convicted. And SCOTUS justices that dared to try to intervene should have been charged as accomplices tried with similar swiftness.
Biden didn't do that. He appointed a Republican to lead the DOJ. That Republican then sat on his ass for two years, then began a slow investigation, only for Trump to eventually run out the clock.
Biden did not treat Trump like a threat to democracy. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus the last time there was a similarly-scaled threat to democracy. Lincoln ruled like a dictator during the Civil War. He had pro-Southern newspapers, in the North, censored and shut down. He actually showed what you need to do to a true threat to democracy.
True threats to democracy require bold and sometimes quite draconian response. It's an emergency, democracy is on the line, and drastic action is required.
If you DON'T act with that kind of haste, you show that you don't actually feel democracy is being threatened that much. Biden proved that he really didn't believe his own rhetoric. Biden in his heart really doesn't believe that Trump is a threat to democracy, as he certainly didn't act like he thought he is.
This is why Kamala's central campaign message fell flat on his face. There is ZERO reason an incumbent should ever be able to run on a platform of "my opponent tried to steal the last election." If you're the incumbent, it was YOUR responsibility to protect the republic from threats against it. If your opponent is truly a threat to the republic, why weren't they locked up or sent to the gallows a long time ago?
That was the central problem of Kamala's core message. If someone tries to violently overthrow the government, you are supposed to send the military after them and turn them into a fine mist or turn the justice department on them and see them hanged for treason. You're not supposed to just let them off the hook and then bitch to the electorate that they're dangerous and can't be trusted. And if someone is a true threat to the republic, you shouldn't even let the Supreme Court get in your way.