The public doesn’t understand the risks of a Trump victory. That’s the media’s fault | Margaret Sullivan
www.theguardian.com
With democracy in the balance, the press must relay the crucial importance of this election and the dangers of a Trump win

The press must get across to American citizens the crucial importance of this election and the dangers of a Trump win. They don’t need to surrender their journalistic independence to do so or be “in the tank” for Biden or anyone else.

It’s now clearer than ever that Trump, if elected, will use the federal government to go after his political rivals and critics, even deploying the military toward that end. His allies are hatching plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on day one.

  • itsAsin@lemmy.world
    11·
    1 year ago

    it’s so so sooooo difficult to take this language seriously. because EVERY election is phrased with this sky-is-falling rhetoric. i am 45 and for as long as i have been a voter, this-next-one is the-big-one.

    nevertheless, i do actually think that this time bad things really will happen.

    also, i want to get it out there that even though this guardian piece downplays “biden is old”, i cannot stress enough that i will unconditionally NOT vote for biden. so these fuckers better put up a reasonable candidate very quickly.

    • spaceghotiOPEnglish
      30·
      1 year ago

      In other words, you’re going to help enable the “bad things” that you agree really will happen.

      How brave of you.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      1 year ago

      I’m 50 something. 2015 was the only big one the USA has experienced during that time. Yet people were too goddamned moronic to see it.

      I think you’d have to ignore everything Trump did 2016-20 and ignore what the SCOTUS has become to not see this election as the second big one.

      But if Americans are really this idiotic, then I guess we will get what we deserve.

            • spaceghotiOP
              1·
              1 year ago

              Republicans had control over the Senate. What were they supposed to do? The Constitution isn’t specific about what to do when a leader refuses to do their job so they can deny a SCOTUS seat to the opposition.

                • spaceghotiOPEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  If we’re going to remain a nation of laws rather than men, then we have to be scrupulous in how we interpret and follow the law. I know you’re prepared to fight fire with fire, but once you validate the precedent of destroying authoritarians by behaving like an authoritarian, you completely remove any justification for opposing what they’re trying to do.

                  So please, sit down and shut the fuck up.

                  • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    What’s interesting about this is that when I have made tha assertion that Nazi “free speech” should be removed from the airwaves and highly regulated, I am told that we can’t do that because they might do the same to us if they get power.

                    They are going to do that if they get power regardless. The idea is to not allow them to create the conditions to gain power.

                    You cannot use “rule of law” arguments against people who do not recognize the rule of law.

                    The SCOTUS situation- just like the trump/GOP situation- shows once again that Democrats do not know who they are dealing with, and trying to deal with them defensively and retroactively will fail.