Was “Democracy at Stake” in This Election?

Yes, it may be, but not for the reason the MSM is telling you

One of the things we’ve heard a lot from liberals of late is that “Democracy is at stake” or “Democracy is on the ballot” for 2022. Just to give you a few of many, many examples:

Greg Price @greg_price11

Biden: "There's a lot at stake in these midterms: Our economy, the safety of our streets, personal freedoms... But there's something else at stake: democracy itself."

Greg Price @greg_price11

CNN’s Dana Bash reading their exit polls: "You know what's missing from this one, two, three, four, five, top five issues? Democracy." 😂😂😂

Clay Travis @ClayTravis

MSNBC historian says if you vote for Republicans your kids will be murdered and democracy will die. Watch this insanity:

The Hill @thehill

Howard Stern: Preserving democracy is "the only f—ing issue on the table" in midterms trib.al/1avQY0V

To sum up the general argument of the Left, it’s that Trump lost in 2020, protested the outcome too hard, and there was an “insurrection” on Jan 6, 2021. Worse yet in their eyes, Republicans ran all sorts of “election deniers” for office and if they get elected, they’ll rig the vote. Therefore, the only way to preserve a free society is to continue to give Democrats complete control of the government, which seems rather convenient if you think about it.

Let’s start to unpack all of this.

To begin with, we could debate about whether Trump actually won the election in 2020, whether it was rigged, or whether the rules put in place because of COVID gave Democrats an unfair advantage (almost certainly, yes). No matter what the case may be, Trump was not able to prove that he was cheated out of the presidency in a court of law and thus, Joe Biden officially became the President of the United States.

Did Trump go overboard in protesting that he lost? By all standards of behavior in similar cases, he certainly did, although as of yet, it doesn’t appear that he broke the law in the process. Granted, there are plenty of Democrats that would disagree with that statement, but they hate Trump so much they would put him in jail for eating eggs at breakfast if they could get away with it, so you have to take everything they say with a grain of salt.

The way they describe Jan 6. is a great example of that. No matter how many times they falsely call it an “insurrection,” a riot just like we saw in liberal cities all across the country in 2020 mixed in with hundreds of dopes idiotically wandering around taking selfies of themselves trespassing in the Capitol Building does not an “insurrection” make.

Additionally, it’s worth adding that while it’s certainly fair to say that Trump got the rioters hyped up with his rhetoric leading up to and during the rally that day, he also very explicitly said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today” during the rally.

As to “election denial,” it seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Republicans who are dubious of election results are called “election deniers,” but you know who doesn’t get called an “election denier” in the mainstream media? Democrats who do the exact same thing:

Kyle Becker @kylenabecker

“Right wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next presidential election.” Hillary Clinton is already warming up her election denying for 2024.

Furthermore, if Democrats really find “election denial” to be such an unforgivable sin, then why did they spend more than 40 million dollars HELPING Republican “election deniers” get elected?

"The Democrats are trying to beat the Republicans at their own game this midterm cycle, meddling in a number of GOP primaries with the hope that it'll improve their odds in November. But the strategy has required the party to spend tens of millions of dollars boosting election deniers, and if it backfires, the Democrats will have to shoulder some of the blame for helping those far-right candidates into office. Democrats have spent at least $43,885,000 on advertising campaigns in races across six states.

Did their strategy bear fruit? As I write this, the results are still coming in, but early indications are “yes.” Still, how do you simultaneously go to the American people and say, “These candidates are putting democracy at risk,” as you spend millions of dollars to HELP THEM GET ELECTED? Frankly, it reeks of bilious bullshit. What they’re saying and what they really believe are clearly different things.

In any case, after Biden was declared the victor, Trump handed over power and left office. Additionally, It also looks as if the Electoral Count Act will be passed during the lame-duck session, which would change the rules to make what happened in 2020 much more unlikely in the future. In other words, the handover of power in 2020 may have been ugly, messy, and unpleasant, but it ultimately worked. It also seems even more likely to work if there’s a similar case in the future.

So, does that mean that the Democrats are wrong and there actually isn’t any “threat to democracy” for us to worry about? Oh no, they’re actually right about that. It’s just that like a horror movie, the phone call is coming from inside their own house. In fact, the threat is right out in the open. It’s something Democrats have been PUBLICLY talking about doing that would, with absolutely no exaggeration, almost certainly be the beginning of the end for America:

One of the other changes near and dear to the hearts of Democrats is getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate. If that were to happen and Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency, they could do anything they wanted. The Green New Deal, banning guns, reparations, making Puerto Rico a state, you name it. Of course, those moves would probably be unpopular, which could mean that the Republicans could take over, promptly reverse everything the Democrats did, and make their own sweeping changes. Those types of wild shifts would be bad for the public, bad for the economy, and would lead to instability. ...Of course, there would be a simple solution to the problem posed (by that). You change the rules so that the other side can never take power again. If the Democrats added new liberal justices to the Supreme Court (which they are considering) and got rid of the filibuster for legislation (which they are considering), it would be very easy for them to change the rules of the game to lock Republicans out of power. If the Democrats didn’t do it and Republicans got back into power, the GOP would be fools not to do it because eventually, the Democrats would. It’s an ugly scenario that would lead to the end of the United States as we know it, but there are quite a few powerful Democrats that would consider that a price worth paying for getting their way.

The second the filibuster for legislation goes away, the timer on America’s march to dictatorship, secession, and civil war starts running. That’s because once it becomes possible for one side to change the rules in a way that would cement them in power and they understand that if they don’t do it, the other side probably will, there’s realistically only one direction that it can go. So, is democracy potentially at stake in this election? You bet it is. However, the real danger is coming from the people that are already in charge and telling everyone who’ll listen that they must be kept in power to safeguard our Republic.

---