There’s a connection here, a relationship whose inner workings I can’t quite puzzle out.
Voters in key states who will likely decide the election trust former President Trump more than President Biden to handle threats to democracy, according to a survey released Wednesday.
The poll, conducted by The Washington Post/Schar School, surveyed voters across six swing states and identified a subgroup of respondents labeled as “deciders.” It found that 38 percent of “deciders” said Trump would do a better job of handling threats of democracy to the U.S., while 29 percent said Biden and 23 percent said neither.
Okay, so the 38% of respondents perspicacious and observant enough to understand that, Trump being the only involved party who is in any way inclined to defend “democracy”—and that, contra his flatulent braggadocio about doing so, Biden is single-mindedly interested in assaulting it, undermining it, and, ultimately, destroying it utterly—then yes, Trump is in fact the one and only logical choice for the assignment.
Fair enough, I’m keeping up so far. But then along comes that blasted monkey with his wrench.
Roughly 60 percent of the group also said they are not satisfied at all with how democracy is working in the U.S.
Um. Well, all righty then, let’s see if we can maybe do a little unpacking here. First off, how much crossover might there be between the 38% who are concerned about Defending Our Sacred Democracy© and the disgruntled 60%? As to said 60%, might we reasonably infer from the blunt statement that “they are not satisfied at all with how democracy is working in the US” (bold mine) indicates they don’t much care who would do a better job of “handling threats” to it?
I mean, in light of how piss-poorly it’s worked out, would the 60 Per Centers not greatly prefer instead to just let the whole wheezy flibbertigibbet collapse under the crushing gigatonnage of its own endemic corruption, orgiastic fiscal chaos, crippling systemic incompetence, and insuperable self-contradiction, opening a path to get on with the monumental task of building something more efficient, more workable, more humane, more enduring, and just plain better atop the wrack and ruin of the old, failed system?
Can those two clashing viewpoints be reconciled? SHOULD they be? S’cuse me for bringing it up and all, but it seems to me of manifestly overriding importance: does anybody out there still remember that America was never intended to be a “democracy” in the first fucking place?!? That the Founders abhorred and dreaded the eventual embrace of “democracy” in substitution for the laboriously-conceptualized and carefully-constructed Republic they risked absolutely everything to bring into existence? How vehemently, explicitly, and unequivocally those giants among men denounced the trainwreck of a dumpster-fire of a catastrophic debacle that “democracy” has historically proved to be, again and again and again? To wit:
As the bumper-sticker slogan says, the Founders would’ve been shooting already—a long damned time ago, in point of fact. If the shades of those indomitable, heroic OG-Patriots could somehow return to walk among us once more and behold how thoroughly their craven posterity have disgraced and distorted the noble ideals they selflessly pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to ordain and establish, every man Jack of them would disdain to so much as cross the street to piss in the mouths of their ingrate descendants even if their gums were on fire. Spinning in their graves like a pig on a BBQ spit, they must surely be.
2
1
1
- Entries