I’d say this is going in circles but one nugget here:
Is being concerned with a president trying to overturn a lost election pearl clutching?
If the people concerned aren't actually suffering under the guy who replaced him, then yes. We can all wax poetic about
"the 'sanctity' of whatever the fuck", but it's not gonna mean much to angry people who are suffering, and want someone to fix their problems. Some might even wish that the guy in question was successful, because they'd be better off, or at least believe they would be.
At the end of the day, we're a selfish species.
Something that big is pearl clutching to you and poverty isn’t some item you can wedge in here to act like it’s one or the other or that you are somehow on the side of the impoverished here. The poor don’t do better outside of a constitutional republican/ liberal democracy and that’s what you are downplaying here. “The people” are exactly who I’m saying can nominate someone else in these primaries.
But if they don't want someone else, you want to tell them that they're wrong and bad. That's not how it works. If the people want Trump, the people get Trump. That's democracy.
With the privilege thing, this is a way to rhetorically deflect an actual point.
No it isn't. It's a real thing. Like safe suburbanites thinking that defunding the police is a good idea, because they don't have to deal with the fallout.
"Police are so bad!"
- Some fucking idiot who has never actually had to deal with real crime problems.
It's a privileged position. It's why most people in shit hole neighborhoods who actually live that shit day to day, want more police, not less.
It isn’t any longer about whether the point is valid but rather “it must be nice you can even bring up this point!”. Its identity over substance. It’s illiberal and you shouldn’t pick that up. Ideas sit independent from the one presenting them. If we decide people can’t communicate the right idea just because of race, background, etc, liberalism is a failed effort. Someone could just say your Canadian and that privilege allows you to be less concerned about US demcoracy/ institutions. But it doesn’t matter if you are in the US or not, your point that trying to overturn elections is pearl clutching is either right or wrong regardless of that. And it’s clearly wrong here. At best you would have to severely discount any value to democracy to reach that view. Maybe I was wrong about how much the right doesn’t care about democracy if they could be promised slightly better economic prospects. That’s pretty sad if true.
Who is "we". People are not a monolith. Half the country votes against the President, and merely put up with it, if they're doing alright, regardless. That is the only thing keeping democracy alive, and certainly American democracy. If most people are happy, it works. If one side feels that they're getting the shaft, it don't.
If you think that's gonna continue for thousands of years, you're wrong. Certainly not in a democratic society, where people get to choose their leaders. Odds are, eventually systems are gonna collapse in the goal of trying to please everyone(with favoritism to one side of course), and if it gets hairy, like it is, they'll look for someone to crush what is killing them. Might be short sighted, but it is what it is.
![{<hhh]](http://i.imgur.com/qoAggsG.png "hhh {<hhh]")
