The Democrats May Not Be Able to Concede (therefore, Republicans should vote for Biden to keep Democrats from rioting)

This is the era of expecting the worst while hoping for the merely tolerable. Some might say that the worst is already happening—economic disaster and 190,000 dead from a pandemic—while the president and his surrogates insist, in a feat of self-delusion, that the “best is yet to come.” As someone who has argued against catastrophism—I don’t believe Donald Trump is a fascist or a dictator in the making, and I don’t believe America is a failed state—I find myself truly worried about only one scenario: that Trump will win reelection and Democrats and others on the left will be unwilling, even unable, to accept the result.

A loss by Joe Biden under these circumstances is the worst case not because Trump will destroy America (he can’t), but because it is the outcome most likely to undermine faith in democracy, resulting in more of the social unrest and street battles that cities including Portland, Oregon, and Seattle have seen in recent months. For this reason, strictly law-and-order Republicans who have responded in dismay to scenes of rioting and looting have an interest in Biden winning—even if they could never bring themselves to vote for him.

In presidential elections, once is a fluke; twice is a pattern. I struggle to imagine how, beyond utter shock, millions of Democrats will process a Trump victory. A loss for Biden, after having been the clear favorite all summer, would provoke mass disillusion with electoral politics as a means of change—at a time when disillusion is already dangerously high. If Democrats can’t beat a candidate as unpopular as Trump during a devastating pandemic and a massive economic contraction, then are they even capable of winning presidential elections anymore? Democracy, after all, is supposed to self-correct after mistakes, particularly mistakes as egregious as electing Donald Trump...

THE MEDIASNAKES NEED TO BE DECAPITATED FOR THE SAKE OF OUR NATION’S SURVIVAL!!!

There is a correct, constitutional way to do it. Understand, we all love us some First Amendment. That is a given, and I do not gainsay it at all. Period.
However. In 1964 the Warren Court gifted us with a stink-bomb interpretation of 1A. But the joker in 1A jurisprudence is that it is worded like the Second Amendment, referring in 1A to “the” freedom of speech and press, and in 2A to “the” RKBA.
In the case of 2A, Justice Scalia wrote the Heller decision - and his opinion ran for a great many pages, the product of deep historical research. He did not simply say “RKBA is absolute.” What he did say is that “the” RKBA preexisted 2A, but the preexisting RKBA was not absolute. On the one hand there was a RKBA before the ratification of 2A - and OTOH there were restrictions on it. No one would ever assert that 2A justifies a gun owner’s action if he shoots out the windows of a political he doesn’t approve of. That would be absurd.
But the same argument applies to 1A. In his 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, Justice Brennan asserted that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”
The flaw in that logic is that “the” freedom of the press preexisted 1A - and both pornography laws and libel laws existed as well.

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
rejects the conceit that any right could be modified by the government without explicit constitutional sanction. Indeed the conceit that a right can be extinguished by constitutional amendment is actually disreputable. If something is “right” what business does anyone have assaying to extinguish it???
The Ninth Commandment reads,
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.' Exod 20: 16.
The claim that the First Amendment weakens libel law is a claim that the Federalists (who didn’t want any controversy over rights at all, and were forced to promise a bill of rights by amendment) actually extinguished existing sanctions against lying about people either verbally or in print. There is no evidence that the Federalists wanted to do that in the first place - never mind that they fooled the populace by doing so and only the Warren Court could discern that meaning in 1A.
The Sullivan decision was unanimous, with enthusiastic concurrences. The Sullivan decision is nonetheless bad law, overturning all prior valid judicial precedent on the issue.

Polls said Reagan would lose. In his race against Carter, they said he would lose, then moved it to too close to call. When he won by ten, the media said all the movement was over a weekend, a physical impossibility.

I remember that election well as it was the first one I was old enough to vote in. From Labor Day on, it was pretty obvious that there was a real groundswell for Reagan. Even in liberal Massachusetts, I remember seeing Reagan signs everywhere. Reagan would go on to win Massachusetts (and just about every other state).

But yes, I also remember the networks having the race as a nailbiter right to the very end in order to keep their boy Carter in contention. Then when Carter was blown out of the water, it was attributed to a sudden "weekend surge" to Reagan. Laughable. The race was over by Labor Day.

After winning Trump needs to pick his battles but institute the Insurrection Act and bring in the marines to clean out and clean up the streets of the left wing rioters.

Take care of one major city at a time until the get them all.

Yes it is within his power and it was done by the president during the south central riots over the Rodney King verdict.

The marines took care of the rioters in very short order.

So F**K YOU left wing asshats and your attempted blackmail of more violence..

It amazes me to read articles discussing the outcome of the election without mentioning two of the key differences between the parties.

The fake media would like us to concentrate on personalities. They ignore the fact that Biden and his followers support the killing of unborn babies and wish to disarm law-abiding Americans. We have become two nations with one weak border. I see little future for us together.

I just wish I lived in the future Republic of America instead of the People's Democracy of America. I fear that we have a future similar to that depicted in the movie "Gandhi". A separation into two nations, with concentrations of communists on the two coasts and capitalists in the middle. I, for one, am ready to make the split despite the personal costs to myself and my family.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.