The Democratic Party and its cheerleaders in the national media like to give the impression that they have a sophisticated and nuanced perspective on the current state of the nation, but in reality, their argument boils down to the following: None of America’s political structures or mechanisms are lawful or genuine unless we’re the ones regulating them.
Elections, decisions made by the Supreme Court, legislation that is eventually signed into law, “norms,” etc. Everything has a significance that is so near and dear to them.
Apart from when Gop are in control of the government, in which case the entire thing is a sham.
Almost every single thing that Vice President Kamala Harris had to say during an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, which was broadcast on Sunday, served to further illustrate this dynamic. She suggested that the rule that allows senators to filibuster should not be applied to Democratic objectives, but she thought the rule should be applied to everything else.
Todd asked her that even if she only attempts to do it for two things, would she be happy with the possibility that this could put an end to the legislative filibuster for good? Harris said that no.
WATCH: @VP Kamala Harris tells #MTP she’s not comfortable getting rid of the legislative filibuster.@ChuckTodd: “Are you comfortable if this could end the legislative filibuster for good, probably, even if you only try to do it … for two issues?”@VP: “No, I’m not.” pic.twitter.com/Xcrm4cGqXI
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) September 11, 2022
She stated that the country requires a president who will “speak up and raise the red flag” about those “who right now are vibrantly not defending our democracy.” After making this statement, she made an exception for Democrats who openly supported and raised Republican primary U.S congress candidates who expressed suspicions about the 2020 election.
If she were to learn if the Democratic Party and some factions within the party were paying advertisements to support election skeptics in party primaries, Todd questioned whether or not this was something with which she would be comfortable.
Harris: “I’m not going to teach others how to run their campaigns, Chuck.”
Then, after claiming to be deeply committed to ensuring that the rest of the world witnesses America’s dedication to “the importance of democratic values, rule of law, and human rights,” she eroded our highest court by suggesting that the justices were influenced by politics in their decisions.
He asked her how much faith she puts in the decisions that are made by the Supreme Court?
Harris said, “I think this is an activist court.”
There is no alternative conclusion to the mental process that Harris and every other Democrat leader could possibly arrive at that is logically consistent: “when we govern things, it is right, it is just, and everyone must embrace it. Everything is wrong, invalid, and against the law whenever it is not us doing it.”
Being a supporter of democracy is not synonymous with being a Democrat. It is with the intention of creating a one-party state.
