this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
69 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10180 readers
100 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In an interview, John Eastman reiterated his belief that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. He argued that the threat from the modern left has become so intolerable that it justifies overthrowing the government. Eastman claimed the stakes represent an existential threat to the nation's survival. While he did not mention specific voter fraud, he cited government agencies suppressing information as justification for not sitting idly by. Eastman's remarks appear to repeat the suggestion that overthrowing the government is legitimate to stop what he sees as threats from the left. However, his own actions and statements around January 6 have been mischaracterized according to Eastman.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ALostInquirer@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eastman claimed the stakes represent an existential threat to the nation’s survival.

Isn't this more of a conflation of conservative policies with the nation itself? That is, if one supposes from Eastman & conservatives' perspectives that conservative policies more accurately represent the nation, then their waning popularity in favor of liberal/leftist policies is the so-called "existential threat".

Of course, the problem then becomes that the "solution" is essentially a seizing of power and the diminishment and outlawing of any oppositional policies and ideologies, which one may increasingly observe across various states' passage of laws.

[–] Arkham@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

This is what they mean by all the "real American" rhetoric. It's a rhetorical shortcut to ignore the increasing popularity of economic and social policies they don't like and declare the ones they do like are the only ones that count.