Dive into the political world of threats and violence leading up to the twenty twenty four elections. As Vox's Zag Beauchamp unfolds this new reality, threats against public officials are soaring, with the mega faithful leading the charge. Trump's hardcore base turns challenging him into a personal hazard, shaping American politics like never before in the twenty twenty four election cycle. Trump's return brings authoritarian rhetoric and escalating threats,
making standing up for electoral integrity a very perilous endeavor. Welcome to the side show of American democracy, where violence is the new political currency. This show is from Vox by Zach Beauchamp on January second, twenty twenty four. Yeah. So this is a tricky article, you know, because we want to abide by the laws that we are held to and not cross any lines
to try and affect anybody's political decisions one way or the other. And so I kind of want to start, aren't there, right While I am in agreement that political violence, threats, et cetera are kind of running rampant right now in America, I want to relate this to atheism or relate this to the separation of church and state, if you will, because I think it
fits in quite well. We don't talk about this enough. So we at the Atheist or the Yeah, the Atheist Community of Austin ACA are a five to' one C three nonprofit organization, right and we are supposed to refrain from engaging in any kind of politicking or electioneering, not endorsing or disparaging a candidate. And while we do our best to abide this rule, is that a bye by this rule? Is that something that's really being respected by other organizations
that share our nonprofit status. I have to say, you know, this article relates a lot to the presidential election and candidates and their followers, et cetera. But I'm not going to necessarily go down that route. I want to ask the theists though, the people that don't want to hear us, or don't want to hear nonprofit organizations start getting all into elections, maybe maybe disparaging or or speaking out against their candidate. Is that the same thing that
you hear coming from your pulpit or is that being abused? Do you go to church on Sundays and hear your clergy kind of break these laws? While the rest of us are kind of, you know, beholden to them. And why is it in this country we give so much credence to religion, so much credence to this peddling of a fairy tale, and we allow them to skirt the rules, but the rest of us kind of have to remain
silent and just abide by them. So I want to I want to kind of just posit that at all of you who are listening and and kind of don't really understand the dynamics there, but it really fits in well because these maga cultists that I believe are behind a lot of these political violence or or or this political violence and their associated threat are often associated with Christianity. In fact, they claim to have the moral high ground in a society of very
diverse backgrounds and beliefs. And so I think it's a very ambiguous claim, being moral but threatening violence. And while you know, I think that it's hypocritical, I can actually see where it makes sense to some of these people, because that is exactly what their Bible pedals. It's what is exemplified throughout the Bible, and probably they're under the impression that they have to abide by the commands of their deity, and so I think that's where we're at currently
right now, and those are my thoughts. I kind of wanted to relate this problem of political violence with, you know, the pulpit, the pedestal that Christianity and other religions are allowed to rest on while the rest of us kind of, you know, just have to take what's given to us, so infidel, How did I do both? I have to say that I definitely mirror a lot of what you're saying about certain parts of our society that politicians they capitalize on this, they feed off of this. But that's what
politicians do. The truth is is that the pawns are the people who allow themselves to have a Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up mentality. They're symptomatic of something that, in my opinion, is essentially boils down to a blueprint on how to subvert or republic. Know, we've talked about Project twenty twenty five on this show, but when it comes down to it, just the basic threat of a free and fair election, I
mean, without that, really what do we have? You Know, it doesn't help that we've been left with more of an illusion of choice for decades rather than actual choices, and I think that that's part of what has caused people to have this knee jerk, all or nothing fight to the death over every little issue. And I think it does feed right into corporate politicians who are essentially shilling for their supper, just like benefic benefactors of the past.
Right now, as I've said before, you know this delusionment has we're so busy screaming past each other that we can't even look to see that playing along with the other side in this sham, while hardly optimal, is a better
option than absolutely destroying the basic premise of a republic. If we can't or enable or unwilling to guarantee the safety that those that are in business are running our elections, you know, those boring parts, not the ones that get in front of cameras, but the ones that actually do something day to day to help make sure that our elections are fair. If we can't guarantee that, then honestly, we don't have a republic. And phoebe, I'm going to let it run it on a little bit about me. When I was
in England, I have been an election official. I have been the person. You walk up to a opolling station and go hello, I'm so and so and I live at such and such, and I go, thank you very much. Here is your ballot paper and new counting. I just did the handing out the ballot papers, making sure that it was all set up and roughly, and there was three of us and it was great. But I didn't set out to commit fraud on that day. And I don't know
anybody that I worked with that's set out to commit fraud. Who on this panel knows what the fraud triangle is. I'm just surprised that you that you're from England. I mean, but anyway, who here knows what the fraud triangle is? So fraud triangle says that there are three elements towards what constitutes
how somebody will undertake fraud. It's motive, opportunity and rationalization. I have never in my life when I worked for the elections in the UK, met anybody motivated or anybody who even had the opportunity to undertake It's just not built into the system, system, built in such a way that that's not possible. And I'm going to have people screaming at the screen saying, but it's different in America. Fine, I'll grant you that it's different in America,
but I don't think it's that much different. I'll grant you yeah. From England, Ye different system. We use a pen and a bass paper we put in a box whereas you pull funky levers and push screens and have our papers that are twenty five miles long and stuff that's beside point. Never in my life have I ever met an election official, be they somebody who went off to do the counting of the votes, opening up absentee balance, going to a polling place that had the mentality of today, I'm going to see
how I can commit fraud. Never ever have I met anybody, And it's just something that just doesn't enter into your head because why are you doing it in the first place. I don't know any public official that goes in the outset and says my goal in life is to look at the next election and I'm going to select somebody and I'm going to decide how I can commit fraud
so that I can get my candid. Just doesn't work like that. It's just bonkers, absolutely bonkers for that kind of mentality to be of somebody that's going to put themselves in the public and face serious long term jail time if they're caught. I mean, this is a conspiracy that election officials wake up that larger than the moon Nan didn't happen, and the Earth is flat and JFK is still living somewhere in Dallas. Too bad. There's a guy in
Michigan that they've gone after. About the two part I don't think anything in this article is a surprised to anyone that follows politics and isn't the follower of Trump. I am surprised often at the excuses and the abfustigations that come from these people to explain why their violence is good but the other violence is bad, or that that other violence is unwarranted, but our violence is warranted, or even worse, that their violence is what God wants them to do.
And these people are positive that what they are doing is correct and they believe the ends justify the means. There I encourage every to read the article. There's a lot of good figures in there. There's a lot of good math or Scott Dickey when you need them right, and it shows plainly that there's been a huge rise in this type of violence, and it is overwhelmingly coming
from the far right supporters of Donald Trump. Many of you out in the audience probably already suspected this to be true, but if you'd like to see the numbers behind it, I encourage you again to go back and read the article. It gives a really good insightful look into win and how this trend
started and where it's going to. It's a really scary trend too. It's trying to create a pure Republican party where every member has to fall into the line with the leader or they reface rejection at the best on one hand, and on the other hand, the end of their political career or even violence at the other end of the spectrum. Now, these are the same people that are calling for violence in the form of a civil war too. I'm
sure you've seen it. People being interviewed at Trump rallies that honestly think we are headed to a civil war and this is what they want if they don't get their way. In many ways, we're already in a cold civil war with both sides ratcheting up the rhetoric. Many of these people are actually planning on the civil war. Actually happening right now. They're stacking up ambo, stocking up mers, they're doing whatever else. They're fantastical rambling mind can think
of, Hey, people, don't forget raincoach. You're going to need raincoats. The most dangerous thing that I find about this whole movement, though, Kelly hat yeah, please. And the most dangerous thing I find about this whole movement though, is that so many people think that think that Trump was anointed by God and also believe that we're living in the end times, and they seem to be willing to overlook all rationality to make those times happen.
Nothing can get in your way as long as God is on your side and he wants you to start the violence. He wants you to get the apocalypse on the fast track so you can finally bring Heaven to Earth. It's freaking scary and we need to stand up to it. Witnesses, eat your heart out, I'll say, is Jehovah's witnesses your heart. I wanted to drill down on something that really got me in the artacle. Was the senator for Utah. Mister Willard knit Romney pays five thousand dollars a day for his personal
security. That's a lot of money for anybody. So what I wanted to ask was in a climate where we have seen rising political violence, and we have seen actual politicians be shot one under comquestion of baseball game one in Arizona,
one in Arizona, I'm talking about the Gabrielle Giffens. For those of you who don't remember that, should the tax paper be footing the bill for personal security for politicians up and down this country because they have gone into public life to serve public I know that certain politicians do have personal security, Mitt Romney being one of them. I don't know if it's subsidized for him. I also know that Marjorie Taylor Green has personal security. I also know Alexandria
Racasio Cortes has personal security. Should the taxpayer be footing the bill for the security of politicians up and down this country in the same way that we foot the bill for the personal security of the executive branch and the cabinet. Well, I want to say something about that. I would be surprised if Mitt Romney had subsidized security. He is a very very well off man, and I think that threats to him are a little bit more significant or significantly higher
than other Republicans, if you will, or other politicians. I mean, this is the first man that stood up and spoke out against Trump as the Republican nominee. And I admire him greatly for that because it's not because I you know, again, I don't want to get into this realm where I'm disparaging Trump or supporting him, but I will say that it was a very steep hill for Romney to climb, as a Republican and as a former Republican
presidential candidate, to come out against the new Republican presidential candidate. And you know, for the reason of saying, you know what, history is going to judge me for what I did not do, and I have to stand there and show my children that I stood up and did everything I can for what I believe in. And so while we're on the position or the subject of Mitt Romney, I want to throw that out there and just remind everybody that while I don't, you know, exactly agree with his politics or his
religion, I can respect that. Now, the short answer to this question is no, I don't think that we should be subsidizing security for our elected officials. The president is one thing, But to go beyond that, I think that you just have to take the consequences of the job, you know, and just accept your role in society as a politician. Well, the flip side to that then is are we only going to have people who are wealthy enough to assore security, wealthy enough to pay for their own security for
example? And where do you draw the line at too? I mean, is the mayor of my small town that if we do pay for security, and the mayor of my small town of fourteen hundred people going to get security because one crazy guy who lives outside of town made it that threat. You know, where do we draw the line on who gets that money and who's
going to pay for it. One of my issues about this is it is an uncomfortable situation because party says, Okay, we want to make sure we protect the credibility of our electoral system, and when people are threatening it, that does potentially disrupt that balance very significantly. And on the other hand, if we pay for security, unfortunately oftentimes we are paying for security for the exact people who are fanning the flames. So it's almost a catch twenty two
because if we pump in security for them. How much worse would it get? How much more willing would some of these people be to go out there and say absolutely unhinged things. On the flip side, there are people who are saying things that I may agree with, who are going to fall prey because they don't have that access to money. But that's going to be something
on both sides. So short answered, no. But my biggest problem is is that all these conspiracy theories fall under one simple problem, and that is three people can keep a secret if two are dead. And so the whole concept of conspiracy theory of the election being stole is just absolutely absurd. People can't keep secrets. We should have learned that by now. People run their
mouths and trust somebody. So I say it all the time. I can't get ten people to keep a surprise birthday secret, birthday party a secret, and I don't know how you can get thousands of people to keep a conspiracy a secret. It's ridiculous idea. But exactly you want to throw this out there, though the article speaks very clearly that what the article discusses did influence
people standing up for what they thought was right. It is that in an is that the kind of society we want where people can have not a Heckles's veto, but a threatening veto in the same way that you have the Heckler's veto in the First Amendment. Do we really want politicians to be having a threatening veto hanging over them? Really? We already do? We already do. Should be should be losing your seat at an election me a threat to
your vio It shouldn't be a violent threat to your personal security. And I think the article was trying to focus that some of these threat to political futures has gone from a result of a ballot box to what is, quite frankly, in my opinion, the unhinged minority running around saying I don't want you to do this, so I'm going to make down Well sure you don't do
this? Well, you know you have to ask yourself. One very important question is is that what motivates someone to stay in the office to vote the wrong deliberately the wrong way. Okay, yes, it may be for immediate safety, but the bottom line is maybe it's time that they consider that their motivation for being in the jobs wrong. Because for me, when it comes now, and I'm not talking about people who are running day to day elections.
I'm talking about the people that we've talked about, like Mitt Romney's and not against him, but people in higher positions. What are they doing? Why are they that off? It's if it's not to serve the people my opinion a lot of them, it's financial or some other sort of gain. And if they're willing to lie to people and vote against their own conscious for that reason, I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. But when it comes down to local workers and poll workers, these people need to be
protected because they're not politicians. Politicians though, if you don't want if the job's too bad for you, regardless of whether I think it should be or not, consider stepping down. Consider your family first. But when it comes down to these pole workers, yes we need to step up our game there. But on the other side of that, I understand what you're saying about
doing what's right. But if you are unable to do what is right, even if it's your last political act, because you want to be able to wake up the next day next to your spouse and see your children again, I think that's a very dangerous society that we're living in. Even if you say to people public life isn't for you because Frederick Wackerdoo and his Second Amendment friends has kept you out of it. That's not what we should be doing.
In my opinion, representative republic is representative of everybody, and everybody should be able to stand up in a representative republic. Nobody should be keeping the head down because Frederick wackerdou and his friend Smith and Wesson is running around with him. But that that's a function of a failing society and not necessarily like a failing government. You know, and even with increased security measures, we
still lost We've we've lost presidents. We just had Martin Luther King Junior day and you know, we lost a great man there. And we've had security in these situations. Malcolm X was was assassinated amid a pretty heavy security detail. And so we make these efforts, and you know, violence still seems to find a way. I'm all for, you know, protection and mass protecting centers of gravity like our Capitol building, our White House, poll workers,
uh, you know, areas where people are under high threat. But uh, you know, I think it gets into kind of a different situation, a different conversation as far as economics is concerned and things like that that I really don't want to go down right now. But when it comes to kind of providing that kind of security, that is a very in depth. I think overhaul of our of our financial arm