Yes, stolen.
Now, just because Wisconsin was "stolen" - and I will show you why I use that word - doesn't mean that Trump won the election, because, he still wouldn't have enough electoral votes. I have said since the election, when we knew massive fraud was likely because we have seen what the Democrat activists have become (I still know Ds, who like the ordinary citizen under Hitler or Tojo, are nice people), I've said it was not electoral fraud that gave Biden the election - it was the collusive massive fraud of the media and Democrats for five years, that convinced good honest people that "Trump" was synonymous with whatever word they chose themselves which meant unworthy to be president (I've heard, frequently, he was - too conceited, too arrogant, too untrustworthy, a sexual predator, a Russian tool, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-immigrant, and many other claims that are either incredibly vague or ridiculous).
I've been blogging my heart out about these issues recently and not going to just spit it out all again. Here's the gist, if you haven't, and now find yourself here: The dangerous woke generation, the insane Democrats, the tech giants, have all fused into a fascist state. And you should be scared.
Make no mistake, that is what you are in, if what happened to Parler (to which I belonged, for support as free speech, but rarely looked at) is possible, we are in a fascist state. How any cowardly pol on the Republican side can see that and spend his days talking about impeaching Trump and whether the ONE right wing riot (as opposed to hundreds if not more on the left) and only one cop who was killed, is beyond me. If AOC can continue to bay about taking names of Trump supporters, if lawyers can be in danger of losing their licenses to practice because they supported him (it is a complete lie that Trump or they incited the riot), if Nancy Pelosi can sit there and seriously talk about the evils of "whiteness" like the zombie she's become, if Chuck Schumer can continue to boom, unmolested even in print, his fascistic threats of who will pay, then we live in a fascist state.
Oh, so worried about Trump's every sentence as some kind of campaign violation or crime, they miss the fact that Big Tech's takeover of our speech and restriction of the right (while they let dictators from other countries, anti-Semites, black supremacists and others all have a voice) is likely the biggest campaign contribution violation in our history, unless Twitter and Facebook, in particular, reported these restrictions as campaign contributions? Similarly, is what Amazon and Google did to Parler Free Speech not most egregious and public anti-Trust violation in history (not saying the biggest)?
I made a list the other day of what Joe Biden would need to do to get me to give a chance. It was both true and tongue in cheek, because there is no chance he will do any of them. So, I just brainstormed them and its incomplete. I could have added - declare BLM a terrorist movement or organization, declare of continue to declare Antifa a terrorist group (I'm really not sure of their status) and bring RICO actions against all involved in the violence throughout the country, including politicians who actually incited violence like Sen. Hirono or Maxine Waters, both of whom, in my opinion, will have people put up against the wall and have them shot, if they get the power - that vicious. I suspect many of the D party are like-minded though I'm sure they would say - it's "necessary," as they do when they try to burn down cities, attack us physically and murder cops.
But, on to Wisconsin . . .
So, I am not going to get all legally-schmegally here, althoguh these things are always complicated and I can't make it a children's book. I am going to try and show the big picture and main arguments of what happened in Wisconsin. The first thing question is easy. Why do I title this post "How they stole Wisconsin," rather than How the Wisconsin Supreme Court got its election decision wrong. This comes from a dissent by Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley concerning the bias of Justice Karofsky, who was in the majority:
[Fn 1] "During oral arguments in this case, Justice Jill J. Karofsky made the following statement (among others) to the President's attorney: "You want us to overturn this election so that your king can stay in power, and that is so un-American." When a justice displays such overt political bias, the public's confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is destroyed."
She also stated from the bench that the challenge smacked of racism because of the prevalence of minority votes in Dane and Milwaukee counties. Did she not realize that they are also by far the two largest counties where there was overwhelming support for Biden? That's the reason. All challengers make a determination of what counties to challenge, as Gore did in Florida in 2000, only challenging 4. If this isn't bias, I do not know what could be short of a justice saying - I'm biased.
I'm sure if you support Biden, those statements are no biggee. People on the winning side rarely care about angry judges. But, imagine if you are the attorney involved, or a party, what that tells you about the bias of the justice, and about the majority she joined. She said it, but I no longer have a doubt the others in the majority felt the same way. The case was already decided. Perhaps if she had withdrawn from the case, or someone in the majority had commented on what she said, I might feel differently, but I doubt it, because this anti-judicial bullying was in line by what we have seen the last approximate 5 years from the left in their attempt to take down Trump - unabashed, self-righteous lies, threats and distortions.
So complete is the victory of the left in taking down not only Trump and the right, that this high court state judge felt nothing would happen to her for speaking as she did. And, I'm sure she is right. In fact, almost no one knows she said it and because very few people read decisions. Add to that the fact that the majority used a legal doctrine known as laches (which means, colloquially, it's too late), as they have before against Trump, to avoid deciding most of the issues. There can be no doubt that it was wrongly used because the other side - Biden's team - had to be prejudiced by the lateness, that is, harmed in defending the case because of the lateness. Since the justice writing the court's opinion went through the arguments himself in a concurrence to his own majority opinion, and the Biden team filed briefs on the issues, well, obviously they were not prejudiced by being unable to make arguments. The idea that the lateness somehow substantially added to their costs, without any evidence, and without any reason, seems absurd.
But, those two issues are gives me the belief to say as an American citizen (not sure that means much anymore if the Ds have their way with Immigration), Wisconsin was "stolen" and not just that the case was wrongly decided. We are way beyond saying, but both sides do it. . . .
The issues:
Trump's team, the petitioners, sued to overturn the results in two counties, Dane and Milwaukee, and set aside about 220,000 votes. Since all he lost by was 20,682, and these counties were extremely strong on Biden, getting rid of either county would have been easily enough to tip the election to Trump. Almost the entire rest of the state leaned pro-Trump (he won 54/72 counties) and the other Biden counties were much closer in numbers. Essentially, these two counties decided the election.
Here are the four issues. In those two counties:
1. Trump sought to strike all ballots cast by voters who claimed indefinitely confined status (over 28,000 votes).
2. Trump sought to strike all absentee ballots as the form used by the state did not contain the written application required by statute (over 170,000 votes).
3. Trump sought to strike all ballots where where municipal clerks improperly filled in written information for absentee voters (I don't see how many votes affected).
4. Trump sought to strike all ballots collected at the Democracy in the Park rallies as the ballots had to be delivered to the clerk and not by just anyone (over 17,000 votes).
Admittedly, I can't do the math here because I cannot find Justice Simanek's circuit court opinion nor does it tally them here. But, if enough votes were thrown out it would have had to be re-tabulated and it would be extremely close. 84% of the absentee votes went to Biden in Milwaukee City. If there weren't enough rejected votes to overturn it, even had the dissent prevailed, I think we would have seen that in the majority decision. No one suggested it.
The majority opinion.The majority (four judges, all Democrats) agreed "that the challenge to the indefinitely confined voter
ballots is without merit, and that laches bars the relief the Campaign seeks on
the three remaining categories of challenged ballots." In in other words, they decided the first issue against Trump and the last three wouldn't decide.
Issue 1: Here's what happened. Because of the pandemic and related orders from Wisconsin, the Dane and Milwaukee county clerks advised all voters therein that they could determine themselves "indefinitely confined" and thereby vote by absentee ballots (avoiding things like photo identification). Even this court realized that was wrong and in a decision stopped it. The clerk offices corrected their mistake. Those who wished to be deemed indefinitely confined had to sign an affidavit according to the statutory requirements.
The majority struck down this claim because Trump, unable in the very short time they had between the recount and the claim period, to possibly know which individuals had falsified their affidavits or were wrongly permitted to claim that status (what were they going to do in a few short days; there is not even a procedure that would allow his campaign to investigate people, who all have privacy rights - it's an impossibility), asked that all of them in those two counties be set aside, including those who had lawfully complied and good cause for the status.
Thus, the majority held "The Campaign's
request to strike indefinitely confined voters in Dane and Milwaukee Counties
as a class without regard to whether any individual voter was in fact
indefinitely confined has no basis in reason or law; it is wholly without
merit." Although it is possible that there was some fraud, the court has no way to know.
Issues 2-4: These were not decided by the court on the merits. The court applied the doctrine that it was too late to raise them. This was their rationale.
The Trump campaign did not dispute that laches can apply to late claim.
It argued that the elements of laches, which Biden had to prove, were not. Basically, the party raising laches (it is raised in virtually every case reflexively, although rarely used or upheld) has to show that the claim was unreasonably delayed in being made, that the respondents didn't know it would be raised and that because of the delay they were harmed such as to make it unfair to allow the argument. If those are proved, it is still in the discretion of the court to accept it and preclude the argument. Given the statement of Justice Karofsky, uncorrected by her majority brethren, it is hard to see how the court would not abuse its discretion.
The majority accepted the word of the Biden campaign that they had no idea these challenges would be raised. They give no discussion on it. They also called Trump's "delay" unreasonable in the extreme in raising them. Here's their argument:
The application form which Trump claims was not an application and there was no application made to the clerk prior to the voters receiving the absentee ballot. The court noted that the application form was used statewide for 10 years. The court felt it was unfair to challenge this in only two counties rather than the whole state, and that waiting until after the election was unreasonable.
Regarding the clerk's adding in information, the court noted that the system was created in 2016 by the Wisconsin Election Commission (hereafter "WEC") and that it had been unchallenged for 11 elections including Trump's 2016 victory. Same as above, the court says why only these two counties and wait until now.
With respect to the Democracy in the Park events, which Trump's campaign said were illegal early voting, as there was no delivery to a clerk, the State of Wisconsin legislature had already sent a letter to Madison County (highly publicized) that the it was illegal. The Trump campaign only challenged after the election.
So much for "unreasonable delay." With respect to lack of knowledge by the Biden Campaign, the court merely states that they said they were unaware and its sufficient.
As to prejudice, the court does not really say how the Biden campaign itself was harmed (once it throws in its name without saying how or why) and really says it will disenfranchise voters who relied on these things. I am going to get why all of this is wrong, but, lets just say for now - it's not the voters' prejudice that is required by the Biden campaign's.
Last, discussing that it could allow the arguments in its discretion, the court simply repeated much of what it had already, stated that Trump had raised only technical issues (I ask, what else is there in most election law cases but technical issues - that's not the question), that striking it in only two counties when so many followed the WEC recommendations throughout the state would be an extraordinary step they would not do.
Justices Darrett and Karofsky (she of the "your king" comment) wrote a concurrence, where she basically said there was no fraud found and that Wisconsin voters complied with the election rulebook and doubled down on Justice Hagedorn's* sport's metaphor. They wrongly (as pointed out in dissent) thought they were reviewing the lower court's decision, but actually, it is that of the Board of Canvasser's initial decisions.
*Fairness requires me to point out that he is a conservative, who joined with the liberal branch in this opinion. I've noted here before, when someone jumps the line in a highly contested case, it is almost always a conservative jumping to the liberal side, not vice versa. I note in all three lawsuits brought before his bench, he voted for liberals each time in a way that hurt Trump. I don't have a study on it, but anecdotally it seems like that is what happens. Could be wrong. Show me. What he authored seemed to veer far away from conservative textual reading, for one thing. Could he be another Trump hater? Not saying definitely, but the man does get under people's skin. I have long said no matter what the claim is at the election, Justice Roberts would vote against Trump. I wasn't wrong, at least.
Then, oddly, Justice Hagedorn wrote his own concurrence, defensively stating at the beginning that obviously he agrees with the decision by the court he authored, but he thought it was important to spell out some things. What does that mean? It tells us two things. Probably, the co-justices on the majority didn't want to discuss the issues themselves, finding them dangerous. I can't know, but again based on Justice Karofsky's statement, I have to presume they knew it was dangerous to discuss it and probably that they couldn't rationally get the outcome they desired. After reading Hagedorn's concurrence, and the dissents, I have to believe that, although until the dissents were read, I actually presumed that there was no case - after all, we keep hearing that.
If I go through all of his points and those of the dissents bit by bit, this post would be so long that virtually no one who read it, would go through it. I have to give short shrift to all of them (so, the dissents too).
First, here's some points that Justice Hagedorn makes that I think pertinent. Although he says a detailed analysis is not possible because of the paucity of the record, he thinks he can help with understanding the issues that were not reached because of laches.
This is weird. Applying laches means they won't determine the issues. But, to find laches, they had to find that the opposition was harmed in some way. How were they harmed. It can't be costs (though they claim that without saying why - and let's face it, both campaigns spent billions on the campaigns; what's the difference of a few more pages in one brief in the country? Well, the real reason, I believe, he takes this strange approach of concurring with his own opinion, is that in order to find laches applies, they had to claim that the respondents were harmed; but if the issues can be argued based, what is the problem. As shown by the dissents, all the issues were raised before the recount.
Then J. Hagedorn states that the election law statutes allow to find the will of the electors even if there are technical problems. This is true I believe everywhere in the U. S. However, he then says that they look at the statute concerning absentee ballots more "skeptically." That, again, is phrased all too cute. They don't have to be "skeptical." The statute in Wisconsin for absentee ballots, requires strict application, just the opposite of finding the "will of the electors." Justice Hagedorn quotes it himself (I took out the statute nos. for you:
"Notwithstanding [Wis. Stat. §] 5.01(1), with respect to matters relating
to the absentee ballot process, shall be construed as mandatory. Ballots cast in contravention
of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be counted. Ballots
counted in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may
not be included in the certified result of any election."
That's because they don't take the same precautions with absentee ballots. It must be done right. He also admits that review in this case is of the decisions of the counties' Boards of Canvassers and WEC. But, he admits that if there is substantial evidence, they take their facts, but that their interpretations of law don't govern - that's for the courts to decide.
His argument with respect to the argument that the absentee ballots didn't have a verified request is that they did. One, he simply concludes that applications were made before they were given the ballots, which is odd, because it's all on the same page and the verification comes with it stating that it was requested in the past tense. He concludes that since "application" is not defined, what they had, the ten year old one page ballot was sufficient.
With respect to clerks' filling in addresses, he acknowledges that absentee ballots in Wisconsin must be witnessed, including a certification with an address (presumably so they can be found and to minimize fraud). J. Hagedorn again insists that who knows what was enough address if anything was put down on it. Even just the street and number. He believes almost anything but nothing qualifies. It is interesting because he already admitted that the statute required strict compliance or an absentee ballot couldn't be counted. What's an address he asks, just like he asked, what's an application (and always being satisfied in Biden's favor)? We all know what an address is - at the least, street no., street and the town. The court might require a zip code, but I wouldn't complain if it didn't. He acknowledges that the witnesses did show that the many elements of addresses were added by someone else. He says that is fine. If all these things are true, why did the clerks bother to complete the addresses? Rather than determine the issue, which is his job, he says maybe it is something WEC and legislators should think about.
Last, he finds that it was okay for voters to post their ballots rather at the Democracy in the Park events rather than return the ballots to the municipal clerk who issued it, as the statute required. This occurred only in Dane County with over 17,000 ballots. J. Hagedorn believes that since alternative sites are allowed to created, there was nothing wrong with this, anymore than it would be improper to go to the clerk's office and return it to one of the workers there. We will see the truth when I cover the dissents.
Justice Roggensack (not that it matters much, but the Chief Justice) wrote the main dissent on the issues. I will serially list her points why the ballots should have been thrown out.
1. The Trump campaign did raise the 4 issues at the time of the recount petition.
2. The statutes require that on appeal, this court review the finding of the board of canvassers to see if they are based on substantial evidence and separately review the law they used to make sure in line with the Wisconsin Statutes. Again, the written law is final, not what a unelected board does.
3. WEC advise does not make a ballot lawfully cast. The statutes controls.
4. With respect to the missing addresses, the statute, which must be strictly followed, has a model form for verification. It requires, if a mistake is made, for the clerk to give the voter an opportunity to correct - it does not permit the clerk to correct the mistake. WEC incorrectly advised the clerk's to do this, despite the clear and mandatory of two statutes. Much case law is cited to show that this is what is done when a clerk tries to add to a absentee ballot and that the courts do not defer to its state agencies that violate Wisconsin law.
5. With respect to the separate applications, the justice did not seem to disagree with the majority's decision (just that it wasn't considered).
6. With respect to indefinitely confined voters, the justice did not believe there was enough information on the record to make a determination. Interesting - the dissenters could find against the Respondents after analysis. The majority could not. I was asked the reason for this by a liberal friend this year - couldn't it be because, he asked, the left is always correct?
7. She pointed out how wrong the chief Justice Hagedorn was with his opinion to Democracy in the Park being alternate sites for absentee ballots (200 of them no less). It's because if the parks had been given alternate site status, then it would have had to stop at the actual clerk's office in Dane County, which it did not.
8. She also, I felt, destroyed the contention of the Biden campaign that the poll workers were agents of the city clerk, as the poll workers could not satisfy the mandatory return of the ballot to the Municipal Clerk.
Justice Ziegler dissent:
1. She notes the disparate claims of the chief justice that it was not possible to give clarity to the issues, and then giving his opinion on them.
2. "[T]he majority claims the petitioners were too late, should have acted earlier and therefore, the court is neutered from being able to declare what the law is, basically reiterat[ing] respondents' soundbites. In so doing, the majority seems to create a new bright-line rule that the candidates and voters are without recourse and without any notice should the court decide to later conjure up an artificial deadline concluding that it prefers that something would have been done earlier. That has never been the law, and it should not be today. It is a game of "gotcha." I think she could have added, depending on what party one is in.
3. To be clear, I am not interested in a particular outcome. I am interested in the court fulfilling its constitutional responsibility. While sometimes it may be difficult to undertake analysis of hot-button legal issues——as a good number of people will be upset no matter what this court does——it is our constitutional duty. We cannot hide from our obligation under the guise of laches. Moreover, the court's previous decisions required the discussion of the issues even if laches applied.
4. There was no unreasonable delay: Absentee ballots are not a right but a privilege, and the statute allowing it requires mandatory conformance. "To somehow require that challenges must be made and legal relief given before an election, before the ballots are cast and before a recount is absurd. No recount would ever amount to relief if that is the lodestar."
5. There was nothing in the record to sustain Biden's teams claims that they were unaware these issues would come up. The court simply decided to accept their claim. In fact, Trump tweeted immediately after the election results that there were irregularities. Wisconsin law requires that the exact issues be stated in the recount - and those same four issues were covered.
6. And there was no proof of prejudice. It either had to be cost (again, ridiculous in an election where many billions was spent and the additional costs, if any - Biden's campaign did not claim or show any - or evidentiary. The majority pointed to prejudice to third parties - the voters and the counties and made general reference to it violates the rules of equity. In fact, Biden's team did not claim it couldn't contest the issues - it filed briefs discussing the issues.
7. The court can't just accept the word of the propounder that the elements are covered - they must be proved.
8. "Under the majority's new rule, a candidate will have to monitor all election-related guidance, actions, and decisions of not only the Wisconsin Elections Commission, but of the 1,850 municipal clerks who administer the election at the local level. And that is just in one state! Instead of persuading the people of Wisconsin through campaigning, the candidate must expend precious resources monitoring, challenging, and litigating any potential election-related issue hoping that a court might act on an issue that may very well not be ripe. Moreover, it would be nonsensical for a candidate, or worse, a disenfranchised voter, to challenge an election law. Thus, the majority's new rule does not prevent "needless litigation"; it spawns it in the form of preventative lawsuits to address any possible infraction of our election laws. We have the opportunity to answer important legal questions now and should do so."
9. "When the law is not followed, the counting of illegal ballots effectively disenfranchises voters. This past election, absentee voting was at an extraordinarily high level.5 Perhaps this is why it mattered more now than ever that the law be followed. Also this might explain why the process has not been objected to before in the form of a lawsuit like this one. The majority gives virtually no consideration to this fact."
Justice Bradley dissent:
I won't repeat points covered above, but she was on fire. Other than point out the incredible bias of the majority, particularly Justice Karofsky's statement, this justice pointed out that:
1. "The majority carelessly accuses the President of asking this court to "disenfranchise" voters." . . . [I]t is not 'disenfranchisement' to uphold the law."
2. The Wisconsin statutes "constitute[] the exclusive judicial remedy for testing the right to hold an elective office as the result of an alleged irregularity, defect or mistake committed during the voting or canvassing process." Only a 'candidate voted for at any election who is an aggrieved party' may bring an action under Chapter 9. . . Surely the majority understands the absurdity of suggesting that the President should have filed a lawsuit in 2016 or anytime thereafter. Why would he? He was not "an aggrieved party"——he won. Obviously, the President could not have challenged any 'irregularity, defect or mistake committed during the voting or canvassing process" related to the November 3, 2020 election until that election occurred."
3. "Misunderstanding what the governing rules actually are, the respondents argue that having this court declare the law at this point would "retroactively change the rules" after the election. Justice Brian Hagedorn embraces this argument, using a misapplied football metaphor that betrays the majority's contempt for the law: "the [President's] campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began." . . . Justices Rebecca Frank Dallet and Jill J. Karofsky endorse the idea that this court should genuflect before "the rules that were in place at the time." . . . How astonishing that four justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court must be reminded that it is THE LAW that constitutes "the rulebook" for any election——not WEC guidance——and election officials are bound to follow the law, if we are to be governed by the rule of law, and not of men."
4. Similar to this case, when the court had to decide whether the Green Party should be allowed on the ballot (which would hurt Biden), it claimed laches, despite on other occasions "take[n] a pass" when a litigant brought an earlier claim before an election.
That's almost the whole of my analysis. There's one more thing. I think there were enough votes that could have been knocked out to determine the election in Wisconsin at least, for Trump (I cannot speak for other states and therefore can't say he would have won the whole thing - possibly he would have lost in Wisconsin too. But, I couple my certainty with the same majority already having knocked out the Green Party, which got way over 30,000 votes in Wisconsin in 2016, and after the court's decision, less than 2,000 this year).
*
Post Script
Well, if you got through that, you are something. I tried to make it as least legal sounding as possible, but it's hard.
Does it mean the election was stolen? I feel pretty certain about it in Wisconsin seeing how they kept the Green Party out and based on what Justice Karofsky said, not to mention the decision. I have many friends who simply conclude that the entire election was stolen. I can't go that far yet, even though I have acknowledged that I think we are in the beginning of a fascist state (and would not be surprised if the vicious people on the left who now believe because they have decided they are oppressed, even silence is aggression they can meet with physical violence). But I understand why others do. Naturally, life long Ds do not see it that way for the most part and think, Oh, please, it's just that the result that bothers you. No. I would not care about the election if that was what is at stake. Our Democratic Republic is at stake from people like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden (and many others) who call patriots un-American and make statements as if "whiteness" is a disease, from those like AOC demanding that Trump followers names be taken or that their businesses should be destroyed, from the law societies trying to disbar those who make arguments for Trump, from the vicious BLM and Antifa soldiers sometimes cheered on by teachers, judges, lawmakers, etc. - until they turn on them. We are in freefall and the riot in D.C. was the first time in a long time the frustration and anger of the only people who might end up freedom fighters one day acted out their wrath, even in a way of which we cannot approve.
Some soul searching. I write this stuff now almost exclusively because there seems to be respect for law only on one side anymore (whatever Ds you know might claim to the opposite). I don't mean every D doesn't and every R does. Rs have pretty little respect for law too. But, I'm looking at the edges and the radicals on the left now include the leadership which is trying to survive. The following is merely a small analogy. Many years ago, on vacation, I watched as a friend of mine played with his young son (whom I'll call "Bob"). Bob was making up the rules of a game as he went along. His Dad said, puzzled at one point, "I don't think I understand the rules of this game." I said, "The rules are, I think, Bob wins." That's who we face at this time, a much meaner and dominant form of "Bob." It's why I do think it's understandable if people presume fraud and bad intent. If we don't learn from experience (and usually we don't), what good is it? But, Bob is a much friendlier, innocent, version of the radicals right now, many of whom sit in the seats of power. And my puzzled friend - that's the Rs. By the way, the Rs often do the same type of things. They are not in the same league, and as I've described elsewhere, they've already lost, at least for now.
If you are a D and think I'm exaggerating any of this, ask yourself, as I have asked many of you, aren't you already afraid to say anything in public or work that is moderate sounding to you for fear of physical attack on you and your family or the loss of their jobs. I've only asked in the past year maybe a dozen people, but all said yes, they were, more so about work. We already live in a fascist society where people are afraid to speak. Don't get caught up that the modern fascists are not "neo-Nazis" or KKK (who we hate as well and are usually so few and stupid they are little threat anymore). They are vicious and sick individuals who want to control you even hurt you if you disagree. I know you are scared. We all are. And given my lack of substantial readership, this sounds funny, but someday I might be silenced too, just like everyone on Parler or who was thrown off of fascist social media. I don't say that hoping it will happen for some go-out-in flames rhetoric. I'm sure it will be crushing and depressing, because that's what fascists do. We will see.
Speak with others, have courage in your opinions, cancel all the cancellers (everyone you can, anyway) and be patient. A wise man once said (I'm kidding, only I say this): "Sometimes, in our affairs, good faith coupled with endurance is the strongest human force on the planet." At least, I hope for all of our sakes.
