> People can elect racists. rapists, conmen, human traffickers, pedophiles, and even dictators. Doesn't mean I have to work with them or accept any of those as normal.

Trump is no saint, but you are turning him into a cartoonish villain. That never stopped democrats from taking his donation checks, did it?

> Resisting tyranny is a core tenant of democracy.

No, the core tenant of democracy is everyone gets a vote and you agree to live with the outcome, bc you get a vote too. And if you do not agree with the outcome, then you are the tyrant.

> Trump is no saint, but you are turning him into a cartoonish villain.

I didn't claim Trump is any of those things yet. Though courts would agree that he's a racist (in his tenant policies, never mind his retoric), a felon (financial crimes), a fraud (sending nonprofit money to Bondi's campaign), obstructs the biggest pedo investigation ever (redacting even "don't"), and the 14th amendment would disqualify him from federal office--if he hadn't packed SCOTUS (who rule for him 90+% vs 90+% against in lower courts).

> That never stopped democrats from taking his donation checks, did it?

Democrats have plenty of blood on their hands. At least some of them continue to try to reform campaign financing. Modern Republicans seem to relish in the money laundering aspects, especially Trump.

> And if you do not agree with the outcome, then you are the tyrant.

You cannot have democracy under tyranny. And if a country elects an aspiring dictator (who earlier lead a mob to overthrow an election result, sent fake electors, demanded votes be "found", demanded vote counting be stopped while he was ahead, etc) then I suppose it ceases to be a democracy thereafter.

Regardless, I'm not advocating illegal acts, despite the fact that Trump commits them on the regular. I'm advocating the exercise of freedom of speech, expression, and association in opposition to a (hopefully term limited) tyranny.