I’ve asked for concrete evidence. You’ve given me ideology. I’ll come back when somebody’s answering my questions.
1 Like
Evidence of what? You really haven’t clearly communicated here.
Do you believe that there are only two possible outcomes of the election? If not, what other realistic outcome do you believe there is?
If you do accept there are only two outcomes, do you believe that one outcome isn’t preferable to the other?
If you do agree that a Democratic victory is preferable, do you not agree that publicly and emphatically supporting them will help them win, in whatever small way? Do you not agree that publicly criticizing Democrats at this time advances the causes of the Republicans in whatever small way?
Those are the only three things I am saying here, and I have no clue which of them, if any, you do not agree with.
1 Like
1 Like
So you are saying you believe that even if the Democrats win, there will be another coup which you are 100% certain will succeed. Therefore, the result of the election doesn’t matter since Trump will be the next president regardless of the result?
I’m not 100% certain that it’ll be in 2025 and I’m not 100% certain that Trump will be our dictator but unless somebody cracks down on the domestic terrorism that the Republican Party openly advocates for, it’s an eventuality.
1 Like
I don’t disagree that it looks like many things are going in that direction. But again, that eventuality, however likely or unlikely, is irrelevant at this time.
You ask what good will winning the election do? I will tell you.
It will shape the policy of the US federal government from the years 2025-2028 in a way that is preferable to the alternative. That is what is at stake here. It’s a lot less than what we wish for, but it’s also everything. Those decisions will have a dramatic impact on millions of people. Lives are on the line.
1 Like
Glad I at least got this much, even if the rest of this conversation has just been avoiding what I’m saying.
1 Like
You are not wrong that as a straight white guy with money my life is less on the line than others, such as yourself. It is dismaying to me that if we agree on that, why do I feel like I’m the one fighting harder?
Your lack of hope may not be misguided, but acting upon it will create a self-fulfilling prophecy. A candidate with roaring applause will defeat a candidate with a crowd in despair. To help achieve the desired outcome, in whatever small way, we should all put on the donkey costume.
You speak of the war while I am completely focused on the battle at hand.
1 Like
Honestly, it might be because you don’t have this shit weighing on you so you have the strength to fight. I’m somebody who’s been contemplating at what point in the decline of American democracy I check out at. Is it the next time a Republican wins the Presidency? Is it when the Republicans dissolve Congress? Maybe I call it quits sooner, when they outlaw my medicine and leave my name and gender in a weird legal flux bc those systems are impressively obtuse. I hope you can at least see how having to ask oneself these questions could drain one’s fighting strength.
1 Like
I see it. You fight with whatever energy you have available, and that is all that can be asked from you, or anyone.
All I am saying is, when you spend that little spare energy criticizing the Democrats, however correctly, that runs counter to our cause at this time. We got enough on our hands we don’t need friendly fire.
1 Like
That mentality is the nemesis of nuance and I live for nuance.
I don’t disagree with the need for nuance, just the timing. If we win we can have three years of nuance before another year of fighting.
If we lose, you can forget nuance. It will be four+ years of non-stop fighting.
But this goes back to how in a post-January 6th America we can’t take for granted that winning an election is going to secure us the Presidency. I’m focused on securing those additional three years, have been this whole time, but preparing for those three years requires a lot more than just getting the right people in Pennsylvania to vote for Harris.
Also, the Dems could surprise me with their platform this year. The convention hasn’t happened yet and for all I know they’re going to propose sicking the FBI on the far right terrorist groups I’ve been alluding to. Doubt it’d alienate any centrists. Harris’s background as a DA makes her a damn good candidate if that’s what they’re doing. If that’s the case, I’ll come back here and eat my crow. I just really want some empirical reason to think they will.
1 Like
For what its worth, the FBI has been going after far right extremists and domestic terrorists for quite some time. It could always be more, but they are doing it.
A lot of the problem is simply that a lot of the people we would like to see them take down haven’t committed any crimes… yet. Either that, or there is insufficient evidence. It’s sadly not a crime in the US to just be a Proud Boy, have a meeting, and be a bigot. They have to plan some terrorism before they can get them.
Like this guy they got a couple weeks ago.
If you go to any random Proud Boys meeting, I wouldn’t bet against there being at least one undercover FBI agent in attendance.
2 Likes
It wasn’t a crime to be a Black Panther but they still killed Fred Hampton 
2 Likes
I do sincerely appreciate this though. Finally got what I came here for.
1 Like
Lest we think we are alone in being dismayed or frustrated at the options available to us, both in political parties and in the electoral system and feel like accepting that playing to win the game that is set before us at this time is self-betrayal rather than fighting to make the whole system be different; I am reminded of some analysis I have seen of the recent UK election.
In that election the then-opposition party (Labour) only increased their vote share from something like 32% to only 34% from the 2019 to 2024 elections and now controls Parliament and the right-wing Reform party got ~14% of the vote yet got only 5 seats (0.7% of seats). This has led some to wonder if the system is unfair and rigged, yet all parties knew the rules of the game and Labour ran and campaigned strategically to get the votes where it mattered and Reform split the vote of Conservative voters and did better than ever yet all parties do not have seats proportional to the popular vote.
My point is not that the electoral college is good or disproportional representation is good or that the Democratic party is awesome, not at all. My point is, look at what the current rules of the game are and play to win based on the current rules in order to minimize harm now and then spend the time after the election working to change the rules that are no good. This is not the time to expect that the rules are suddenly going to change.
2 Likes
Exactly.
The rules are written by the victors. Only by winning according to the existing rules can you acquire the power to change them. Discussion of what the rules are or should be is moot until you have the power to do something about it.
And that’s really how we got into this mess. Republicans have played the long game solely focused on acquiring power. Filibusters, supreme court shenanigans, state legislatures, gerrymandering, and voter suppression were their primary tactics among others. Any shenanigan they could do to get power, they did not hesitate. Their eye was always on the prize. Democrats did not play hard, and for that we all suffer.
2 Likes
God I low key wanna dig through Old Forum and find a handful of times I was told this in high school cause this refrain is so familiar it makes me lose hope.
1 Like
Eve if Kamala Harris is the way forward, is it not right to call out her bad policies?
People hold their nose to vote democrat, because the want to survive not because they believe this is a functioning democracy.
Gun violence, police brutality, mass shootings, attack on women’s rights, racism to name a few things are still all norms under the democrats.
Let’s also not forget the repression of peaceful protests.
1 Like