this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
907 points (92.9% liked)
Memes
44124 readers
1790 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What would be the alternative
Shoot them
We're allowed to kill Abe Lincoln and JFK, why aren't we allowed to kill these guys? Why does Reagan get plot armor out of all the presidents? Who wrote this shit?
To be fair JFK getting shot was pretty epic though. He almost caused nuclear holocaust (although a more rabidly anti-communist president may have definitely caused nuclear holocaust), war crimed the South Vietnamese a ton, and stabilized Israel. RFK getting assassinated was less epic because that gave us Nixon
You have a very twisted view of the world. No one was "allowed" to shoot Abe Lincoln or JFK. It was very much not allowed, but murderers don't usually care about what's allowed and do it anyway.
As I've said elsewhere, to fix it from within the system itself you would need a bloc of people willing to punish one of the parties for moving right by withholding their votes and their donations. To fix it from without the system is also possible, but would require some "authoritarianism" in the form of people with guns. Anything else is just people flailing around ineffectually and getting mad at others who aren't flailing in the ineffectual way that they prefer.
Either way you've got the same problem: getting a large enough group of people together who are willing to do the thing. Socialists of all stripes have been trying to crack that egg for over a hundred years and the only ones who had any success were the ones that managed to get the peasants on their side because peasants have a certain amount of class consciousness that proles don't.
so suppose you let trump win to spite the dnc. then what? what are you going to tell all the people whose rights are being taken away?
If you had enough people to do the thing, then you would be able to protect members of the group at a local level while national orgs realign and/or get replaced.
But nobody has a large enough group of people to do the thing. In the absence of a large enough group of people to do the thing, voting is a purely personal decision that will not effect the outcome.
"If there were enough people who cared about trans lives to actually change the outcome of the election, you wouldn't need the law to protect them -- you could just make them do it."
Please God tell me I'm misreading this. People in Texas can just get fucked I guess?
Sorry; what would be the alternative NOW?!?
I don't see all that happening before it's time to vote, so isn't what you're saying now a bit of a distraction from the very real risk to the stability of the country?