Skip Navigation

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
688 comments

  • this is grasping at straws. please get in touch with reality.

    • It's objectively true that he was out of office 2020-2024.

      • it's not. what's objectively true is that he has not been stopped, no matter how hard you vote.

        • It's not objectively true that Trump was voted out of office in 2020 and remained out of office until 2024? Forget fascism, you can't even agree on objective reality. Get a grip.

          • that didn't stop him.

            • Nothing in the world is permanent champ. Voting blue stopped him for 4 years, not voting blue broke the streak and brought him back. My strategy stopped him for a while, yours invited him back in. I have no idea why you would think that's an endorsement of your strategy. It definitively proves that my way is effective, and yours wasn't.

              • I haven't endorsed any strategy, have I? I'm saying yours is ineffective

                • It's presently the most effective. It being imperfect doesn't mean it isn't better than every suggested alternative.

                  • from my perspective, it is the same strategy that created a political climate in which trump could be effective, and has failed twice now to stop him from seizing the presidency.

                    • Never said it wasn't flawed, but even with the flaws it's still the most effective strategy so far. When you have a more effective strategy, your criticisms will be worth considering. But since you didn't, they aren't.

                      • it’s still the most effective strategy so far

                        other societies have prevented trump-like figures from seizing power. we could look to them for the kinds of things we could try. or you could keep feeding the same machine that made trump in the first place.

              • Even during that time he wasn't stopped. he was still pulling the strings in Congress. he was still shaping the national narrative.

                • And not voting Dem was going to change that, how exactly? Where I'm sitting, it looks like you saw all that indirect power and thought "He should have the power of the executive too :)".

                  It's like saying "Hey, that sandwich doesn't have every single necessary nutrient in it, might as well eat fishtank gravel instead". My strategy being limited in scope doesn't make yours any less impotent.

688 comments