The democrats are not “the tourniquet party.” Tourniquets stop bleeding, the democrats want to cause more bleeding. They are the “stab your femoral artery again” party. They don’t fix shit.
If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there’s no progress.
If you pull it all the way out that’s not progress. The progress is healing the wound that’s below, that the blow made. And they haven’t even begun to pull the knife out, much less pull, heal the wound…
They won’t even admit the knife is there.
Throughout history, there have been plenty of times when people supported genocide on the premise that it prevented some greater threat. I’m not aware of a single time in history where that position was the correct one.
Compared to whatever the party of trump is, idk how any sane person can equivocate and just say “yeah it’s all the same either way”. The kind of person I guess with no trans or foreign friends maybe, but even still.
By way of understanding each other, I agree on point 2 and disagree with point 1.
They may go to the same place and maybe it all started in 1970 or something. But I wasn’t here then and neither were lots of people who I believe are similar to me. I want change in a radical way, but I would settle for slowing the house from burning enough for us to have room to do something meaningful. D is a counter burn and R is gasoline.
If everyone who didn’t show up because of genocide in palestine (or darfur / tibet / cambodia) voted, would trump still be president? I don’t honestly know.
What I DO know is that things are objectively worse now than they were before the 2020 election and there was no party in that election that adequately addressed the problem. So sure, maybe this is an instructional moment and there will be a huge surge on the left in 2024. On the other hand, maybe there won’t be an election at all because of “war with domestic terrorists” or something. I understand the argument of “nobody WANTS to vote a lesser evil anymore” when it’s between the likes of Al Gore and Mitt Romney. When it’s Trump, Project 2025, and a risk of validating Jan 6 (which we unfortunately did), I’m sorry but even though I agree with your position my gut feeling is to blame you MORE than my dumb Trump voting family because at least they got duped. You (generally) walked right into it and said “Ha. Yeah. Win without me.” and then left it to burn, knowing full well that this bullshit we are living was a possible, or even likely outcome.
“Why did this thing I did nothing to stop happen if it was the worse option?” Well. I don’t know, but I know who I’m more frustrated with about it.
See, the difference between our perspectives is that you’re punching down at voters rather than punching up at politicians. Maybe if every single person who stood by their valid moral principles was convinced to abandon them, it would’ve changed the outcome. I don’t know how that’s supposed to be achieved, exactly, aside from trying to shame people for having morals, which I don’t expect to be particularly effective.
Alternatively, instead of changing the public in order to be in line with what politicians want, we could change politicians to be in line with what voters want. I think the word for that is “democracy.”
The democrats are not “the tourniquet party.” Tourniquets stop bleeding, the democrats want to cause more bleeding. They are the “stab your femoral artery again” party. They don’t fix shit.
Throughout history, there have been plenty of times when people supported genocide on the premise that it prevented some greater threat. I’m not aware of a single time in history where that position was the correct one.
Compared to whatever the party of trump is, idk how any sane person can equivocate and just say “yeah it’s all the same either way”. The kind of person I guess with no trans or foreign friends maybe, but even still.
I don’t say that the two parties are exactly the same, but 1) they will both lead to the same result and 2) they are both fundamentally unacceptable.
By way of understanding each other, I agree on point 2 and disagree with point 1.
They may go to the same place and maybe it all started in 1970 or something. But I wasn’t here then and neither were lots of people who I believe are similar to me. I want change in a radical way, but I would settle for slowing the house from burning enough for us to have room to do something meaningful. D is a counter burn and R is gasoline.
If the status quo was enough to address Trumpism, then why is Trump president?
If everyone who didn’t show up because of genocide in palestine (or darfur / tibet / cambodia) voted, would trump still be president? I don’t honestly know.
What I DO know is that things are objectively worse now than they were before the 2020 election and there was no party in that election that adequately addressed the problem. So sure, maybe this is an instructional moment and there will be a huge surge on the left in 2024. On the other hand, maybe there won’t be an election at all because of “war with domestic terrorists” or something. I understand the argument of “nobody WANTS to vote a lesser evil anymore” when it’s between the likes of Al Gore and Mitt Romney. When it’s Trump, Project 2025, and a risk of validating Jan 6 (which we unfortunately did), I’m sorry but even though I agree with your position my gut feeling is to blame you MORE than my dumb Trump voting family because at least they got duped. You (generally) walked right into it and said “Ha. Yeah. Win without me.” and then left it to burn, knowing full well that this bullshit we are living was a possible, or even likely outcome.
“Why did this thing I did nothing to stop happen if it was the worse option?” Well. I don’t know, but I know who I’m more frustrated with about it.
See, the difference between our perspectives is that you’re punching down at voters rather than punching up at politicians. Maybe if every single person who stood by their valid moral principles was convinced to abandon them, it would’ve changed the outcome. I don’t know how that’s supposed to be achieved, exactly, aside from trying to shame people for having morals, which I don’t expect to be particularly effective.
Alternatively, instead of changing the public in order to be in line with what politicians want, we could change politicians to be in line with what voters want. I think the word for that is “democracy.”