Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
To be clear, Trump losing (not just the vote, but also his inevitable attempt to seize power anyway afterward) is definitely the vastly preferable scenario here – “Troubles” are way better than a full-blown dictatorship – so stopping him is, if not “the” winning move, at least the do-or-die first step towards it.
There is no validity to a dismissive “eh, either way it’s gonna be bad” attitude here. We are in an existential fight to achieve “pretty bad” because the alternative is “absolutely catastrophic.”
Recognizing that things are going to bad regardless of who is elected is simple pragmatism. There’s nothing dismissive about it at all. Quite the opposite.
Harris winning the election (which, in terms of the electoral college, she’s currently on pace to narrowly lose), will not decrease the amount of active fascists in the United States, so, regardless of who wins, there’s going to be trouble and there’s going to be a lot of work to do that can’t be done with upvotes, downvotes, or social media posts.
It would be wise for people to be prepared for what is to come. Ignoring it makes it worse.
Edit: for instance, there is a man in the woods near I-75 by London, Kentucky picking random people off with a rifle right now. I’m afraid we’re going to see a lot more of that kind of stochastic terrorism, which will not simply go way if Harris wins. There are serious problems in America.
There’s nothing dismissive about it at all. Quite the opposite.
I mean, somebody downvoted your previous response. My best guess as to why is that your “either scenario… there are no winners” bit was perhaps poorly phrased and easy to misconstrue, so that’s what I addressed.
To be clear, Trump losing (not just the vote, but also his inevitable attempt to seize power anyway afterward) is definitely the vastly preferable scenario here – “Troubles” are way better than a full-blown dictatorship – so stopping him is, if not “the” winning move, at least the do-or-die first step towards it.
There is no validity to a dismissive “eh, either way it’s gonna be bad” attitude here. We are in an existential fight to achieve “pretty bad” because the alternative is “absolutely catastrophic.”
Recognizing that things are going to bad regardless of who is elected is simple pragmatism. There’s nothing dismissive about it at all. Quite the opposite.
Harris winning the election (which, in terms of the electoral college, she’s currently on pace to narrowly lose), will not decrease the amount of active fascists in the United States, so, regardless of who wins, there’s going to be trouble and there’s going to be a lot of work to do that can’t be done with upvotes, downvotes, or social media posts.
It would be wise for people to be prepared for what is to come. Ignoring it makes it worse.
Edit: for instance, there is a man in the woods near I-75 by London, Kentucky picking random people off with a rifle right now. I’m afraid we’re going to see a lot more of that kind of stochastic terrorism, which will not simply go way if Harris wins. There are serious problems in America.
I mean, somebody downvoted your previous response. My best guess as to why is that your “either scenario… there are no winners” bit was perhaps poorly phrased and easy to misconstrue, so that’s what I addressed.
I’ll be OK. So will they.