I'm not sure how that deals with the problem? Joe is deeply unpopular, people don't like him and whether you think it's fair or not people are not enjoying the way things are going right now. Doubling down on "voters feel wrong about how things are going and should vote for this unpopular old man" is not actually pursuing an electoral strategy.
You suggested they were hoping the law would solve this problem, which is more coherent than suggesting that they're trying to campaign by calling everybody who dislikes their candidate (almost 2/3 of voters, last count) wrong over and over.
Unless you and a few thousand friends are ready to pick up a gun yesterday, yeah. There's nothing you can do to affect whether or not Trump "happens." I know it sucks to feel powerless but you are powerless. That's the point of the way this country was built.
You brought up the threat of violence as a way to protect a political belief since, without the rule of a law, might makes right.
Therefore, if you want to protect your political beliefs, it would seem prudent for you to back up your political beliefs with the threat of violence.
If you are going to ask for an army to defend a political position, I would expect that you should be able to field an army to defend your political position. After all, might makes right, right?
At no point did I say that might makes right. The US empire is extremely mighty, and also deeply evil and corrupt to the very core. What I said is that if you want to actually affect whether or not Trump becomes president, you will need to harness great might to do that. Whether you used that might for evil, such as to install a fascist dictator, or for good, such as to install a communist party, you would need that sort of might.
I'm not sure how that deals with the problem? Joe is deeply unpopular, people don't like him and whether you think it's fair or not people are not enjoying the way things are going right now. Doubling down on "voters feel wrong about how things are going and should vote for this unpopular old man" is not actually pursuing an electoral strategy.
You suggested they were hoping the law would solve this problem, which is more coherent than suggesting that they're trying to campaign by calling everybody who dislikes their candidate (almost 2/3 of voters, last count) wrong over and over.
I suggested it was an option, but not the only one. Others believed that I was suggesting it was the only option.
Well I sure hope democracy isn't on the line. It would be pretty irresponsible to run your campaign this poorly if that was the case.
So don't vote. Let inertia choose the winner.
Voting doesn't affect who wins
Removed by mod
Unless you and a few thousand friends are ready to pick up a gun yesterday, yeah. There's nothing you can do to affect whether or not Trump "happens." I know it sucks to feel powerless but you are powerless. That's the point of the way this country was built.
And do you have a thousand friends who will pick up a gun to defend what you believe in?
No I do not, what is the point of the question?
You brought up the threat of violence as a way to protect a political belief since, without the rule of a law, might makes right.
Therefore, if you want to protect your political beliefs, it would seem prudent for you to back up your political beliefs with the threat of violence.
If you are going to ask for an army to defend a political position, I would expect that you should be able to field an army to defend your political position. After all, might makes right, right?
At no point did I say that might makes right. The US empire is extremely mighty, and also deeply evil and corrupt to the very core. What I said is that if you want to actually affect whether or not Trump becomes president, you will need to harness great might to do that. Whether you used that might for evil, such as to install a fascist dictator, or for good, such as to install a communist party, you would need that sort of might.
Voting does not accomplish any goal.