• purgegf [she/her]
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 years ago

    No, they’re not going to blame Biden for Trump’s failings. They’re going to blame Biden for refusing to improve things with his ineffective policies. Trump doesn’t get off Scott free. Biden digs himself in a hole for being the neolib he is.

    The difference is that much of Trump’s blaming of Obama was objectively false. Biden doesn’t have to blame anybody. People will simply watch Biden’s policies in action. (Much like watching Obama’s policies in action.) It’s not that difficult.

    • RandomWords [he/him]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      they're not going to blame biden at all. they're going to go back to being complaisant and the media will be singing the tune that 'at least he's not trump.' all the while the US will continue to drift right slowly.

      if trump wins, everything continues to get worse and worse and people actually start to pay attention.

      the entire notion you're putting out there just feeds into perpetuating cycle of lesser evilism, even if that's not your intention.

      • purgegf [she/her]
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 years ago

        My intention is not lesser evilism, just what is plausible. The media is not monolithic even though it appears so. The facts that outlets such as InfoWars, and enough extreme right-wing notions that created this current cult in office is proof that the media can no longer control the narrative as much as they want. I would have fully agreed with you 10 years ago, but the mass availability of information has become exponentially greater.

        Yes, if Trump wins people do pay attention. My issue with that is, assuming a proper revolution gets underway, any number of fail-conditions on that path will result in an American Theocratic Facist state on a scale you cannot remotely convince me compares to the shell of which is in place today.

        I don’t see this as lesser evilism. I see this as pragmatism in two hypothetical scenarios.

            • RandomWords [he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              because you presented the possibility of failure and said it was an issue.

              • purgegf [she/her]
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 years ago

                Yes. Failure in that hypothetical scenario would be pretty bad.

                • RandomWords [he/him]
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  so you're saying it would be bad if trump won because it leads to the greatest chance of revolution, and if the revolution fails then we're under the thumb of government, and you'd rather that we continue this incremental change bullshit, and think that that would be a better route, despite the fact that during the last fifty years the country has regressed rather than progressed. am i getting that right?

                  • purgegf [she/her]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    so you’re saying it would be bad if trump won because it leads to the greatest chance of revolution

                    No.

                    if the revolution fails then we’re under the thumb of government

                    Yes.

                    and you’d rather that we continue this incremental change bullshit, and think that that would be a better route, despite the fact that during the last fifty years the country has regressed rather than progressed

                    No. I’m saying a revolution would be a better route. And that it occurring under “incremental change bullshit” has a less risky chance of working.

                    am i getting that right?

                    Partly. You are getting there.

                    • RandomWords [he/him]
                      arrow-down
                      1
                      ·
                      4 years ago

                      incremental change doesn't lead to revolution. your opinion is American Stockholm Syndrome. it's ass.

                      • purgegf [she/her]
                        ·
                        edit-2
                        4 years ago

                        incremental change doesn’t lead to revolution

                        No, it doesn’t. I’m not saying it leads to a revolution at all. But there has been no incremental change the past 4 years. Only far-right extreme change and Americans dying by the thousands. A revolution is primed in either outcome.

                        your opinion is American Stockholm Syndrome.

                        It must be nice to not be a hostage. To not be a marginalized class. To not be repeatedly and personally threatened that you will be the first on the firing line, the first target of domestic terror. It must be nice.

                        • RandomWords [he/him]
                          arrow-down
                          1
                          ·
                          edit-2
                          4 years ago

                          lol. probably neither outcome, but just based on the rubber band effect, a trump win has a higher chance of leading to a progressive winning in four years.

                          edit: you're going to modify your comment to try to attack me after words? you're making a lot of assumptions about someone you don't know.

                          • purgegf [she/her]
                            ·
                            4 years ago

                            Like I implied in the earlier comment, there is a likelihood the rubber band is going to break before it gets to four years. It Can Happen Here.

                            • RandomWords [he/him]
                              arrow-down
                              1
                              ·
                              4 years ago

                              so now we should 'vote for joe' to preserve the status quo? just garbage.

                              • purgegf [she/her]
                                ·
                                4 years ago

                                Where did I ever use the word "vote"? This whole conversation was about two hypothetical situations. You seem to be projecting here.

                                • RandomWords [he/him]
                                  arrow-down
                                  1
                                  ·
                                  4 years ago

                                  because you're heavily implying it by promoting incremental change and the status quo over people getting fed up and actually organizing.

                                  • purgegf [she/her]
                                    ·
                                    4 years ago

                                    Uh no? You should read this comment thread again. I discussed two outcomes of the election and how people may respond to either. I laid out objective practicalities of how those outcomes may affect people. I pointed out that one of those has an objectively bad possibility. You seem to be conflating that with me “promoting” or urging a “vote” one way or another.

                                    • RandomWords [he/him]
                                      ·
                                      4 years ago

                                      My issue with that is, assuming a proper revolution gets underway, any number of fail-conditions on that path will result in an American Theocratic Facist state

                                      And that it occurring under “incremental change bullshit” has a less risky chance of working.

                                      there is a likelihood the rubber band is going to break before it gets to four years. It Can Happen Here.

                                      sorry for the wrongful deduction. guess i'm reading between the lines a bit too much.

                                      • purgegf [she/her]
                                        ·
                                        4 years ago

                                        Yep. Glad we cleared that up. (Unless you are being sarcastic. Really, those are neutral objective observations that can be for or against. You don't have to try to project this hard.)

                                        • RandomWords [he/him]
                                          ·
                                          4 years ago

                                          the idea that everything has to be some sort of projection, when weighed against someone implying something they didn't intend to imply is a whole different conversation.