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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
No.
Yes.
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.
Partly. You are getting there.
incremental change doesn't lead to revolution. your opinion is American Stockholm Syndrome. it's ass.
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.
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.
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.
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.
so now we should 'vote for joe' to preserve the status quo? just garbage.
Where did I ever use the word "vote"? This whole conversation was about two hypothetical situations. You seem to be projecting here.
because you're heavily implying it by promoting incremental change and the status quo over people getting fed up and actually organizing.
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.
sorry for the wrongful deduction. guess i'm reading between the lines a bit too much.
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.)
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.
It sure is.