• agamemnonymous
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    This sort of alarmism is a lot harder to sell when Trump’s already been president once.

    It’s easier to sell when he used that term to load the courts with sympathizers, including 3 SC justices who ruled that the president is above the law. Also he tried multiple times overturn the election. Also this time there’s an organized game plan. Because incremental progress toward your goals is more effective than big performative gestures with no results. The GOP realizes this, even if you don’t.

    If Trump wins, lots of bad things will happen, but there will absolutely still be elections in 2028.

    “Absolutely” is optimistic. There is, as you like to say, a non-zero chance of no elections in 2028.

    That is completely and fundamentally impossible for reasons that I’ve already explained to you several times.

    You’ve done nothing of the sort. You’ve shared your own immature fantasies.

    you’ll use to try to cajole people into completely unconditionally supporting for the Democrats until the end of time -

    Except where I explicitly said it’s nothing but a lesser evil strategy to buy time until there’s a viable candidate. It’s like you’re deliberately straw manning my position to pretend your strategy isn’t counterproductive. You have the 2000 and 2016 elections as minimum showing your strategy is doomed to failure. I have every party split in history to show my strategy works. You’re using your fantasy to cajole leftists into a voting strategy that fundamentally harms them and their cause.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You’ve done nothing of the sort. You’ve shared your own immature fantasies.

      1. Democrats associate themselves with the status quo

      2. The status quo is a system in decline

      3. As the status quo declines, people will be less inclined to support a party that is associated with the status quo.

      Which part of that, exactly, is an “immature fantasy?”

      • agamemnonymous
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        3 for sure. That’s not supported by any historical or sociological evidence.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          39 minutes ago

          That’s a pretty strange thing to disagree with. It’s very straightforward logic so it would take quite a bit of evidence to put it in doubt.

          And I have no idea what evidence you’re looking at but I know what evidence you’re not looking at, for example, the rise of Hitler in Germany. As the status quo became worse and worse, more people turned away from the establishment parties and to the far-right (and to the far-left, unfortunately to a lesser extent), which brought about the end of the republic. You can see similar cases in most every fascist state that has ever existed. I would very much like to know which historical examples you are looking at that don’t support my third statement.