You're viewing a single thread.
This fact doesn't really invalidate the initial statement though.
We would not be experiencing what we are currently experiencing presently if the Dems won. This isn't an endorsement of the Dems, just reality
I view voting as a means to steer us to possibilities. Revolution and change won't come through the ballot box but who gets voted in can influence that one way or another.
It's not even a fact.
Conservatives could say the same thing.
The thing about a party that does nothing but maintain the status quo is they will never make things better.
I don't think it's healthy to feel morally superior for preventing progress.
But that is literally superior to making things worse. It's not about feeling anything, it's about outcomes.
At some point things need to get better.
So we need a party that is interested in change instead of stagnation.
The DNC has been stagnating and rotting my whole life.
Nothing has gotten meaningfully better under their leadership.
I wouldn't say nothing, but yes your core argument is true. That doesn't invalidate what I said however.
You shouldn't make arguments for things to not get better
That is what you are saying when you reject solutions to the problem.
Thatâs just another way to admit youâre mainly upset about how it impacts you personally. Many, many people were already on the receiving end of US fascism and violence under Democrats.
What youâre advocating for is your own protection, and pretending itâs concern for others.
Interesting point but you're trying very hard to twist "I don't want any more people to get hurt" into a bad thing. I don't think these sorts of word games or speculation where you hammer someone's intentions into a mold that you can bash is healthy discussion.
Thatâs not their argument. If you have to misconstrue, you know youâre wrong.
The "we" in their argument is ambiguous as to the size of the group it's referring to, so no, I'm not misconstruing anything. But it's certainly more than one person (themself). Their argument is that the number of people getting hurt expanded when Trump was elected. Saying they don't want that is therefore equivalent to saying that they don't want more people getting hurt.
Voting for Dems is not saying âI donât want anyone else to get hurt,â as you claim they were arguing. If you look at the actual comment, theyâre just saying it would be done in a different way. They quite pointedly did not imply Dems would not hurt anyone.
Given the scale of harm is quite different, I don't think describing it as merely a different type of harm is accurate.
It is dishonest to claim the scale of the harm is different under Democrats than Republicans. Rather, it is the media attention paid to the harm that is most changed.
I am sick of this madness, pretending that a bomb dropped or a service cut or a person deported by a Democrat vs a Republican is in any way âharm reduction.â
Do you understand what is going on in our government right now? The scale or even intentions are not the same in the slightest and are entirely unprecedented. You could be disappeared tomorrow by plainclothes lackeys and sent to an El Salvadorian death camp with no due process. That is no longer an exaggeration. They're gutting nearly all government services and purging anyone who does not ideologically agree with them. They've destroyed our digital security and have opened the information of millions of Americans up to foreign and domestic influence. I hate the media too but this is not business as usual.
And the Dems are voting to approve the appointments and policies, and helping to fund these actions. But again, you seem to have some tunnel vision on what the media is feeding you, so I wouldnât be surprised if you legit didnât know the Dems were part of this operation.
yeah nice try, not working. deal with the consequences