Acting as if fascists did not nearly successfully couped the last time they lost the election is so much denial.
The people that voted last time got a goverment that could not stop a convicted felon, certified rapist, enemy goverment asset and obvious fascist from running again. They would not have been able to stop a fast nor a slow coup.
Their loss wasn’t nearly so catastrophic as to make it clear they’re in the minority. The issue with democratic legitimacy is that it’s mostly about impression of consensus rather than pure numbers because humans suck at processing numbers. Sure, neither government might have the actual endorsement of the constituency, but it doesn’t matter if the voting portion of it is split closely enough that it seems like they do.
If, say, the Reps hat lost 30:70, they possibly wouldn’t have been quite so bold, and on the other hand, the Dem leadership might have felt more confident in opposing them. Moreover, reducing Rep significance to a footnote could create space for progressive movements to be more than a spoiler, which could give them more weight in the internal party politics.
Note, however, the abundance of “could” and “possibly” and “might”. The difficulty with counter-factuals is that you can’t really compare them to facts. It’s just as possible that nothing would have been different at all. Much of predicting politics and public opinion is guesswork based on incomplete information, and putting it to a representative test would probably be impossible and possibly dangerous.
Literally the outcome of this election was guaranteed back in August. The second the Harris/Walz started polling at 50/50 was when a contested election became the best possible outcome, and a contested election was always going to be awarded to Trump through the captured Supreme Court.
I get that libs are disappointed that the country just gave him the keys without a fight, but Trump was prepared for that fight. It’s why they kept shouting that our election was a sham and already decided; they knew they would steal the election if necessary. Dems were never going to do anything to stop it, same as they did nothing for Gore vs Bush.
If thats a rant to you I am not quite sure how to actually answer that. And if using language and arguments that that the user person might actually be able to connect to makes one less anarchist, I wonder what kind anarchists you expect on Lemmy
Acting as if fascists did not nearly successfully couped the last time they lost the election is so much denial.
The people that voted last time got a goverment that could not stop a convicted felon, certified rapist, enemy goverment asset and obvious fascist from running again. They would not have been able to stop a fast nor a slow coup.
Their loss wasn’t nearly so catastrophic as to make it clear they’re in the minority. The issue with democratic legitimacy is that it’s mostly about impression of consensus rather than pure numbers because humans suck at processing numbers. Sure, neither government might have the actual endorsement of the constituency, but it doesn’t matter if the voting portion of it is split closely enough that it seems like they do.
If, say, the Reps hat lost 30:70, they possibly wouldn’t have been quite so bold, and on the other hand, the Dem leadership might have felt more confident in opposing them. Moreover, reducing Rep significance to a footnote could create space for progressive movements to be more than a spoiler, which could give them more weight in the internal party politics.
Note, however, the abundance of “could” and “possibly” and “might”. The difficulty with counter-factuals is that you can’t really compare them to facts. It’s just as possible that nothing would have been different at all. Much of predicting politics and public opinion is guesswork based on incomplete information, and putting it to a representative test would probably be impossible and possibly dangerous.
As it stands, you’re unfortunately right.
Literally the outcome of this election was guaranteed back in August. The second the Harris/Walz started polling at 50/50 was when a contested election became the best possible outcome, and a contested election was always going to be awarded to Trump through the captured Supreme Court.
I get that libs are disappointed that the country just gave him the keys without a fight, but Trump was prepared for that fight. It’s why they kept shouting that our election was a sham and already decided; they knew they would steal the election if necessary. Dems were never going to do anything to stop it, same as they did nothing for Gore vs Bush.
It’s very funny to see people claiming to be anarchists ranting about “convicted felons” and “enemy governments”.
If thats a rant to you I am not quite sure how to actually answer that. And if using language and arguments that that the user person might actually be able to connect to makes one less anarchist, I wonder what kind anarchists you expect on Lemmy