You can actually hold protests about the trains, and talk about them immediately after the election…
…and you’ll be doing so with someone who is slightly more likely to be concerned with their image, and hence slightly more likely to listen.
But only if you get out and vote in that direction. If you don’t vote - there may be a chance you just never get to talk about the trains again. Or even that talking about them is seen as illegal criticism of the state.
That’s the nature of fascism, you can’t be sure of what freedoms will be taken from you.
…and you’ll be doing so with someone who is slightly more likely to be concerned with their image, and hence slightly more likely to listen.
Why would they be concerned with their image if people are going to vote for them anyway? We have a candidate who supports literal genocide and that’s not bad enough for people to do something. What exactly, precisely, practically, is the mechanism for holding a politician accountable when you will always vote for them and won’t take any actions outside the electoral system?
This really cuts to the core of the issue. Why would they need to listen to what people are saying if they’ve already won the election? To bolster their chances of being re-elected? But then the next election will most likely be a repeat. Vote for me or else the fascists win. Then we elect them, even though they state while they are running that they plan to do [x]. We make a big fuss to tell them we don’t want them to do [x]. They follow through with what they clearly stated while campaigning. And then next election it’s the same thing again. The only bargaining chip we really have as the American people is our vote.
If the situation is really that dire. (And I absolutely believe it is) And American democracy as a whole is at stake, who is really the one to blame? The people holding steadfastly to their beliefs and saying that they don’t feel comfortable/ good voting for someone who is saying they will continue to support genocide? Or the person that sees people saying that and points the finger at them as the problem instead of hearing them out and changing your policy to gain their votes? I understand that also poses the risk of losing votes, but do you really want the votes of people thirsting for genocide?
All of this being said I do completely understand that this is the choice that we’ve been stuck with, and that things will be massively worse if Trump does get elected. I’m voting for Harris, but I can’t say that I really blame people who feel like they can’t in good conscience. And I hate seeing everyone telling them to just shut up, vote Harris and worry about it after.
You can actually hold protests about the trains, and talk about them immediately after the election…
…and you’ll be doing so with someone who is slightly more likely to be concerned with their image, and hence slightly more likely to listen.
But only if you get out and vote in that direction. If you don’t vote - there may be a chance you just never get to talk about the trains again. Or even that talking about them is seen as illegal criticism of the state.
That’s the nature of fascism, you can’t be sure of what freedoms will be taken from you.
Why would they be concerned with their image if people are going to vote for them anyway? We have a candidate who supports literal genocide and that’s not bad enough for people to do something. What exactly, precisely, practically, is the mechanism for holding a politician accountable when you will always vote for them and won’t take any actions outside the electoral system?
This really cuts to the core of the issue. Why would they need to listen to what people are saying if they’ve already won the election? To bolster their chances of being re-elected? But then the next election will most likely be a repeat. Vote for me or else the fascists win. Then we elect them, even though they state while they are running that they plan to do [x]. We make a big fuss to tell them we don’t want them to do [x]. They follow through with what they clearly stated while campaigning. And then next election it’s the same thing again. The only bargaining chip we really have as the American people is our vote.
If the situation is really that dire. (And I absolutely believe it is) And American democracy as a whole is at stake, who is really the one to blame? The people holding steadfastly to their beliefs and saying that they don’t feel comfortable/ good voting for someone who is saying they will continue to support genocide? Or the person that sees people saying that and points the finger at them as the problem instead of hearing them out and changing your policy to gain their votes? I understand that also poses the risk of losing votes, but do you really want the votes of people thirsting for genocide?
All of this being said I do completely understand that this is the choice that we’ve been stuck with, and that things will be massively worse if Trump does get elected. I’m voting for Harris, but I can’t say that I really blame people who feel like they can’t in good conscience. And I hate seeing everyone telling them to just shut up, vote Harris and worry about it after.
I like how you’re upvoted because you’re the even comment, so people assume you’re continuing the argument without even reading the post.