Sorry to be so blunt, but you’re sharing a fantasy. The outcome will be no different from a right-wing autocratic takeover, even if it starts out more in your favor. The institutions of democracy will be destroyed either way.
You use “ruleset” like this is a game, but there’s no change-back in “ruleset” without a bloody revolution, after probably decades of suffering, and decades of reconstruction, if that - I expect we won’t see a return to pre-autocratic democracy in our lifetimes. Modern autocratic rule is too savvy, they will maintain the facades of our institutions while hollowing them out and making them meaningless, leading to efficient, soul-draining, Orwellian oppression like in Russia.
What you’re describing is a technical victory when you’ve also conceded that the playing board will be destroyed. And it won’t work as a deterrent. The opponent is irrational.
No, we agree that we’re electing a person with the power to be a king. That’s already objectively awful. The way it could get worse is if we elect someone who will actually use the power of a king. Because that moment is the end of the game, not merely an escalation.
Right now we have a candidate that I think we both agree will not use that power. Holding the presidency and keeping it away from those who would use that power is the best outcome, until enough Supreme Court justices turn over (which could even be a single 4-year term, though it’s not likely).
If you are playing hockey and suddenly a referee with real authority over the game starts using the rules of basketball, hockey is OVER no matter what the players do. It doesn’t matter what the players do.
Sorry to be so blunt, but you’re sharing a fantasy. The outcome will be no different from a right-wing autocratic takeover, even if it starts out more in your favor. The institutions of democracy will be destroyed either way.
You use “ruleset” like this is a game, but there’s no change-back in “ruleset” without a bloody revolution, after probably decades of suffering, and decades of reconstruction, if that - I expect we won’t see a return to pre-autocratic democracy in our lifetimes. Modern autocratic rule is too savvy, they will maintain the facades of our institutions while hollowing them out and making them meaningless, leading to efficient, soul-draining, Orwellian oppression like in Russia.
What you’re describing is a technical victory when you’ve also conceded that the playing board will be destroyed. And it won’t work as a deterrent. The opponent is irrational.
Yeah, expecting any Democrat to wield power they’ve been handed is ridiculous.
They don’t realize we’ve already lost, and we’re never going back to normal.
SCOTUS has changed the rules.
If you can’t come to terms with what has happened, the one living in a fantasy land is you.
Any American who does not think we are electing a King this November is a dangerously ignorant citizen.
No, we agree that we’re electing a person with the power to be a king. That’s already objectively awful. The way it could get worse is if we elect someone who will actually use the power of a king. Because that moment is the end of the game, not merely an escalation.
Right now we have a candidate that I think we both agree will not use that power. Holding the presidency and keeping it away from those who would use that power is the best outcome, until enough Supreme Court justices turn over (which could even be a single 4-year term, though it’s not likely).
No the game is over when the rules change.
If you are playing hockey and suddenly a referee with real authority over the game starts using the rules of basketball, hockey is OVER no matter what the players do. It doesn’t matter what the players do.
The participation trophy is no longer just an “I voted” sticker, it comes with a bullet of you don’t like the results: https://youtu.be/-OdM4_WO2wk
Pretty sure, after the debate, we’re playing golf /s