Also Democrats: Ve shall round up und eradicate ze undesirables from society!!! Ve shall put zem into ze camps and ve shall enslave them to benefit ze superior class!!!
https://fxtwitter.com/lastreetcare/status/1806869510483476829
Both parties are the same power structure.
Sure, but one side is currently on a zealous charge trying to extend it far harder than the other.
Organise in opposition
Would be a fine idea if the party who would have power in the interim were not basically religious zealots hell bent on destroying everything that previous movements have built up. By the time the Dems had reorganised and rebuilt there would be little left for them to govern.
all methods to produce results including but not limited to; protest, strike action, lawfare, self-governance, direct action, sabotage, and armed resistance.
These are all good methods for getting noticed, yes. The question is, do you want to get your way because you made more noise than the other side, or because enough people believe in the same thing as you? The former is precarious, as it can be rolled back in the same way. the latter is more enduring. Maybe you can do the first and then back it up with the second, I’m not sure. Protests of various sorts can be useful to gain recognition and get people to think about your cause, but only up to the point you inconvenience them too much. After that you start to see opinions hardening against the cause.
And you can have extra points if you can name some brought about purely by electoralism that did not include either withholding or threatening to withold votes, since that’s the hill you’ve decided to die on.
I think I’ve been unclear somewhere, as withholding votes is what I’ve been saying everywhere, but do it in a coordinated and widespread way, not ad-hoc as people seem to be suggesting here. A small number of votes withheld without a clear explanation to the candidates as to why, and enough time for them to incorporate that into their strategy, says nothing to them and risks handing power to a worse and less controllable option. Get enough people together that their votes are actually consequential and have everyone contact the candidates explaining what they need to do to win their votes, then you’ll have a reliable effect.
Sure, but one side is currently on a zealous charge trying to extend it far harder than the other.
They’re the same side. You could do with improving your reading comprehension.
Would be a fine idea if
Handwaving bullshit excuses. Not the time. Most important election of our lifetimes. Unique threat. Blah blah blah Already addressed elsewhere.
By the time the Dems had reorganised and rebuilt there would be little left for them to govern.
No one here is advocating for reforming the Democrats. Again, zero reading comprehension, zero understanding.
hese are all good methods for getting noticed, yes. The question is,
Ahistorical nonesense. Change has almost never been made by electoral majority but by the threat of the alternative being less palatable to the ruling class / party than changing their position. As stated elsewhere there are countless examples throughout history both recent and ancient. Go and read something, anything really. You haven’t provided a single example of success for your proposed method dispite me asking numerous times for some. Because you’re full of shit.
I think I’ve been unclear somewhere, as withholding votes is what I’ve been saying everywhere, but do it in a coordinated and widespread way, not ad-hoc as people seem to be suggesting here.
No, your original premise was that you cannot withhold your vote for Biden because Trump would be worse. You’ve moved the goalposts when people have taken apart that circular logic. Now you say you can withhold your vote, but only if you’re guarunteed a certain victory within a set of arbitrary paramaters set by you that make it impossible, while hand-waving away or outright opposing and even supportive non-electoral strategy - just like you did with the point above. Almost as if you’re totally full of shit.
The vast majority here think electoralism is worthless and have made this point to you. You’ve then proposed and even more limited and worthless version of it. Plus showing almost total ignorance of the very basics of how it even works.
And then you copy and paste, repeat, copy and paste, repeat… we’re done here, I’m bored now.
