In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote: [quote]
Y'know what we should be doing?
We should get the job done in Middle East.
We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us.
And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will.
That's what we should be doing.
Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space.
We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish.
We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries.
We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer.
This is what we should be doing.
some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof?
what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that.
I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans.
Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II.
Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment.
You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being.
But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules.
Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes.
And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe.
In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness.
Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings".
And then they get to live with good hydroelectric systems, good road/bridges, good healthcare, etc.
Its doing fair exchanges.
Otherwise, they'll get their own radicals running around running things and those infrastructures have be built by themselves without superior American engineering.
Yes because imperialism has proven to be the perfect recipe for getting these countries all those thin...... oh wait...
I cant believe this point is being debate in 2016. #realityisking
Japan + South Korea are projects invested by America.
On September 29 2016 03:29 RealityIsKing wrote: [quote]
Y'know what we should be doing?
We should get the job done in Middle East.
We should insert a puppet government in those countries that have to obey the law that they should not raise arms against us.
And we should be able to utilize their oil refineries at will.
That's what we should be doing.
Then with the energy gained from the Middle East, we should be turning those energy into scientific research such as rocket ships that can collect minerals from the space.
We should be developing unused land across the country into modern cities where trains can reach there and businesses can flourish.
We should be developing the next generation of automated robots so that our domestic companies can have more autonomy from the other countries.
We should be upgrading our nuclear plants to make them safer.
This is what we should be doing.
some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof?
what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that.
I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans.
Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II.
Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment.
You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being.
But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules.
Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes.
And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe.
In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness.
Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings".
And the fact that the Middle East is a region, not a country. It is made up of a number of nations, all that would pissed for a very long time if we adopted new-imperialism. Plus China and Russia would both see it as power grab they could not ignore. This is FP by someone who plays a lot of Risk and thinks that region of the board is easy to deal with.
Please learn to read
"We should insert a puppet government in those countries ".
That is imperialism. That is how it worked in the past. Puppet governments. You are bad at this discussion.
On September 29 2016 01:31 LegalLord wrote: [quote] Yeah this is a trainwreck. I, too, am done - I have more important things to do than watch an obvious farce of a questioning session. The expression on Comey's face suggests he is thinking, "fucking morons wasting my time."
It's internet lawyers versus the director of the FBI
Even real lawyers wouldn’t try this stuff because the Judge plays referee on this like this. If an attorney are clearly wasting the witness’s time and is poorly prepared, they could get slapped around by the judge. Congress doesn’t have such features, sadly. It is to bad we can’t have the notorious RBG drive down and slap the congress member for not understanding how pleading the 5th works.
Sad thing is a lot of these people are actual lawyers and they should know better.
I truly think many of these people have simply taken the perspective of "Hilary can not be president" and are just doing whatever they can to help. I think they know what is happening but think the stakes are too high.
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you why the "Trump cannot be president no matter what" approach is short-sighted, with this example as evidence.
I don't take the perspective that Trump can't be president. I take the perspective that a Clinton presidency would have a non-zero benefit over a Trump presidency. So long as one side is better than the other, everything else is irrelevant to me, so long as only 2 options exist.
Specifically referencing the "just throw Muslims under the bus to beat Trump" comment a while earlier.
The ends don't justify the means if you leave a trail of destruction in your wake. The mere words that these candidates utter have an effect felt all around the world. Imagine the fallout of that comment.
If throwing Muslims under the bus led to a presidency which, even considering the trail of destruction, was still even SLIIIIIIGHTLY better than a Trump presidency, I would unconditionally vote for Clinton without reservation. I would choose to have my father killed in front of me, rather than both my father and mother. If those are my only two choices, it's a slam dunk of a decision.
Think carefully about the long-term effects of the strategy you propose. If that doesn't scream "race to the bottom" I don't know what does.
I think the difference in our perspectives can be well attributed to the importance we place on principle. Do you deny that you would choose to have 1 family member killed, rather than 2? My point is that so long as we can establish our choices truly are as confined as they appear, it becomes a simple process. I firmly reject the idea that there are any more than 2 options this year. I dislike a lot of Clinton's policies, but I will always choose killing 1 family member over 2.
You (appear) to take a more principled perspective and reject the idea of acceptance of shit. You (appear) to not be willing to fight for having 1 family member killed. You seem like you would spit at whoever was making you make this decision and tell them to fuck off. I'd immediately tell them to go chop my dad's head off.
And while I am perhaps taking an overly utilitarian perspective, and I do recognize the value of principled dismissal of shit, I do still think the reasonable thing is to fight passionately for only 1 family member to die.
On September 29 2016 04:18 LegalLord wrote: Zero days since the last Republican witch hunt of a Congressional hearing.
Speaking of which, did anyone continue watching? Anything interesting?
I stopped watching, as I noted earlier, but I am still confident that I can answer: No.
On September 29 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote: [quote]
It's internet lawyers versus the director of the FBI
Even real lawyers wouldn’t try this stuff because the Judge plays referee on this like this. If an attorney are clearly wasting the witness’s time and is poorly prepared, they could get slapped around by the judge. Congress doesn’t have such features, sadly. It is to bad we can’t have the notorious RBG drive down and slap the congress member for not understanding how pleading the 5th works.
Sad thing is a lot of these people are actual lawyers and they should know better.
I truly think many of these people have simply taken the perspective of "Hilary can not be president" and are just doing whatever they can to help. I think they know what is happening but think the stakes are too high.
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you why the "Trump cannot be president no matter what" approach is short-sighted, with this example as evidence.
I don't take the perspective that Trump can't be president. I take the perspective that a Clinton presidency would have a non-zero benefit over a Trump presidency. So long as one side is better than the other, everything else is irrelevant to me, so long as only 2 options exist.
Specifically referencing the "just throw Muslims under the bus to beat Trump" comment a while earlier.
The ends don't justify the means if you leave a trail of destruction in your wake. The mere words that these candidates utter have an effect felt all around the world. Imagine the fallout of that comment.
If throwing Muslims under the bus led to a presidency which, even considering the trail of destruction, was still even SLIIIIIIGHTLY better than a Trump presidency, I would unconditionally vote for Clinton without reservation. I would choose to have my father killed in front of me, rather than both my father and mother. If those are my only two choices, it's a slam dunk of a decision.
Think carefully about the long-term effects of the strategy you propose. If that doesn't scream "race to the bottom" I don't know what does.
I think the difference in our perspectives can be well attributed to the importance we place on principle. Do you deny that you would choose to have 1 family member killed, rather than 2? My point is that so long as we can establish our choices truly are as confined as they appear, it becomes a simple process. I firmly reject the idea that there are any more than 2 options this year. I dislike a lot of Clinton's policies, but I will always choose killing 1 family member over 2.
You (appear) to take a more principled perspective and reject the idea of acceptance of shit. You (appear) to not be willing to fight for having 1 family member killed. You seem like you would spit at whoever was making you make this decision and tell them to fuck off. I'd immediately tell them to go chop my dad's head off.
And while I am perhaps taking an overly utilitarian perspective, and I do recognize the value of principled dismissal of shit, I do still think the reasonable thing is to fight passionately for only 1 family member to die.
Some people prefer to die fighting, those are the people who got us this far. You have to at least see how there would be no United States if our history was full of people who thought like you?
On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote: [quote] some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof?
what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that.
I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans.
Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II.
Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment.
You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being.
But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules.
Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes.
And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe.
In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness.
Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings".
And the fact that the Middle East is a region, not a country. It is made up of a number of nations, all that would pissed for a very long time if we adopted new-imperialism. Plus China and Russia would both see it as power grab they could not ignore. This is FP by someone who plays a lot of Risk and thinks that region of the board is easy to deal with.
Please learn to read
"We should insert a puppet government in those countries ".
That is imperialism. That is how it worked in the past. Puppet governments. You are bad at this discussion.
You claim that I've said that Middle East is a country when I've said otherwise.
Its too counter your argument which you are 100% bad at.
Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it.
On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote: [quote] some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof?
what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that.
I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans.
Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II.
Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment.
You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being.
But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules.
Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes.
And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe.
In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness.
Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings".
And then they get to live with good hydroelectric systems, good road/bridges, good healthcare, etc.
Its doing fair exchanges.
Otherwise, they'll get their own radicals running around running things and those infrastructures have be built by themselves without superior American engineering.
Yes because imperialism has proven to be the perfect recipe for getting these countries all those thin...... oh wait...
I cant believe this point is being debate in 2016. #realityisking
Japan + South Korea are projects invested by America.
Look where they are.
#RealityIsIndeedTheKing
Your reality ignores the history of US Imperialism everywhere else and indeed every other super powers attempts. Nor is Japan or Korea even good examples for what you are advocating.
On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote: [quote] some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof?
what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that.
I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans.
Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II.
Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment.
You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being.
But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules.
Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes.
And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe.
In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness.
Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings".
And then they get to live with good hydroelectric systems, good road/bridges, good healthcare, etc.
Its doing fair exchanges.
Otherwise, they'll get their own radicals running around running things and those infrastructures have be built by themselves without superior American engineering.
Yes because imperialism has proven to be the perfect recipe for getting these countries all those thin...... oh wait...
I cant believe this point is being debate in 2016. #realityisking
Japan + South Korea are projects invested by America.
Look where they are.
#RealityIsIndeedTheKing
you seem grossly unaware of how difficult and expensive nation-building is.
plus everyone else's points about the well-documented pitfalls of imperialism. You really need to study more to add something useful to the conversation.
On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote: Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it.
As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there.
There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable.
On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote: Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it.
As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there.
There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable.
The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress.
On September 29 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote: [quote]
It's internet lawyers versus the director of the FBI
Even real lawyers wouldn’t try this stuff because the Judge plays referee on this like this. If an attorney are clearly wasting the witness’s time and is poorly prepared, they could get slapped around by the judge. Congress doesn’t have such features, sadly. It is to bad we can’t have the notorious RBG drive down and slap the congress member for not understanding how pleading the 5th works.
Sad thing is a lot of these people are actual lawyers and they should know better.
I truly think many of these people have simply taken the perspective of "Hilary can not be president" and are just doing whatever they can to help. I think they know what is happening but think the stakes are too high.
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you why the "Trump cannot be president no matter what" approach is short-sighted, with this example as evidence.
I don't take the perspective that Trump can't be president. I take the perspective that a Clinton presidency would have a non-zero benefit over a Trump presidency. So long as one side is better than the other, everything else is irrelevant to me, so long as only 2 options exist.
Specifically referencing the "just throw Muslims under the bus to beat Trump" comment a while earlier.
The ends don't justify the means if you leave a trail of destruction in your wake. The mere words that these candidates utter have an effect felt all around the world. Imagine the fallout of that comment.
If throwing Muslims under the bus led to a presidency which, even considering the trail of destruction, was still even SLIIIIIIGHTLY better than a Trump presidency, I would unconditionally vote for Clinton without reservation. I would choose to have my father killed in front of me, rather than both my father and mother. If those are my only two choices, it's a slam dunk of a decision.
Think carefully about the long-term effects of the strategy you propose. If that doesn't scream "race to the bottom" I don't know what does.
I think the difference in our perspectives can be well attributed to the importance we place on principle. Do you deny that you would choose to have 1 family member killed, rather than 2? My point is that so long as we can establish our choices truly are as confined as they appear, it becomes a simple process. I firmly reject the idea that there are any more than 2 options this year. I dislike a lot of Clinton's policies, but I will always choose killing 1 family member over 2.
You (appear) to take a more principled perspective and reject the idea of acceptance of shit. You (appear) to not be willing to fight for having 1 family member killed. You seem like you would spit at whoever was making you make this decision and tell them to fuck off. I'd immediately tell them to go chop my dad's head off.
And while I am perhaps taking an overly utilitarian perspective, and I do recognize the value of principled dismissal of shit, I do still think the reasonable thing is to fight passionately for only 1 family member to die.
On September 29 2016 04:18 LegalLord wrote: Zero days since the last Republican witch hunt of a Congressional hearing.
Speaking of which, did anyone continue watching? Anything interesting?
I stopped watching, as I noted earlier, but I am still confident that I can answer: No.
If that were the choice, I'd be on the first plane to Russia and apply for citizenship shortly after. If I didn't have the Soviet passport to make that option viable I would probably join a revolutionary movement because at that point there is nothing more to lose. This cycle it's one parent, the next it will be another, and every year it will be further losses because no one took a principled stand against the race to the bottom.
If it were a more reasonable dichotomy - losing 20% of my net worth and some of my freedoms vs losing 15% and a few less freedoms to the party I'm "supposed to" vote for then I might very well choose the former. Accept some damage on principle for the sake of the future.
On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote: [quote] some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof?
what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that.
I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans.
Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II.
Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment.
You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being.
But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules.
Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes.
And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe.
In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness.
Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings".
And then they get to live with good hydroelectric systems, good road/bridges, good healthcare, etc.
Its doing fair exchanges.
Otherwise, they'll get their own radicals running around running things and those infrastructures have be built by themselves without superior American engineering.
Yes because imperialism has proven to be the perfect recipe for getting these countries all those thin...... oh wait...
I cant believe this point is being debate in 2016. #realityisking
Japan + South Korea are projects invested by America.
Look where they are.
#RealityIsIndeedTheKing
South Korea, whose economy was largely stagnant under the (corrupt) President appointed by the United States, until a military dictator took over and forced through sweeping changes that created most of the nation's modern infrastructure?
Japan, which was already one of (if not the) most economically/industrially powerful nations in Asia before and during WWII?
On September 29 2016 03:31 zlefin wrote: [quote] some of those are good ideas; some are already being done; some are fundamentally unsound ideas; some are just not possible. do you want a response on which are which, and the reasons thereof?
what we should be doing is using entirely sound ideas; and maek those decisions with an actual understanding of the topics sufficient to determine that.
I'm talking about the ideal direction for America if everybody in the country worked toward those goals without any form of disruption and where everybody in the country is collaborating for sake of Americans.
Yeah, the last time a country tried something something like this it was called World War II.
Here's a tip: the rest of the world doesn't like when one nation tries to take control of others for their own betterment.
You must be blind, nobody said that we should be waging wars against decent human being.
But we should be discouraging people that follows objectively awful rules.
Yeah, like those yellow devils or those Nazi apes.
And those Germans just wanted to clear out the Jewish rats from Europe.
In logical fallacies, you just committed two: the slippery slope and arguing with absurdness.
Right, because you didn't just advocate taking over the Middle East, setting up a puppet regime, and controlling all of their resources because they weren't "decent human beings".
And then they get to live with good hydroelectric systems, good road/bridges, good healthcare, etc.
Its doing fair exchanges.
Otherwise, they'll get their own radicals running around running things and those infrastructures have be built by themselves without superior American engineering.
Yes because imperialism has proven to be the perfect recipe for getting these countries all those thin...... oh wait...
I cant believe this point is being debate in 2016. #realityisking
Japan + South Korea are projects invested by America.
On September 29 2016 04:27 biology]major wrote: Stop spouting this nonsense of choosing between one or two family members being killed. In that situation most normal people would look for an alternative solution, that very mindset just shows you think this was the only possible outcome and there was nothing you could do to prevent it.
As I said, we assume no other choices. I think its a few miles past romantic bullshit to suggest anyone besides R or D had any chance of winning this election. The mistake you are making is your entitlement. You feel entitled to having a great option and you aren't willing to consider the possibility that sometimes shit just sucks. Kids get run over by cars every day, total bullshit situations where all that happened was some kid getting pressed into pavement. There's no divine force allowing for that to have an alternative scenario where his life is saved and he goes on to improve car safety. Sometimes awful things happen. Similarly, it is ridiculous to bring up this idea of "looking for an alternative" as if it will always be there.
There are a lot of people, GH included, who are simply unwilling to accept the idea that sometimes terrible situations exist. Sometimes, large groups "die fighting", and they all die, and none of them accomplish anything. There are numerous examples throughout history where extremely noble causes are simply beaten into the ground and their families slaughtered. And while it is a nice pat on the back to include some of these movements with later movements that went on to be successful, that is often very generous interpretation. In reality, most times what allows future movements to be successful is either a change in the situation or a change in the approach. By all measurements, many of these "continuations" of a movement are in fact a different, similar movement. Its easy to believe there's always a happy ending, but it is more realistic and strategically viable to learn to work within what has already been shown to be inevitable.
The idea that the two choices we ended up with are the two options we had is where your thinking falls apart. It reinforcing this idea which is so destructive to progress.
You do not have two choices. You have a series of choices across the ballot. Just because you don’t support one candidate does not mean your views cannot be reflected in government. You focus too much on the oval office and neglect the other people you are allowed to vote for locally. Progress can’t happen instantly and it won’t happen by ignoring 50% of the country and hoping they move to Vancouver.
EPT
