Not really. If your focus is beyond the next 4 years, you can argue letting Democrats lose is the best strategy to stop wars on the planet down the line.
In fact if Kamala was going to loose either way (as it happened) it’s a good thing that she lost hard.
So if the camps were happening either way, better not to vote for the guy that says “vote me and the camps will have regulations in regard to human experimentation!” and strictly go for “fuck that shit”.
I get people still being affected by the election topics, but it’s not now.
Not really. If your focus is beyond the next 4 years, you can argue letting Democrats lose is the best strategy to stop wars on the planet down the line.
In fact if Kamala was going to loose either way (as it happened) it’s a good thing that she lost hard.
Accelerationist arguments always show that the speaker isn’t nearly as smart as they think they are.
Because accelerationist arguments are always wrong.
Anyone who makes that argument has no idea how bad things can get and how fast.
but in the long term there’s always a swing back the other way
Right. Germany got it’s act together…
…AFTER THE DEATH CAMPS.
…after a couple of generations, with many years of misery.
Yes?
So if the camps were happening either way, better not to vote for the guy that says “vote me and the camps will have regulations in regard to human experimentation!” and strictly go for “fuck that shit”.
I get people still being affected by the election topics, but it’s not now.
You can argue that. It is a stupid argument, but you can argue it.