Nothing in the world is permanent champ. Voting blue stopped him for 4 years, not voting blue broke the streak and brought him back. My strategy stopped him for a while, yours invited him back in. I have no idea why you would think that’s an endorsement of your strategy. It definitively proves that my way is effective, and yours wasn’t.
from my perspective, it is the same strategy that created a political climate in which trump could be effective, and has failed twice now to stop him from seizing the presidency.
Never said it wasn’t flawed, but even with the flaws it’s still the most effective strategy so far. When you have a more effective strategy, your criticisms will be worth considering. But since you didn’t, they aren’t.
other societies have prevented trump-like figures from seizing power. we could look to them for the kinds of things we could try. or you could keep feeding the same machine that made trump in the first place.
tehy also weren’t stuck with trump-vs-trumplight for 60+ years as their only options. voting for trumplight and getting trump seems like it should be a probable outcome, and having better options to begin with seems like a better strategy than hoping full-fat trump isn’t selected. of course there’s also the problem that the democrats have been complicit in concentrating power in the executive for that entire time, so when someone gets in and uses the power in a way they don’t like (or pretend not to like), tehy really only have themselves to blame.
And not voting Dem was going to change that, how exactly? Where I’m sitting, it looks like you saw all that indirect power and thought “He should have the power of the executive too :)”.
It’s like saying “Hey, that sandwich doesn’t have every single necessary nutrient in it, might as well eat fishtank gravel instead”. My strategy being limited in scope doesn’t make yours any less impotent.
that didn’t stop him.
Nothing in the world is permanent champ. Voting blue stopped him for 4 years, not voting blue broke the streak and brought him back. My strategy stopped him for a while, yours invited him back in. I have no idea why you would think that’s an endorsement of your strategy. It definitively proves that my way is effective, and yours wasn’t.
I haven’t endorsed any strategy, have I? I’m saying yours is ineffective
It’s presently the most effective. It being imperfect doesn’t mean it isn’t better than every suggested alternative.
from my perspective, it is the same strategy that created a political climate in which trump could be effective, and has failed twice now to stop him from seizing the presidency.
Never said it wasn’t flawed, but even with the flaws it’s still the most effective strategy so far. When you have a more effective strategy, your criticisms will be worth considering. But since you didn’t, they aren’t.
other societies have prevented trump-like figures from seizing power. we could look to them for the kinds of things we could try. or you could keep feeding the same machine that made trump in the first place.
Correct: they voted for the major party not dominated by a Trump-like figure. That strategy works. Why would you think this point helps your case?
tehy also weren’t stuck with trump-vs-trumplight for 60+ years as their only options. voting for trumplight and getting trump seems like it should be a probable outcome, and having better options to begin with seems like a better strategy than hoping full-fat trump isn’t selected. of course there’s also the problem that the democrats have been complicit in concentrating power in the executive for that entire time, so when someone gets in and uses the power in a way they don’t like (or pretend not to like), tehy really only have themselves to blame.
Even during that time he wasn’t stopped. he was still pulling the strings in Congress. he was still shaping the national narrative.
And not voting Dem was going to change that, how exactly? Where I’m sitting, it looks like you saw all that indirect power and thought “He should have the power of the executive too :)”.
It’s like saying “Hey, that sandwich doesn’t have every single necessary nutrient in it, might as well eat fishtank gravel instead”. My strategy being limited in scope doesn’t make yours any less impotent.
so you know your strategy is impotent
The intended effect was to keep Trump of the Oval Office. It was quite effective in 2020.
but it failed twice. it has a 33% success rate, and even when it supposedly succeeded he continued to weild power.
33% > 0%, so still the most effective.
it was the least effective strategy, since he seized power twice. it totally failed twice.