3 ms·

What exactly do you think the end result will be if his supporters believe that the election "was stolen from them"? Give me a break.

halfjoking 6y ago
It's harmless unless the Supreme Court believes it. I believed the 2004 election was stolen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXyl_YNA8Hs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXyl_YNA8Hs I didn't feel the need to do violence because I'm a reasonable person. I listen to the other side and try to understand where they're coming from. We need more of that and less fear of ideas. Maybe things wouldn't be so polarized if we did more of that.
- strikelaserclaw 6y ago
  The rules of the world, of democracy, are only made possible through human belief in them. Indoctrinating a large group of people with false/misleading information to try to weaken/de legitimize the rules and systems of democracy will more or less lead to breaking of them, at that point who cares what the supreme court believes, it probably won't have any effect, the damage is already done. I wish we had an educated, critical thinking, rationality driven humanity but the fact is a majority of them (on either side) are not but right now, only one side (not even most of R's, just Trump and his hardcore fans) is trying to weaken the democratic process by lying.
  - fao_ 6y ago
    Exactly. A perhaps pertinent point here is that Mao's revolution in China had less than 3% of the working class people behind it, by their own polling (Mentioned in Tony Cliff's works on marxists.org). A revolution can be led by a minority, and almost always is, you don't need a majority you just need power, force of will, and either a distraction for the ruling forces, or enough people in the ruling forces to turn a blind eye (As with Castro -- who got the middle classes on-side first to support the revolution, and then took power while they were feuding among themselves)
defertoreptar 6y ago
Isn't that more than a bit paternalistic? Who gets to decide what people can believe about the election? You? Give people the facts, and let them come to their own conclusions.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  >You? This is unnecessary.
  - defertoreptar 6y ago
    Why? Parent poster was making a judgement as to what people should be allowed to believe, and they didn't point to any authority or why that authority should be in charge. How do we know the parent poster doesn't consider themselves to be a good enough authority to decide? They seem to present themselves as one.
LakesideDrive 6y ago
What do you think the end result will be if talk is off the table? Considering the relative fitness of each 'side' here, I would expect any sensible progressive to be doing everything in their power to let their opposition air their grievances verbally.

halfjoking 6y ago

It's harmless unless the Supreme Court believes it. I believed the 2004 election was stolen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXyl_YNA8Hs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXyl_YNA8Hs I didn't feel the need to do violence because I'm a reasonable person. I listen to the other side and try to understand where they're coming from. We need more of that and less fear of ideas. Maybe things wouldn't be so polarized if we did more of that.

strikelaserclaw 6y ago
The rules of the world, of democracy, are only made possible through human belief in them. Indoctrinating a large group of people with false/misleading information to try to weaken/de legitimize the rules and systems of democracy will more or less lead to breaking of them, at that point who cares what the supreme court believes, it probably won't have any effect, the damage is already done. I wish we had an educated, critical thinking, rationality driven humanity but the fact is a majority of them (on either side) are not but right now, only one side (not even most of R's, just Trump and his hardcore fans) is trying to weaken the democratic process by lying.
- fao_ 6y ago
  Exactly. A perhaps pertinent point here is that Mao's revolution in China had less than 3% of the working class people behind it, by their own polling (Mentioned in Tony Cliff's works on marxists.org). A revolution can be led by a minority, and almost always is, you don't need a majority you just need power, force of will, and either a distraction for the ruling forces, or enough people in the ruling forces to turn a blind eye (As with Castro -- who got the middle classes on-side first to support the revolution, and then took power while they were feuding among themselves)

defertoreptar 6y ago

Isn't that more than a bit paternalistic? Who gets to decide what people can believe about the election? You? Give people the facts, and let them come to their own conclusions.

happytoexplain 6y ago
>You? This is unnecessary.
- defertoreptar 6y ago
  Why? Parent poster was making a judgement as to what people should be allowed to believe, and they didn't point to any authority or why that authority should be in charge. How do we know the parent poster doesn't consider themselves to be a good enough authority to decide? They seem to present themselves as one.

LakesideDrive 6y ago

What do you think the end result will be if talk is off the table? Considering the relative fitness of each 'side' here, I would expect any sensible progressive to be doing everything in their power to let their opposition air their grievances verbally.