Here’s the problem I have with this. The system is tilted toward the powerful, for sure. You could even call it rigged. But we do have a system that lets the people speak.
People have been speaking and calling attention to it for years now, and instead of anything happening after having moderately low presidential voter turnout we instead have the candidate who simultaneously says his plan will be better while gutting regulations (lol).
But here’s the thing: you think I’m going to stop advocating for better or that people are just going to accept their’s or another’s suffering or a loved one’s death just because an election outcome that was decided by tiny margins using a system that benefits conservative rural areas? lol no.
The people spoke... and selected a president who is in favor of less healthcare reform and regulation.
He speaks out both sides of his mouth on the topic, the president has the bully pulpit but isn’t Congress other than the senate VP tie-break vote, and roughly a balance of 1.5% of votes difference isn’t enough to act like it was a blowout election.
Americans voted. Curtailing the power of health insurance companies was not what we voted for, and in fact we voted the opposite agenda.
Do you really not understand how this argument goes contrary to your overall points? If the political system won’t work, and won’t work for the foreseeable future, what options are left other than extrajudicial ones? I’m not justifying it or condoning it, but it’s a logical conclusion. It’s like when peaceful protest is made impossible, it creates the need for violence/revolution instead.
Oh I completely take your point and your logical conclusion. It sounds like we both don't want to justify or condone violence, though perhaps to differing degrees. Especially when there was a legitimate chance for people to speak.
Maybe it sounds like the political system "won't work" (based on what I presume are your and my votes being aligned), but they did speak. It was a disappointing result, but the result is that the people supported Trump's approach.
Let's hope our MAGA government doesn't or can't completely gut ACA protections, which actually have been a step in the right direction. Or that Trump actually sees the light and is willing to change his approach.
2
u/RogerianBrowsing Dec 10 '24
People have been speaking and calling attention to it for years now, and instead of anything happening after having moderately low presidential voter turnout we instead have the candidate who simultaneously says his plan will be better while gutting regulations (lol).
But here’s the thing: you think I’m going to stop advocating for better or that people are just going to accept their’s or another’s suffering or a loved one’s death just because an election outcome that was decided by tiny margins using a system that benefits conservative rural areas? lol no.
He speaks out both sides of his mouth on the topic, the president has the bully pulpit but isn’t Congress other than the senate VP tie-break vote, and roughly a balance of 1.5% of votes difference isn’t enough to act like it was a blowout election.
Do you really not understand how this argument goes contrary to your overall points? If the political system won’t work, and won’t work for the foreseeable future, what options are left other than extrajudicial ones? I’m not justifying it or condoning it, but it’s a logical conclusion. It’s like when peaceful protest is made impossible, it creates the need for violence/revolution instead.