He won the popular vote in 24. Meanwhile his opponent ran on supporting genocide and the fact that the daughter of one of the worst villains of the Iraq War supported her.

The “this is not who we are” crap is worn pretty thin at this point. You need to change who you are.

Don’t Trust The B in Apt 23

The electoral college dates to far before 1929.

Regardless, pretending Trump doesn’t represent the American public is cope at best.

And again, you’re pretending that the Democrats didn’t lose as well. If there was no way for a third party candidate to win (because they didn’t) there was also no way for the Democrats to win with how they ran.

They do in every other country. Heard the same about Mexico for years.

I’m not defending you

Yes. Plenty of states didn’t even hold primaries. You think it was just a nice coincidence they didn’t pull Biden until after the primary anointed Copmala?

Defending goat fucking isn’t a good look.

Yes. You need to look at the cost of stocks in constant dollars to avoid measuring inflation.

Trump is the symptom, not the disease

found the goat fucker

but because of its citizens.

You mean the same people that have elected Trump twice now?

They didn’t have a better chance though - they lost to a historically bad candidate. Multiple times.

The Democrats are a problem precisely because they occupy the line of resistance to the GOP. You want to stop the GOP, you’ve got to stop their enablers first.

https://librarysocialism.org/

I’m saying it’s literally impossible for them to have performed worse.

So talking about how third party candidates “can’t win” is nonsense, since the Democrats apparently can’t win either.

In addition to This Nonviolent Stuff, please go read The Death of Democracy, about exactly how the Nazis took power.

Contrary to Cold War revisionism (which had to paint the commies as villians), the tactic of the SPD to avoid violent confrontation with the right (which is why they unleashed the Freikorps on the left) was never going to work. The conservatives, and crucially Hindenberg, saw any democratic or socialist government as unacceptable. Compromises and attempting to keep the peace actually just let the Nazis gather strength and normalize their own violence.

The lesson here is clear - deciding to unilaterally reject violence against a violent opponent just means you give them the luxury of deciding when to strike, and that is usually fatal. Ask the dead in MN if the US administration is non-violent.

Yeah, SRA member, I don’t disagree. But just talking in terms of that comment.

Gimp’s sleeping

where unions were destroyed by an overwhelming state violence.

Hitler talked about exactly this - waiting just makes it worse, and your choices are fighting or full submission.

“Only one danger could have jeopardised this development — if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.”

it’s quite clear that the regime is looking for an excuse to call martial law, cancel the elections, and unleash the military upon all who oppose it.

They’re not going to wait for an excuse, or they’ll make one. You’re dealing with a false choice here.

, it’d be damned foolish not to even try the non-violent path considering how effective its been demonstrated to be

It hasn’t been. I would highly recommend a book called This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed, which is about exactly the use of non-violence in the US Civil Rights movement - the reality as opposed to the myth that has been forced down since. The tl;dr; is this - the movement was all nonviolent, it was a tactic that also recognized it had violence in riots to offer as another path, and most importantly, the US cared about public opinion internationally due to competition with the USSR. None of that is applicable here.