I think it does matter. When it comes to leadership, and winning elections, you need candidates that are more than just vanilla-scented diarrhea. Not only is is hard to get excited about diarrhea, but your nicer diarrhea is just going to lead to worse diarrhea. Gas lighting people about how this diarrhea isn’t diarrhea at all doesn’t help either.

I would have rather even fewer people had voted. Boycott elections where the best you can hope for is more diarrhea. Stop giving any legitimacy to such a system.

You say semantics, but I find that liberals genuinely can’t seem to decide if their political leaders are “super good people, actually”, or “admittedly terrible war criminals, but not as bad as the other guy”.

I’ve misunderstood you then. Can you explain who is perfect and who is good in your analogy?

I’m pessimistic about a general strike in the US. We don’t have anywhere near the union participation required, IMO. I’m talking about smaller, ad-hoc groups doing real damage, hopefully with broad (if tacit) support. See what’s happening with Teslas as an example. Next should come some serious anti-ICE actions. Sweet username btw.

Seems like you’re characterizing the dems as “good”. Aren’t they the “lesser evil”?

I don’t think either of those is very likely. The congress and judiciary are made up of people who used their powers to facilitate the current problems. A military coup is also pretty unlikely but I don’t really have much to base that feeling on. Trump dying might break the spell enough for some congressional action. Outside of that, I’m afraid that civil resistance is the only thing that will impede these deportations. And I don’t mean orderly protests on the weekends.

And and even stranger definition of “the good” tbh.

Do you see us electing ourselves out of this mess (that we elected ourselves into)?

As long as we have billionaires, we’ll have rulings like “citizens united”.