LogFAQs > #977042948

asdf8562 posted...

This is not a good take at all. As you seem to think Republicans winning in 2024 somehow guarantees Democrats will even get a chance to in 2026 and 2028.

Literally abortion is a problem in the first place is because of people like you toting your logic in 2016. Well guess what, your grand prize was a conservative Supreme Court that led the way to Roe v Wade being overturned. Elections have consequences. Regardless if you are madly in love with both candidates or not, one of those 2 are likely to win regardless, and they are both not equally damaging.

Each time a Republican wins, it makes it that much harder to reverse the damage they have done. This idea that some dream progressive is going to stroll in reversing total 180s on Republican legislation damages is not realistic. Things like education being gutted would and will have lasting damages. Republicans pushing to make sure their dear leader is harder to remove this go around would have lasting damages as their failed coup is already looking to be a failed proving ground they aim to get right this time if he wins.

Generations of damage is not a "small price." Especially given what Republicans are literally aiming to do which is to install their white ethno theocratic state with Trump and his sycophants at the wheel.

Except when democrats have the chance, they don't reverse damage or provide progress. Take Obama having a supermajority and promising to act on reproductive rights while on the campaign trail, then... https://www.reuters.com/article/obama-abortion/obama-says-abortion-rights-law-not-a-top-priority-idUKN2946642020090430

2016 was literally the result of democrats 1) Doing what they can to have Trump as an opponent so they can point and say "our opponent is so bad that you must vote for us because there is no alternative" and 2) Insisting that it's "her turn" to be president so they pulled all the stops to make Hillary the nominee through the party primary process which skews heavily in favor of what the party wants (since typically party diehards are the ones participating during that party process) even though she was deeply unpopular on the national level. Both Hillary and Trump had a below 50% approval rating before the election. They couldn't have chosen to promote someone with a better approval rating to ensure victory?