New Amsterdam has suffered too much and there is a long road ahead to make it better. But I do not agree that a return to normalcy is the answer either, and one election isn't going to fix it. The old system is what enabled half the issues in the first place.
There is no army to snuff out the city, and destroying it now with so much instability in the world will just create martyrs.
Why do you believe some are more easily influenced than others?
This government formed after nuking an entire continent. We're the ones causing problems. We can be identified and located here in this city. Our reach has grown. They discharged soldiers even if no one expected them to. What comes next if we seem as if we're falling out of line? How long until we're too out of control and they decide that ruling more openly according to fear is important to maintaining their power?
I know you're familiar with all of this. I could be foreseeing an unlikely outcome, but utilizing local stability to build up a movement isn't unheard of, especially if it keeps the people in that movement—either rebels or pawns, no matter how you spin it—alive.
I will not deny we have caused issues on this planet, but we are not to blame for the systemic issues born long before we arrived. The governments are creating half the problems. We are simply helping to expose them.
They blow up New Amsterdam, they create a city of martyrs. I would not cross it off the list, but it strikes me as a very last ditch effort.
You have a candidate in mind that you think creates this supposed stability? Lynch, I assume? Why? People are already dying from a world that does not take care of them.
Oh, I don't disagree about the existing problems. This world is a fucked up, unpleasant place. It's a natural continuation of the world I came from, and I can see where it moved forward. Of course, with some more extreme actions. Nuking a continent hasn't happened for my world or time, but nuking cities? Well.
What I meant was that we're the ones creating the problems for the UN. They were able to suppress Morningstar and ensure their uselessness before we arrived. We've changed things.
And if we seem to be a threat, we'll be taken out. The idea is to make it so that they can't nuke an entire planet lest they have no one to control. Hence: Lynch. Appealing, moderate, and not too bold of a leader. It doesn't show that we're spiraling wildly out of their control.
I understand where your logic is coming from, but I cannot say I am inclined to support a vague return to status quo. I do not even know if I am voting, as appealing as it is in theory. I live here now and likely for a long while, and I am doing all I can to make this planet better, but working within the system is not something I have ever particularly cared about.
They already see us as a threat, they already know they cannot control us. We have wrecked their army. I am more interested in building momentum rather than placating them.
[ the threat of a nuke is weirdly ineffective against someone who has already died on one exploding planet. he's already made that kind of choice vs risk. ]
Personally, I see it less as killing momentum and ensuring that we have the foundation to build upon. You asked me before where we go next. Wouldn't it be foolish to believe that we have that? The public's mind can change rather quickly. I've seen how easily it can be manipulated to look in a different direction.
But perhaps you're right. Not slowing down before they can come up with a solution may be the best answer. I can't support someone who I don't feel can fulfill our needs.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
We just successfully destabilized the UN army and now you want to focus on the confines of a failing system?
no subject
By that I mean the entirety of New Amsterdam.
no subject
There is no army to snuff out the city, and destroying it now with so much instability in the world will just create martyrs.
Why do you believe some are more easily influenced than others?
no subject
You don't need an army to set off a bomb.
no subject
no subject
I know you're familiar with all of this. I could be foreseeing an unlikely outcome, but utilizing local stability to build up a movement isn't unheard of, especially if it keeps the people in that movement—either rebels or pawns, no matter how you spin it—alive.
no subject
They blow up New Amsterdam, they create a city of martyrs. I would not cross it off the list, but it strikes me as a very last ditch effort.
You have a candidate in mind that you think creates this supposed stability? Lynch, I assume? Why? People are already dying from a world that does not take care of them.
no subject
What I meant was that we're the ones creating the problems for the UN. They were able to suppress Morningstar and ensure their uselessness before we arrived. We've changed things.
And if we seem to be a threat, we'll be taken out. The idea is to make it so that they can't nuke an entire planet lest they have no one to control. Hence: Lynch. Appealing, moderate, and not too bold of a leader. It doesn't show that we're spiraling wildly out of their control.
no subject
They already see us as a threat, they already know they cannot control us. We have wrecked their army. I am more interested in building momentum rather than placating them.
[ the threat of a nuke is weirdly ineffective against someone who has already died on one exploding planet. he's already made that kind of choice vs risk. ]
no subject
But perhaps you're right. Not slowing down before they can come up with a solution may be the best answer. I can't support someone who I don't feel can fulfill our needs.