Voters don’t have a clue about how much worse Trump’s second term would be
mozz@mbin.grits.dev to 
inquirer.com
This BTW is how you involve in the story the reality of what the voters think, which is an important portion of election coverage, while still upholding your basic journalistic responsibility to communicate to people what's actually going on.
You are viewing a single comment
There’s a LOT of them here I’ve debated with them and tried reasoning with them like everyone else has. They’re either total lost causes, or right-wing trolls.
Either way, their message is the same.
I've seen these people pop up a lot here, too.
I just assumed that this is the flavor of far-right influencing campaigns we get to see on Lemmy. Since the normal "far-right and Russia good, liberals and EU/Democrats bad because {manliness/financial elite/globalism/cabal}" angle is pretty much a lost cause here, the next best thing they can do is reduce turnout via resignation and bitterness.
That's exactly what it is. The best way to get the left to stay home is focusing on ideological purity. They'll suggest Biden isn't a true leftist therefore you're not upholding your morals if you vote for him. Then say if you do still feel the need to vote pick Cornell West or Jill Stein. It's so obvious I have about a dozen accounts tagged now. It's even the same tactic foreign influence used in 2016.
> They’ll suggest Biden isn’t a true leftist therefore you’re not upholding your morals if you vote for him.
biden isn't a leftist at all
Spot on observation I’d say. I’ve had the unfortunate experience in dealing with them for quite a while now and I’d say not one has shown any evidence to support an argument against what you’re saying.
I think they’re almost all trolls. There tend to be little weirdnesses or inconsistencies in their stories if you really look at where they say they’re coming from and compare it to what they’re doing and saying. And their heart’s not really in it. There tend to be like 1 or 2 things they like to say about any given situation, and then once they’ve got their talking points in, it’s just content-free rudeness or sudden silence or them changing the subject to something else. Usually people who are interested enough in politics to talk about it to strangers on the internet have some sort of learned knowledge base in it even if it’s a little shallow or one-sided. With them it’s literally “Rail strike, union buster, QED, next topic pls.”
Trying to “win” a debate with them is obviously pure futility but I actually think it’s good for the discourse to have them around spouting this stuff for as long as they’re going to do such a crappy job at it. It’s like a politics version of Cunningham’s Law.
> There tend to be little weirdnesses or inconsistencies in their stories if you really look at where they say they’re coming from and compare it to what they’re doing and saying. And their heart’s not really in it.
can you explain this more?
How do you feel about American foreign policy in Central and South America?
So VERY well played! Damn that was well done man.
Bravo!
One of them shows up to start winding into their typical propaganda bullshit and you shut it down with a single question.
Beautifully done.
calling me a troll doesn't explain what they are talking about, but it is a personal attack.
I’ve been warned about you enough times to know not to engage. Go away.
>I’ve been warned about you
i don't know what that means, but if you make personal attacks, you should expect pushback.
Go away.
Holy shit you broke him my dude 😂
this is a non sequitur.
No particular opinion about it you want to share?
I would think as a person with opinions so strong about geopolitics and America's role in the world, that you'd be okay with enabling Hitler 2.0 to come to power in your own country because of them... you'd have some kind of opinion on it, even if it wasn't directly relatable to any current election going on just right at this moment.
Just one of those little mysteries, I guess.
>No particular opinion about it you want to share?
no. this is a red herring, and doesn't explain what you meant at all.
I think it does though.
>you'd be okay with enabling Hitler 2.0
that's a lie
Wait, have I misunderstood? Who are you planning to vote for / do you think people should vote for in the general election in November?
>Who are you planning to vote for
frankly i havent decided yet
i've been giving money to cornel west, but jill stein said the greens could hit 5% this year
Ah. So somehow we've meandered our way back around from Central and South America to "Voting is a waste of time; I as a good left-wing person am going to vote third party and here's why."
Welp, now that we've had that blistering rebuttal to what I was saying about how the shills operate, I have to get on with my day. All the best, love and kisses.
>Ah. So somehow we've meandered our way back around from Central and South America
you mean i didn't take teh bait on your nonsequitur
In what way is asking what you believe on a topic most geopolitically-interested left wing people have pretty strong opinions on, "bait"?
Edit: You know what, don't feel like you have to answer that; I don't want to continue the back and forth and I feel like the exchange so far pretty much speaks for itself.
Question I am too squeamish to answer = non-sequitur
it was a nonsequitur that would have led us away from you answering the question, which you still haven't done (and, frankly, i never expected you to do)