It's a waste of time — Especially in an election year with so much on the line and post-primaries — to criticize Biden and instead better to criticize the groups who continue to support Israel. When the polls shift, the administration will shift... As has already occurred.
I don't give a fuck if you do, so long as you vote and support Biden in November. Palestinians and Ukrainians are counting on us, and the guaranteed-alternative is significantly-worse. I just had some other fool tell me they're voting 3rd-party, so they are clearly supporting the enemies. I hope you're smarter.
Except that the voting uncommitted has actually worked to move Biden on the issue (Dems calling for an election in Israel).
Has it? The real issue convincing those who are undecided or supportive of Israeli action; it's less to do with the minority progressives threatening to not vote because everyone knows progressives will hold their nose. But it's the swing-voter moderates and centrists who are less informed on the issues and easily-swayable by political talking-points — and who make up a far larger chunk of the electorate — that Biden is concerned about. When 1/3 are unsure if Israel is committing genocide and 1/3 say they're not, that is a problem.
It’s a waste of time — Especially in an election year with so much on the line and post-primaries — to criticize Biden and instead better to criticize the groups who continue to support Israel. When the polls shift, the administration will shift… As has already occurred.
It is clear as day that the only thing actually making Biden think twice about unconditionally supporting the mass slaughter of Palestinians is that he might actually lose the election because his opinions are so unpopular and brutal on the Palestinian genocide.
Right now is THE TIME to grind everything about the Democratic Party to a halt until Biden gets the message that halting the supply of weapons to an ongoing genocide is a non-negotiable aspect of getting leftist (and muslim) voters. He doesn’t give a shit though that much is clear, once the election is over if he wins than all the pressure to actually do anything other than say empty words goes away.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, the problem is this can only go so far before it works against him. All Democrats are doing is splitting his attention between two groups — and if he pivots too much to one side, he risks alienating an arguably even LARGER group of voters.
So as I said, the best bet is to focus not on finger-wagging to Biden, but finger-wagging to the actual Pro-Israelis and undecided (who are 1/3 of the electorate). Thus if you want to continue influencing Biden, continue influencing the polls themselves and Biden will reflect that.
He doesn’t give a shit though that much is clear, once the election is over if he wins than all the pressure to actually do anything other than say empty words goes away.
I think it's just the opposite. I think similar to the Afghan withdrawal once an election has passed he will take a very Anti-Israeli stance while amplifying his support for Ukraine as well.
He had no issues welcoming Nikki Haley voters to become part of his base probably because he knows how hard this election will be to win without the help of progressives and leftists. But he chose to move right instead of left, so he shouldn't be surprised when people start treating him like a 2000s era republican.
How has he moved right? Welcoming Haley voters is a sound strategy that is not mutually-exclusive to moving left, which he absolutely has on the topic of Israel.
Welcoming Haley voters is moving right. Defunding the UNRWA is moving right. The spending bill he was happy to sign still sends billions to Israel. Also, in that bill, it would limit aid to the Palestinian Authority if “the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court (ICC) judicially authorized investigation, or actively supports such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians.” Biden being more than willing to sign a "snitches get stitches" bill, bullying the rest of the world into letting Israel do whatever they want surely isn't moving left.
Tell me, what policy change has Biden made to appeal to Haley voters?
I suppose you've heard that old adage of "if a person sits at a table with 9 nazis, there are 10 nazis at the table". When trump welcomed the proud boys to his campaign, I had no doubt in my mind he was willing to cooperate with them to enact policy that would strengthen his coalition, and I feel the same about Biden with Haley Voters. It doesn't help your case that he's already pretty conservative to begin with.
I suppose you've heard that old adage of, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." After all, we sort of utilized that during WWII to fight the nazis,
So he hasn't moved his policies whatsoever for Haley voters; he's only appealing to never-Trump voters in order to ensure the real fascist doesn't get elected. You following?
Sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas. We could likely go on with these in perpetuity. Also, a lot of Nazis were friends of the US considering Operation Paperclip happened.
Also, why would Biden need to move his policies if he's pretty conservative to begin with? More oil drilling than when trump was president. Horrible border policy. Strike busting. No protections against all the bigoted state level laws. No Supreme Court packing. No nominations for an attorney general who would actually prevent trump from rising to power again (likely because trump is probably the only person Biden even has a chance of beating in an election). Green energy initiatives that are so poorly thought out that it now costs more to install solar than before. Wanting to sign a bill to remove a competing social media platform under the supervision of Musk and Zuckerberg. Bypassing congress to send arms to Israel to support a genocide purely to acquire land to compete with china's new trade route.
Biden is willing to become a hawkish republican to win on the democrat ticket and to be seen as "strong" to would-be republican voters because he knows he's lost the left. If you're okay with the US continually walking right with every democrat and running right with every republican, just keep doing what you're doing.
And yet, you act as though the better alternative was not sleeping with the dogs and letting the Nazis win?
Which outcome would you have preferred? Think ahead here, my friend.
Also, why would Biden need to move his policies if he’s pretty conservative to begin with?
I'm simply responding to the notion that Biden is "moving right" by appealing to Haley voters. I've still yet to see any evidence whatsoever of this claim. Inviting Haley voters into a preestablished structure isn't "moving right." Saying Biden is conservative to begin with != "moving right." One is a present state; the other is a transitioning state that has yet to be evidenced in any capacity.
When we allied with the Soviet Union and china, we weren't welcoming them into our country and into our political influence. We were working with them for a common cause of defeating the nazis. Biden is welcoming Haley Voters into his campaign and they will remain there even after (if) Biden wins the election. The room is full of conservatives, so it should make plenty of sense why leftists and progressives would rather leave the room than stick around people who want them dead.
If Biden moved any more right, he'd be trump. The only thing Biden has left that's vaguely progressive is not wanting to kill people who are queer. If pinkwashed fascism is enough for you, that's fine, but you have to understand that other people have higher standards.
I seriously doubt Haley voters will be permanently welcomed in, or rather, I doubt they'll stay themselves. I think they'll dip the second another Romney-esque corporate Republican comes about -- and Biden is just too left of Romney for them to stay for long.
Either way, they're a useful tool to ensure Trump doesn't get elected. Like you said, we are working with Haley voters for "a common cause of defeating the nazis" in November. Let's not put the cart before the horse. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Let's worry about make-up of the party after we defeat the literal nazis in November, yes?
I don't see evidence to support the claim that Biden moving "any" more right and he'd be Trump. He'd have to transition quite a few ticks before achieving that; nevertheless, we should always embrace "less Trump" than Trump himself, so I'll take it. The thing is, I still haven't seen any evidence presented whatsoever that Biden as "moved right" to appeal to Haley voters. Until you can provide a modicum of evidence to this, I think your claim is dead in the water.
They don't shift policies, they shift marketing. They will continue to support Israel because they are treating you with Trump and you have to vote for them whatever they do. So change is never going to happen.
Either vote third party or don't waste your time voting. You are getting nothing better with democrats. Trump is a candidate that was placed there by the democrats so they can have a better chance in the elections. In next elections they will simply move the goal post and get someone even worse for Republican party and whatever you are voting against in these elections will be the democrat position in the next one.
Trump is a candidate that was placed there by the democrats so they can have a better chance in the elections.
Either vote third party or don’t waste your time voting. You are getting nothing better with democrats. Trump is a candidate that was placed there by the democrats so they can have a better chance in the elections. In next elections they will simply move the goal post and get someone even worse for Republican party and whatever you are voting against in these elections will be the democrat position in the next one.
Ladies and gentlemen, a wedge-driving operative seeking to undermine Democrats and get Trump into office. There is literally zero evidence that "Trump is a candidate that was placed there by Democrats". There is zero historical evidence voting third party does anything more than get the worse of two evils in office — and Ukrainians and Palestinians would much prefer Biden over Trump any day.
This is the rhetoric of someone either not either not familiar with the political system, or intentionally trying to undermine the left by opening the door for conservatives.
There is literally zero evidence that “Trump is a candidate that was placed there by Democrats”.
Nobody in the entire country would've disagreed with that strategy at the time, for quite literally everyone including Republicans thought Trump would doom the party. Hindsight is 20/20
That, however isn't the same as saying Trump is a Democratic plant colluding in disguise lol.
Trump is a Democratic plant colluding in disguise
no one said that.
Nobody in the entire country would’ve disagreed with that strategy at the time
you are now shifting the goalposts from "it didn't happen" to "it was a good idea".
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
lol.
an appeal to ridicule
lol logged into a different account I see, wow.
(funny this is the only comment you didn't respond to, isn't it FederatingIsToohard LOL)
There is zero historical evidence voting third party does anything more than get the worse of two evils in office
no such evidence is possible: you can't prove a counterfactual. you can't know who the worse evil would be. further it's not clear that so-called "third party" voters actually impact elections at all unless their candidate wins.
No, we can. 3rd parties have been around for decades and won nothing and only exacerbated the goals of said parties by undermining the only party that has tangible results.
You prove my point.
we can.
it's impossible to prove a counterfactual. you are either unfamiliar with the scientific method or you are deliberately lying.
3rd parties have been around for decades and won nothing and only exacerbated the goals of said parties by undermining the only party that has tangible results.
this simply isn't true and reflects a myopic view of history. so-called third parties have been with us almost since the inception of the us, and have accomplished things inconceivable to modern politicians.
It simply is true. Even the longest serving Independent in congressional history caucuses and ran as a Democrat.
But do tell what any third party from Libertarians to the Green Party have accomplished, relative to Democrats for the working class.
Have you even heard of Nader or Perot?
Have you even heard of Nader or Perot
yes, and i also know that their candidacy had nothing to do with who won the two elections they are (erroneously) credited with spoiling.
They're (accurately) credited with spoiling said elections and it is yet another example of the complete toothless value of 3rd-parties.
any amount of research will show that, in fact, perot's candidacy decreased clinton's margin of victory, and gore won that election.
Any amount of research will, in fact, show that Perot did not win and 3rd-party groups routinely spoil elections without remotely advancing their own agenda they claim to care about.
perot's campaign had a significant impact on the politics of the 90s, transforming the democrats from a party (accused of) supporting welfare to a party of ... well... the fucking clintons.
Bernie had an effect on the party too, except he did it in a way that didn't backfire for progress.
Bernie understands it's far easier to take two steps back under Republicans versus maintaining what we've got, let alone making progress.
no, they don't. i reject the entire narrative of "spoiling" elections, as it presupposes that one party or another is owed (or owns outright) the votes. they do not. they must earn the votes, and if i so-called third party candidate earns the votes, tehy are not spoiling anything. they are doing what politicians are supposed to do: earn votes.
Historians, scholars, political-scientists all disagree. I won't argue with the proverbial-equivalent of flat-earthers, for that's just a denialism too far gone.
what any third party from Libertarians to the Green Party have accomplished
the prohibition party got a constitutional amendment passed. the republican party completely usurped the whigs.
Damn! You had to go back over 100 years practically to the Whigs!
as i said, so-called third parties have been with us much longer and have accomplished things modern politicians could never conceive.
"never conceive"?
Tell me, did a third party pass the Civil Rights Act?
That was pretty inconceivable for the time.
As was legalizing same sex marriage.
the civil rights act was not the work of the democrats or the republicans. it was the work of dedicated activists and, yes, other parties such as the black panther party. they exerted pressure onto the parties in government, and the parties in government acquiesced.
Welcome to what parties are —coalitions of groups, including activists working under a united banner — in this case, the Democrats.
The Black Panther party wasn't in Congress; they did not vote on it. They are not a "third party," in a governing sense.
But to answer the question directly: Yes, it was the Democrats who both supported and are primarily responsible for its passage.
nethier the civil rights act nor the legalization of same sex marriage is as concrete as a constitutional amendment, which is itself part of the constitution, and determines whether other laws are constitutional.
you will see that the issue is the provability of whether so-called third parties can achieve anything, and whether it's provable that voting for them has supported a "greater evil". i have demonstrated the success of so-called third parties, and its prima facie impossible to prove a counterfactual.
I have proved both of these things. Both With Nader and Perot, as well as showing the difference in actual progressive advancements between third-parties in Democrats is so great that there is little point in supporting a third-party — especially when the FPTP system mathematically goes against them.
But any time you want to make a bet a 3rd-party candidate winning versus one of the two primary parties, I'll happily take that bet on money.
This is the rhetoric of someone either not either not familiar with the political system, or intentionally trying to undermine the left by opening the door for conservatives.
false dichotomy. they may be familiar with the political system (even more than you or i), and not believe the same things you do. they may be a leftist. you are making up attacks on their person instead of dealing with the substance of their claims.
No, commie (username), I'm simply grounded in reality.
that's a thought-terminating cliche like saying it's common sense. if you can't support your position, that's no reason to go off attacking other people as malevolent or incompetent.
My original statements remain largely untouched; it's not my issue you deflected the aforementioned points. Why proceed further?
you deflected the aforementioned points.
this is ambiguous. what do you mean?
Please go back and read more closely; I'd rather not repeat myself.
if you can't use clear syntax, repeating yourself will do no good.
It's a waste of time — Especially in an election year with so much on the line and post-primaries — to criticize Biden and instead better to criticize the groups who continue to support Israel. When the polls shift, the administration will shift... As has already occurred.
I don't give a fuck if you do, so long as you vote and support Biden in November. Palestinians and Ukrainians are counting on us, and the guaranteed-alternative is significantly-worse. I just had some other fool tell me they're voting 3rd-party, so they are clearly supporting the enemies. I hope you're smarter.
Except that the voting uncommitted has actually worked to move Biden on the issue (Dems calling for an election in Israel).
Has it? The real issue convincing those who are undecided or supportive of Israeli action; it's less to do with the minority progressives threatening to not vote because everyone knows progressives will hold their nose. But it's the swing-voter moderates and centrists who are less informed on the issues and easily-swayable by political talking-points — and who make up a far larger chunk of the electorate — that Biden is concerned about. When 1/3 are unsure if Israel is committing genocide and 1/3 say they're not, that is a problem.
It is clear as day that the only thing actually making Biden think twice about unconditionally supporting the mass slaughter of Palestinians is that he might actually lose the election because his opinions are so unpopular and brutal on the Palestinian genocide.
Right now is THE TIME to grind everything about the Democratic Party to a halt until Biden gets the message that halting the supply of weapons to an ongoing genocide is a non-negotiable aspect of getting leftist (and muslim) voters. He doesn’t give a shit though that much is clear, once the election is over if he wins than all the pressure to actually do anything other than say empty words goes away.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, the problem is this can only go so far before it works against him. All Democrats are doing is splitting his attention between two groups — and if he pivots too much to one side, he risks alienating an arguably even LARGER group of voters.
So as I said, the best bet is to focus not on finger-wagging to Biden, but finger-wagging to the actual Pro-Israelis and undecided (who are 1/3 of the electorate). Thus if you want to continue influencing Biden, continue influencing the polls themselves and Biden will reflect that.
I think it's just the opposite. I think similar to the Afghan withdrawal once an election has passed he will take a very Anti-Israeli stance while amplifying his support for Ukraine as well.
He had no issues welcoming Nikki Haley voters to become part of his base probably because he knows how hard this election will be to win without the help of progressives and leftists. But he chose to move right instead of left, so he shouldn't be surprised when people start treating him like a 2000s era republican.
How has he moved right? Welcoming Haley voters is a sound strategy that is not mutually-exclusive to moving left, which he absolutely has on the topic of Israel.
Welcoming Haley voters is moving right. Defunding the UNRWA is moving right. The spending bill he was happy to sign still sends billions to Israel. Also, in that bill, it would limit aid to the Palestinian Authority if “the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court (ICC) judicially authorized investigation, or actively supports such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians.” Biden being more than willing to sign a "snitches get stitches" bill, bullying the rest of the world into letting Israel do whatever they want surely isn't moving left.
Tell me, what policy change has Biden made to appeal to Haley voters?
I suppose you've heard that old adage of "if a person sits at a table with 9 nazis, there are 10 nazis at the table". When trump welcomed the proud boys to his campaign, I had no doubt in my mind he was willing to cooperate with them to enact policy that would strengthen his coalition, and I feel the same about Biden with Haley Voters. It doesn't help your case that he's already pretty conservative to begin with.
I suppose you've heard that old adage of, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." After all, we sort of utilized that during WWII to fight the nazis,
So he hasn't moved his policies whatsoever for Haley voters; he's only appealing to never-Trump voters in order to ensure the real fascist doesn't get elected. You following?
Sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas. We could likely go on with these in perpetuity. Also, a lot of Nazis were friends of the US considering Operation Paperclip happened.
Also, why would Biden need to move his policies if he's pretty conservative to begin with? More oil drilling than when trump was president. Horrible border policy. Strike busting. No protections against all the bigoted state level laws. No Supreme Court packing. No nominations for an attorney general who would actually prevent trump from rising to power again (likely because trump is probably the only person Biden even has a chance of beating in an election). Green energy initiatives that are so poorly thought out that it now costs more to install solar than before. Wanting to sign a bill to remove a competing social media platform under the supervision of Musk and Zuckerberg. Bypassing congress to send arms to Israel to support a genocide purely to acquire land to compete with china's new trade route.
Biden is willing to become a hawkish republican to win on the democrat ticket and to be seen as "strong" to would-be republican voters because he knows he's lost the left. If you're okay with the US continually walking right with every democrat and running right with every republican, just keep doing what you're doing.
And yet, you act as though the better alternative was not sleeping with the dogs and letting the Nazis win?
Which outcome would you have preferred? Think ahead here, my friend.
I'm simply responding to the notion that Biden is "moving right" by appealing to Haley voters. I've still yet to see any evidence whatsoever of this claim. Inviting Haley voters into a preestablished structure isn't "moving right." Saying Biden is conservative to begin with != "moving right." One is a present state; the other is a transitioning state that has yet to be evidenced in any capacity.
When we allied with the Soviet Union and china, we weren't welcoming them into our country and into our political influence. We were working with them for a common cause of defeating the nazis. Biden is welcoming Haley Voters into his campaign and they will remain there even after (if) Biden wins the election. The room is full of conservatives, so it should make plenty of sense why leftists and progressives would rather leave the room than stick around people who want them dead.
If Biden moved any more right, he'd be trump. The only thing Biden has left that's vaguely progressive is not wanting to kill people who are queer. If pinkwashed fascism is enough for you, that's fine, but you have to understand that other people have higher standards.
I seriously doubt Haley voters will be permanently welcomed in, or rather, I doubt they'll stay themselves. I think they'll dip the second another Romney-esque corporate Republican comes about -- and Biden is just too left of Romney for them to stay for long.
Either way, they're a useful tool to ensure Trump doesn't get elected. Like you said, we are working with Haley voters for "a common cause of defeating the nazis" in November. Let's not put the cart before the horse. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Let's worry about make-up of the party after we defeat the literal nazis in November, yes?
I don't see evidence to support the claim that Biden moving "any" more right and he'd be Trump. He'd have to transition quite a few ticks before achieving that; nevertheless, we should always embrace "less Trump" than Trump himself, so I'll take it. The thing is, I still haven't seen any evidence presented whatsoever that Biden as "moved right" to appeal to Haley voters. Until you can provide a modicum of evidence to this, I think your claim is dead in the water.
Trump is a candidate that was placed there by the democrats so they can have a better chance in the elections.
Ladies and gentlemen, a wedge-driving operative seeking to undermine Democrats and get Trump into office. There is literally zero evidence that "Trump is a candidate that was placed there by Democrats". There is zero historical evidence voting third party does anything more than get the worse of two evils in office — and Ukrainians and Palestinians would much prefer Biden over Trump any day.
This is the rhetoric of someone either not either not familiar with the political system, or intentionally trying to undermine the left by opening the door for conservatives.
https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
Nobody in the entire country would've disagreed with that strategy at the time, for quite literally everyone including Republicans thought Trump would doom the party. Hindsight is 20/20
That, however isn't the same as saying Trump is a Democratic plant colluding in disguise lol.
no one said that.
you are now shifting the goalposts from "it didn't happen" to "it was a good idea".
an appeal to ridicule
lol logged into a different account I see, wow.
(funny this is the only comment you didn't respond to, isn't it FederatingIsToohard LOL)
no such evidence is possible: you can't prove a counterfactual. you can't know who the worse evil would be. further it's not clear that so-called "third party" voters actually impact elections at all unless their candidate wins.
No, we can. 3rd parties have been around for decades and won nothing and only exacerbated the goals of said parties by undermining the only party that has tangible results.
You prove my point.
it's impossible to prove a counterfactual. you are either unfamiliar with the scientific method or you are deliberately lying.
this simply isn't true and reflects a myopic view of history. so-called third parties have been with us almost since the inception of the us, and have accomplished things inconceivable to modern politicians.
It simply is true. Even the longest serving Independent in congressional history caucuses and ran as a Democrat.
But do tell what any third party from Libertarians to the Green Party have accomplished, relative to Democrats for the working class.
Have you even heard of Nader or Perot?
yes, and i also know that their candidacy had nothing to do with who won the two elections they are (erroneously) credited with spoiling.
They're (accurately) credited with spoiling said elections and it is yet another example of the complete toothless value of 3rd-parties.
any amount of research will show that, in fact, perot's candidacy decreased clinton's margin of victory, and gore won that election.
Any amount of research will, in fact, show that Perot did not win and 3rd-party groups routinely spoil elections without remotely advancing their own agenda they claim to care about.
perot's campaign had a significant impact on the politics of the 90s, transforming the democrats from a party (accused of) supporting welfare to a party of ... well... the fucking clintons.
Bernie had an effect on the party too, except he did it in a way that didn't backfire for progress.
Bernie understands it's far easier to take two steps back under Republicans versus maintaining what we've got, let alone making progress.
no, they don't. i reject the entire narrative of "spoiling" elections, as it presupposes that one party or another is owed (or owns outright) the votes. they do not. they must earn the votes, and if i so-called third party candidate earns the votes, tehy are not spoiling anything. they are doing what politicians are supposed to do: earn votes.
Historians, scholars, political-scientists all disagree. I won't argue with the proverbial-equivalent of flat-earthers, for that's just a denialism too far gone.
the prohibition party got a constitutional amendment passed. the republican party completely usurped the whigs.
Damn! You had to go back over 100 years practically to the Whigs!
as i said, so-called third parties have been with us much longer and have accomplished things modern politicians could never conceive.
"never conceive"?
Tell me, did a third party pass the Civil Rights Act?
That was pretty inconceivable for the time.
As was legalizing same sex marriage.
the civil rights act was not the work of the democrats or the republicans. it was the work of dedicated activists and, yes, other parties such as the black panther party. they exerted pressure onto the parties in government, and the parties in government acquiesced.
Welcome to what parties are —coalitions of groups, including activists working under a united banner — in this case, the Democrats.
The Black Panther party wasn't in Congress; they did not vote on it. They are not a "third party," in a governing sense.
But to answer the question directly: Yes, it was the Democrats who both supported and are primarily responsible for its passage.
nethier the civil rights act nor the legalization of same sex marriage is as concrete as a constitutional amendment, which is itself part of the constitution, and determines whether other laws are constitutional.
so? that doesn't prove that so-called third parties are impotent. it shows that one person made some questionable decisions.
"Questionable decisions," said the individual who had to dig back 100 years to find an example of any tangible progress made by such a 3rd-party...?
I think I'll go with the party that actually has a track-record of progress this half-century.
this is all just posturing and rhetoric. none of it speaks to the issue at hand.
Clear, substantive tangible records speaks nothing to the issue at hand that is discussing whether third-parties actually do anything...?
Huh?
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/9218081
you will see that the issue is the provability of whether so-called third parties can achieve anything, and whether it's provable that voting for them has supported a "greater evil". i have demonstrated the success of so-called third parties, and its prima facie impossible to prove a counterfactual.
I have proved both of these things. Both With Nader and Perot, as well as showing the difference in actual progressive advancements between third-parties in Democrats is so great that there is little point in supporting a third-party — especially when the FPTP system mathematically goes against them.
But any time you want to make a bet a 3rd-party candidate winning versus one of the two primary parties, I'll happily take that bet on money.
no, i don't.
false dichotomy. they may be familiar with the political system (even more than you or i), and not believe the same things you do. they may be a leftist. you are making up attacks on their person instead of dealing with the substance of their claims.
No, commie (username), I'm simply grounded in reality.
that's a thought-terminating cliche like saying it's common sense. if you can't support your position, that's no reason to go off attacking other people as malevolent or incompetent.
My original statements remain largely untouched; it's not my issue you deflected the aforementioned points. Why proceed further?
this is ambiguous. what do you mean?
Please go back and read more closely; I'd rather not repeat myself.
if you can't use clear syntax, repeating yourself will do no good.
I think my request is quite clear.
but you've been told it's not.
I can't teach reading-comprehension over Lemmy.
Either vote third party or don’t waste your time voting.