"Not voting is voting for the other side" is completely ineffectual as a slogan, since the type of person likely to not vote is going to immediately file it away in their brain as the obvious hyperbole-bordering-on-lie it is.
What's your point?
I told you my point: take a minute and be happy you got what you wanted before moving on to being miserable about the next, related, thing.
But I'm not miserable about Harris? I just told you that.
Or are you trying to say that making any comments that don't end with a string of 🎉 emojis is off the table for the next 3 to 5 working days ?
I get that maybe you misinterpreted my comment as anti-harris, since I didn't bother to make my specific stance clear and kind of threw it out there, but I've now clarified.
Why are you doubling down now? Just to try and retroactively justify some unnecessary receipt pulling?
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
You're not, you're miserable about something else instead. Specifically, people suggesting that voter apathy helps Trump. Or at least you acted in a pretty miserable way.
Okay so the emoji thing. Not allowed to criticise anything? What a strange and unique lens to view the world through.
"Voter apathy helps Trump" has a lot of baked in context that makes it kind-of-true when "You not voting helps Trump" just objectively isn't.
I must say though, I wasn't miserable when i made that comment, and now that you have received the initial thing you were looking for (or confirmation that you had it all along), I expect to see nothing but positivity from you for the next week.
It's fun to expect things. And it's weird to expect someone to be positive about everything when they were just accusing you of only being miserable about the election.
But yes, I am very positive about the election right now.
I think both are incredibly weird but you do you, boo
I take it this means you've reconsidered your previous opinion that Biden is the only viable candidate for the democrats
That was never my opinion. My opinion was that Biden (and a lot of others) believed that, and almost no one ran against him. So if people wanted someone else to run instead of Biden, it was too late. And they didn't canvass for anyone else anyway, something they got mad about when I asked them who they canvassed for.
But I was wrong about it being too late because I honestly did not think Biden would do this.
Pointedly asking people who their preferred candidate is to Biden doesn't fit that narrative, though.
How does it not fit that narrative? If everyone canvassed for another candidate, there might have been a legitimate primary challenge. But almost all the people who complained about Biden didn't do that. So asking who their preferred candidate was and asking them why they didn't canvass for them seems apt to me.
Ignoring that asking about canvassing isn't all you did, expecting people to canvas to have an opinion on politics is so nonsensical it actually brings us full circle to the deliberately ridiculous original comment I left.
How is expecting people to canvas before having an opinion any better than expecting people to donate? It reeks of elitism.
What? Canvass before having an opinion? It had been three years into Biden's presidency when the election year started. People didn't have an opinion of whether or not he should run or who else should be president by then?
You're right, I don't expect them to canvass. They clearly are very politically unaware.
You're really doubling down at every opportunity?
How is expecting people to canvas before having an opinion more justifiable than expecting them to donate before having one?
And I support Harris?
"Not voting is voting for the other side" is completely ineffectual as a slogan, since the type of person likely to not vote is going to immediately file it away in their brain as the obvious hyperbole-bordering-on-lie it is.
What's your point?
I told you my point: take a minute and be happy you got what you wanted before moving on to being miserable about the next, related, thing.
But I'm not miserable about Harris? I just told you that.
Or are you trying to say that making any comments that don't end with a string of 🎉 emojis is off the table for the next 3 to 5 working days ?
I get that maybe you misinterpreted my comment as anti-harris, since I didn't bother to make my specific stance clear and kind of threw it out there, but I've now clarified.
Why are you doubling down now? Just to try and retroactively justify some unnecessary receipt pulling?
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
You're not, you're miserable about something else instead. Specifically, people suggesting that voter apathy helps Trump. Or at least you acted in a pretty miserable way.
Okay so the emoji thing. Not allowed to criticise anything? What a strange and unique lens to view the world through.
"Voter apathy helps Trump" has a lot of baked in context that makes it kind-of-true when "You not voting helps Trump" just objectively isn't.
I must say though, I wasn't miserable when i made that comment, and now that you have received the initial thing you were looking for (or confirmation that you had it all along), I expect to see nothing but positivity from you for the next week.
It's fun to expect things. And it's weird to expect someone to be positive about everything when they were just accusing you of only being miserable about the election.
But yes, I am very positive about the election right now.
I think both are incredibly weird but you do you, boo
I take it this means you've reconsidered your previous opinion that Biden is the only viable candidate for the democrats
That was never my opinion. My opinion was that Biden (and a lot of others) believed that, and almost no one ran against him. So if people wanted someone else to run instead of Biden, it was too late. And they didn't canvass for anyone else anyway, something they got mad about when I asked them who they canvassed for.
But I was wrong about it being too late because I honestly did not think Biden would do this.
Pointedly asking people who their preferred candidate is to Biden doesn't fit that narrative, though.
How does it not fit that narrative? If everyone canvassed for another candidate, there might have been a legitimate primary challenge. But almost all the people who complained about Biden didn't do that. So asking who their preferred candidate was and asking them why they didn't canvass for them seems apt to me.
Ignoring that asking about canvassing isn't all you did, expecting people to canvas to have an opinion on politics is so nonsensical it actually brings us full circle to the deliberately ridiculous original comment I left.
How is expecting people to canvas before having an opinion any better than expecting people to donate? It reeks of elitism.
What? Canvass before having an opinion? It had been three years into Biden's presidency when the election year started. People didn't have an opinion of whether or not he should run or who else should be president by then?
You're right, I don't expect them to canvass. They clearly are very politically unaware.
You're really doubling down at every opportunity?
How is expecting people to canvas before having an opinion more justifiable than expecting them to donate before having one?