Actually the way elections work is the people who vote for a candidate are the ones responsible for bringing that candidate into office. This, in theory, leads to political representatives seeking policy that is popular within a large part of their constituency so as to have as large a voter base as possible. If you fail to do so, then you are likely to lose the election (See: Kamala Harris).
You seem to think the democrats are somehow any different. If you are my neighbor and you are arguing this much to vote for the fascist genocidal bigots that is the Democratic Party, then my neighbor does not want freedom, they want to kill Muslims.
Also answer the question. Why do you types always have such a hard time answering a question? Its basic social interaction, basic civility, and you can never do it. I suppose an imperious attitude does make sense when you are an imperialist like you are, but the democrats are supposed to be the civil imperialists, try to act like it.
They actually do know what the words mean and they are using them in a correct manner. Try to explain, using your own words, why you think it is incorrect, so we can see where you went wrong and help educate you.
And when challenged on their rancid beliefs, liberals’ only fallback is to act as either Sartre’s antisemite or a caricature of the evil communist bad guys that we all absorbed as children. “Shut up! Sit down! You don’t know what you’re talking about, support the Party if you know what’s good for you! You are like a child, and I am a smart adult who knows that assisting with a genocide is like eating vegetables!”
As with all fascist rhetoric, liberal portrayals of communism were all projection. When events and people move beyond their control, their only idea is to put on the 40k commissar cap and start trying to root out heretics and traitors. Because the problem couldn’t possibly be them.
That’s like saying that 5 wheels on a semi that stop turning are responsible for the truck turning right instead of left.
Candidates win elections based on the numbers of people that vote for them, not the numbers of people that don’t vote for them.
I’m pretty sure that’s how electoral democracy works, but check me if I’m wrong about that, if there’s some byzantine requirement for a plurality of citizens that frames everything in a counterfactual way.
Why are you types so hell-bent on making conversation as difficult as possible? You write as though you are trying to convince people to vote for democrats, yet you consistently flee at any chance of having an actual discussion, resulting in only being able to preach to your genocidal choir.
Typically in forums such as these a person does not write in order to convince the one they are responding to, but to influence the people just reading the sidelines. In order to influence those people you have to make your position appear cogent and reasonable. If you continually fail to engage with anything the other argues, then all you do is make yourself look stupid and uneducated, reflexively defending a position you in no way understand.
Your initial argument was terrible, yet instead of just writing that people decided to explain why it was terrible. The user you are responding to here did so via an analogy that could be better, but one that was completely understandable. Yet you decide not to engage with their argument, instead you behave like a petulant child playing dumb in the face of something they do not care to understand. Why then even write anything to begin with? What is the point of your text? I know I will not get an answer to these questions from you, since you types are allergic to answering questions for some reason. I don’t understand it, not even from a vitriolic or hostile perspective. When I am certain in my beliefs, my position, my reasoning, my arguments, then I do not shy away from answering simple questions or at least adressing why I feel they are beneath a response.
It’s the fucks who didn’t vote that got Trump elected.
That and election rigging.
A vote for Harris was basically a vote for Trump, since she was destined to lose.
Actually the way elections work is the people who vote for a candidate are the ones responsible for bringing that candidate into office. This, in theory, leads to political representatives seeking policy that is popular within a large part of their constituency so as to have as large a voter base as possible. If you fail to do so, then you are likely to lose the election (See: Kamala Harris).
So the fucks who put up a shitty candidate against Trump have nothing to do with it?
Dude, you just don’t know what the republicrats are. Really look into the two party system.
Your neighbor wants freedom as much as you.
I have. What about you? They are both the same party, catering to two different population groups.
You haven’t answered the question though.
You seem to think the democrats are somehow any different. If you are my neighbor and you are arguing this much to vote for the fascist genocidal bigots that is the Democratic Party, then my neighbor does not want freedom, they want to kill Muslims.
Also answer the question. Why do you types always have such a hard time answering a question? Its basic social interaction, basic civility, and you can never do it. I suppose an imperious attitude does make sense when you are an imperialist like you are, but the democrats are supposed to be the civil imperialists, try to act like it.
lol, liberals have been reduced to political incels.
“I’m a nice guy, you OWE me your vote you stupid removed, and if you don’t give it to me then whatever
Chadthe RNC does to you is your fault.”Removed by mod
They actually do know what the words mean and they are using them in a correct manner. Try to explain, using your own words, why you think it is incorrect, so we can see where you went wrong and help educate you.
And when challenged on their rancid beliefs, liberals’ only fallback is to act as either Sartre’s antisemite or a caricature of the evil communist bad guys that we all absorbed as children. “Shut up! Sit down! You don’t know what you’re talking about, support the Party if you know what’s good for you! You are like a child, and I am a smart adult who knows that assisting with a genocide is like eating vegetables!”
As with all fascist rhetoric, liberal portrayals of communism were all projection. When events and people move beyond their control, their only idea is to put on the 40k commissar cap and start trying to root out heretics and traitors. Because the problem couldn’t possibly be them.
That’s like saying that 5 wheels on a semi that stop turning are responsible for the truck turning right instead of left.
Candidates win elections based on the numbers of people that vote for them, not the numbers of people that don’t vote for them.
I’m pretty sure that’s how electoral democracy works, but check me if I’m wrong about that, if there’s some byzantine requirement for a plurality of citizens that frames everything in a counterfactual way.
Uhm, if the wheels are functioning, then what is their use? Man, that’s a poor metaphor.
You are calling non-voters useless while defending their lack of operation?
I have nothing to say. You said it.
Why are you types so hell-bent on making conversation as difficult as possible? You write as though you are trying to convince people to vote for democrats, yet you consistently flee at any chance of having an actual discussion, resulting in only being able to preach to your genocidal choir.
Typically in forums such as these a person does not write in order to convince the one they are responding to, but to influence the people just reading the sidelines. In order to influence those people you have to make your position appear cogent and reasonable. If you continually fail to engage with anything the other argues, then all you do is make yourself look stupid and uneducated, reflexively defending a position you in no way understand.
Your initial argument was terrible, yet instead of just writing that people decided to explain why it was terrible. The user you are responding to here did so via an analogy that could be better, but one that was completely understandable. Yet you decide not to engage with their argument, instead you behave like a petulant child playing dumb in the face of something they do not care to understand. Why then even write anything to begin with? What is the point of your text? I know I will not get an answer to these questions from you, since you types are allergic to answering questions for some reason. I don’t understand it, not even from a vitriolic or hostile perspective. When I am certain in my beliefs, my position, my reasoning, my arguments, then I do not shy away from answering simple questions or at least adressing why I feel they are beneath a response.
Lol, just throwing everything at the wall now