What compromise?!?!? Your “vote blue no matter how many people it hurts/kills” is the reason why the “reactionary right” has the base that it does.
Your politic of appeasement does not end well. You cannot compromise with reality.
Where do you draw the line? At what point are the Democrats too compromised even for you? Genocide abroad and concentration camps at your locale clearly aren’t enough.
What compromise?!?!? Your “vote blue no matter how many people it hurts/kills” is the reason why the “reactionary right” has the base that it does.
Never said that
No it isn’t
The right has its base because they know they can be increasingly extreme and their supporters will still fall in line while the left will purity test everyone to no end, driving voter apathy and infighting.
What’s your aim here, anyway? Propaganda for readers? Convincing me of something? I would say you’re not doing well on either metric, given the vast majority of your recent comments are fairly transparent straw men.
If we play along though, can your share your definition of a strawman? Would it be less of a “strawman” to say ‘You will advocate for your own death, and the death of others, so long as the Ds delay the trigger pulling by 1ns.’?
If you answer yes/no to that “strawman” then I’ll explain my aim.
Sorry, yes you did. I, ironically, got misdirected by the “strawman” bit.
My aim is to understand your thought process, check my own perspective, crowdsource actual solutions to little problems like fascism, and push back against misinformation/disinformation.
Specifically here, I’m trying to highlight the death spiral that results from the false dichotomy you seem trapped in. I don’t have a solution, but I need you to understand your “solution” is a core component of the underlying problem.
Do you see that question as a strawman because I made the consequences explicitly personal instead of abstract? Is it less of a strawman to say “you will support genocide abroad so long as the Dems delay pulling the trigger by 1ns.”?
What compromise?!?!? Your “vote blue no matter how many people it hurts/kills” is the reason why the “reactionary right” has the base that it does.
Your politic of appeasement does not end well. You cannot compromise with reality.
Where do you draw the line? At what point are the Democrats too compromised even for you? Genocide abroad and concentration camps at your locale clearly aren’t enough.
Never said that
No it isn’t
The right has its base because they know they can be increasingly extreme and their supporters will still fall in line while the left will purity test everyone to no end, driving voter apathy and infighting.
Where do you draw the line?
The minute a D is, on balance, worse than an R, I would vote against them (i.e. for the R).
If the Rs are enthusiastic about supporting genocide and the Ds are toying with going against it? I’ll vote D.
If the Rs are enthusiastic about depriving minorities of their rights and the Ds are meekly speaking out against it? I’ll vote D.
etc. etc.
So there is no line.
You will legitimaze, and actively advocate, for your own death so long as the Ds say nice things during the execution?
Nope!
Cool straw man, though.
What’s your aim here, anyway? Propaganda for readers? Convincing me of something? I would say you’re not doing well on either metric, given the vast majority of your recent comments are fairly transparent straw men.
Deflecting won’t get you out of this.
If we play along though, can your share your definition of a strawman? Would it be less of a “strawman” to say ‘You will advocate for your own death, and the death of others, so long as the Ds delay the trigger pulling by 1ns.’?
If you answer yes/no to that “strawman” then I’ll explain my aim.
lmao, tuff
I already answered your ridiculous question. Maybe you should polish up on your English reading skills?
Sorry, yes you did. I, ironically, got misdirected by the “strawman” bit.
My aim is to understand your thought process, check my own perspective, crowdsource actual solutions to little problems like fascism, and push back against misinformation/disinformation.
Specifically here, I’m trying to highlight the death spiral that results from the false dichotomy you seem trapped in. I don’t have a solution, but I need you to understand your “solution” is a core component of the underlying problem.
Do you see that question as a strawman because I made the consequences explicitly personal instead of abstract? Is it less of a strawman to say “you will support genocide abroad so long as the Dems delay pulling the trigger by 1ns.”?