politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Okay, so to anyone who reads this exchange: I’m pretty sure this is a bot.
On top of it being a very botty response to my question, that didn’t even answer my question, they typed out three whole paragraphs with a thesis statement and conclusion, with some bold-face typing…in less than a minute. That’s fucking sketch.
But I’ll respond back at least once more:
Again, if you believe that the “electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate” and you don’t like voting “against your conscience”, then it seems like you value honest voting very highly.
But honest voting goes beyond parties. If you value voting honestly, then you should vote for the person you think is best suited for the presidency. It doesn’t have to be Jill Stein, it can be any of the other hundreds of millions of Americans, as a write-in.
What is your take on that?
Careful, accusing someone of being a bot is against community rules and this user has and will report any perceived rules infringement.
The response in question is a copy-pasted spiel they have employed before to several users - me included. Often repeated verbatim, and sometimes multiple times to the same person such as to me here and here (within minutes of each other).
I'm not sure of any rules being broken, but it doesn't feel like good-faith organic discussion. Might just be able to skirt around the rules though.
Fair enough, thanks for the background. And I didn’t know that was a rule, so thanks.
I did also respond to the user organically in the second part of my post, so hopefully my post stays within the rules.
Oh I have no reason to report anything in this thread. It's just that some users can be very uncivil, which is against the rules.
You thought I was a bot and gave your reasons. And I replied to you telling why that assumption would be incorrect. That's fine.
But I have had some very nasty, very personal, very uncivil responses. And I did have to report them.
And the mods removed them for the toxicity. And those users got REALLY mad about it. One even sent me DM's that he would "follow me around, just to keep an eye on" me. So yeah, creepy stuff.
All because I posted political news story about the Green Party to this political news sub. lol
This is true!
Except I get asked and accused of the EXACT same things over and over. So of course my responses will match for the sake of brevity.
Especially the whole, "Jill Stein is a russian asset" one. I always have to post a link to the newsweek article rebutting that.
I've discussed this poster in other threads. I suspect that the user is a real person using an LLM to respond to messages, but they enter the chat when directly called out on it, and give a human response to sow confusion.
However, as you can see from the OP response you directly responded to and others in the thread, the "LLM"-style responses are laser focused on splitting the left vote. They always jump to "stop trying to silence my third party vote" straw men arguments, and don't respond directly to the points being made (except when accused of being a bot, and then they respond to that).
At the very least, the user is extremely suspicious and not credible.
I agree that your hypothesis seems likely. You can see a sharp shift in tone too, between "LLM-style" essays and then sudden abrupt uses of stuff like "lmao" and smiley faces ":)". I'm surprised they've been able to avoid being banned, but I guess they seem very focused on skirting the rules by the letter of the law. I would argue they don't engage in good-faith arguments, but maybe that's not bannable, what do I know.
I still can't say for sure whether they are intending on promoting third-party voting for political reasons, or if they're just addicted to arguing online and have found a fertile hunting ground.
Yeah, I think that’s a very reasonable assessment.
I like to come to conversations in a good-faith manner anyway, cuz I mean, you never know for sure.
But of course, there’s a limit to that, especially when they stop answering your questions, and later straight up say “you will never change my mind about XYZ” like that’s a good-faith thing to say.
This has been my exact suspicion as well. A staggering number of their responses fall end with 'Well I am voting third party whether you like it or not. Accept that.', or some variation of that kind of a phrase.
How am I bot? Feel free to look at my past posts and conversations. lol
I 100 percent agree. And I think that Jill Stein is best suited for the presidency right now. Also, voting for someone who is officially on the ballot gives the party more recognition, influence, and potential access to resources and ballot access in future elections, which wouldn't happen with a write-in vote that doesn't carry the same weight or visibility.
Now having said that, if a good socialist candidate is allowed on my state ballot, I may switch over, depending on who it was.
But I really, really like Stein's pick for VP. So far. I mean, if something comes out or it's uncovered that he's done something wrong, I could change my mind.
Also, just because someone goes against the mainstream grain about who they vote for, doesn't make them a bot. Just saying...
My bad, I didn’t know you just had a copy-pasted snippet. That snippet didn’t feel like it answered my question at all, hence my suspicion.
Again, that suspicion had nothing to do with your apparent views, it was entirely because it didn’t feel like you were responding to my question at all - it was a long, well-written, yet generic, almost immediate response.
But I am sorry for sounding accusatory.
I do generally agree with this sentiment, so don’t get me wrong on that. However, I see this is a strategic/practical consideration in who to vote for. I don’t see it as a valid consideration in an honest vote.
My point is this: it sounds like you are a principled voter, but one who’s not blind to strategic or practical considerations. That’s how I feel as well, but I value the spoiler effect very highly in my strategic/practical consideration. Fighting the political science inches us both closer to our least preferred candidate getting elected.
I wish that your energy of “Consider voting for Jill Stein” was instead put towards “fight for electoral reform, so we can all honestly vote for candidates like Jill Stein without fear”.
No need to be sorry at all. I took your comment within the spirit it was given. I wasn't offend or upset at all. You had your suspicion, voiced it, and I gave my response. All good, friend!
Well, for me, it's the person I believe in the most and who aligns with my views. Jill Stein fills in those blanks. I don't care about "spoiler" voting. I vote for who I want.
If the American people choose someone else as president, regardless of who that is, I'm fine with the decision. We're a democracy.
Almost half of the American people aren't gonna vote for Harris. That's what part of democracy is. Our personal favorite side doesn't always win. Regardless of the political spectrum.
I put it towards both. I 100 percent agree with and fight for electoral form. The thing is that the 2 main parties never want that at the time that they are the winning candidates and in office.
How many years have Democrats had a chance to change it? How many years have Republican had a chance to change it?
Neither party has, nor wants to.
They aren't getting my vote.
Also, I don't have "fear" of any political party.
Normally I’d feel the same way, but it sounds like you’re not concerned about a 2nd Trump term. I am VERY concerned.
If Trump wins, he’ll have 4 years with a SCOTUS supermajority, a platform that was written for him that will deal massive damage if even a fraction of it is implemented, and an already promised decision to implement Schedule F which’ll increase the appointive power of the presidency by a factor of 12-100. That’s literally not even the half of it.
We have to send a message that any of that is NOT OKAY. That message cannot be sent if he wins.
Perhaps you’re telling the truth, but it just doesn’t feel like that, simply because most of your posts appear to have been about defending third party candidates rather than speaking in favor of reform (I say “appear” because I have not combed through your entire post history or anything, nor will I).
I will say in your defense that recent news in the US doesn’t say anything about electoral reform, so there’d be no recent developments to post. I’m just talking about the impression it leaves that it appears to go unmentioned by you.
This is not true in general. See this. Ranked choice is slowly being adopted at the local level, and made it to the state level in Alaska and Maine. Yes, it’s banned statewide in several states, but that’s a hell of a long way from being banned everywhere. It’s slow but steady progress, from the ground up.
Although ranked choice isn’t my preferred system, it’s something, and that something sets the precedent that reform is possible.
Correct, I am not. I don't think the world ends if Trump wins again. (But he won't win anyway, so I'm double unconcerned.)
Well, you feel that YOU have to send that message. And I support your right to do that.
I, however, don't feel the need to do that.
I am telling the truth. And I love the idea of reform. But no, you don't have time to go thru all my posts. (tho you are welcome to!) People argue with me a lot, and are very mad that I am not voting for their candidate, so it would take you forever. But I have advocated for reform plenty of times.
But I’m not going to sit around waiting for that; I’m going to vote for the candidate I believe in now.
So you aren’t concerned about any of the issues I brought up - the 4yrs of conservative SCOTUS supermajority, Project 2025, Schedule F, etc?
Are you not concerned about Trump potentially invoking the insurrection act, especially noting that has said he would consider sending troops into liberal cities “to curb crime waves”?
Even forgetting things he “plausibly might not want to do”, his official policy plans are very concerning to me.
I don’t think the world ends if Trump wins either, but I think it’ll be very bad. Furthermore, I think 4 years of the president having zero climate protection policy will be detrimental to the environment. It feels ironic that you support the Green Party but aren’t concerned about a Trump presidency in that regard.
Nope. Pure fearmongering created by Democrats.
If Trump somehow won (which he won't), then in 4 years, we'd have another election. And in that election, Democrats would be saying variations of "Republicans are trying to destroy the world. This is the most important election ever!" like they have always said.
And the Republicans would be saying variations of "Libs are trying to destroy the world. This is the most important election ever!" like they have always said.
I won't be voting for either one of them.
Again. This isn’t about stopping apocalypse, or the end of the world, or anything like that. It’s about stopping a guy who has literally threatened to send the national guard into cities…just cuz.
And again. The irony of supposedly supporting the Green Party, while not caring about the threat of Trump on the environment. When caring about the environment is literally the namesake of the party……
Please, at least read my link to his Agenda 47 if you have not already done so. Or watch his official Agenda 47 videos, which are videos and not easily navigable text for a reason.
Stop trying to bully me. Stop trying to guilt me. Stop trying to sway me.
I'm voting for Jill Stein. I support you right to vote for who you want to. Just like I am allowed to.
Accept it. Move on. I'm NOT voting for your candidate. Do you understand?
This is not a good-faith response to my comment and you ought to know that.
I’m not bullying you. You’re the one who put forward the idea that democrats think a trump presidency would destroy the world and/or cause an apocalypse, and I am asserting, as a democrat, that neither of those are true.
I was genuinely interested in how you’d respond to Trump’s Agenda 47, if you had not already researched it. And I was genuinely interested in how you’d rebut the irony I pointed out twice, but you have not done so.
I don’t really care if you don’t decide within the next 24hrs to vote Harris or anything like that, but I was interested in, at least on paper, having a good faith discussion where I put forth new information and a perceived cognitive dissonance in your stated values, and you’d read at least some of that information, and/or address the perceived dissonance.
I don't care. I'm voting for Jill Stein. Accept it. Move on.
I don’t want to leave the conversation with a “cap” on it that has animosity behind it.
I’m still interested in how you respond to Agenda 47, and how you’d reconcile the Green Party candidate being your #1 pick, with not caring about a Trump victory when Trump is worst candidate for the environment.
If you don’t want to continue the conversation, you could simply stop responding. I can’t stop you from doing that, nor do I have any desire to.
It's simple. I'm not voting "against" anyone; I'm voting "for" someone. I'm not worried about who might win. I'm voting for the person who best aligns with my values, and that's Jill Stein.
I get it—you’re scared of Trump. You hate him. Fine. But half the country doesn’t hate him, and that’s just the way things are.
I’m not changing my mind. I’m not suddenly going to stand up and say, "OMG, @aalavre2 was right. I’ve read up on Trump this weekend, and now I’m scared! He totally talked me into voting for Harris!"
That’s not going to happen. You act like I’m someone who just moved here from another country and has never heard of Trump. You keep saying variations of "But what about..." or "How are you going to respond to..."
Dude, I don’t care. I’m not scared of Trump or his administration. If he wins, I won’t jump into a pile of pillows and cry, "Why? Why didn’t I vote for Harris?! Why didn’t I listen to the people on Lemmy?!"
I’m voting for Jill Stein because I like her and I want to vote for her. It’s not that deep. It’s not some deep philosophical reflection on my feelings about the nature of society.
You need to accept it. I have the right to vote for who I want. You’re trying to bully and guilt me into doing something that you want me to do. Which, by the way, is exactly what Trump voters try to do as well.
I support you voting for whoever you want. I don’t expect you to explain or apologize for your choice. Please offer me the same courtesy.
You sure do, but If you're constantly posting on a forum trying to get other people to do the same, then we have the right to call you obtuse. It's not bullying.
I have posted articles on libertarian party political news and Socialist party political news in this sub. Parties that I am not voting for.
How have I been "trying to get other people to do the same"?
This Lemmy communty is a politcal news community that accepts political news posts. It's NOT just for pro-democrat news. It's for any news article that has to do with politics.
I post political news articles that write about facts of political parties.
Are you telling the MANY posters of every single pro-democrat news story that they are "constantly posting on a forum trying to get other people" to vote the way they do?
This community is well-moded. If they find a news article that doesn't fit the tone of this comminuty, they remove it.
I simply reply to messages directed toward me. I'm not "trying" to sway anyone.
In fact, if you actually read my posts, you'd see that I end many of them with variations of me saying "I respect and support your right to vote for who you want. Please do the same for me."
And calling me a part of a russian troll farm, or saying that a I am a Trump voter simply because I am voting for a third party, or trying to guilt me by saying, "What about... don't you care about all the..." IS a form of bullying when it's repeated over and over to me, after I have stated my positions.
I respect and support your right to vote for who you want. Please do the same for me. Thank you!
Which values, exactly? She is the Green Party candidate, aka the candidate for the pro-environment party, correct? Is it safe to say that the environment is an important issue for you?
I don’t care what half the country thinks about Trump. I’m interested to know what you think of Trump. Post-Agenda 47 research.
And I already told you that I don’t expect you to do that. That’s what it means to say “I don’t really care if you don’t decide within the next 24hrs to vote Harris or anything like that”.
Like I said above…agreed!
No, I am not. I’m sure there are tens of millions of people who haven’t combed through Trump’s official policies. It’s not exactly easy to do so, after all, when it’s mostly videos. Even harder to do so when some of the most important policies are hidden behind boring names like “Schedule F”.
I’m simply pointing at research you could be doing to inform you of a candidate who I see as the on-paper opposite of Jill Stein.
I get that you’re not going to say and do such an oddly specific thing. I get that you’re saying you don’t care, and I am telling you, respectfully, “well, maybe you should care”.
And I never said it was! But when you put as simply as “because I like her”, it sounds like you’re voting against your interests, when I’d expect you to see Trump as the polar opposite.
Do you simply think that politics, and who ends up president, don’t matter that much? If that’s how you feel, that’d clear up a lot of things…
Yup
No, I am not. You’ve accused me of both belittling and bullying in a single comment, and I’m just sitting here asking if you read any if my links or chewed on my point about supporting the Green Party.
Now I’m asking you, directly, if you just don’t really care that much about who becomes president to begin with. If you don’t wanna answer that, you don’t have to reply back.
And I’m not asking you to apologize for your political views…but this is a political sub. It’s where we’re free to explain our feelings about politics.
You ARE totally free to ask that. And I am totally free to be tired of explaining. I've explained my positions. I appreciate your interest, but this isn't an "ask me anything!" thread, so I'm moving on. You are just asking way too many question, and I don't feel like going into any more details.
I'm not voting for Harris, no matter how many questions you ask me or how you try to sway me. It's not happening.
I support and respect who you are voting for. But I am voting for someone different. Actually lots of people are voting for someone different. Please accept that. Thank you!
My standing question about whether you just don’t care that much about who becomes president is important. It’d mostly settle your overall feelings on the subject. But if you don’t wanna answer me anymore, then that’s fine.
What I don’t want is for you to leave this thread off on a non-answer.
You have a right to vote for whoever you want, just like I have a right to ask you “why?”. And you have a right to stop engaging if you don’t want to talk to me anymore. But if you continue engaging, without answering, then I have a right to ask again: “why?”.
This is not a good faith statement to make in a political discussion. If you believe there is absolutely zero way you can be swayed into a different point of view, then you shouldn’t try to sway people yourself.
Perhaps you’re not trying to sway people on anything here, but then…why post to c/politics about Stein to begin with? What’s the point of that if you’re not trying to at least “move the needle” on public perception of Stein?
Because it's political news and this is a political news community. DId you think that the only political news allowed here was pro-democrat news? That's actually not the case. This is an inclusive political news sub.
And I am posting political news articles to a political news sub. That's how that works.
You do realize that I'm not writing the articles, right? They are from news organizations posting facts about what is happening. And this is a political news Lemmy community.
Also, I have posted articles here that are about different political parties, not just the Green Party.
Did you even realize that I don't only post Jill Stein articles to this community?
And do you realize I created and mod a sub about MANY different third parties? One is even called "Third Party News." In addition one about the Green Party and one about Socialist parties?
I feel you have a narrative in your head about me, and you are waiting for some "gotcha!" moment. But that's not going to happen.
This isn’t just a place for political news, though. It’s a place to talk about political news, and about the politics surrounding that political news. That’s what I’m trying to do now.
Why go into the comment thread at all if all you care about is sharing political news? The engagement around that news matters, does it not? Otherwise Lemmy wouldn’t even have a comment section to begin with.
How does any of that matter right now? You said in this thread that Jill Stein is your absolute most preferred candidate. That’s all I really care to address right now.
And that doesn't mean I have to answer every single little question. Do you ask these questions in every article that is posted about Harris? Or are you letting your bias show because you are so desperate for Trump not to win?
Because some comments I reply to. Some I don't. I get to pick which ones.
You can do the same thing when you post articles.
Because you were implying that I was trying to "sway" people to vote for Stein. And that's not the case. I have posted about other candidates as well.
Dude, I'm not voting for Harris. But I support you voting for her if that's what you want. Move on.
No I don’t ask these questions on Harris posts because Harris isn’t a third-party candidate.
And yes, I would very much like it if Trump doesn’t win. Do you not care if Trump wins, given his environmental policy, and given that the candidate you do support is the pick of the Green Party, aka the pro-environmental policy pick?
Yes, and you’ve chosen to reply to many comments from people who clearly disagree with you. why do that at all, if not that you want to move a needle on something?
I asked if you were trying to sway people on “anything” here. And I see posting about Stein as you have as wanting to move the needle on public perception of Stein, like posting about any other 3rd party candidate would be an effort to move the needle on the concept of voting third-party. You asserted that you posted about other third party candidates too, so I’ll ask directly: are you not trying to sway people to vote third-party, given that you post about third party candidates and then defend third party candidates in comment threads?
Why tell me to move on when you could simply stop replying?
I am not. I am merely posting articles that I am interested in to a political news community. There is not deep-hidden agenda here. You act as if I have some obligation to explain my reasoning to you. I do not.
I'm voting for Jill Stein. I don't care if you want to know more. I've answered what I've answered. Move on.
Actually I don't feel you will move on, you'll keep asking the same things and I'll keep answering the same things. But I'm not voting for your candidate. Do you understand that? Do you understand that I don't have to tell you why? I'm not afraid of Trump OR Harris. And I'm still not voting for either one. And I don't have to give any more explanation. Do you understand that?
I won't be baited into blowing up. I'm not angry. Nor do I even care. I'm not voting for your candidate and I find it hilarious that you can't seem to accept that and want to know why.
And guess what? About half the country isn't voting for your candidate. Not everyone agrees with you, nor do they have to agree with you. Nor do they have to explain their reasons do you.
And as for your next variation of a question of why I won't answer you: I don't want to and I don't have to. And that's ok.
But then again, why do you engage in discussions with people who disagree with you if to your admission all you care about is sharing articles?
Again, why tell me to move on when you could simply stop replying?
Idk man, this is a pretty long reply from someone who’s not been baited into blowing up
So you have no answers to my questions then?
And I've already told you that I don't care about your question and that I don't have to answer. You could simply stop asking.
Wow, sounds like maybe you are implying that you were baiting me. Were you?
Alas, if you look at my replies, brevity has never been a strong suite and most of my replies are long-winded, so unfortunately for you, that's no indication that I am angry. Because I'm not.
I am under no obligation to answer anything. Because when you first replied, you seemed friendly and reasonable. Now you seem biased and seem like you are trying to bait me. Which won't happen. Because I'm still not gonna vote for your candidate.
And since most of the readers here are already overwhelmingly pro-Harris, you haven't changed anyone's mind. There is no "gotcha" moment. And I'm not gonna vote for Harris. Understand?
But you could simply stop replying though
I was always planning on having a good faith conversation with you until you said “I cannot be swayed” while replying to people who disagree with you with defenses. And then not answering my question of “Then why do you do that?”.
That’s a bad-faith thing to do.
So you replied to me because I seemed friendly and reasonable, but I was still on the side of “I think what you’re doing is not good for either of us”, so you were trying to engage with me and move my needle a little towards your side of the argument?
In other words, you try to…sway me? B/c fyi, there’s nothing wrong with that. You make swaying out to be this bad thing that bullies do, but it’s not. Moving needles doesn’t mean bullying people into feeling a certain way, it means coming closer to understanding one another, and I take joy in doing that.
I don’t take quite as much joy in a person who doesn’t come to a table on a good-faith basis.
That’s my secret, dude, I’m not looking for a “gotcha”. I was just looking to understand you a little better. Maybe you’d poke some holes in my preconceptions, maybe I’d poke some holes in yours.
With that said, I’ll ask again:
Have you researched Agenda 47, and if so, what are your thoughts on it?
Why do you support the Green Party Candidate as your far-and-away favorite pick while not seeming to care about Trump’s environmental policy?
Why do you reply to people who disagree with you if you’re allegedly not trying to sway them and are allegedly only here to share articles?
Why do you keep avoiding the above 3 questions?
But you could simply stop asking though
I'm not trying to engage you at all. I don't care what you think. I support your right to your opinion. As I have a right to mine. And I'm not going to vote for your candidate.
I don't know you or care if you want to understand me. I've stated my positions. That's it.
I'm not avoiding anything. I just don't care about your questions enough to answer. As is my right. I am under no obligation to answer anything you ask if I don't care to.
Yeah but, you’re under no obligation to reply saying you’re not gonna answer my questions either.
Just seems like a lotta work for a person to reply to a buncha comments disagreeing with them, just to say “yeah well you’re not gonna change my mind”.
Your response?
I've answered the questions that I wanted to answer. You should accept it and move on. And I'm still not gonna for for your candidate.
Okay but, like, why those questions and not the others?
This reminds me of having a date with a chick, not wanting to see her again, and then she doesn't stop texting and asking why.
I'm just not that into you.
Stop, or I block you. Ok? We cool?
We’re cool.
I do have 3 lingering questions though:
Have you researched Agenda 47, and if so, what are your thoughts on it?
Why do you support the Green Party Candidate as your far-and-away favorite pick while not seeming to care about Trump’s environmental policy?
Why do you reply to people who disagree with you if you’re allegedly not trying to sway them and are allegedly only here to share articles?
Blocking you because you just can't take a hint. I am not voting for your candidate. I don't care about your fear of Trump. I don't care about Agenda 47. I don't care about your questions. I'm blocking you because you don't know when to stop. :) So have fun!
And I'm still not gonna vote for you Harris. Even tho that makes you really really mad. And I am very happy to not see your reply cuz you're blocked. :)
Okay, but if/when you see this, I still have 3 questions:
Have you researched Agenda 47, and if so, what are your thoughts on it?
Why do you support the Green Party candidate as your far-and-away favorite pick while not seeming to care about a Trump presidency, given his environmental policy?
Why do you reply to people who disagree with you if you’re allegedly not trying to sway them and are allegedly only here to share articles?
…
I’m [not] Kamala Harris and I approve this message
You actually got them to block you, I respect it. I thought they were physically incapable of giving someone else the last word. I gave up way earlier than you when I realized they were just addicted to arguing. I agree that they don't seem intended to engage in good-faith discussions, but so far I guess by the letter of the law they've managed to skirt the community rules.
Thanks, yeah I guess the trick is to politely ask normal, reasonable questions that a good-faith party would answer honestly. Who’d have thunk it xD
Tbh if the guy/troll/whatever had answered the first two questions earlier on, depending on the answers I prolly would’ve just backed off, “oh well, agree to disagree” style.
Him being weirdly “I don’t have to answer that..but I have to tell you that I won’t answer” was funny so I went with it.
Well done. I don't think anyone else has cornered them as well as that, most get exasperated at the irrelevant walls of text talking about abstract merits of voting rights when the point was something completely different.
Still can't wrap my head around whether it's a political motivation or just fishing for arguments.
You like to say that people are mad about you not voting for their candidate, but that's just your spin. Personally I was mad about you constantly giving shifting strawman arguments about how it was impossible for Stein to be working with Russia. Like most conservatives-at-heart though, you seem to struggle with owning up to any wrongdoing, everything must always be someone else's fault and you're always some innocent victim.
With a majority sufficient to overcome opposition? Zero. The GOP hasn't been without significant influence through the filibuster in decades.