I’ll continue to say this question still isn’t being asked in good faith.
Of course the ballot isn’t literally, “do u want fascism or nah”
It’s between two politicians. You and I are agree that one side is almost inherently better than the other, but you have to remember that a. the other side also believes that they are inherently better than the other, and b. not everyone believes that either side is inherently better than the other.
Judging by your comments I’m assuming you’re pro-choice; if someone asked you, “when presented with the choice of outlawing the murder babies, what makes that choice difficult for you?”, you’d rightfully say they aren’t posing the question in a fair way to you. It’s the same thing here, if you’re trying to communicate with someone who doesn’t outright agree with you you can’t just outright attack their position or frame it in a negative light or you just make them defensive and not receptive to an alternative view.
If you’re speaking hyperbolically, sure. But when you’re trying to have a genuine conversation with someone regarding a serious topic, using hyperbolic speech to belittle someone’s position is pretty lame
I’ve voted in every election since Bush senior in 1988 and I do not believe the other guy is speaking hyperbolically at all. It’s so different this time. It truly is.
I feel like everyone that is arguing with what I’ve said thinks that I don’t agree that a Trump presidency will result in a huge increase in fascist ideology. It will be absolutely terrible if the man gets elected again and it absolutely will have drastic consequences to the US government.
This does not change the fact that LITERALLY, the ballot is between Biden and Trump, not between Fascism and Not-Fascism.
If someone is on the fence about something and you talk to them like there’s only one logical option (even if there is only one logical option), the immediate reaction will almost be a defensive one, and rarely will they be persuaded to your way of thinking. Like the abortion example I gave above; if you were on the fence about abortion, and someone asked you if you thought murder was wrong, that would be a fair sign that they aren’t presenting a good-faith discussion, and just want to brow-beat you in to their opinion. If you ask someone who (somehow) hasn’t paid attention to politics in the last decade if they want to let [presidential candidate] turn the country into [bad thing], you’re not opening a fair discussion, even if it’s most likely true that the outcome you describe is the one we will see.
I… What? I think you’ve got me mistaken for someone else bud, I’ve voted in every election I could since I was 18, what civic duty have I abandoned? And where did I defend anything?
It’s not a difficult choice at all because, you said it yourself; voting for or against when I already stated that I would vote for no one because we as a nation have put people in power that have the authority to supercede our vote. It’s not a left or a right thing. It’s not a democracy or fascism thing. It’s a fact that every single American has to contend with because WE as American citizens allowed it to happen. Isn’t that democracy?
I am just trying to understand your logic of “I am unhappy with the government so i have decided to do nothing”.
My quotes are reflecting back your statement to show how it comes across. If you want to read it was sarcasm then thats your prerogative.
Your replies read as you feeling “holier than thou i don’t do politics at all” but instead coming across “I dont like the current elected representatives so I wont use the only thing I have to influence who has gets elected”
You can choose not to be involved in politics. But that choice means you have no right to complain about the result.
Ok I will rephrase to be polite and respectful.
When you are presented with the option of voting for or against fascism, what makes that choice difficult?
I’ll continue to say this question still isn’t being asked in good faith.
Of course the ballot isn’t literally, “do u want fascism or nah”
It’s between two politicians. You and I are agree that one side is almost inherently better than the other, but you have to remember that a. the other side also believes that they are inherently better than the other, and b. not everyone believes that either side is inherently better than the other.
Judging by your comments I’m assuming you’re pro-choice; if someone asked you, “when presented with the choice of outlawing the murder babies, what makes that choice difficult for you?”, you’d rightfully say they aren’t posing the question in a fair way to you. It’s the same thing here, if you’re trying to communicate with someone who doesn’t outright agree with you you can’t just outright attack their position or frame it in a negative light or you just make them defensive and not receptive to an alternative view.
This specific election is literally just this
If you’re speaking hyperbolically, sure. But when you’re trying to have a genuine conversation with someone regarding a serious topic, using hyperbolic speech to belittle someone’s position is pretty lame
I’ve voted in every election since Bush senior in 1988 and I do not believe the other guy is speaking hyperbolically at all. It’s so different this time. It truly is.
I feel like everyone that is arguing with what I’ve said thinks that I don’t agree that a Trump presidency will result in a huge increase in fascist ideology. It will be absolutely terrible if the man gets elected again and it absolutely will have drastic consequences to the US government.
This does not change the fact that LITERALLY, the ballot is between Biden and Trump, not between Fascism and Not-Fascism.
If someone is on the fence about something and you talk to them like there’s only one logical option (even if there is only one logical option), the immediate reaction will almost be a defensive one, and rarely will they be persuaded to your way of thinking. Like the abortion example I gave above; if you were on the fence about abortion, and someone asked you if you thought murder was wrong, that would be a fair sign that they aren’t presenting a good-faith discussion, and just want to brow-beat you in to their opinion. If you ask someone who (somehow) hasn’t paid attention to politics in the last decade if they want to let [presidential candidate] turn the country into [bad thing], you’re not opening a fair discussion, even if it’s most likely true that the outcome you describe is the one we will see.
You are as pathetic as your weak defense of abandoning your most important civic duty. Your weakness hurts us all. Shame on you.
I… What? I think you’ve got me mistaken for someone else bud, I’ve voted in every election I could since I was 18, what civic duty have I abandoned? And where did I defend anything?
It’s not a difficult choice at all because, you said it yourself; voting for or against when I already stated that I would vote for no one because we as a nation have put people in power that have the authority to supercede our vote. It’s not a left or a right thing. It’s not a democracy or fascism thing. It’s a fact that every single American has to contend with because WE as American citizens allowed it to happen. Isn’t that democracy?
Ok so you are deciding to not use your right, and thus will have no right to comment on the results of the election.
“I dont care either way”
Yes I do
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
“I dont like these questions so ill insult the person asking”
Removed by mod
I am just trying to understand your logic of “I am unhappy with the government so i have decided to do nothing”.
My quotes are reflecting back your statement to show how it comes across. If you want to read it was sarcasm then thats your prerogative.
Your replies read as you feeling “holier than thou i don’t do politics at all” but instead coming across “I dont like the current elected representatives so I wont use the only thing I have to influence who has gets elected”
You can choose not to be involved in politics. But that choice means you have no right to complain about the result.