![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
It’s pretty clear that the people who have this take, regardless of party or political affiliation, don’t care. If they did care, they would listen. People who care don’t make threats. They listen.
It’s pretty clear that the people who have this take, regardless of party or political affiliation, don’t care. If they did care, they would listen. People who care don’t make threats. They listen.
Go check it out. They track democracies from all over the world. It is not partisan. They do not take pundits. They track policies and statements from the officials themselves. If you do not like actual sources, then I don’t know what to tell you. American candidates for the presidency have largely been on the authoritarian right for a decade. Candidates from both parties end up very close to each other on the chart.
The funniest thing about this comment is that it could be easily directed at you as well.
If you check out the research work done by the political compass, you see it’s actually a one party system wearing a two party outfit.
Letting Democrats take advantage of your vote and not listen to you over and over again it’s not a good strategy either. They don’t actually stop any of the things they used to fearmonger people with. They just wait so that they can use them as a threat again in the next election cycle. That’s an abusive relationship.
A lot of people feel justified in not actually listening to others and judging them from afar as what is happening. They feel justified in doing this for very specific reasons.
Who are the exact same people that you claim to be citing? I see the exact same people discussing all of these issues. The only thing you’re doing is discouraging them from talking about it if they’re not talking about it all at once which no one does on any subject.
This is an unoriginal take used to silence people who did not know about things like this before. Our media intentionally hides information about things like this. Our schools intentionally hide things like this. You can’t care about something if you don’t know it’s happening.
I worked for that campaign during that election cycle. You would think that the DNC and coordinated campaigns would learn that not listening to voters hurts you. Shaming them didn’t work last time either. They didn’t fund outreach. They didn’t listen to organizers on the ground. They didn’t care.
They’re all paying for it enthusiastically. I don’t care if some posture differently personally.
Thank you. You said this much more nicely than I could.
Please go look up the political compass. Both parties are fascist.
Or you could actually hear them out rather than discredit them. Biden is killing their families in mass right now. You want them to think about how Trump might hurt them later? Which is actually happening now? Does making Biden think he will win encourage him to stop participating in the war crimes that he’s being referred to the ICC for?
If you’re one election cycle away from collapse, you’re already dead.
It’s not a Trump campaign. It’s a DNC better pick someone else or they’re fucked campaign. And that’s true frankly regardless of my personal opinion. The dude has sacrificed too many communities to make republicans happy and now the warmongering. He destroyed his own campaign.
They responded to this unoriginal take in TV interviews a while ago.
You’re being pedantic in the cases you want while complaining to others when they are differently pedantic. I’m not stooping to pretending to misunderstand due to pedantry.
If you are using the term theft colloquially, which most of us are as this is not a court, legal journal, economic journal, etc. Given that colloquial means the way people generally speak, as we are now, theft has a meaning: taking something that’s not yours through force or trickery. That would mean fraud is a type of theft in this case and not a different thing altogether.
So be a pedant I guess but it’s boring and lazy-brained.
I don’t think you understand how laws work. Many times, they are required to define terms in order to enforce the law.
That is an assumption made that the artist still has the original thing that was not paid for. I understand what you’re being pedantic about. I just don’t think you’re right.
If you’re not going to use the term in a colloquial context while you are in a colloquial setting, then you need to cite what source you are referencing for your definition. Given that you are talking about laws, then you need to recognize that every place defines things differently according to the law. So which law, where?
Being unnecessarily argumentative and snobby while at the same time not meeting your own standards is ridiculous.