Democrats who led probes into Trump's role in Jan. 6 Capitol riot expect to face arrest if he wins: "Anybody who has testified against him...should be worried."
I mean the previous commenter is making it sound like Democrats are going to be executed if Trump is elected. Did I interpret that correctly? Does Biden know that? Is he worried? Because he doesn’t seem worried at all to me.
I asked you what begging is supposed to look like here or accomplish; you tried to get me to defend what someone else said. I point out I’m not them and I asked you a question; so you pivot again to "my statement with a “yeah?” at the end is now a question so address that first.
I’m cutting my losses. You’ll just move the posts to try and force me to address whatever it is you think I should be addressing instead, because you don’t actually have an answer and you’re not interested in a real discussion.
My mistake. This is why I don’t engage in politics threads online. You never know when someone is being serious and has an actual answer and is capable of a dialogue versus when some jackass just wants to waste your time.
If they’re arguing in bad faith, odds are high they’re just a right-wing operative intending to sow defeatism and wedge-drive. Often they’ll pretend being a concerned centrist but nowadays they feign being a leftist or tankie, which kills two birds with one stone.
With this in mind don’t stop commenting, just make your strongest arguments upfront and target the bystander audience. It’s the only way to act as damage-control. But don’t waste your time with them, specifically.
I flipped up through the chain and only now am I seeing all the edits they made. I knew something was screwy when they replied to my reply to myself- dude was camping this thread. Definitely not a good faith.
I do not have the energy to argue with such a waste of time. I don’t understand people who find enjoyment in “arguing” like that person does.
And when responding, make sure to point out there’s no controversy, there was never a “gotcha”, those arguments were never missed or ignored, the truth was never in question.
Because the goal is to make people doubt, making people think there’s more support for the false narratives than there really is, so you have to IMMEDIATELY reinforce that they’re liars in your opening statement (or they got their talking points from liars).
One of the best ways to do it is to demonstrate their questions are so basic you didn’t need to put effort in to answering them, and doing it by answering with links is very effective at that. “but they won’t read the links” - yes but that’s not the point, the point is to nerf their ability to steal attention and accurate links does in fact do that because it reduces the likelihood of other trolls joining and it’s easier to end the thread there.
He asked for clarification on the question you asked.
“I will not answer your clarifying question until you answer my question you want clarification on” is a bizarre take unless your question is entirely disingenuous and you don’t actually care about the answer.
If you were genuinely trying to get answers to “why isn’t the president begging for votes” you would’ve answered me when I asked what the hell that means. You proved it’s not your genuine priority by trying to get me to defend a point someone else was making instead.
Get outta here with that Crowder bullshit. If you’re asking questions and you want answers you’ll be happy to explain your position, not point at someone else and try and change the topic at the first opportunity. And assuming, generously, that that was a mistake, you wouldn’t have doubled down on “well answer my rhetorical that I refuse to define for you first or you’re just proving you can’t debate me!”
All of the time I spent typing this was on the very, very, very slim chance you mean well but are an ineffective communicator. Since that’s statistically unlikely, feel free to reply however you like. I have no interest in continuing with you further.
If you were genuinely trying to get answers to “why isn’t the president begging for votes” you would’ve answered me when I asked what the hell that means
I mean I’d like to think he’s worried, and will actually start talking about nationalizing marijuana legalization with actual plan to implement it, or to make internet a utility… but he seems to think backing israel and getting some 20 year old debts canceled, and then reversed by the supreme court, is going to get him enough votes
I mean the previous commenter is making it sound like Democrats are going to be executed if Trump is elected. Did I interpret that correctly? Does Biden know that? Is he worried? Because he doesn’t seem worried at all to me.
EDIT: Anyone got an answer?
I didn’t ask about or address what someone else said. I asked you a couple questions.
You responded to a question I asked without answering my question bud. Might wanna get off that high horse before you hurt yourself.
Here’s my original question you responded to for reference:
If you want to answer that I’ll consider answering your questions.
Man, pivot really is your only move.
I asked you what begging is supposed to look like here or accomplish; you tried to get me to defend what someone else said. I point out I’m not them and I asked you a question; so you pivot again to "my statement with a “yeah?” at the end is now a question so address that first.
I’m cutting my losses. You’ll just move the posts to try and force me to address whatever it is you think I should be addressing instead, because you don’t actually have an answer and you’re not interested in a real discussion.
My mistake. This is why I don’t engage in politics threads online. You never know when someone is being serious and has an actual answer and is capable of a dialogue versus when some jackass just wants to waste your time.
If they’re arguing in bad faith, odds are high they’re just a right-wing operative intending to sow defeatism and wedge-drive. Often they’ll pretend being a concerned centrist but nowadays they feign being a leftist or tankie, which kills two birds with one stone.
With this in mind don’t stop commenting, just make your strongest arguments upfront and target the bystander audience. It’s the only way to act as damage-control. But don’t waste your time with them, specifically.
I flipped up through the chain and only now am I seeing all the edits they made. I knew something was screwy when they replied to my reply to myself- dude was camping this thread. Definitely not a good faith.
I do not have the energy to argue with such a waste of time. I don’t understand people who find enjoyment in “arguing” like that person does.
They’re getting paid to do it
And when responding, make sure to point out there’s no controversy, there was never a “gotcha”, those arguments were never missed or ignored, the truth was never in question.
Because the goal is to make people doubt, making people think there’s more support for the false narratives than there really is, so you have to IMMEDIATELY reinforce that they’re liars in your opening statement (or they got their talking points from liars).
One of the best ways to do it is to demonstrate their questions are so basic you didn’t need to put effort in to answering them, and doing it by answering with links is very effective at that. “but they won’t read the links” - yes but that’s not the point, the point is to nerf their ability to steal attention and accurate links does in fact do that because it reduces the likelihood of other trolls joining and it’s easier to end the thread there.
“I don’t answer questions but people are obligated to answer mine” isn’t the enlightened take you think it is bud.
This you?
Dude responded to a question I asked with more questions and then got all high and mighty when I asked more questions.
My question was first so I don’t see why his should take priority. Do you?
He asked for clarification on the question you asked.
“I will not answer your clarifying question until you answer my question you want clarification on” is a bizarre take unless your question is entirely disingenuous and you don’t actually care about the answer.
Buddy, I asked the first question. What gives your questions priority?
If you were genuinely trying to get answers to “why isn’t the president begging for votes” you would’ve answered me when I asked what the hell that means. You proved it’s not your genuine priority by trying to get me to defend a point someone else was making instead.
Get outta here with that Crowder bullshit. If you’re asking questions and you want answers you’ll be happy to explain your position, not point at someone else and try and change the topic at the first opportunity. And assuming, generously, that that was a mistake, you wouldn’t have doubled down on “well answer my rhetorical that I refuse to define for you first or you’re just proving you can’t debate me!”
All of the time I spent typing this was on the very, very, very slim chance you mean well but are an ineffective communicator. Since that’s statistically unlikely, feel free to reply however you like. I have no interest in continuing with you further.
Throw out a guess and answer based on that.
So you aren’t actually interested in an answer to your question then.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I mean I’d like to think he’s worried, and will actually start talking about nationalizing marijuana legalization with actual plan to implement it, or to make internet a utility… but he seems to think backing israel and getting some 20 year old debts canceled, and then reversed by the supreme court, is going to get him enough votes
Exactly. Either he’s not worried or he’s to egotistical to believe he needs voters help. 🤷♂️