Gatekeeper eh? I asked the OP to cite anything supporting their position and one of your lackys decided to go all ad hominem on me. And then you continue it. I’m still waiting for anything to back up the original bullshit comment.
I told you to reread the comment until you got it, which you apparently couldn’t do. The original commenter’s position wasn’t that there was a Trump policy that would help fix this issue, and I don’t understand how you could possibly get that message from it; I figured I wouldn’t have to explain it to you, that you could just look over it again and realize that your “reply” didn’t make sense as a reply, but I’ll explain it now: the comment being anti-Kamala does NOT mean it is pro-Trump, and yes, it is anti-Kamala and anti-two party election rhetoric (referencing this because it is US election season and the idea that you can vote Democrat to fix the country even if a Democrat who campaigned on the same notion (relying on dissatisfaction with a Republican president the Democratic Party had practically ushered into office in a failed attempt to get Hillary elected) is already in office has become more and more prevalent—without the prior Trump presidency to react against, Kamala has nothing to blame obvious fixes not being put in place for domestic problems on but the presidency of which she is second-in-command, which she can’t do, and so the specter of Trump must be played up). This is the point.
As for “decid[ing] to go all ad-hominem”, didn’t that start with your response to my comment (which wasn’t a personal attack but just advice that you should reread the comment you were responding to because you had misunderstood it)? I don’t understand how you can read this thread and think it was anyone other than you who began the insults and derailed the conversation, and as far as insults go, only your “hexbear dweeb” nonsense could possibly fit the definition of an ad-hominem. Also the “your lackeys” thing doesn’t make any sense, do the bare minimum of knowing who you’re responding to.
I genuinely don’t know why you didn’t just admit you were in the wrong or ignore the responses, instead defending obviously wrong positions and embarrassing yourself further and further to the point of no return.
Your re read comment comes across very glib, condescending and prickish. So maybe food for thought when you randomly respond in the future to rework your writing style.
You also keenly ignore the obvious troll movement going on pushing anti dem anti vote propaganda coming from this very lemmy instance. So no, I don’t regret asking the commentor to back up their post with any form of policy or factual issue. If they simply were venting on the current state then fine but yall all rushed in on cue to defend an offhand comment.
Gatekeeper eh? I asked the OP to cite anything supporting their position and one of your lackys decided to go all ad hominem on me. And then you continue it. I’m still waiting for anything to back up the original bullshit comment.
I told you to reread the comment until you got it, which you apparently couldn’t do. The original commenter’s position wasn’t that there was a Trump policy that would help fix this issue, and I don’t understand how you could possibly get that message from it; I figured I wouldn’t have to explain it to you, that you could just look over it again and realize that your “reply” didn’t make sense as a reply, but I’ll explain it now: the comment being anti-Kamala does NOT mean it is pro-Trump, and yes, it is anti-Kamala and anti-two party election rhetoric (referencing this because it is US election season and the idea that you can vote Democrat to fix the country even if a Democrat who campaigned on the same notion (relying on dissatisfaction with a Republican president the Democratic Party had practically ushered into office in a failed attempt to get Hillary elected) is already in office has become more and more prevalent—without the prior Trump presidency to react against, Kamala has nothing to blame obvious fixes not being put in place for domestic problems on but the presidency of which she is second-in-command, which she can’t do, and so the specter of Trump must be played up). This is the point.
As for “decid[ing] to go all ad-hominem”, didn’t that start with your response to my comment (which wasn’t a personal attack but just advice that you should reread the comment you were responding to because you had misunderstood it)? I don’t understand how you can read this thread and think it was anyone other than you who began the insults and derailed the conversation, and as far as insults go, only your “hexbear dweeb” nonsense could possibly fit the definition of an ad-hominem. Also the “your lackeys” thing doesn’t make any sense, do the bare minimum of knowing who you’re responding to.
I genuinely don’t know why you didn’t just admit you were in the wrong or ignore the responses, instead defending obviously wrong positions and embarrassing yourself further and further to the point of no return.
Your re read comment comes across very glib, condescending and prickish. So maybe food for thought when you randomly respond in the future to rework your writing style.
You also keenly ignore the obvious troll movement going on pushing anti dem anti vote propaganda coming from this very lemmy instance. So no, I don’t regret asking the commentor to back up their post with any form of policy or factual issue. If they simply were venting on the current state then fine but yall all rushed in on cue to defend an offhand comment.