With the advent of dictator Donald Trump and his dangerously unstable, violent, egomaniacal personality, the resistance from civic society has not risen to the deadly challenge either quantitatively or qualitatively.
It literally is. Your argument is that people who didnt vote for Trump wanted him to be president. All people who didnt vote for Kamala are somehow pro-Trump. If that wasn’t your intent, you need to work on how you phrase things.
All I did was say precisely what you said lol just the other way around. Thats because people who didnt vote… did not vote! Ascribing a desired candidate to people who didnt participate is … not how it works!
Everyone that doesnt go to subway hates subs so they absolutely must like burgers! See? Silly.
A lot of people felt disenfranchised and abstained due to a sense of moral superiority to be sure. That doesn’t mean they voted for Trump or felt like Trump was the superior candidate. People who dont pay attention to politics didnt vote for or against either candidate, people who didnt vote also didnt vote for or against either candidate.
I’m not reading past your second sentence because you showed that your reading comprehension is garbage
Not an insult!
I don’t need or want to defend my opinion against somebody who can’t read.
How kind, another neighbourly comment
yet more proving that you can’t read, there were no insults from me
Glad these arent insults, phew. Your reading comprehension is awe inspiring. Its a good thing you didnt insult me as a part of saying you didnt insult me.
Your argument was that:
everyone who voted for but didnt vote against Trump wanted him to win/were okay with him being President, or they werent able to show up.
People who dont vote didnt voice an opinion and we have no ability to read minds. If you cant read minds you cant make claims as to how others will vote.
Unable to vote is not voicing their opinion, just like deciding not to vote. We cant decide how big either group within this unknown quantity would behave. Deciding not to vote due to a lack of information, constantly changing polling locations, and a billion other arguments for or against whatever you’re trying to say. Those are 2 small seeming but incalculably large or small amounts to try and staple an opinion to, especially because… they didnt voice their opinion for whatever reason.
You’re a genius but you wont elaborate, your argument or explanation is just insulting people instead. Substantiate your idea, communicate better. Its not hard. Why do you think you can read minds (lol), and how do you know how they were going to vote?
If all those people were known to be okay with or voted for Trump, we could say one way or another. We cant say that without also saying some conservatives didnt vote, so they mustve been cool with Kamala, despite her being so hated in MAGA. Its a coin, there are two sides. Claiming one side is heavier without seeing the coin or knowing what kind of coin it is, is a little insane. A loud small group on the internet was mad about Palestine to the extent they said they wouldnt vote, and some people voted third party. There could be 10 or 10000 or 10000000. We dont know. The people who voted 3rd party fall into the “okay with a Trump victory” camp. They voiced an opinion and it wasnt the best method of not having Trump become president. They can definitely fit into your description. People who have an unknown opinion have an unknown opinion.
My point: If you can read minds, get a job where thats utilized. Cuz its a unique and amazing ability. People overseas, in the military who werent able to vote, those are unknown quantities, people working, but it isnt just people who couldnt vote and wouldve voted the way you want. Thats people popping up with your opinion out of nowhere, but not people who disagree. You just assume more people are Pro-Kamala, or Anti-Trump. Some people are so disconnected with the news that they dont know who the president is. Yeah, they exist, and we also dont know how big that group is, or how they would vote.
An Australian system would solve this confusion. Because then we wouldnt be trying to read minds. Compulsory ranked choice voting. We would know more accurately how people feel, though we also dont know if those people put any bearing on political positions.
It literally is. Your argument is that people who didnt vote for Trump wanted him to be president. All people who didnt vote for Kamala are somehow pro-Trump. If that wasn’t your intent, you need to work on how you phrase things.
All I did was say precisely what you said lol just the other way around. Thats because people who didnt vote… did not vote! Ascribing a desired candidate to people who didnt participate is … not how it works!
Everyone that doesnt go to subway hates subs so they absolutely must like burgers! See? Silly.
A lot of people felt disenfranchised and abstained due to a sense of moral superiority to be sure. That doesn’t mean they voted for Trump or felt like Trump was the superior candidate. People who dont pay attention to politics didnt vote for or against either candidate, people who didnt vote also didnt vote for or against either candidate.
I’m not reading past your second sentence because you showed that your reading comprehension is garbage
Cant defend your opinion, thats okay. Have a good time.
I don’t need or want to defend my opinion against somebody who can’t read.
If someone doesnt understand you, you insult them lol
yet more proving that you can’t read, there were no insults from me
Not an insult!
How kind, another neighbourly comment
Glad these arent insults, phew. Your reading comprehension is awe inspiring. Its a good thing you didnt insult me as a part of saying you didnt insult me.
Your argument was that:
People who dont vote didnt voice an opinion and we have no ability to read minds. If you cant read minds you cant make claims as to how others will vote.
Unable to vote is not voicing their opinion, just like deciding not to vote. We cant decide how big either group within this unknown quantity would behave. Deciding not to vote due to a lack of information, constantly changing polling locations, and a billion other arguments for or against whatever you’re trying to say. Those are 2 small seeming but incalculably large or small amounts to try and staple an opinion to, especially because… they didnt voice their opinion for whatever reason.
You’re a genius but you wont elaborate, your argument or explanation is just insulting people instead. Substantiate your idea, communicate better. Its not hard. Why do you think you can read minds (lol), and how do you know how they were going to vote?
If all those people were known to be okay with or voted for Trump, we could say one way or another. We cant say that without also saying some conservatives didnt vote, so they mustve been cool with Kamala, despite her being so hated in MAGA. Its a coin, there are two sides. Claiming one side is heavier without seeing the coin or knowing what kind of coin it is, is a little insane. A loud small group on the internet was mad about Palestine to the extent they said they wouldnt vote, and some people voted third party. There could be 10 or 10000 or 10000000. We dont know. The people who voted 3rd party fall into the “okay with a Trump victory” camp. They voiced an opinion and it wasnt the best method of not having Trump become president. They can definitely fit into your description. People who have an unknown opinion have an unknown opinion.
My point: If you can read minds, get a job where thats utilized. Cuz its a unique and amazing ability. People overseas, in the military who werent able to vote, those are unknown quantities, people working, but it isnt just people who couldnt vote and wouldve voted the way you want. Thats people popping up with your opinion out of nowhere, but not people who disagree. You just assume more people are Pro-Kamala, or Anti-Trump. Some people are so disconnected with the news that they dont know who the president is. Yeah, they exist, and we also dont know how big that group is, or how they would vote.
An Australian system would solve this confusion. Because then we wouldnt be trying to read minds. Compulsory ranked choice voting. We would know more accurately how people feel, though we also dont know if those people put any bearing on political positions.
And insulting instead of defending. Nice.