A president who claims he can murder whomever, whenever is novel, horrifying, and would be the end of voting. Who is going to stop him if SCOTUS rules that way and how? Especially with half the legislative branch complicit. And in fact this same person has already committed an insurrection. You want to play it off, “oh, you guys are panicking every four years.”
No, those are the things you are saying right now.
You’re free to go in depth and clarify what your intent is saying, “we hear this every election,” when people are discussing an openly authoritarian candidate who publicly wants to murder political opponents and has already done an insurrection.
My intent was to push back on your unfounded retort to someone saying they wish there would be one election where the Democrats didn’t try to guilt people into voting for them based on fearmongering. You responded to them with… fearmongering. I responded to you to point out that your fearmongering is the same tactic used in every election ever. I didn’t make any claims about the validity of Trump’s threat to the US.
You then kept putting different words and claims into my mouth to argue against. So I kept saying “no, I’m just saying that this fearmongering is the same as has been used in every election.”
Donald, an insurrectionist: “I should be allowed to murder political opponents.”
SCOTUS: “Oh, maybe he’s right, let’s consider.”
You: “Everything is fine, just another regular election.”
Everything is decidedly not fine. Where was that in my comment? I merely pointed out that your rhetoric is the same as we hear every election.
A president who claims he can murder whomever, whenever is novel, horrifying, and would be the end of voting. Who is going to stop him if SCOTUS rules that way and how? Especially with half the legislative branch complicit. And in fact this same person has already committed an insurrection. You want to play it off, “oh, you guys are panicking every four years.”
Once again, you’re saying I’m saying things that I’m not.
No, those are the things you are saying right now.
You’re free to go in depth and clarify what your intent is saying, “we hear this every election,” when people are discussing an openly authoritarian candidate who publicly wants to murder political opponents and has already done an insurrection.
My intent was to push back on your unfounded retort to someone saying they wish there would be one election where the Democrats didn’t try to guilt people into voting for them based on fearmongering. You responded to them with… fearmongering. I responded to you to point out that your fearmongering is the same tactic used in every election ever. I didn’t make any claims about the validity of Trump’s threat to the US.
You then kept putting different words and claims into my mouth to argue against. So I kept saying “no, I’m just saying that this fearmongering is the same as has been used in every election.”