• @TrickDacy
    link
    26 hours ago

    That was a different commenter…?

    • @FlexibleToast
      link
      -15 hours ago

      No, that commenter literally said they’re not a threat and then gave the exact reason the green party is a threat to democrats.

        • @FlexibleToast
          link
          13 hours ago

          Are you saying that something helping the republicans isn’t a threat to democrats? Or are you saying it’s not enough to help because you’ve already forgotten the lesson from 2000?

          • @TrickDacy
            link
            12 hours ago

            No… I’m saying you’re mistaking two different commenters as one

            • @FlexibleToast
              link
              01 hour ago

              No… Because I’m only referring to one post.

              He’s wrong anyway, the green party isn’t a threat to any of the parties, but it’s designed to shape off 1-3% off the democratic vote to help republicans.

              I’ll break it down for you. The first part of the post literally says this:

              the green party isn’t a threat to any of the parties

              And then the very next part of the same sentence is:

              but it’s designed to shape off 1-3% off the democratic vote to help republicans

              Which is exactly what I pointed out. It starts by saying the green party isn’t a threat and then gives the exact reason why it is a threat.

              • @TrickDacy
                link
                11 hour ago

                Dude chill out it was a misunderstanding, apparently

      • Cadeillac
        link
        English
        24 hours ago

        A threat is viable. They are not