• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    21 month ago

    Point 1: you argue semantics to steer the conversation away from the original question.

    Point 2: you nitpicking semantics is not me building a straw man.

    Ignore people all you want but they, and reality, are clearly telling you that optimising for donations/money doesn’t work.

    Who is talking about ignoring people or optimizing for donations? Seems like you are refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion.

    Democrats are too focused on the latter, because reasons explained to you, and thus lost due to the former.

    How are you quantifying how focused they are? How do you know they lost due to the former? The likely answer is you are making assumptions based off your feelings.

    It seems our impasse is that’s I’ve understood, and stated as such, your argument to be “more money, more better” which is counterfactual to this election.

    Again I have to point out that I haven’t made an argument. I’ve just asked a question to someone other than you and you felt the need to insert yourself to argue semantics while avoiding the question you responded to.

    I don’t think I can break through that level of double think.

    You’re literally quoting something that was never said.

    • @Fedegenerate
      link
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Point 1, exactly my pount, that’s exactly what you did. I demonstrated that to you and now we agree. You’ll notice I keep grounding us in the comments under discussion: “I think your argument is this” and “how does that have relevance to the original comment”. Every accusation is a confession.

      Point 2, exactly what you did when you tried labeling my argument a strawman. Ev-ery accusation is a confession.

      Who is talking about ignoring people.

      Me, continually about you. You ignored the original answer to your question. You ignore my explanation to why it’s a valid answer. You ignore my pointing out you ignoring people to ask who’s talking about ignoring people.

      How are you quantifying[…]

      You argue semantics to steer the conversation away from the original question. E-v-e-r-y accusation is a confession.

      Again I have to point out…

      1 you haven’t until now pointed out that you havent made an arguement. 2 it is absurd to do so. 3 you are a meme

      You are quoting something that was never said

      It’s a summary, I made that quite plain.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 month ago

        Still no response to the original question of ‘How do we win elections without/with less donors’?

        I’ve played along with your avoidance of the question and all its led to is a discussion of semantics and nothing about the original topic. Seems like that is your intent.

        • @Fedegenerate
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          As demonstrated we have been led here by you. You haven’t played along with my avoidance of this question, I wasn’t originally asked this question. I pointed out that you ignored their answer and then you got all accusey and semanticky.

          Remember when you wanted to make a distinction between “donors” and “money”, you sure dropped that in a hurry. Every accusation is a confession.

          Still no response…

          Doesn’t respond to a single thing in any previous comment. Every accusation is a confession. This is also just a bald faced lie.

          And for whatever reason they keep doubling down on refusing to do voter outreach and listening to what Dem voters want. Current leadership will never back away from the strategy of:

          In the original comment you replied to. They could have done more outreach to determine what dem voters want by wasting less money elsewhere. Reality is you don’t listen to yourself, let alone anyone else. I am over it. Thanks for proving to me, yet again, that talking to American liberals is futile. I can’t dig you out of your dogma at all.

            • @Fedegenerate
              link
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              You have convinced me that you believe that to be true. Furthermore, you have convinced me that you cannot be convinced that it is not true. You are demonstrably unreachable.

                • @Fedegenerate
                  link
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Demonstrated to be untrue. I should have listened to the person telling you why you don’t wrestle pigs… I should have listened to myself when I said American libs have shown me they are closed minded.

                  Your statements are counterfactual, your accusations are confessions, demonstrated to ignore anything anyone (including you says) and you are completely unreachable. On the whole a waste of my time except to re-teach me a lesson I had obviously forgot