You ignored the dozen or so posts by people citing evidence and making the case politely. The only logical conclusion is that you were determined to explain to us all why the words we all heard T**** say, he didn’t say.
What are we supposed to call that?
ETA: By the way, I went back and counted, and was WAY off. There were 22 posts that rather nicely pointed out that you were incorrect about T****’s words and meaning, with evidence to back it up, yet you kept telling us all that we were wrong.
By the way, you’ve just put back in the comments my comment that was removed because it was supposedly offensive (ya got to admit, that’s a little funny (or is it ironic?)). But seriously, I think everyone here is in agreement that trump sucks and is dangerous and should never be president again.
OK, so you didn’t like something I said. I can certainly acknowledge that. But flagging it as against community standards is a bit silly.
To be clear, I still think the same thing I stated in my first message is true. I just believe that one comment was done very well and was quite convincing, while many of the others (maybe not all, I don’t think I read them all) seemed to be a tad bit hostile (just a tad, mind you). To be honest, I’m surprised people are so willing to get so upset about disagreements that are so small compared to the things we all seem to agree on.
I would suggest you review the Fucking New York Times thread for the context. That’s just an example - the same can be said for other media outlets. Many, many people here are sick and tired of being gaslit by corrupt “news” organizations.
Being told, yet again, that us plebs shouldn’t believe the words we hear with our own ears and actions we see with our own eyes, but here on the BBS, was beyond frustrating. Given that context, I think people were posting with amazing self-restraint.
And now I’m wondering if people need to review the community guidelines a little closer.
How on Earth is an attempted fascist takeover a small matter, pray tell?
Oh, no, that is not a small matter at all. That’s the thing I keep saying we’re all in agreement on. I just meant the differing of opinions about what that one particular sentence he said meant. No, I agree - this guy has already broken the country, hopefully not beyond repair. I guess in the end the parsing of his words in this case is not necessary and I regret bringing it up at all. But yeah, this guy cannot be president again.
There isn’t anything to parse. He said that they wouldn’t have to vote anymore. That’s unambiguous.
Add in that he’s also said he’d be a dictator; that he’s multiple dictators’ #1 fanboy; that he essentially commissioned the Heritage Society to write up Project 2025, which lays out in detail how he will eliminate fair and free elections.
This isn’t about parsing language. It’s about realizing or denying reality.
I have doubts that you regret anything you’ve posted. If you regretted bringing it up, posting it dozens of times is a strange way to show it.
Not on this, we aren’t. The thing is, if you’re this determined to gaslight us about what T**** actually said - you can check the transcripts - as someone who has people I love who are directly threatened by him and his fascist gang, I wouldn’t trust you as any kind of ally. Your insisting a hundred times that we’re on the same side makes you less trustworthy, not more.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
