Lol, why do you people always force everything into a false dichotomy? If you have a problem with the statement, at least confront the actual argument being put forward.
Nothing they said is false, the Democrats over the last couple decades have slid further and further to the right, mostly because they care more about economic policy and decorum than protecting people’s rights.
Are they better than the Republicans, of course. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be critical when assessing if they’ve met our expectations. Saying both parties need better leadership is just stating the obvious, it doesn’t mean this person’s urging people to not vote, or to vote for the worse party.
This country is in for some rough years if our only qualifications for leadership positions is just being better than Republicans, that bar is too low.
What dichotomy? I asked who they are canvassing for. You do know people have to canvass for a candidate in order for them to get elected, right? If you want a better candidate than what is offered, they aren’t going to magic themselves into office. Campaigns take work.
I take it neither of you are canvassing for anyone and are just hoping you’ll get what you want by wishing for it.
No, they don’t understand. They’d rather just sit in their basements and complain on the Internet rather than get out into the light and actually try to effect the change they wish to see.
Lol, I’ve been a district delegate for the DNC in one of the most conservative states in America… What have you done?
This is why I asked how canvassing was related to the original claim, as we are now focusing on the strawman argument instead of actually addressing the criticism in question.
Considering he is one of the most active users in this online community, I’m guessing your description of standby basement dweller is more accurate for flyingsquid than anyone else here. Doing memes and drowning out criticism online with flawed rhetoric is not the same as political organizing.
So the only people who are able to be critical of their elected officials are people who have the leisure time and the resources to work for political parties for free?
take it neither of you are canvassing for anyone and are just hoping you’ll get what you want by wishing for it.
First of all, this is a strawman argument. It has nothing to do with the original claim, which you didn’t ever address. Secondly, I have served as a district delegate for the DNC in my state, and you have an optimistic view of how much actual choice is actually provided to voters.
Candidates don’t just say I want to be a state senator, sign me up. They go through a vetting process of the state’s political party, and each DNC chapter has its own means to determine which candidates they throw their weight behind. Depending on where you are, unless you have seniority in the local chapter you don’t really have a choice on who you canvas for.
He asked the person he originally responded too, not me. I’m just asking how it’s a relevant question… which he is going through great lengths to avoid answering.
A question completely unrelated to the statement? What is the purpose of the question…ahh yes, to set up a strawman argument to distract from the original statement. That’s a shitty rebuttal, but it’s still a rebuttal, or at least building up to one.
One you have not answered. And yet you expect me to answer yours.
You never asked me, you asked op. Also, Im not the one who thinks you have to work for the party you vote for to criticize them in a public forum. Lastly, I doubt someone as terminally online as yourself has enough time to canvass in the first place.
problem here is you’re trying to argue with someone who asked a question.
The problem here is that your question isn’t relevant to the statement and it’s only purpose is to distract from the valid criticisms withing the original claim.
The problem is that your only response has been to attempt to lull people into a debate revolving around a logical fallacy.
Cool. Who are you canvassing for?
Lol, why do you people always force everything into a false dichotomy? If you have a problem with the statement, at least confront the actual argument being put forward.
Nothing they said is false, the Democrats over the last couple decades have slid further and further to the right, mostly because they care more about economic policy and decorum than protecting people’s rights.
Are they better than the Republicans, of course. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be critical when assessing if they’ve met our expectations. Saying both parties need better leadership is just stating the obvious, it doesn’t mean this person’s urging people to not vote, or to vote for the worse party.
This country is in for some rough years if our only qualifications for leadership positions is just being better than Republicans, that bar is too low.
What dichotomy? I asked who they are canvassing for. You do know people have to canvass for a candidate in order for them to get elected, right? If you want a better candidate than what is offered, they aren’t going to magic themselves into office. Campaigns take work.
I take it neither of you are canvassing for anyone and are just hoping you’ll get what you want by wishing for it.
No, they don’t understand. They’d rather just sit in their basements and complain on the Internet rather than get out into the light and actually try to effect the change they wish to see.
Lol, I’ve been a district delegate for the DNC in one of the most conservative states in America… What have you done?
This is why I asked how canvassing was related to the original claim, as we are now focusing on the strawman argument instead of actually addressing the criticism in question.
Considering he is one of the most active users in this online community, I’m guessing your description of standby basement dweller is more accurate for flyingsquid than anyone else here. Doing memes and drowning out criticism online with flawed rhetoric is not the same as political organizing.
So the only people who are able to be critical of their elected officials are people who have the leisure time and the resources to work for political parties for free?
First of all, this is a strawman argument. It has nothing to do with the original claim, which you didn’t ever address. Secondly, I have served as a district delegate for the DNC in my state, and you have an optimistic view of how much actual choice is actually provided to voters.
Candidates don’t just say I want to be a state senator, sign me up. They go through a vetting process of the state’s political party, and each DNC chapter has its own means to determine which candidates they throw their weight behind. Depending on where you are, unless you have seniority in the local chapter you don’t really have a choice on who you canvas for.
I made no such claim about criticism. All I did was ask who they were canvassing for.
They all sure go to great lengths not to answer that question.
He asked the person he originally responded too, not me. I’m just asking how it’s a relevant question… which he is going through great lengths to avoid answering.
So your rebuttal was a complete non-sequitur? Seems you’re not being very honest here.
Maybe a better approach would be to actually address the argument instead of relying on logical fallacies to silence peoples concerns.
So who are you canvassing for?
It wasn’t a rebuttal, it was a question. One you have not answered. And yet you expect me to answer yours.
The problem here is you’re trying to argue with someone who asked a question.
A question completely unrelated to the statement? What is the purpose of the question…ahh yes, to set up a strawman argument to distract from the original statement. That’s a shitty rebuttal, but it’s still a rebuttal, or at least building up to one.
You never asked me, you asked op. Also, Im not the one who thinks you have to work for the party you vote for to criticize them in a public forum. Lastly, I doubt someone as terminally online as yourself has enough time to canvass in the first place.
The problem here is that your question isn’t relevant to the statement and it’s only purpose is to distract from the valid criticisms withing the original claim.
The problem is that your only response has been to attempt to lull people into a debate revolving around a logical fallacy.
No, the problem is you’re trying to argue with a question.
I’ll take a shot from the hip, it’s not the convicted felon.
And how is that relevant to the original claim?
Someone saying that they think both parties need better leadership isn’t claiming you’re going to vote for a convicted felon.
The original claim was left by the side of the road, several comments ago. We are slinging mud now.
I’ll take a shot from the rooftop. Still not a convicted felon.