… That makes sense. Whoops!

I don’t think anyone will read that, but I did. The thing is, you’re not really wrong. But you aren’t going to appeal to anyone like that.

Do you just want to be angry? Do you just want to yell? I feel that.

Personally, yes, I would rather have had non-Trump than Trump. There weren’t really any other viable options besides Kamala when I voted. No third party vote would’ve saved us, even if I convinced literally everyone I know to do the same. But Kamala was much better than Trump, and you brought up good reasons why. She can be bullied into being better. Heck, Gavin Newsom can be bullied into being better. I don’t really like either of them, but I have limits to what I can affect, and I chose that which I could.

Unfortunately, it’s everyone’s mess. We all have to clean it up. I didn’t cause it. Heck, even people that don’t live here probably have to help, and they’re the least to blame for it. But, that’s kinda how it works. Start small, and go from there.

That’s kind of related, though. He used to support trans kids until he felt like it might affect his electability. If he isn’t willing to stand by his morals, he is only supporting the money.

The list did. You’re appending to a list.

Wait, where does this not apply to Republicans?

These guys are saying $50-100 but I have seen $200 per month on a $1800 per month apartment. It’s no joke.

There’s no technicality about it. The people that get married are the ones who determine the exclusivity of the marriage.

Like, it’s even dumber than that because if you didn’t have marriage, you’d still have people in exclusive relationships, so wtf are you complaining about?

But then why do the Republicans look like child sex predators? Idk, maybe they should’ve voted to release the documents anyway, unless they are actually the predators.

Why did they do that? That is a really dumb strategy. The Republicans should’ve voted to release it so the Democrats would’ve had to vote to block it. Now the Republicans look like child molesters.

You said they worked together, but did they work together to make themselves look bad? Why not 50-50 it? Or make everyone vote against it? Idk, maybe I’m a better political strategist than you and them?

You said they were working together, but the Republicans voted to block it. Why didn’t they make the Democrats vote to block it, it would make them look better?

I agree. Right now I am mad at the people who voted to block the list. I just don’t understand why people are saying the Democrats did that. I am trying to understand, especially if that guy thinks they are working together on this. It would make the president look better if the Republicans didn’t vote to block this, but the Republicans did that. It is a weird and divisive thing to say otherwise, right?

Okay, I still don’t understand anything other than the Republicans voted to protect child sex predators, and the Democrats didn’t.

Why doesn’t it make sense? All I see is Republicans blocked it, and Democrats didn’t. Why wouldn’t they make the Democrats look bad?

Okay, but the red guys did it, right? They could a made the blue guys do it, which would’ve pushed the feudalistic billionaire breakdown of America easier for them, but… They didn’t? Why not?

But Republicans DID block it, right? That’s the only part I heard.

Mom said you have to stop being weird on the internet and that it’s my turn to use the computer.

I guarantee that you could tax rich people more without spying.

You know, the Germans had a word for people that voted for Hitler for economic reasons. It was Nazi. It doesn’t matter if you support people that want to forcibly de-transition people because they have a better economic policy.

In the end, if you don’t support human rights, you’re a bad person, and there are so many better people out there to be friends with who won’t disappoint you. And the logic that stems from this thinking is: If someone votes for people who will take away others’ rights… What will they do to me? If they won’t protect others, they won’t protect me. Regardless of if that is true, we can only judge people by their words and actions, and it’s a really easy way to judge.

It isn’t anyone’s duty to be these people’s friends. You can do it, but it’s really obvious why most people wouldn’t. It literally is a privilege to not be angry and threatened by these people. That wasn’t a dismissal of your argument, but a point for you to reflect on.

Once again, do not play the privilege card. Not on me, not on anyone. It’s not a convincing argument, and it has not a real base. And it’s somehow discriminatory towards particular groups that you do not consider “unprivileged enough”.

That is a really weird and illogical argument.

What happens if she ends up being right and in 2 years that party goes into power and do not do anything to hurt me? And I have to live my life knowing I cut a good relationship because something I was wrong about.

That is a really weird and illogical hypothetical. Best answered with, “But what if they kill you instead?”. We ALL have a line in the sand where if someone supports a thing, they cannot be our friend anymore. Like, if my friend started saying Nazi things, but was a “good guy” otherwise, they wouldn’t be a good guy at all. I would give them a chance to not be a Nazi, and then we would either not be friends or they wouldn’t be a Nazi. Everyone has that, regardless of what you say or think, and it is disgustingly easy to prove. I can prove it, if you’d like, but I feel like you have already lost this argument by ignoring the Amanda party.