• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        “That’s some nice ‘evidence’ you’ve got there. Unfortunately, the person talking about it doesn’t agree with me politically so that means it’s not real.”

        • Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          It’s electorialism actually. El-Sayed may not be perfect. But look who you’re allying with to criticize him.

          Maybe you will answer the question they were obviously too cowardly/ignorant/your alt to answer.

          Who should I write in?

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Lmao “my alt?”

            Personally, I think you should probably vote for El-Sayed, because I’m not that person and don’t agree with all of her positions on everything. See, and I know this is a difficult concept to grasp, sometimes, a person is right about something, even if I disagree with them about something else. Kind of like Free Beacon, actually!

            I’m just chiming in to point out how utterly ridiculous you’re being by writing off evidence just because the source presenting the evidence is biased.

            “Get out of the road! There’s a car coming!”

            “Who did you vote for? Who do you say I should vote for?”

            “Turn around! Look, you can see it with your own eyes!”

            “So, you’re too cowardly to answer my questions.”

            “Dude, she’s right, there’s a car right there!”

            “You must be her alt then. Who do you say I should vote for?”

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                Oh so you’re just critisicing the cantidate you hope wins?

                Yes? That’s called being intellectually honest and not a partisan hack.

                Are you openly admitting that you won’t acknowledge criticism of people you support, even if that criticism is backed by hard evidence?

                • Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  No I’m admitting most people are too ignorant to engage with politics intellectually and it’s the job of those who will to simplify the positions for them.

                  If the other side is going to stand lock step against us; our divisions will be exploited.

                  You win an election or you lose it. Intellectual honesty doesn’t get a vote multiplier.

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    So you’re a partisan hack and a liar, understood.

                    And a bad liar, at that. If you’re gonna lie, don’t do so in a way that you can get caught out and exposed so easily lmao.