On this thread, there's no shortage of standard left-wing arguments. So I don't see the need to make the same arguments as others.
I'll note objections to Republicans, as well as problems with policies and decisions by Democrats right now, just as plenty of people here express concern about what Republicans may do in the future (the whole Nazi argument.) It is also important for people making policy suggestions to consider the implications in the future. It's quite irresponsible to discourage those kinds of necessary discussions.
If you're criticizing me for not responding to something, you should say what the specific comments that are so good that you find it suspicious that someone's not responding.
And if I'm misrepresenting your argument, when I have said the wrong thing about "white supremacists shooting up black churches or Muslim mosques"?
I know that people here object to DeSantis, but looking that stuff up is going to include a lot of exaggeration, speculation and commentary. I'm looking for facts, not venting.
If someone makes a serious claim about why no one should vote for a politician, they should be able to back it up with three inarguable examples of where the politician crosses the line. I wonder if people don't want to reveal that much about themselves. It's easier to talk about things that are vague than the specifics.
You left out part of the quote from the article which completely changed the meaning. The phrase the article used wasn't "girls identifying as transgender" but "the number of students brought up as girls identifying as transgender."
Someone can be brought up as a girl without being a girl.
The T-shirt doesn't indicate what people secretly think. A major Democrat wore an item advocating for open borders, and he wasn't called out for it by anyone on his side.
I didn't say that "all the lefty posters trying to convince others to stop voting Republican were doing so out of a long-term secret desire to make republican candidates more extreme." That's a stretch, assuming you mean to be taken literally.
The problem with Trump was not the substance. It was the things that made him different from what a Jeb Bush administration would have been.
It's hard for people who would vote against any Republican to realize this, but Trump is in some ways closer to the center than most presidential candidates. He did not push for cuts to social security or Medicaid, and kept promising infrastructure spending.
He was elected to the White House with the second most moderate issue positions in the previous 40 years.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-to-the-right/
As President, his policy positions were mostly generic Republican. Obviously if you'd vote against the typical Republican, you'd voter against him as well, but people who would vote for typical Republicans would need other reasons to oppose him, including corruption, sloppiness, shameless lies, etc.