When talking about Biden, they’re talking about the consequences to democrat party structure. When talking about Trump, they’re talking about policy. Their point stands
His point in the comment are the possible consequences to democrat party power structure, not to policy, he’s not discussing democrat policy either. He’s proposing to have an impact on democrat power structure through not voting for them, which may or may not work, but what for sure doesn’t work is “vote blue no matter who”.
Are the results of a democratic victory as much speculation as the results of a Republican victory?
The original comment was able to discuss the results of a democratic victory with laser precision, while it danced around the potential effects of a trump victory by calling it speculation. Again, see what I quoted.
I’ve seen this disparity in foresight multiple times on Lemmy, and it’s frustrating when used to justify decision-making. It’s literally the sleeping Shaq meme.
FWIW, OP and I are actually in agreement, both in that democratic victory outcomes are also speculation (and should’ve been worded as such) as well as the point being made.
I don’t answer loaded questions. I’ve explained, he’s discussing possibilities to party structure, not to policy, you’re just trying to establish a false equivalence between them because it’s convenient for your “they’re only attacking the Dems!” narrative
Bruh it’s not an assumption (required for a loaded question) to say that reasoning about the future in the case of a democratic win is speculation just like reasoning about the future in the case of a Republican win is.
but the part about the DNC does indeed fall into the realm of speculation.
The whole point of my comment is that speculation about the effects of a democratic win were initially portrayed as ironclad, while the speculation of the effects of a Republican win were downplayed due to being speculation. I’m not commenting on the message, I’m commenting on the delivery. You’re commenting on the message, not the delivery. Your comments are simply not relevant to mine.
When the guy you’re “defending” and I are in agreement, what are you doing? Are you going to explain what they “really” meant with their comment?
When talking about Biden, they’re talking about the consequences to democrat party structure. When talking about Trump, they’re talking about policy. Their point stands
Why are the consequences to democrat party structure not also speculation?
His point in the comment are the possible consequences to democrat party power structure, not to policy, he’s not discussing democrat policy either. He’s proposing to have an impact on democrat power structure through not voting for them, which may or may not work, but what for sure doesn’t work is “vote blue no matter who”.
You still haven’t answered my question.
Are the results of a democratic victory as much speculation as the results of a Republican victory?
The original comment was able to discuss the results of a democratic victory with laser precision, while it danced around the potential effects of a trump victory by calling it speculation. Again, see what I quoted.
I’ve seen this disparity in foresight multiple times on Lemmy, and it’s frustrating when used to justify decision-making. It’s literally the sleeping Shaq meme.
FWIW, OP and I are actually in agreement, both in that democratic victory outcomes are also speculation (and should’ve been worded as such) as well as the point being made.
I don’t answer loaded questions. I’ve explained, he’s discussing possibilities to party structure, not to policy, you’re just trying to establish a false equivalence between them because it’s convenient for your “they’re only attacking the Dems!” narrative
Bruh it’s not an assumption (required for a loaded question) to say that reasoning about the future in the case of a democratic win is speculation just like reasoning about the future in the case of a Republican win is.
That is 100% a fact. Once again, the guy you’re defending has arrived at the same conclusion:
The whole point of my comment is that speculation about the effects of a democratic win were initially portrayed as ironclad, while the speculation of the effects of a Republican win were downplayed due to being speculation. I’m not commenting on the message, I’m commenting on the delivery. You’re commenting on the message, not the delivery. Your comments are simply not relevant to mine.
When the guy you’re “defending” and I are in agreement, what are you doing? Are you going to explain what they “really” meant with their comment?