No, I understand what you said but I think it just sounded like a canned response. If you reread their comment and yours then it really seems like you spring boarded off some key words and didn’t really reply to them at all. It’s not even argumentative, it’s just confusingly misplaced.
Why not just make a top level post?
I don’t think you really responded to the person you replied to.
Yeah. That’s basically it. Demonstration of ground level impact and commitment. It’s difficult to imagine trusting a group with a national bureaucracy when they haven’t shown that they’re capable of that scale of operation. Unfortunately that capability matters more than the ideals.
Edit: but also it matters because it demonstrates the ideals in action in a tangible way.
Uh huh.
I’m not “debating” you, I’m asking if you have anything to show for your party.
I know the supposed platform, and I know the presidential candidates. What I don’t know is why your candidate thinks anyone should give a shit about her when she’s nowhere to be found except when she’s deciding to run for president.
Either y’all aren’t doing anything worth celebrating or you’re bad at communicating your successes and both of those are pretty firm indictments of your ability to follow through on the national level with any of your stated goals. But that presumes any conviction in those stated goals, and again: I’m not sure I can think of any reason to think y’all have any such conviction.
Do y’all in the Green Party have anything to show for yourselves past this person? I’ve never seen a local showing. It seems like y’all do nothing except run for president every four years, then vanish. I mean I know Republicans who do more for local conservation and green initiatives than y’all. Really.
Yeah but those 50 gallon vats of macaroni and cheese aren’t going to work out the way they think they will.
They’ll have to go on the move after a collapse, they won’t be able to bring their shelters or their decades long mayo supply.
I mean collapse has always been going on all around us, but they ignore refugees completely.
He’s either trying to say she talks too much or she’s boring. Either way he’s asking his base to think too much. It’s weak
Same! It’s 100% effective for me. Never had it not work
God damn that was a hell of an entrance.
Facts are important, but it’s not possible to come with only the ones you prefer. You need to make room for more.
That people are looking at all this and thinking it seems like premeditated murder that turned into a panicked self defense (except with a literal killing weapon on hand, which he brought!) is perfectly reasonable.
To be honest, debating it feels gross. It seems more sensible to just recognize that it makes sense people would feel this way, and move on. Regardless of what the courts say, this conclusion makes total sense.
Why should I bother to watch something no one bothered to create?
How is that a defense of your non sequitur post above? I don’t think digging at me is going to brute force that first comment into context.