> it should be just as easy for you to rebut if your point has merit.
your framing is fallacious. of course there are differences between the republicans and democrats in rhetoric and policy, but both of them are fascist.
How, exactly? Your point was both sides are fascist. I disagreed, with the counterpoint that fascism means x, providing examples of republican fascism, and asking for examples of democrat fascism.
I’m challenging you to back up your original thesis. That’s literally how debate works.
> it should be just as easy for you to rebut if your point has merit.
your framing is fallacious. of course there are differences between the republicans and democrats in rhetoric and policy, but both of them are fascist.
How, exactly? Your point was both sides are fascist. I disagreed, with the counterpoint that fascism means x, providing examples of republican fascism, and asking for examples of democrat fascism.
I’m challenging you to back up your original thesis. That’s literally how debate works.
>That’s literally how debate works.
i’m not here to debate.
Then why are you arguing in a politics forum meant for that?
Good lord.
i don’t care for argument at all. at any point you could have stopped.
i just want to stop the advance of fascism and discredit its enablers.
Wait – then why are you both-siding fascism?
What?!
i thought you were done.
i’m pointing out fascism everywhere it exists, instead of pretending it’s only on the side with the orange man.
>How, exactly?
i explain in the second half of the comment. i don’t want to spoil the anticipation for you.
Restating your original incorrect thesis does not explain anything.
‘They’re both fascist.’
‘No they’re not, and here’s why, with examples. Please prove your point.’
‘Yes they are.’ <— this is not proof.
i did give examples. you just don’t like them. the fact that your pretending i didn’t, now, indicates some pretty serious intellectual dishonesty.