If someone has to mischaracterize you this hard in order to make their argument, it usually means they want to disagree but can’t find an aboveboard way to argue against anything you said.
And so, behold: “Voting is better than not” becomes “voting is all you need to do and things are fine,” and is presented all sarcastic and mean. It’s not a real convincing way to argue, but what else can you do if you’re trying to say people on the left not voting is gonna be a winning strategy for the left?
What am I mischaracterizing? The only person who’s mischaracterizing is you. “Voting is better than not,” isn’t what they said. Voting in America doesn’t work. Every American could abstain from voting and the outcome would be the same thanks to the Electoral College.
If someone has to mischaracterize you this hard in order to make their argument, it usually means they want to disagree but can’t find an aboveboard way to argue against anything you said.
And so, behold: “Voting is better than not” becomes “voting is all you need to do and things are fine,” and is presented all sarcastic and mean. It’s not a real convincing way to argue, but what else can you do if you’re trying to say people on the left not voting is gonna be a winning strategy for the left?
What am I mischaracterizing? The only person who’s mischaracterizing is you. “Voting is better than not,” isn’t what they said. Voting in America doesn’t work. Every American could abstain from voting and the outcome would be the same thanks to the Electoral College.
I said:
And you characterized that as:
… so that you would have a way to disagree with me.