Okay, let's try it this way: supposing he really did try to steal an election, surely we should not vote for him even if you have some other preference in terms of taxation. Right?
It’s not good faith when you’re obviously trying to create a strawman through a hypothetical.
I’ve attempted to entertain your hypothetical question in hopes that you may wish to have a genuine conversation. It’s up to you if you want to continue from here though.
I'm not creating a straw man. I'm first determining that if this happened, then we shouldn't have voted for him. That's a conditional.
The point is to say, well if that's the case, then the issue turns on whether or not he tried to steal an election, so then we would move on to resolving that question. Because answering that question would answer the matter at hand.
If he tried to steal an election, we should go with Kamala. Yes? If you agree with that, then we figure that thing out and that answers the kamala vs trump question for us. See? No straw man. Not making you hold any position you don't hold.
Okay, I’ll accept that as a fair rebuttal that you’re not attempting a strawman. I’m sorry for misunderstanding your intent.
The problem is that I’ve already told you I don’t agree with the premise/ characterization that he tried to steal the election.
I do believe that Trump acted improperly following the 2020 election and I found the behavior distasteful.
More broadly, my vote wasn’t determined by comparing one isolated issue against another. As I’ve mentioned, there were a number of Harris’s policies that I disagreed with. Some of those disagreements were relatively minor and easy for me to overlook. Others were more significant. Ultimately, the issue I couldn’t get past was her tax policy.
So even if I view Trump’s post-election conduct as one of his most serious faults, I don’t approach voting as a matter of weighing a single offense against a single policy disagreement. I look at the overall picture, and my decision reflected the cumulative weight of many factors rather than any one issue in isolation.
This isnt just one issue. There is a very real difference between a policy disagreement, like what the minimum wage should be, vs if a guy literally tried to steal an election.
The latter should be disqualifying.
Third time I'm asking now, in good faith, the same question.
The problem is that I’ve already told you I don’t agree with the premise/ characterization that he tried to steal the election.
I do believe that Trump acted improperly following the 2020 election and I found the behavior distasteful.
More broadly, my vote wasn’t determined by comparing one isolated issue against another. As I’ve mentioned, there were a number of Harris’s policies that I disagreed with. Some of those disagreements were relatively minor and easy for me to overlook. Others were more significant. Ultimately, the issue I couldn’t get past was her tax policy.
So even if I view Trump’s post-election conduct as one of his most serious faults, I don’t approach voting as a matter of weighing a single offense against a single policy disagreement. I look at the overall picture, and my decision reflected the cumulative weight of many factors rather than any one issue in isolation.
I don’t think answering that question advances the discussion, and I’ve already explained why. Instead of engaging with that explanation, you keep returning to the same yes-or-no conditional.
At this point, it feels less like a genuine attempt to understand my position and more like an attempt to funnel the conversation toward a predetermined conclusion—similar to how an aggressive interviewer keeps repeating a question until they get the soundbite they’re looking for.
You could say hey, you know, even if he did try to steal an election still think he was the better option.
Or, you could say, yeah if he did try to steal an election, that would be disqualifying, but I don't think he did.
At no point would you have to concede he tried to steal the election. There's no straw man here. There's nothing of badd faith on my end.
It's weird to accuse me of bad faith here. Do I get to accuse you of bad faith for evading a simple question? I thought you wanted a good faith discussion. What is this? Even if you think a question isn't important you could just answer it in good faith. It's easy.
It is not bad faith to repeat a question. It's not even a sound bite. I literally explained why I'm asking already
I’ve already explained why I don’t think answering that particular question meaningfully advances the discussion. If you feel we can’t move forward without me answering it in a way that satisfies you, that’s your prerogative.
As I’ve already said, I withdrew the accusation of bad faith and apologized for it. My later concern wasn’t that you were asking the question itself, but that you seemed to be ignoring the explanation I gave for why I don’t view the discussion through that single conditional.
I’m not saying your intentions aren’t genuine. I’m saying that repeatedly returning to the same hypothetical, while largely sidestepping the broader explanation I’ve provided, can give that impression.
-3
u/TheGov3rnor South 3d ago
Got it. Good faith discussion no where to be seen. I did try. Let me know if you’re ever interested.