Tuberville failed to mention that he’s personally prevented hundreds of officers from being promoted because he disagrees with a 2022 Pentagon policy.

  • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    precedent of being able to abolish the competing party

    Nobody said that, quit arguing with things in your head honey

    • skippedtoc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Read the first comment in the thread. Or learn reading comprehension.

      Or I suppose you can continue spouting random shit and appending honey at the end.

      • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        honey you are seriously reaching if you choose to interpret “should not be allowed into office” as “we must abolish them”

        should not vs shall not, ironic telling someone else to practice reading comprehension

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          11 months ago

          Or I suppose you can continue spouting random shit and appending honey at the end.

          Dude it was right there

        • skippedtoc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          A political party which should not be allowed into office, is what? Turning a major political party into your high school group is not abolishing. Trolling has to have a limit man.

          Edit: as I was typing this, I reread your comment and realized you have chosen option 2. Well played, and good luck.

          • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            A political party which should not be allowed into office, is what?

            the loser, the statement was encouraging a voting position

            “everyone I disagree with is trolling”

            • aidan@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              11 months ago

              the statement was encouraging a voting position

              the phrasing didn’t indicate that. “Should never win an election” would be much more clear than “should not be allowed” which implies prohibition.

              • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                the phrasing didn’t indicate that

                the phrasing certainly didn’t indicate that they wish for the abolition of the GOP, you came up with that on your own

                "should not be allowed” which implies prohibition.

                you’re thinking of “shouldn’t be able” bud, at the end of an election there can only be one party allowed into office

                • aidan@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  you’re thinking of “shouldn’t be able” bud

                  Actually, I view it as the opposite. Really this is subjective language differences. But should not be allowed to me implies there is rules prohibiting, where’s shouldn’t be able to implies that they should just fail to.

            • skippedtoc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Hmm, it seems one of us has misinterpreted the statement. I interpreted the should not be allowed in office as, “a law should be passed saying that”.

              While you, perhaps correctly assumed that it means people should not vote for them. Sorry I thought you were being willfully obtuse. Still, I am not completely convinced my interpretation of statement was wrong.

              But regardless, we are both apparently in agreement on this point.

              But, my second point stands, that you are an unpleasant person using intimate and friendly words as an attack.