JFC deporting people if their asylum claim fails isn’t the same as what trump is doing. That you’re trying to equate them is mind bogglingly bad. Anything to confuse the issue and say b b both sides same, huh. I recognize your name so I’m not going to reply further.
Bring Apartheid to America. BAA.
Republican never Trumper that doesn’t vote GOP is likely vanishingly small. They all fall in line.
It might siphon off the GOP voters that begrudingly fell in line because they bought the Communist Kamala or something, or the ones that needed to see Trump disaster a second time.
Ahhahahahahahaha. Not even Trump was this stupid. I wonder what way this will split the vote though. I think on the right but who tf knows who would follow this.
I thought of a different way to put this. It’s like that meme where two people look at the same things and see different things.
You see harm reduction. You see that as a reason to vote for Dems.
They see harm reduction. They see that as a reason to not vote for Dems. Because to them they see harm reduction, is harm lite, is harm, and they will not vote for harm.
I say don’t fall for their framing of calling it harm reduction.
Air squats. Do them.
then you need to sell it as a vote against fascism.
And you’re not doing that by calling it harm reduction. They see harm reduction, as harm lite, as harm, which they won’t vote for. We’re going around in circles so I’m gonna leave.
You entered a conversation that was clearly about US elections.
I saw the term “harm reduction” fucking everywhere before the election. I eventually realized they meant it as an argument to not vote for Dems. “Why should I vote for harm reduction it’s only harm reduction”. Looks like everyone fell for their trick.
I’m going to post this first; I think one point of confusion is that I see the term “harm reduction” originating from the “both sides same” people. They use it to say “it’s only harm reduction, it’s still harm, therefore I won’t vote for it”. Or “Dems only reduce harm, not help, therefore I won’t vote for them”. Don’t let them fall into that trap of what’s basically both sides same.
If a person is anti-dem, there’s no way you’ll convert them with logical arguments.
That’s part of the problem with trying to argue “harm reduction”. You’ll never convince them trying to argue “harm reduction”. It plays right into what they want: to portray Dems as harm, just harm lite. That’s what they want, for you to call it harm reduction, which is harm lite, which is on the same side as harm, which they won’t vote for.
For the rest of this message, you’ve fallen for their trick. I started to elaborate but I’m going to cut it off there.
Ok I think one point of confusion is that I see the term “harm reduction” originating from the “both sides same” people. They use it to say “it’s only harm reduction, it’s still harm, therefore I won’t vote for it”. Or “Dems only reduce harm, not help, therefore I won’t vote for them”. Don’t fall for their trick and don’t let them fall into that trap of what’s basically both sides same.
If you let them use the term harm reduction, that lets them categorize it as harm. That’s what they want to do. They want to categorize it as harm, just harm lite. Once the categorize it as harm in any way, they won’t vote for it. That’s why they want to categorize it as harm lite. Don’t let them.
I think this is pretty similar as 1. They want to put everything as “harm less” instead of help. Again so they can categorize it as harm, and thus not vote for it. Again, don’t let them categorize it as “harm less”.
Point out that Dems can’t do anything without all 3 houses. And they’ve had all 3 houses for only 6 years out of the last 44 years. 2 years under each of Bill Clinton, Obama, and Biden.
And that’s the problem. Letting them use the term “harm reduction” lets them categorize it as “harm”, therefore they won’t vote for it. Because they see it as harm. Because they see it as all on the same side of harm (both sides harm/both sides same). There’s longer explanations in my other replies.
Convince them that Dems help.
Letting them think/use the term “harm reduction” lets them mentally put in the category of harm. I’m saying you can’t let them mentally put it into the category of harm or less harm or harm reduction, because they still see it as harm and thus won’t vote for it.
I understand the intended message. I’m saying it doesn’t work because to them it’s still harm.
(*I think this is flipped around. I see the term “harm reduction” originating from the “both sides same” people. They use it to say “it’s only harm reduction, it’s still harm, therefore I won’t vote for it”. Or “Dems only reduce harm, not help, therefore I won’t vote for them”. Don’t let them fall into that trap of what’s basically both sides same.)
Couple thoughts on that 1) Don’t play into their notion that both sides harm/both sides the same. That’s what they want. 2) We need to show them dems actually deliver. That’s not harm reduction, that delivering. Then the conversation turns to how to get more.
I’m realizing lots of people have binary thinking. It’s either harm or help. So the idea of harm reduction allows them to mentally put it in the same camp as harm. And once it’s in the same camp, then they think it’s all the same, and then they think there’s no point in it.
Do you not see it already on this thread? I already saw “more like the ice cream does not exist” and “more like one side wants to drive off, the other wants to drive really close so they can decide to drive off later.”
It’s basically saying one side harms, the other side harms less. Aka both sides harm. Aka both sides same. I see it as “both sides same” lite.
People got called out on “both sides same” so they switched the term to “harm reduction” to slip in the notion that both sides harm. I already see it in this thread.
When did it become popular for the hordes?
I understand, but other people lose their shit at not having that 3% and basically equate it to being 100% coal. I basically hear:“We’re still burning coal, so it was a complete and total failure! B b both sides same.”
Calling it harm reduction is thinly veiled 'both sides same" nonsense / “n n not enough”. Dems deliver when they get a majority in all 3 houses. Want more? Then give them more majorities.
*I think one point of confusion is I see the term “harm reduction” originating from the “both sides same” people. They use it to say “it’s only harm reduction, it’s still harm, therefore I won’t vote for it”. Or “Dems only reduce harm, not help, therefore I won’t vote for them”. Don’t fall for their trick, and don’t let them fall into that trap of what’s basically both sides same.
You get ice cream, just not as much as you want because some people refuse to vote.