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

  • @skippedtoc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -15
    edit-2
    7 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
      127 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
        -87 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
          37 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
            17 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
        -12
        edit-2
        7 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.