Currently Online 
| EricHiggin said: What you said prior: "You asked if Trump talking to these chanters would lead to a constructive outcome. I said no, because no one cares about what he says, when 99% of what he says is bullshit. Same with the apology. I don't believe an apology would change anything, unless he acted in kind, in which case, yes, I would accept that apology." How I replied: "Your answer was, "no, Trump cannot talk himself out of his actions. He needs to act." So in other words, it doesn't matter what Trump does, he's getting treated like dirt regardless, unless he does exactly what the naysayers tell him to do. Don't the naysayers also believe in democracy? Hmm..."
Doesn't seem like you remember what you've already said, so there's no point in trying to re-explain 1-5 as well. |
You seem to really be struggling here, man...
Again, I stated he needed to act. I did not state that he needed to do "exactly what the naysayers tell him to do", whatever that means. That is you just making shit up.
I did say, as you highlighted, that his apology wouldn't be accepted unless he acted in kind. Basically, what that means is simply that his actions need to reinforce his words. You are the one who asked me this hypothetical about him apologizing, so I'm not sure why you are making it out to be unreasonable for me to ask him to act as if he truly meant that apology.
The way you are twisting this conversation is absolutely bizarre. To take a fairly banal point, that "actions speak louder than words" and twist it into some way of expressing that voicing discontent is somehow anti-democratic- Like, I can't even. How does your brain go from A to Zebra like this?
