▲ 671 ▼ After blocking hundreds of promotions, Tuberville said the US has 'the weakest military than we've probably had in my lifetime' (www.businessinsider.com) submitted 2 years ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/politics@lemmy.world 144 comments fedilink hide all child comments 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 13 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] aidan@lemmy.world -10 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [+] skippedtoc@lemmy.world -13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] aidan@lemmy.world -10 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] skippedtoc@lemmy.world -13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent