So far you have learned only obvious and mundane things. I know that taking the first step can be the hardest part of the journey, so I wanted to coddle you a little just to get you going. The coddling stops here. You must now understand the cold, hard truth of competition. This is the difficult par
NO YOU CAN'T WIELD POWER THAT'S CHEATING WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE IMAGINARY RULES I MADE UP!
I agree that libs are playing with an imaginary set of rules that they made up themselves, but there’s things like gerrymandering that are actually illegal that conservatives still do. I’m more of a competitive card gamer, so let me put my analogy I those terms - if a card was vague on its use case and an official clarification was sent re: the specific use case, but a player kept playing the illegal use case. You should call in a ref and complain.
However, there are other things that aren’t specifically written in the rules that they should do but don’t for “morality” sake like attacking their opponents directly in speeches.
The problem with these sorts of analogies is that they break down when applied to politics. If the card's rules are vague and a player is trying to cheat on them, it also turns out that player is one of the refs, and also was the one who designed the card in the first place. And when you try to bring this up with the other ref, they just shrug and say "well I don't want to give an unfair ruling, what if I was in that situation and they ruled that my move was illegal? Better to just let them do what they want."
Following the law when you don't have to and it's counter productive to victory is one of the made up rules Libs follow for no sensible reason. The law is a weapon for hurting your enemies, not some kind of moral code you're obligated to adhere to.
I agree that libs are playing with an imaginary set of rules that they made up themselves, but there’s things like gerrymandering that are actually illegal that conservatives still do. I’m more of a competitive card gamer, so let me put my analogy I those terms - if a card was vague on its use case and an official clarification was sent re: the specific use case, but a player kept playing the illegal use case. You should call in a ref and complain.
However, there are other things that aren’t specifically written in the rules that they should do but don’t for “morality” sake like attacking their opponents directly in speeches.
The problem with these sorts of analogies is that they break down when applied to politics. If the card's rules are vague and a player is trying to cheat on them, it also turns out that player is one of the refs, and also was the one who designed the card in the first place. And when you try to bring this up with the other ref, they just shrug and say "well I don't want to give an unfair ruling, what if I was in that situation and they ruled that my move was illegal? Better to just let them do what they want."
Following the law when you don't have to and it's counter productive to victory is one of the made up rules Libs follow for no sensible reason. The law is a weapon for hurting your enemies, not some kind of moral code you're obligated to adhere to.