LindyAF
Well-known member
Also, I think that arguments about insufficient political capital can only be considered as being made in good faith if they are made by people who actually agree with the general point. If you disagree with the general point, you can only debate the general point on it's merits in good faith, you can't in good faith make an argument about political capital or picking and choosing battles, and it comes off as disingenuous and deceptive.
Like for instance, say you're talking with someone about 2A, and they support it and agree with you that the Hughes Amendment should be repealed, but they don't think bump stocks is a winnable fight and don't want to expend the political capital on it. You disagree on tactics and strategy, not goals. Compare that to someone whose a fudd, or thinks the 2A should be repealed - any argument they're making about political capital is being made in bad faith, and you really couldn't convince them they're wrong even if you could prove that it is a winning strategy because they don't want you to win.
Like for instance, say you're talking with someone about 2A, and they support it and agree with you that the Hughes Amendment should be repealed, but they don't think bump stocks is a winnable fight and don't want to expend the political capital on it. You disagree on tactics and strategy, not goals. Compare that to someone whose a fudd, or thinks the 2A should be repealed - any argument they're making about political capital is being made in bad faith, and you really couldn't convince them they're wrong even if you could prove that it is a winning strategy because they don't want you to win.