[sumo89]

You're complaining about how Trump was presented as a threat to democracy after he made a speech saying how if he wins you'll never have to vote again? After he lead an insurrection and tried to illegally overthrow the previous election both on paper and in person?

Seen a good few Trumpers complaining about the label "far right". If you don't like the label that's on you, it's like an orange complaining about being called an orange, it's a fact.

[throwaway345725]

Like I said, it was a dark moment. However, Democrats have been in charge for 12 out of the past 16 years and have the support of billionaires owning the biggest content platforms. Recently, they used those platforms to the fullest extent to drive their political agenda with the general message being "Democrats are the only moral choice". He stirred up an insurrection but like I said it's not just about Trump but the 2-party system that makes this a democracy. I would repeat the second paragraph of my previous comment.

What am I supposed to think when I see a campaign ad like this? [1]

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/04/politics/video/will-ferre...

[happytoexplain]

>Like I said, it was a dark moment.

The parent pointed out that Trump promised the same thing again - so not a dark moment, but a dark pattern. Very dark. There's not much darker than overturning the rule of law and creating civil unrest.

>"Democrats are the only moral choice"

I agree with you that Democrats are not somehow unusually moral, but I don't think this is the lie you are portraying it as (or exaggeration? It's unclear what your criticism is exactly). Plenty of people have been given plenty of concrete examples indicating that the Trump camp contains a significant portion of people who espouse unusually immoral ideologies. Maybe they're wrong, but they don't have to do mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion in an intellectually honest manner. And, as you rightly point out, there are effectively only two parties.

>I would repeat the second paragraph

Regarding that, then:

>if [women] don't vote they may lose their ability to vote. This is ridiculous.

I've heard Trump supporters say they think women shouldn't vote dozens of times - on the social media platforms you claim are (or were at the time) lacking conservative voices. The notion isn't ridiculous. It's unlikely. But when it comes to threats to the most foundational rights, "unlikely" isn't good enough for the voter's mind.

>Whether you like him or not he is the candidate of the other party. There is no democracy without the other party.

Democrats largely don't take this stance beyond petty disrespect like "not my president" and demanding recounts in very close regions. Trump supporters, on the other hand, explicitly do take this stance when the other candidate wins, as you, again, have already admitted.

>Elon Musk saved the day by buying Twitter

Twitter moderation under Musk is at least as right-leaning as it was left-leaning prior. That is to say, somewhat. What Musk did do was declare the word "cis" a slur, broadly. A word I used to describe myself and my wife in another comment, because it was relevant and correct (the usual comparisons are the words "Jew" or "gay").

Republicans haven't been anywhere near absent from social platforms for 15 years. Underrepresented, maybe. However, social platforms bring out the ever-living pettiness of politics on both sides, and the conservative flavor of pettiness is naturally more likely to break even the most politically-neutral moderation rules (or be "shouted down", by whatever definition you want for that) on social media platforms, because it is more anti-social than the liberal flavor of pettiness.