I'm still trying to get a response to my original point that

"There are two sides. The Right and everyone else. The Right wins because they stay on topic and vote. Until the rest of us fall in line like they do, they’ll keep on winning."

does not logically follow from

"Donald Trump won the election in 2016 over Hilary Clinton"

and hence the latter does not prove the former.

The whole ploy of the other post in, when I pointed that out, demanding that I do the impossible and provide a "specific" and "detailed" plan to "get Trump out" (as if I'm some kind of omniscient divinity that can produce a specific and detailed plan for something as complex as that out of the top of my mind), followed by using my inability to do the impossible as evidence that I must be wrong about my earlier point, is just a common argumentation ploy to distract away from the point I made rather than address it, and specifically a ploy that the MAGAs constantly use.

Of course I don't have a "specific" and "detailed" plan to "get Trump out", and neither has the poster who demanded that I provided one in the full expectation that I couldn't - if it was that easy that even an internet rando could come up with a "specific and detailed plan" for it, it would've already happened.

If you read the thread back you will notice that I made a good faith attempt at providing at least some ideas, whilst the other poster has not put forward a single positive solutions oriented idea, only criticism, starting by criticizing everybody and later moving to criticizing my inability to do the impossible.

"Always criticism never solutions" is exactly the political strategy of populists. People who want to try and solve things, even if they think it's going to be hard as shit, don't spend their time in "criticize everybody" mode.

You're lying about what I wrote

Quote the exact words were I "blamed everybody" or even "asked for a solution".

Once again you're using a ploy straight out of the Fascist Manual of Argumentation: "When accused of something, accuse the other person of the same, lying if need be."

From the Fascist Manual of Argumentation you so far have:

• "Made broad claims about how everybody else is responsible for societal problems without providing any evidence at all of those claims. Demand that other do the work of disproving it when you yourself didn't do the work of trying to prove it"
• "When asked to back that theory with actual evidence, state a fact that is not logically linked to the theory you put forward, and hence cannot logically prove it".
• "When pointed out that there is no logical link between that event and your theory, counter-attack by demanding the impossible those pointing it out (in this case a "specific and detailed plan" for the problems of America as if that was easy) and when they naturally cannot deliver the impossible, use that to go down some "I win" rant whilst continuing to avoid the original point they made".
• "When they point out the nature of the argumentation ploys you're using to avoid addressing the original points they made, LIE about what they wrote to claimed that it was THEY who actually did it".

If you were arguing in good faith you would've either walked back on that theory, refined it some more, or tried to actually show there was a logical link between "Donald Trump winning the election in 2016 over Hilary Clinton" and "There are two sides. The Right and everyone else. The Right wins because they stay on topic and vote.".

You did not. Instead you went for the "Demand the impossible and when the impossible is not delivered claim that it proves the other person is not wrong" ploy, same as the MAGAs do.