I would read that
You could simply have passing an exam/test as a requirement to be a candidate in the election, in fact I'd say most influential positions would need that. For example, it should be required for the general secretary of a communist party to have good knowledge of theory, to ensure that we could have the candidates pass an exam.
"More democracy is bad for democracy"
I would welcome you with mounted cavalry
If I had one.
Why is France's contribution so much bigger than anyone else's? Do we produce that much more weapons than the rest of Europe?
Turkey is cooking.
"The Democrats may be doing a genocide, but have you considered cHeETo mAn bAD?"
No kiss?
These are the facts and I could give you charts with the soviet export.
Why say I could and not do it? If you have sources, give them. You haven't linked any source whatsoever in this entire thread to back up your wild claims.
There is no better option, there is no lesser evil between the two. Both party are the same evil with a different presentation.
How is a Harris win better for Gaza? You peoples can never explain this. You take for granted that the Democrats are always less bad no matter what they do and try to force this assumption onto everyone else by trying to force discussions to start from this assumption, so that you don't have to talk about it. And whenever someone doesn't bite and insist that you showing evidence that the Dems are less bad than the Reps, you get angry, rant about Trump, try ad-hoc explanation to try to hanwave away the very bad things the Dems are openly doing and when that still doesn't work you try to handwave away every arguments against you by calling us trolls or bots or secret Trump supporters.
If you had any leg to stand on there, you obviously wouldn't be doing that. Because all you would have to do is to point out to us your evidences that the Democrats are less evil than the Republicans.
But since you don't have any, the only way for you to "win" that argument is to lash out and come up with ad-hoc explanations as to why arguments against you thesis have to be wrong by default without having to think about the arguments themselves.
"We have no choice but to accept fascist policies to prevent fascist policies"