M: I’m trying to quickly say this, but I keep rambling and can’t quite hit the Mark:
I crave the day that someone acknowledges that Donald did something wrong without trying to compare it to previous presidential actions that were also wrong, or that someone calls them on trying to justify a sin sin with a previous one. If Donald drops a bomb without congressional approval and that is wrong, and then someone tries to defend it By saying Obama did the same thing, I am going to feel so good on the day when someone finally calls them on it appropriately, saying that if you’re on the record for saying it’s wrong before, that doesn’t make it right this time and both sides were wrong
G: Here’s a more concise and clean version that keeps your tone and intent intact:
“I crave the day someone just admits Donald did something wrong without immediately deflecting to ‘Well, Obama did it too.’ If dropping a bomb without congressional approval was wrong then, it’s still wrong now. I’ll feel real satisfaction when someone finally calls that out properly: just because both sides did it doesn’t make it right.”
Let me know if you want a sharper, more formal, or more emotional variation.
M: The length is appropriate, but what I want is for someone to call them on it in a way that actually gets people to realize that the argument is full of shit
G: Got it — you want something that lands hard enough to cut through the noise and actually snap people out of it. Here's a version that hits with that intention:
"I crave the day someone shuts that deflection down for real — when a person finally says, ‘If you said it was wrong when Obama did it, then it’s still wrong now. You don’t get to justify a wrong by pointing to another one. That’s not logic, that’s just tribalism in a cheap suit.’"
It names the fallacy, calls out the motive, and keeps the emotional force. Want it even sharper or with a specific tone (sarcastic, solemn, furious)?