Whatever the logical problems with strawman arguments, I’m under no moral or intellectual obligation to “steelman” the Republicans’ actions (and its their actions, not their arguments, in question here). I interpret their actions in the way that is most consistent with the evidence. If they don’t like that interpretation, they can do other things.
But it is true that persuading Republicans to stop engaging in dominion is not my primary goal here. It is to persuade Democrats and liberals and neutral observers to reframe discussion of the two parties around their actual ideologies, rather than their positions on the change spectrum (liberal-conservative).
By “take two cookies”, I obviously meant “take and eat two cookies”. That’s the most reasonable meaning on its face, and it’s the only one that makes sense in the context of the rest of the argument — as long as we’re insisting on careful interpretation. In that case, there’s no mindreading involved. If you’ve eaten the cookie, you’re not safeguarding it for anyone. But in any case, the cookie remark was just one of several illustrations, and the entire rest of my discussion of dominion makes clear my meaning.
If you care about this sort of thing, your repeated use of the adjective ‘Democrat’ — a deliberate, cultivated practice of Republicans — where Democrats themselves use ‘Democratic’ (as standard grammar dictates) isn’t likely to convince any Democrats that you’re arguing in good faith.