Uh, no, because not 100% of any electorate ever agree on everything. You put your trust in your elected representative to act in the best interest of his/her constituents in his or her judgment because they have more facts, more focus and more experience making or executing laws (and they're paid to).I thought that the job of an elected representative is to do what their electorate put them forward for, it should really not have a lot to do with their personal views !
Then do something different than all the posters before you.Right, because you know me personally, inside out, and back to front..... That's laughable, and you know it.
In Marvel the big purple **** was nice to the little green girl for a bit. But we are talking orange here so who knows.So I guess I don’t quite understand how:
A) You considered my original post about Truman not necessarily being someone to be admired to lack nuance.
B) How the isolated incident in Truman’s life contradicts my assertion that Truman is not necessarily someone to be admired.
I am sure Hitler, Putin, and Palpot showed mercy and grace to people at various times in their life, but I think you and I would agree that such incidents in isolation are not sufficient to make a reasonable assessment of them as people? Nor would doing so be considered a “nuanced take”.
Why does it never occur to people in this particular forum that you don't have to be one or the other, but can still comment ?
Scratches head again !
Ohh, that's how you roll. Anyone you can't pile on, dismiss, or doesn't quite fit into the box you'd like to push them in becomes a troll ? :-)
Supreme confidence from you, I'll balance on a beach ball, and catch fish in my mouth just for you.Then do something different than all the posters before you.
You won't and can't, because you aren't.
Offer insight, or a unique perspective then. Dazzle us with your brilliance.
I know you better than you know yourself.
Nice word salad there.For my part i made no suggestion as such, though i have to say i'm "people" too.
You use faulty reasoning, and the method in which you do it is to ascribe a modified narrative to the comments of others that you would find more easy to present as objectionable. But this is a self serving rethorical device, and one that 'if made conciously" can even deemed outright arrogant.
Though the more potential arrogant aspect of it could be that it devolves to a form of constant attack and pushing the opposing side to "defend" their view for the apparent clarification it hence would need be given. "constant attack" is a often used poppulist rhetorical device as it gives optics of some superiority or "being able to force a person to justify" as if one is the natural prosecuter of it. One should not find oneself on the constant defense trough need to clarify if the opposing argument is of a constant erroneous nature that only brings the debate further from finding empirically established truths.
Nice word salad there.
I guess I pile on because I dislike idiots, especially those who can't read; to wit: after being told a dozen times the post you questioned didn't say what you thought it did, you're still here arguing instead of apologiz(s)ing for getting it wrong.Supreme confidence from you, I'll balance on a beach ball, and catch fish in my mouth just for you.
You really do seem to have hurty feelings. Maybe go and have a lie down in a shady room. I'm not here to offer insight or unique perspective on American politics, I don't there, and neither do the majority of this 'offended thread'. I just scartched my head about an insinuation that Trumpers are ill educted. What's your excuse for joinig the pile on and claiming to me better that I know myself. (such a crap claim to make)
Let’s get back to good faith discussion.
Anyone see Vance crediting Trump for Biden’s deal to get the American hostages back from Russia?
The maintenance of an alternate reality for Trump supporters to occupy continues.