ThreePointTakedown

Nothing to do with presidential politics? Go ahead and back that up. Disingenuous? Hardly. If you hold all to the same standard this is hardly even a blip. Because, as I stated before, it is true. I think you just don’t like that it was and want to reframe it to deny it because of your again arbitrary criteria.

Noted

Is that what happened? Please explain

Again, so now what? You’ve given yourself a get out of conversation free card. You don’t want your opinions challenged. I get it. Then log off.

I’m sorry. As soon as you address my post adequately, including my question(s), then I’ll consider your questions.

Thought Stopper Alert What I take from you saying that is, 'if you don't put forth a fully accurate picture of every topic, to my satisfaction, I am within my right to dismiss your information as false and not consider it at all.' Where do we go from there? You are setting it up so you can move the goal posts as much as you want whenever you want. My toddler does the same thing when not getting their way. You're all branding yourselves as biased, dishonest, and unable/unwilling to even consider information as true that challenges your opinion. Why should anyone take you seriously? And do you even care? Every attempt to pivot, muddy, and shift goal posts is a defense mechanism your brain forces you to type so your opinions are not challenged in a meaningful way.

Rather than asking yourself what metric Kamala may have been citing and starting the discussion there. Did you ask yourself why your knee jerk reaction was to brand the claim as a lie. It wasn't. Clearly. Based on everyone tacitly agreeing with Ms. Harris and not refuting the fact that the percentage of the vote was closer than any presidential election in the 21st century. Just simply pivoting to, 'well that's not the metric I feel is the best' and not put forth a reason why it should be prioritized over another. Just so you could dunk on someone that you don't like. Have you asked yourself why you all tend to do that? Is it just so you can more comfortably retain your cognitive biases without having to address them? That's my guess. Because an honest person would say, 'Kamala is correct in one area, but also there are other metrics that paint a different picture'. But y'all aren't honest. Kamala was correct. I know it's difficult for some of you all to see a person like that challenging your version of reality. So much so that you need to scream into the void in the hopes that others rally to your side. But you will always get push back from me and my big text. Because you are almost always wrong about everything you think and feel. And I'm more than happy to point it out with a smile on my face and I know that pisses some people off. ;D

What is your claim? Maybe I can address it. Just to get ahead of it. If your claim is that it wasn't the closest presidential election in the 21st century. It was(1.47% difference, side note; how can any election be considered a landslide if you win less than 50% of the popular vote? But I digress). Go back and look at the numbers. Next closest was in 2000 at .5% difference. But then again that wasn't in the 21st century. Seeing as how that moron put it in quotations, I assume that is the claim and they are absolutely wrong. But glad you took the time to post your support. If you have contrary information please present it?

If you would like me to assume you know what's in my head, then it would save me time typing. But I don't think that would help anyone else that could be reading. I'm sorry that I make you read so much. But you also didn't answer as to why is a wrong approach. Do you suggest that only speak to people I feel can hang with me and my experience on a topic? That must be what it is. But then you'll be upset that I am trying to seem intellectually superior by not included those I feel could not follow along. I have a feeling you know the answer(s) is/are 'yes' but won't admit it, but do you realize you're getting upset and fomenting anger towards a person, firstly, that others will/might see and potentially spur them to violence and secondly, is such a minor topic in the world that you just want something to be upset about? I know you won't read this so I'm comfortable in ranting here. But this is one of the major differences in the two parties. The left has legitimate concerns with the direction the right is trying to take the country. Which is towards authoritarianism and christian nationalism. Putting at risk the lives of countless people, including many on the right, that would not survive the purge that would need to happen for it to take place. And that IS what will need to happen. Because that's what happens every time. They get rid of the professors that study government and history so that they can rewrite it. Purge the artists and the intellectuals because they have the rhetorical skills to protest effectively and inspire the masses to stand against a dictator. Then it gets trickier. Everything that isn't immediate compliance is an act of rebellion and no one can be allowed to get away with it. Because one match can start a fire. I know, if you're reading this at all, you're saying to yourself, 'no it could never happen here, I wouldn't let it'. But if all you care about are you and your small circle of family and friends. Then suddenly one of them was put in the cross hairs of that regime simply by accident and given no due process to prove their case and deported or executed. How safe would you feel knowing, now, that currently the party that would most likely do something like this(and we all know its the Republicans, because everything is allowed with god on your side) is one you support. You'll probably blather about how much I type and how long it takes for you to read. That's just want someone that should be talked down to would say. So it doesn't bother me. Because I have thought of these things and if you've read this far, you have too even though you probably tried really hard not to. For fear of having to come to terms with the hate and anger that the leaders of your party have for the Constitution and at least 50% of the people in this country.

Honor system, without going back. If you actually read the post, can you roughly breakdown my explanation? Then tell me why I would wrong with that approach?

My. Name. Is. Neo!

So your conclusion is that there is nothing wrong or harmful. Because at no point did you prove any of the aforementioned points. Present evidence JC does any of these things frequently enough to rise to a harmful or unproductive level. Seems she got all your attention.

Haha, thank you for the flattery and the gaslighting. Trying to tell me my lived experience. Not surprised tho. Conceding a point is rare regardless of how obvious. Better luck next time.

If I were a politician, with access to more and detailed information than all but about 500 people have seen and I was talking to a constituent, dumbing things down to make a point would be beneficial for both of us depending on the subject. Them to understand a potentially complex issue and me not wasting my time, getting a good sound bite for a video to put out to the social medias. As a coach, we often have to dumb things down for younger or less experienced athletes. Watching their eyes glaze over when you try to explain how I think of a situation can be disconcerting for both us. They may feel dumb or feel I think they are, for not being able to follow a topic that is currently over their head. Would we ever condemn a coach for explaining something two different ways to two athletes at vastly different skill/experience levels? Of course not. We do these things on the fly all the time. Something doesn't land quite right we pivot and try a different tactic. Anything to get the message through and in a constructive way. Y'all seem like you just look for things to get mad at. But seeing how riled up your leaders keep you. Being in the red seems like your idle position these days.

I meant the whole site. Going back years. Hate to burst the bubble but lots of petty people here.