ThreePointTakedown

Parents do horrible things to their children all the time. Can you not think of even one instance? Abuse or neglect. Your assumption is that they are of sound mind to begin with. How many parents disown and kick out their children for being gay or atheist or trans or woke or liberal? When you think of parents that would do that, which way do they lean politically/philosophically? Right? Oh ya!

Shouldn’t you articulate the relevance before spiking the ‘you didn’t answer my question’ football. If they didn’t bring up the topic you should explain why you did. If it’s a waste of time to address your question then what is the point of entertaining it?

Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brunai, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, UAE, UK Per capita or overall numbers? Per capita, Germany. Over all, USA. Why is one better than another? Because if its over all most, then we should have allowed entry of more immigrants based on our population. Countries listed in #1. Also, 'if you're complaining about this country you should leave' as an argument for anything. Which it really isn't. It is a dishonest way to stop a conversation. Because if that is used for anything else, does the same thing. Voting rights, slavery, economic policy, gun rights... if anyone has anything negative to say about a system that you, seemingly, are having success within, you say to just 'leave' rather then address the argument. You don't want to have a conversation. You just want to flex your privilege all while yelling that America Is Not Great like it once was. But you never think to just leave rather then keep shouting. So if you're not going at least pretend to think your advice is sound, then shut up. Because we all know why you type it.

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.

I have a feeling you wear it as a badge of honor. But do you know you’re typing racist things while you’re doing it or after? How long after if at all?

People on this thread site have mocked me for using big words. People get offended when they feel they are being spoken down to. Yes I see the irony in speaking down to you in an attempt to educate you about speaking down to people. When perceiving to be spoken down to an emotional response can happen and you may no longer be listening for the purpose of understanding, but waiting for you chance to interject the nature of your perceived offense. So it can be beneficial in certain circumstances to dumb things down. For example, visiting a doctor. There is a tiny chance someone could understand what doctor is saying if things are not dumbed down at least a bit. If you're not as upset with doctors dumbing things down, which is way more impactful on your life, than a politician you should ask yourself why you care? Is it just a way for you to flex your rage at a political party, an opinion, or a person from a particular group? To answer your question, no they are not ‘too’ dumb. That’s how she feels is a productive way to communicate. Sorry that makes you mad. have asked yourself why you’re so mad?

How do you figure?

Confidence. Watch these two try to knock down a successful member of their own. Did she say ‘monkey mascot’? She’s jealous of a ‘county school’ kid. There it is she admits it! Racists are just gonna racist. And yes you CAN be racist against a group you belong to.

Yet no refutation. Shocking!

‘I could dispute this and it’d be too easy but I don’t want to, but I could.’ Tick tock

https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year Firstly, how have leftist been in complete control of education? Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama, 45, Biden, 47. Since Carter, Reps have had more years(since at least 1979) at the helm and in charge of the department of education. So republicans, who are traditionally anti-education and anti-intellectual(attacking Harvard, Columbia, etc for being too liberal), have orchestrated the collapse of education in this country. Considering nothing was sited to support the point and you agreed and its obviously wrong. This is a prime example of what happens when you stop trying to educate the people. Gaslighting in the hopes that no one can google the real answer. Secondly, let's play this out 'til the end. What values? How and why are those important? Third, 'Clearly...' Do tell, how did you get to that conclusion? Fourth, Disagree. Some schools are markedly better than others. Which is kinda the point. Some get good resources based on where they were lucky enough to be born. You probably won't agree but we know that things have happened for decades that push certain groups of people to live in certain areas. Thus setting them up for less government provided, mandated educational resources. Which has quite a large influence on their socioeconomic trajectory. Again, you probably don't agree but I would be interested to see why.