Letsdothis @ Letsdothis @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

246

Joined

12 mo. ago

Ok. Thanks for your opinion.

Well, everyone can and should come to their own conclusion. One thing...

articles about Trump losing have a much stronger Central bias.

It's about 1/3 central 2/3 left. I think that is a good way to look at that.

Haha I wanna find the depth limit of your m... ! I'm jk. Just trying to help reach the thread limit.

You've been wasting a lot of time/energy replying here

Hah you're not wrong about that. I'm nearly worn out now.

I haven't answered those topics for a few reasons. Some are more nuanced/complicated and require more effort, and like you said, I've "been wasting a lot of time/energy replaying" already. But no, they aren't "minor quibbles" and totally worth arguing, but I have enough on my plate already.

IT IS A COMPREHENSION ISSUE BECAUSE WHAT YOU WROTE IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE.

I'm just about done... yall are wearing me out.

Lol, nice. Add making assumptions to that list now.

Got any more?

I can play this game...

Perhaps, but you are clearly thinking and writing like one.

That's an opinion. You sound politically color blind. If praise isn't being solely given to the candidate you support, sutely, he must be for the opposition.

"those of us who live in reality"

I'm not so sure you do. Trump said some of THE most inane things he's ever said, yet you are effectively equating that to what Harris had said, which had more substance in a few words than Trump had in the whole debate.

Way to take that quote out of context and then argue something else. This is the whole sentence:

I know everyone here thinks it was a big Harris win and no one denies it, so I'm just here to tell inform yall that "those of us who live in reality" don't consider it a big win for Harris or that Trump did badly.

I wasnt talking about the substance here. It was commentary about how it is being claimed that it was a "big loss for Trump" and/or a "major win for harris," which it was neither. People who actually interact with other people "in the real world" have a better understanding of how people actually perceived the debate.

Right out of the Fox News talking-point playbook. And the proper spelling would be "whiny". Unless you're comparing her sound to a horse's neigh.

Is it? I don't ever watch Fox, so I wouldn't know. Assuming and generalizing, not a good strategy.

Right out of the Fox News talking-point playbook.

Lol. Again, even. And even if it is, it's not wrong. This place is a liberal echo chamber. The sooner you're able to understand/accept this, the better off you will be overall.

Who said I can? Yours is incoherent and disjointed. Reading slower doesn't help.

1. It's not an argument. It's me explaining a simple phrase. 2. Yes, the phrase does hold up in a vacuum. 3. Why would we consider it in a vacuum?

And then... you say

Brought into the context that Trump said

So... you aren't putting it in a vacuum, you are putting it in the context of something 8 years ago. (Relevancy here is a stretch)...

your argument is utter bullshit.

My argument...? What was my argument?

... you all over the place, buddy. Nearly incomprehensible. Did you have anything of substance to add?

What would you consider to be an unbiased, credible source of factual information?

Oh geez... I don't think they make those anymore... the best we can do is try to recognize the bias when we see it.

I did find a cool app recently, though. It's called "ground news". It attempts to show bias of news articles. Being left, right, or center. It is very useful, I would recommend it.

Lol. Nice one.

But hey, I do agree with this. I'm glad we found common ground.

So your brilliant analysis that I overlooked in my assessment is that:

"concepts of a plan conveys that one has ideas or concepts of a plan"

Lol, yes! Are you ok? Yes, It means what it means. It doesn't have to be explained any different. I honestly don't understand why you and so many others cant comprehend this simple phrase.

I see you're not ready to admit or able to recognize this place is an echo chamber, and that's fine. It can take time.

Hah, I guess I can't argue the first part too much. Although, I believe it's still relevant because who wants want a president making stupid faces and being whinny. Putin would own her. She's good at staying on script, but I'd like to see her have a conversation about things that she hasn't been able to rehears.

Mmm glad we had this conversation.

Uhg... these things you said were said in the debate, you're not even paraphrasing. You're twisting what was said, turning them into personal insults. Secondly, why are you claiming I called them normal or sane, i never said that? You're using strawman tactics erroneously to try to make a point. So, ad hominems, strawman tactics, and lying about what I said... got anything else to add?

Ah, there's the 3rd. You're just full of it. Keep'em Coming.

Lol. Nice, 2 in a row. Got any more?

I'm not going to argue every point with you. Waste of my time/energy.

That's a weak, dog ate my homework, BS non-answer that any intelligent listener heard and understood as such.

... No, it demonstrates that those who share your perspective probably failed English in high school. Your claim of intelligence is fallacious. I'm sorry... fallacious means it was wrong or deceptive. I'll use smaller words for you.

'I have concepts of a plan, I'm not president'

This could be clearer. But it conveys that one has ideas or concepts of a plan but not in a position of authority to implement it.

I hope many read this so I don't have to keep "ELI5" to everyone.

(Edit: added the word "could")