Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dirty harry" data-source="post: 1223140" data-attributes="member: 86934">Except this is a bit of a lie isn&#039;t it? I made a comment about how I was surprised by Trump&#039;s popularity in New York, a notorious anti Trump city. I gave anecdotal evidence that Trump was revered better than I expected, and I caveated it with that it wasn&#039;t a &#039;Trump town&#039;, but discussion was far more favourable than expected.Like for like would be making the point maybe it was due to being in tourist areas, or the softening of language used since a brutal campaign etc, which would have been perfectly valid points. You went with skewed statistics that didn&#039;t make the case you wanted them too, like his approval rating and vote minority that are standard for US presidents lol. My skewed stats in return were pretty like for like.I said as i engaged in Trump discussion I was reluctant because of the lack of ability to see nuance, regulate emotion or be intellectually honest from those who love or hate him, and sadly you&#039;ve proved my fears correct. I&#039;m not going to engage with you going forward, I don&#039;t dislike or judge you, I just don&#039;t think there&#039;s any productive discussion here with you because you are unwilling to concede the tiniest bit of ground when offered, like admitting no other presidential candidate has received 214 million votes before, or even more sadly not acknowldging, but being faux offended by a great joke mocking the DOGE claim that USAID was funding transgender surgeries for animals!The difference is you see me mock, and be critical of Trump as well as challenging one sided articles and stats.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dirty harry, post: 1223140, member: 86934"] Except this is a bit of a lie isn't it? I made a comment about how I was surprised by Trump's popularity in New York, a notorious anti Trump city. I gave anecdotal evidence that Trump was revered better than I expected, and I caveated it with that it wasn't a 'Trump town', but discussion was far more favourable than expected. Like for like would be making the point maybe it was due to being in tourist areas, or the softening of language used since a brutal campaign etc, which would have been perfectly valid points. You went with skewed statistics that didn't make the case you wanted them too, like his approval rating and vote minority that are standard for US presidents lol. My skewed stats in return were pretty like for like. I said as i engaged in Trump discussion I was reluctant because of the lack of ability to see nuance, regulate emotion or be intellectually honest from those who love or hate him, and sadly you've proved my fears correct. I'm not going to engage with you going forward, I don't dislike or judge you, I just don't think there's any productive discussion here with you because you are unwilling to concede the tiniest bit of ground when offered, like admitting no other presidential candidate has received 214 million votes before, or even more sadly not acknowldging, but being faux offended by a great joke mocking the DOGE claim that USAID was funding transgender surgeries for animals! The difference is you see me mock, and be critical of Trump as well as challenging one sided articles and stats. [/QUOTE]

Verification