It's not a "mythical" anything and I already explained the impact, so I'll cut this shorter than your attention span and call it a day. Kubo and the Two Strings is waiting. And it has imagination.
The long nightmare has just begun: Inauguration of a fraud.
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
ClimateSanity
New member
I can ignore it but no one knows I ignored it. All they will think is so and so trashed me good and I couldn't even think of a reply, so it must be true. I won't allow anyone to trash me unanswered if I can. Now, it's even worse. I've been told I will be banned if I defend myself against the attacker.
Why are you and fool allowed to defend yourself but not me? If doser attacks you , you silence him by getting him banned. I guess what is good for the house isn't good for the gander.
Ignore function between my ears indeed. Until you can do the same while a pack of vicious wolves trash your name......it's just empty hypocritical words.
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
ClimateSanity
New member
If you think about it, managing to get a majority of the EC votes despite a 3 million vote edge against you says a lot. It means your appeal is more wide spread and not just to a few narrow demographics that you pandered to .
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok, so tell me what "power" bush lacked in 2001?
what was bush unable to do that he could have if he'd had this mythical "popular mandate"?
Two responses occur to me.
1. And this matters why, exactly?
2. How would you know until you manage it?
People who want to think the worst of you will always find a reason to do it. You do that all the time. Maybe what puts that fear into you of something that really doesn't matter is a reflection of the way you think and not the thoughts of relative strangers, speaking from positions of anonymity, on an internet chat board.
People can say anything about you that they want to. They can't actually do anything to you though.
But that isn't what you were told. You should consider why that's how you remember it and learn that lesson already.
I never threaten to harm a soul. And it isn't hard to manage. All you have to do is either a) learn to restrain the impulse, or b) stop really investing anything in negativity, yours or theirs. Then you can occasionally learn something from one of you.
No, I really don't. You should look at the Woodshed and see who reports and what. It would be a revelation for you. The worst I've asked for with him is that when he trolls a thread he's banned from it, though a couple of the threads he's banned from came without a word from me. Knight kicked him out of one of them, by way of example.
You don't have a "name" here. And I walk away from conversations that aren't productive or interesting to me all the time. Again, I just did that with a poster in another thread. I don't answer most of what Sod says about me, don't visit the threads he makes about me, etc. But I also don't get so emotionally invested that I threaten people with violence. Or, I think my first advice here is the best I can give you.
I'm doing it as a pragmatic service. I don't support your contentions here at all, think they're largely hypocritical and contrived, but it doesn't matter. If you believe they're true I've seen that can be as real to you as the objective truth. So take the advice and apply it anyway. You'll be happier for it.
ClimateSanity
New member
Actually it says you won in spite of not being widely popular. Land doesn't feel, even if it can distort the power of a vote.
ClimateSanity
New member
By the way, I never threatened the person I am not allowed to talk to, your point is meaningless. I threatened one person...two weeks ago and it wasn't even direct.
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
ClimateSanity
New member
Hillary was not widely popular. A larger margin means nothing if all her support is from a narrow slice of society. America is much more than new York city and los Angeles county. Trump on the other hand was popular all across the country. Feminists and LGBTQ and immigrationists and hedge fund managers and Hollywood is not the totality of America.
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Neither candidate was beloved, but she had a few million more votes of confidence, which were negated by an operation of land and imaginary line.
Neither does this claim. Trumps support was less diverse as a demographic than Clinton's.
He captured about what Romney did in his failed bid.
America is much more than aging white people, CS. And that's the largest part of Trump's demo.
According to Pew it was:
Trump 58% to Clinton's 38% of whites
Trump 12% to Clinton's 88% of blacks
Trump 42% to Clinton's 54% of women
Trump 53% to Clinton's 41% of men
Trump 43% to Clinton's 52% of college graduates
Trump 52% to Clinton's 44% of those without a college education
Trump 37% to Clinton's 55% of voters between the ages of 18-29
Trump 53% to Clinton's 45% of voters 65 and older
In the sense that older, under educated white men are all across the country. Otherwise, not so much.
Untrue, since my point had nothing to do with the person you're fixated on and everything to do with the perspective you lack that finds you threatening anyone here. Learn/don't learn, it's your problem
ClimateSanity
New member
I dare anyone to take 100 Trump voters randomly and 100 Hillary voters randomly in a sociological study. Study them for 100 personality and lifestyle characteristics. Take the means and standard deviations on all characters. Compare the average standard deviation for all characters between Hillary and Trump voters.
I would lay down $100 that the Trump voters were more diverse than the Hillary supporters.
Race and ethnicity are not equal to diversity.
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
ClimateSanity
New member
First of all, I'm not fixated on anyone. It's liars like you that I have a problem with. Yes. You are a liar. You purposely said I was fixated on a personal with the intent to defame my person. That makes you a scumbag.
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
You've spent an awful lot of time talking about her, but you missed the larger point again.
See, there you go illustrating the point I was actually making. You literally defended speaking a thing that wasn't true because you said you believed it was true. But if I say something I think is true you bring out the "liar" and "scumbag" nonsense. More peculiar because you've had a lot to say about anna, meaning you might differ with how I see the concentration, but it's rooted in the empirically observable. You pulled yours out of thin air and bias.
Pick a standard already. One for everyone, including you.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Oh Townie, if you impressed yourself any more, you'd blow up like a balloon and float right off this planet. :rotfl:
Now that was smarter, moving the focus back on someone else. :thumb: There's hope for you yet.
Okay then...we can't all be as humble as you, glory. Not if anyone else wants a turn.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Now that was smarter, moving the focus back on someone else. :thumb: There's hope for you yet.
Okay then...we can't all be as humble as you, glory. Not if anyone else wants a turn.
Cool, you consider it humility to just be myself?
Perhaps you should try it.
You might be liked for who God created you to be, instead of....well....you know.
:think: You might want to have a doctor check you for blockage of some sort.
Well, at least one of us does.
glorydaz
Well-known member
:think: You might want to have a doctor check you for blockage of some sort.
Well, at least one of us does.
Oops, you're running out of material. In other words....boring.