Your over-the-top reaction is what I'm referring to. Trump calls everything "Fake News" automatically. You automatically refer to "them" or otherwise respond in attack mode to most posts. I would support the Democrat candidate over the Republican candidate in almost all cases. Many people don't care for Hillary's personality (you should relate) even among those who would support her. For someone that you think would do a good job it helps but it's not always the case that you actually like them as a person. Many have tried to like her but she usually messes that up with the oddly, artificially timed laugh or some other comments that belies the fact that she is trying too hard and perhaps isn't being absolutely sincere. This was a long video, I'm not the only one to notice that she seemed to have let her guard down here and that it was one of the better video's of her from a human nature perspective. No one implied that we learned anything new as far as her political views. If jelly donuts generally had a bad rap (I don't like them) and a video made me want to give them a try again, no one (you) would be posting these nonsensical objections to the video. I wasn't a Hillary "hater" before the video and I'm not a Hillary "fan" after the video. Everything (except to you) isn't black or white. Tossing a firebomb is more effective when you only do it occasionally. Maybe chill out?
Is there anyone here who can't say that? Fallacious. There is a range, unattended by your remarks, between not caring and being overly concerned. This is true if you are your only audience. And, honestly? Just say so. You'll find your neighbors accommodating on such points; indeed, some will even remind on such occasions that you forget. You say that as if it means something useful. Nor does it help to reattach the other sentence in the paragraph— —because that string of words is generally meaningless, or at best describes a dysfunctional relationship 'twixt yourself and "the majority". This is actually akin to your discourse on moral structures↗, with its strange relationship 'twixt self and other, so at least you're consistent. He's been known to. The secret is to make your criticism subtantive, or, at least, feel that way to him. The two ways to do that are no secret, since they're the same for pretty much anyone; either pile on the insults or, much more usefully, be accurate or, at least, close enough he feels the heat as it passes by. You got close, once. Like, it's not so much that I care what you think. Rather, your willful antisociality is disruptive in an already problematic environment. To wit, the neighbor's dog will occassionally shit on your lawn; that doesn't mean your neighbor should. To the other, if James happens to be overfertilizing his lawn and will thus scorch it, tell him, and it is possible to offend him. Don't say, hey, dipshit, you're wrecking your lawn with all that shit. Rather, point out that even compared to the instructions he's laying on way too thick, and then remind him that he was just wagging his finger at others about improper lawn care. I'm not sure whether it will upset him more if you call him dipshit, amid all that. These days, I lead with it. To repeat what has already been said in green ink: It is also true we sometimes seem to have relaxed on that part, though certain criteria are themselves uncertain; it's complicated and irregular. You might have missed that in rushing to retort↑. That is, we're aware. And if James and I should have it out about weeding the lawn, we'll need a better reason. Besides, when it finally happens, it's not like you're going to sit around and read all the way through. James doesn't even bother with that. If that line gets to him, after all these years, well, at least you'll have an answer. And, anyway, as disrespect seems to be your thing, what is this issue, then, compared to the next? The day ends in -y, and you're being you. Like when you got close to getting under his skin; my only advice to him would be that it's you. The part of what you think that I do care about, and in some significant part because it is occasionally an accepted duty to consider such questions, is that like other people requiring my consideration as such, your satisfaction is one of the reasons nobody can have those proverbial nice things. I would tell you to go ahead and shit on his lawn, just to see what you can bring, but this isn't an anime, and, frankly, nobody else should have to endure that spectacle of self-denigration. Compared to the effort he's given, over the years, for sake of even greater stupidity than your performance, your declared lack of respect for his judgment reads nearly like a dare. (Don't worry; you're not daring him for the right reasons, so he wouldn't take you up on it.)
Of course. You are merely someone who shares the assumptions and viewpoints of the Hillary Hate crowd. It's moderate and appropriate, matched to the OP. Of course you aren't the only one. There's been lots and lots of you guys slandering Clinton these past decades - an entire political faction surrounding a Tribe. Meanwhile, most people got that impression of her human nature decades ago. Maybe it's because they didn't obsessively fasten on the trivial aspects of her reactions in the public arena when under constant and weirdly vicious attack, so that her having her guard up did not mislead them into bogus presumptions of her social persona or even baseless and depraved slanders ? Just speculating. At any rate: That video had nothing new in it. Read that carefully. It's key. I'm sure we all can sympathize with those well-meaning innocent people who tried to like her, really they did, but were put off by her laugh, like maybe she wasn't perfectly sincere, or trying to hard - unlike the perfectly sincere, normally laughing guys one would like to have a beer with. Remember that one? - right up until a 40% disapproval rating based on garbage like that elects Donald Trump. At that point, sympathy evaporates. So that's why when you found a normal interview - much like dozens of others, showing Clinton to be the kind of conservative rightwing doyen who is, as Molly Ivins described her, a gracious and pleasant hostess - to be a "new" and "better light" and so forth, you don't get any slack. We've had it up to here with this shit.
No one cares what "we've" had up to here. When you have a bad hair day, the world doesn't need to know.
When you make it the subject of half your posts ("over the top", etc) it looks like you care about nothing else. Certainly not the content of the posts you quote, which you seldom address. The assumptions of the Republican media addled Hillary haters (your assumptions about Clinton, the role of her laugh, the lethal significance of her lack of perfect sincerity when on stage, etc) come from the propaganda suppliers to the Republican media feed, originally Rush Limbaugh but soon expanding into other wingnut sources and then the mainstream media, where they remain the common frame. You have absorbed them so completely you are unaware of their nature - you take the shitheap toupee for granted, as if it were the common hairdo of the general public. So does the rest of the Tribe. And that is the central reason Trump won the 2016 election. That's what stuck America with the worst President of its history.
