She didn’t say anything about dementia. If she wanted to insult him about having dementia, why didn’t she mention the dementia?
It makes more sense for it being about the campaign because, again, she is begging Ivanka to help Trump. It doesn’t matter if she says “politics aside.” Only a Trump supporter would want that rapist seditious wannabe dictator to get help. Because helping him helps him win. That should be blatantly obvious.
If she wanted to insult him about having dementia, why didn’t she mention the dementia?
If she wanted to help his campaign, why didn’t she mention the campaign? We’re both inferring what she was referring to, so the double-edged nature of this question should be patently obvious. I’m a little shocked it was even asked.
It makes more sense for it being about the campaign because, again, she is begging Ivanka to help Trump.
This is included as an example in an article that starts with “Donald Trump on Saturday was hit with an avalanche of criticism.” The author of the article pretty clearly agrees with me. Additionally, you are ignoring the “politics aside” part of the comment which strongly implies there is a differing of politics here that Jil wants to transcend. You are required to infer both the context and the content of the post itself for your position to be true, so it certainly does not make more sense.
I figured it was safe from the context that I wouldn’t have to repeat what we were talking about every time. But I guess I should have seen super pedanticism coming in this debate, rather than working together to try and get to the truth.
Yes, obviously I do. Which is why I took a position. The fact that you nit-picked my language, and are now trying to make this about me, makes it pretty clear your goal is simply to get a win at this point.
She didn’t say anything about dementia. If she wanted to insult him about having dementia, why didn’t she mention the dementia?
It makes more sense for it being about the campaign because, again, she is begging Ivanka to help Trump. It doesn’t matter if she says “politics aside.” Only a Trump supporter would want that rapist seditious wannabe dictator to get help. Because helping him helps him win. That should be blatantly obvious.
If she wanted to help his campaign, why didn’t she mention the campaign? We’re both inferring what she was referring to, so the double-edged nature of this question should be patently obvious. I’m a little shocked it was even asked.
This is included as an example in an article that starts with “Donald Trump on Saturday was hit with an avalanche of criticism.” The author of the article pretty clearly agrees with me. Additionally, you are ignoring the “politics aside” part of the comment which strongly implies there is a differing of politics here that Jil wants to transcend. You are required to infer both the context and the content of the post itself for your position to be true, so it certainly does not make more sense.
It’s facetious. She doesn’t expect it to happen.
…
How can you state that as if it is fact after saying the above?
I figured it was safe from the context that I wouldn’t have to repeat what we were talking about every time. But I guess I should have seen super pedanticism coming in this debate, rather than working together to try and get to the truth.
You seem to believe you already know the truth.
Yes, obviously I do. Which is why I took a position. The fact that you nit-picked my language, and are now trying to make this about me, makes it pretty clear your goal is simply to get a win at this point.
I see, you know the truth but I can only infer things and I am definitely wrong but am defending my position because I want to “get a win.”
Interesting.