That difference doesn’t mean she can’t give a direct answer. She’s using the English language nuances to hedge her answer and not commit to her affirmation.
That difference doesn’t mean she can’t give a direct answer. She’s using the English language nuances to hedge her answer and not commit to her affirmation.
If she’s not a defender of Putin, it should be as easy to say a flat, unequivocated, non-politicked yes as she did with Netenyahu. The fact that she won’t do it is deserving of suspicion and critique.
A simple example of similar behavior would be if someone asked Biden or Trump or any other candidate, “Will you work to build better infrastructure in the country?” And they replied, “Well…in so many words, yes.”
It’s a non answer. It lacks commitment to the affirmation. If your first language is english and you aren’t autistic this kind of hedging behavior is very apparent. They are giving you the answer you are looking for but they are also trying to hide that they are not being 100% truthful in their assertion. It is a very common tactic in English used in lieu of an outright lie in order to generate a gap of potential misunderstanding that can be later abused to twist the narrative.
In the above example at the end of their term when somone presses them about their inaction on infrastructure development and says, “You said you would.” They can warp it around with, “I never directly said i would do anything.” Or they might have done some entirely symbolic effort that had an obvious zero chance of being effective and then immediately gave up because they had no intention of a true effort, no true commitment.
It’s the type of shitty behavior that disillusions people to politics. It’s half-truths and an unmitigated lack of candor and blatantly obvious obfuscation. Every politician does it. Most people do it to some degree. It’s very easy to read through though and that’s why the interviewer was so persistent in seeking a direct answer.
That’s not how any of that works. The only reason people consider 3rd party votes throw aways is because 3rd party absolutely with 100% confidence will not win the federal election right now. America isn’t primed to allow that to happen at this stage and level. They need to take local elections first and build up the movement getting enough backing to make the federal level even close to possible.
And whether voting for 3rd party is throwing a vote to one of the other two parties comes down to which one the voter would have voted for had a 3rd party not been an option. If they would’ve voted for the democratic candidate, but instead chose to vote for a 3rd party that has 0% chance of winning, then yeah, it hurts the democratic platforms chances. If they would have voted republican, but chose to vote for a 3rd party with 0% chance of winning the it hurts the repiblican platforms chance. Therefore green party votes are considered mostly detrimental to democratic platforms because their voters are more left leaning in nature. Few would vote republican when no 3rd party option presented itself.
The idea that voting democratic or republican is throwing away a vote from green to their competitor isn’t functional since the party has zero chance of winning, even if the fence sitters joined them. If they were competitive on federal level you would have a point though.
Excellent improvement , very nice. Good luck with the rest!!
Thanks for posting the actually accessible content.
Ooo what if we had a federal administration that covered the national aeronautical and space needs of the country…
This is the most poorly worded title…
Nah let him cook (himself). If they swap him for someone else things might actually go better for Trump.
Right, it’s the same kind of stupid outrage like the Obama “tan suit” scandal.
It’s just there to stir up those that are already against the person.
Yeah no need to go that far for a forum reply. I can dig if I feel compelled lol
That all definitely makes sense. I’ve heard of a few sects doing shunning and segregation of members perceived to have sinned. It’s a horrid practice that I assume is better serving to drive people away than encouraging them to come back. But your community abusing you like that can have a potent enmeshment effect too. Especially if the relationship was always perceived as close and good.
Thanks for talking about it. Seems a good group to avoid.
Can I ask about the Seventh Day Adventists? I’ve run into a few over the years but never had issues and don’t know much of them. Is what they did more than personal? If so I’d like to avoid them too. I have precious little patience for bad religious nonsense.
I want to start a fanfic rumor that Ron is related to Ricky from Trailer Park Boys. Lol
Definitely option 3 listed below.
She likes it, who cares? Enjoy what you want, and let others enjoy what they want. I don’t like tabasco on pizza but I’m not going to get bent out of shape over someone doing that. If you are trying to MAKE something and you want that something to be as authentic as possible then sure, tabasco shouldn’t be put on pizza. But you are eating. Eating is for enjoyment or sustenance . Not rules.
One sure sign that you’re not masculine, is doing things to show others how masculine you are.
Oh boy a party! Good thing I have plenty of Lemons.
Lol bunch of people in here with sticks up their ass. I thought it was funny
Liberal? That’s generally more conservative behavior. But only because conservatives lean more authoritarian which is where that behavior actually stems from, not political leaning.