Symptoms of the faux illness include ‘Trump-induced general hysteria’ where a person struggles to distinguish between ‘legitimate policy’ and ‘psychic pathology’
Lol. So you assumed that means I like his policies and categorized me as a neoliberal. That’s a huge assumption. You’re clearly not talking to me, you’re having a discussion with phantoms in your head that you project on to me.
K. Which policies do you oppose? If you want people to believe you have a problem with more than his lack of decorum, focusing solely on that is not an effective way to communicate that.
I oppose tons of what he does: handling immigration, international relations, treatment of minorities, etc. You’re turning this around. Admit you made a huge wrong assumption. I guess when I’m communicating with morons I should put an asterisk that says “the entirety of my views is not limited to the few things I’m saying here.”
You expect a sophisticated argument coming from me about specifics at this point in the discussion? And since you didn’t get one you double down on calling me a neoliberal? You have misdirected anger and jump too quickly to conclusions. Instead of the big assumption, you could have easily asked “what about his policies” early on.
You’re clearly having a bad day. You’re picking fights with everyone in your comment history. I’m not gonna defend myself from the box you ignorantly put me in. That’s not what healthy discussion looks like. I’m not going to play by your rules. You’re going to use this to reinforce your assumptions, but that’s ok. I’ll talk specifics and policies with other people, in a better environment.
You’re clearly confused
Enlighten me.
Your comment is entirely taking issue with Trump’s lack of decorum. No specific issue with policies. Classic neoliberalism.
Lol. So you assumed that means I like his policies and categorized me as a neoliberal. That’s a huge assumption. You’re clearly not talking to me, you’re having a discussion with phantoms in your head that you project on to me.
K. Which policies do you oppose? If you want people to believe you have a problem with more than his lack of decorum, focusing solely on that is not an effective way to communicate that.
I oppose tons of what he does: handling immigration, international relations, treatment of minorities, etc. You’re turning this around. Admit you made a huge wrong assumption. I guess when I’m communicating with morons I should put an asterisk that says “the entirety of my views is not limited to the few things I’m saying here.”
Again, laser focused on perceptions and presentation. Not actual policies or outcomes.
Neoliberals stand for nothing.
You expect a sophisticated argument coming from me about specifics at this point in the discussion? And since you didn’t get one you double down on calling me a neoliberal? You have misdirected anger and jump too quickly to conclusions. Instead of the big assumption, you could have easily asked “what about his policies” early on.
What policies of his do you oppose? Don’t have to name them all. Just name a few.
You’re clearly having a bad day. You’re picking fights with everyone in your comment history. I’m not gonna defend myself from the box you ignorantly put me in. That’s not what healthy discussion looks like. I’m not going to play by your rules. You’re going to use this to reinforce your assumptions, but that’s ok. I’ll talk specifics and policies with other people, in a better environment.