RLLD

Go back and read my reply, that is my opinion

I provided my opinion. Yo disagree with that opinion, and further insist that I must agree with you. I do not insist you agree with me.

I think that is more likely than what you propose. But again, you need not agree with me, though you seem rather insistent that I agree with you. Fairleigh Dickinson’s Marta Krajniak conducted a questionnaire study in 2018 with others on the relationship between personality disorder symptoms and emotional intelligence. They dialed on people who always think they’re right, as you are doing here, the Fairleigh Dickson study results suggest that low emotional intelligence could relate at least in part to the behavior. Therefore, getting embroiled in endless arguments with people like this can be counterproductive. What I am trying to allow is that It’s possible that there’s a germ of truth to what you’re asserting, though I am not "agreeing" with you exactly, to allow that perhaps I am the one who needs to change my position. Rather than come at it with the "you are just stupid: routine, having a forthright discussion could yield more productive outcomes for you.

I was waiting for you to mention the situation with Biden, since I think it could bolster your position. While I am not willing to read intent into what Trump said, vs what he did.....notably given the historical examples of his statements consistently being misinterpreted.... I am inclined to look at the financial situation around the Biden family and suggest there is intent to conduct a pay-for-play criminal enterprise in play. You should have brought that up, and I was waiting, but got tired of waiting. So make an argument using THAT.....

But that is a broad statement, there are different ways to intimidate, and I think your example is interesting, but too vague. But this might help, even if I were to consent, it does not extend past that given situation and become an absolute......so there is that....

Correct, as I stated, particularly in this situation

Intimidate, how would they do this intimidation?

And I do not need to

No, that is probably not a standard I would use

Applying intent as you have is misplaced, you misunderstand.

And I think it is great we can have differing opinions

How far does it go? Not sure, I have never sat back and defined some limit. I guess I would take it on a case-by-case basis, depending on the situational factors....rather than apply some broad brush to everyone and everything.

Oh I see, you want to suggest that the frequency of a statement changes its context....I mean, I am not aware of that factor changing the intent, but I guess you could make an argument for it, sure.... you do you

You could say multiple things, you could point to his clumsy way of expressing himself over and over and over, as we have seen over and over.... or....you could say, well, THIS TIME.....we know what he means. That is up to you. Each of us will decide for ourselves.

I am proving right, and on occasion I get an apology, but more often an "atta boy" from folks.....it can even take years on occasion.

I do not understand your question

I like to question things early on, to better understand.

If it arises that Joe hands over his electors to someone else, that could work I guess. There are perhaps two schools of thought. The first might be that Joe still represents their best chance to hold power. The second might be that a Newsome or Whitmer or other candidate could be a better tool. Some might think that waiting this long is just too dangerous, to suddenly "switch up" and others likely think Biden is just too risky now.... Its a real conundrum for the party. They put on a good face though, and continue to lie and lie and lie....

I appreciate the link of course. But the application of intent I leave to you.... Now, if you are seeking to assert we can apply intent, I might suggest that is not a winning path....for you....

I get it, I also have the experience of watching this game be played.....

It should be interesting to be sure. Does Joe stay the course, to hand off to Harris? That is a scary thought.... Do they find a way to replace him? But I think they have to do it by what, August 15th? When the Ohio election committee demands a candidate be announced?

Well, not "free" right? You are paying for it.....

I investigate what people are saying, attempt to hold a discussion, and sometimes arrive at a conclusion to be sure....but since I do not have the luxury of doing it elsewhere, I will restrain....particularly when it arises that MSM is pronouncing intent; given their clear bias and propensity for being wrong. So yeah, I see the consistent malignment of Trump statements, so here we are again.....just another attempt to apply intent....mostly to denigrate the guy, which I sorta understand.

Notice that I am not insistent that you accept my position....notice how you are behaving

Oh I will pass on that, I am reticent to ascribe intent to people.... particularly negative intent. That is how we end up with CNN paying Sandman, or CNN having to admit the "very fine people" hoax. In fact, it happens here rather consistently. Someone posts something, then someone strides in and makes some cartoonish comment in return, based on their assessment of intent, and is often wrong about that intent. I think it might come with age and experience, to be more inquisitive and less apt toward application of intent all the time. I think your hate for Trump is coloring your decision-making paradigm. Years in the military solved that flaw for me.