Swim Bike Run
Slowtwitch.com
  • Login >
Slowtwitch.com
Search menu
Hot Forum Topics

Poll

Comfort While Cycling
How much does comfort while cycling influence your overall race performance?
View Results


Home > Forum > Lavender Room > Maggie Haberman (NYT) 1, Trump 0

Lavender Room

Back To ForumPrint Thread

Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Tri
Classifieds
Lavender
Jobs
Notices
Re: Maggie Haberman (NYT) 1, Trump 0 [Perseus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sanuk
May 3, 18 15:12
Post #51 of 57 (541 views)
It would depend on the candidate, but against Hillary or Bernie I think he wins again. I think the Dems became too liberal and alienated a large portion of moderates.

I agree that the Dems moved too far to the left but the Republicans have also moved far left so I think there's a lot of alienation in both parties. I think a Republican will step up to challenge Trump and if the Dems don't start finding someone new who moves them back further towards a moderate position, the Republicans can win again.

However, I don't think Trump can win again no matter who the Dems put out. If Trump runs, there is so much anger towards him that it will mobilize far more people to vote to avoid 4 more years of this embarrassment.

Quote Reply
Re: Maggie Haberman (NYT) 1, Trump 0 [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perseus
May 3, 18 15:21
Post #52 of 57 (539 views)
ajthomas wrote:
Perseus wrote:
ajthomas wrote:

I have never read the dailywire. The current headline:
The Solution For 'Incels' Isn't Sex Robots. It's Commitment And Work.
Congratulations. If you actually read this piece of shit click bait website to stay up to date you are a fucking moron.


Why are you so angry? Do you treat people like this in real life?

You don't know who Ben Shapiro is and I'm the moron? I'm sure the cited source, Reuters, is also a click bait website, right?


why do you have any concern about my real life? That is creepy. Take that shit to the Tri room.

Do you read the dailywire to stay informed? If so, I 100% stand by the fucking moron claim. I would say the same about Madow or whatever "left" equivalent. I would think we agree on that. So if you want to tell me you do lots of reading some left, some right etc, well great! That is why I said "IF you actually..." In other words, I probably don't even think you are a moron.

Feel better?
You're calling strangers on the internet "fucking morons." As someone working and studying in the mental health field I am genuinely curious what motivates an individual to treat a stranger with such disdain. I understand why you would rather engage in insults than discussion. What I do not understand is what you get from treating people so poorly online. You must get something out of it or you wouldn't do it.
Quote Reply
Re: Maggie Haberman (NYT) 1, Trump 0 [Perseus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas
May 3, 18 17:56
Post #53 of 57 (519 views)
On an Internet forum you can seek truth and you can seek conflict. Most of us seek both though we probably gravitate towards one or the other.

The line of questioning you are taking with me is conflict seeking disguised as truth seeking. That happens a lot here, I dare say I do it too.

But I doubt I have ever called anyone here a fucking moron and I certainly didn’t call you one. I laid out a very unlikely scenario and applied the term to a virtually nonexistent person. In your effort to seek conflict you have both personalized and generalized what I said. This allows you to take the moral high ground and is a common tactic for seeking conflict in the name of truth.

So to your question: My motivations are no different than yours: Conflict. My manner may have been different but my motivations are not. If you are seeking deeper knowledge then you should seek answers from within. Any answer I provide would simply be my own.

I have attempted to answer your question as truthfully as I can. I could go back and remove the conflict statements, but I’ll keave them in for posterity. If you find the answers unsatisfactory I do apologize but that is the best I can do.
Quote Reply
Re: Maggie Haberman (NYT) 1, Trump 0 [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CaptainCanada
May 3, 18 18:07
Post #54 of 57 (517 views)
ajthomas wrote:
On an Internet forum you can seek truth and you can seek conflict. Most of us seek both though we probably gravitate towards one or the other.

The line of questioning you are taking with me is conflict seeking disguised as truth seeking. That happens a lot here, I dare say I do it too.

But I doubt I have ever called anyone here a fucking moron and I certainly didn’t call you one. I laid out a very unlikely scenario and applied the term to a virtually nonexistent person. In your effort to seek conflict you have both personalized and generalized what I said. This allows you to take the moral high ground and is a common tactic for seeking conflict in the name of truth.

So to your question: My motivations are no different than yours: Conflict. My manner may have been different but my motivations are not. If you are seeking deeper knowledge then you should seek answers from within. Any answer I provide would simply be my own.

I have attempted to answer your question as truthfully as I can. I could go back and remove the conflict statements, but I’ll keave them in for posterity. If you find the answers unsatisfactory I do apologize but that is the best I can do.


===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)
Quote Reply
Re: Maggie Haberman (NYT) 1, Trump 0 [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail
May 3, 18 19:03
Post #55 of 57 (497 views)
CaptainCanada wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
On an Internet forum you can seek truth and you can seek conflict. Most of us seek both though we probably gravitate towards one or the other.

The line of questioning you are taking with me is conflict seeking disguised as truth seeking. That happens a lot here, I dare say I do it too.

But I doubt I have ever called anyone here a fucking moron and I certainly didn’t call you one. I laid out a very unlikely scenario and applied the term to a virtually nonexistent person. In your effort to seek conflict you have both personalized and generalized what I said. This allows you to take the moral high ground and is a common tactic for seeking conflict in the name of truth.

So to your question: My motivations are no different than yours: Conflict. My manner may have been different but my motivations are not. If you are seeking deeper knowledge then you should seek answers from within. Any answer I provide would simply be my own.

I have attempted to answer your question as truthfully as I can. I could go back and remove the conflict statements, but I’ll keave them in for posterity. If you find the answers unsatisfactory I do apologize but that is the best I can do.




Also Maggie did p0wn Trump, after the little misdirection ploy.
Quote Reply
Re: Maggie Haberman (NYT) 1, Trump 0 [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas
May 4, 18 7:43
Post #56 of 57 (467 views)
my first mike drop in 2 years...thanks!
Quote Reply
Re: Maggie Haberman (NYT) 1, Trump 0 [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perseus
May 4, 18 9:33
Post #57 of 57 (443 views)
ajthomas wrote:
On an Internet forum you can seek truth and you can seek conflict. Most of us seek both though we probably gravitate towards one or the other.

The line of questioning you are taking with me is conflict seeking disguised as truth seeking. That happens a lot here, I dare say I do it too.

But I doubt I have ever called anyone here a fucking moron and I certainly didn’t call you one. I laid out a very unlikely scenario and applied the term to a virtually nonexistent person. In your effort to seek conflict you have both personalized and generalized what I said. This allows you to take the moral high ground and is a common tactic for seeking conflict in the name of truth.

So to your question: My motivations are no different than yours: Conflict. My manner may have been different but my motivations are not. If you are seeking deeper knowledge then you should seek answers from within. Any answer I provide would simply be my own.

I have attempted to answer your question as truthfully as I can. I could go back and remove the conflict statements, but I’ll keave them in for posterity. If you find the answers unsatisfactory I do apologize but that is the best I can do.

You use semantics to give yourself an out when your behavior is questioned. You project your own motive, conflict, onto others. You hide by behind vague comments about deeper knowledge to be found within rather than answer the question about your behavior. I find it interesting that you actively seek conflict and that your version of conflict involves explicit language and insults. My guess is that you enjoy saying things online that you cannot say in real life save for a few close relationships, which is very common.
Quote Reply
Prev Next
Back To ForumPrint Thread

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.