turn on moderation 
  « previous question next question »  
Why would a person still support somebody who's proved to be an incompetent person, even after it has become clear that all the other liars and crooks are no longer relevant?

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 12:47 PM EST



What did you win.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 2:20 AM EST
Aaah feels good to be right. It really does. You just have nothing else to say which is why you're leaving. Don't deny it. I win again as usual.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:43 PM EST
We clearly understand the definitions. Thank you for the obviousness but you're missing the point AGAIN. They are synonymous with each other. Look it up. You're not the dictionary.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:41 PM EST
Lmao all you did was use a definition and then used a fact with the definition involved. You didn't explain anything in the question section. You clearly showed us a definition of the word sun and made a fact with it.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:37 PM EST
Okay, gotta work to do. But remember, only because you were able to make the last comment doesn't mean that you were right.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:35 PM EST
"There's no difference in "they seem to be unhappy" and "it is assumed that they're unhappy" see?" But there is. When you say that somebody seems unhappy, you merely state that somebody gives the impression of being unhappy. There's uncertainty involved. It's just an impression after all. When you assume that somebody's unhappy, you suppose it's true although you don't have proof. Voila, we've got an assumption.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:31 PM EST
9:27, look in the question section. Hahaha!

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:29 PM EST
Lol you have no argument! See? You even know you made a mistake but you won't admit to it. Lol. You made yourself look so bad so then you just have to add in a yep cause that's all you have to say hahaha!

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:27 PM EST
There's no difference in "they seem to be unhappy" and "it is assumed that they're unhappy" see? Both work on the same level sometimes. Yes they're different words but you use them back and forth showing they're clearly synonymous to one another sometimes.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:25 PM EST
A definition is not a fact. Yep.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:22 PM EST
"Definitions are not facts" lmao that's hysterical! I'm going to use that statement some day and watch so many people call me a retard for that. I'll just "quote my way into this comment you wrote and tell them I'm right" you certainly love doing that.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:21 PM EST
9:17, there's a huge difference between "you seem to be unhappy" and "I assume you're unhappy".

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:19 PM EST
"Fact #3 sore winners taunt others of their loss by flaunting their win." Again, you give a definition here. A definition is not a fact. Stating that somebody is a sore winner doesn't equal stating a fact. You're simply giving an opinion.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:18 PM EST
Actually I have and your favorite thing (the Internet) clearly explains that in depth. Look it up yourself.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:17 PM EST
"Fact #2 sore losers can't handle a loss." You now give a definition of what a sore loser is. Definitions are not facts. Stating that someone is a sore loser is not stating a fact either.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:17 PM EST
"You're repeating yourself, but there's no explanation." sounds like you with quotes.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:16 PM EST
"Fact #1 liberals are into socialism." You've never looked up what liberalism is, that's for sure.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:16 PM EST
Fact #1 liberals are into socialism. Fact #2 sore losers can't handle a loss. Fact #3 sore winners taunt others of their loss by flaunting their win. No opinions there.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:15 PM EST
"Again with the ad hominems. It's getting old already. Think of something else." Well, stop using them, stop thinking they can help you win an argument, and, most of all, don't confuse them with facts.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:13 PM EST
"And yes you are arguing with 2 people and you backed yourself into a corner by 2 people and you haven't been able to get out of it." You're repeating yourself, but there's no explanation.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:12 PM EST
Again with the ad hominems. It's getting old already. Think of something else.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:12 PM EST
"Those are definitions not synonyms" You can deduce from the definitions that they aren't synonyms.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:11 PM EST
You made your comment in here as well.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:11 PM EST
"Besides that, calling someone a liberal, sore loser or a sore winner is not name calling. It's simply stating a fact." You still don't know the difference between facts and opinions.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:11 PM EST
"Why does name calling hurt you so much? Were you name called as a child? Did it hurt your feelings? Do you need a hug?" I already told you, but you seem to have forgotten it. Name-calling and ad hominems in general won't help you win an argument.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:10 PM EST
Those are definitions not synonyms. Look up each one's synonyms. And yes you are arguing with 2 people and you backed yourself into a corner by 2 people and you haven't been able to get out of it.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:10 PM EST
"Now you're excusing yourself by telling people what to do such as sticking to own topic when you clearly brought up a second one on your own. " What do you mean? I've made my comment in the other thread, but I'm not going to discuss it in this thread as well. Would be confusing.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:09 PM EST
Why does name calling hurt you so much? Were you name called as a child? Did it hurt your feelings? Do you need a hug? Besides that, calling someone a liberal, sore loser or a sore winner is not name calling. It's simply stating a fact. Name calling is insulting. That's what others were doing. I was merely stating a fact.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:07 PM EST
"You're arguing with two people and you're losing because you have backed yourself into a corner." Two people? What corner?

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:06 PM EST
Assume: "to suppose to be the case, without proof." Seem: "give the impression of being something or having a particular quality."

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:05 PM EST
You're arguing with two people and you're losing because you have backed yourself into a corner. Now you're excusing yourself by telling people what to do such as sticking to own topic when you clearly brought up a second one on your own. You sir have issues.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:04 PM EST
"Seem" and "assume" are not synonymous.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:03 PM EST
8:59, whether somebody is calling Obama names or Trump, if you want to start a discussion about it, don't start calling names yourself.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:02 PM EST
Seem and assume are synonymous and can be interchangeable.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:02 PM EST
8:54, oh really? Well, maybe "I never spoke in these topics". Just like you never spoke in other topics. Apart from that, stick to the discussion in this thread, please. It's confusing enough as it is.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 9:00 PM EST
They name called Trump. That's ridiculing someone.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:59 PM EST
"The assumption of me being a kid. You don't know me. You don't know anybody in here. All you're doing is making assumptions. Gotta stop that." Again, I was not assuming. I wrote, "You seem to be young." The verb "seem" is crucial here.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:58 PM EST
"I was simply doing it back as a joke to everyone who was doing it." That's never a smart move, especially not as you're also insulting people who never called names or ridiculed others.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:57 PM EST
The assumption of me being a kid. You don't know me. You don't know anybody in here. All you're doing is making assumptions. Gotta stop that.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:56 PM EST
You weren't throwing quotes around in this topic. It was another topic. I can tell it was you too cause your little ad hominems comment follows you every thread you go into.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:54 PM EST
8:52, I wasn't assuming. What I wrote: "I now wonder how old you are. I thought this forum was only visited by older people, but you *seem* to be very young." Where's the assumption?

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:54 PM EST
You assumed my age. You need to stop that. Assumptions get you nowhere.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:52 PM EST
Again, I wasn't name calling you. I was simply doing it back as a joke to everyone who was doing it and you just got all hurt and had to open your mouth. I'm so sorry. Next time I'll ask for your approval with what to say.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:52 PM EST
I now wonder how old you are. I thought this forum was only visited by older people, but you seem to be very young. I can't imagine that a person keeps thinking that "cause everyone knows I'm right" is a sound argument, for example.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:47 PM EST
"It's not my problem every one of you can't reason and argue properly without bringing an insult into the mix." Who? Me? And whenever I come across "a sore loser" and "delusional liberal" should I assume it wasn't you, because "you never spoke in these topics"? Right.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:40 PM EST
"while you're just throwing quotes around like you even know what it means." Where in this thread?

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:39 PM EST
"You seem follow a lot of those but I'm still here making sound arguments..." Where in this thread?

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:39 PM EST
"What more is there to add other than the fact that they pull the liberal card and the sore loser card or even the sore winner or delusional card." Name-calling never makes sense, as it won't help you win the argument. Simply never do it.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:38 PM EST
"I make sound arguments..." Where in this thread?

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:36 PM EST
You seem follow a lot of those but I'm still here making sound arguments while you're just throwing quotes around like you even know what it means. It's not my problem every one of you can't reason and argue properly without bringing an insult into the mix. So because I continue on all of your insults by doing it back eventually, I'm the one who can't be reasoned with? Sounds more like you're all hypocrites.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:36 PM EST
"You're over here assuming I didn't respond to the critical posts." That's not what I said. Reread what I wrote and look up what a straw man fallacy is.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:34 PM EST
This is why your statement was wrong: "There are many reasons stop talking. (1) They're tired of the stupidities uttered by the other. (2) They have more important things to do. (3) They've noticed that the other is not able to reason and argue properly. (4) They are tired of having to repeat everything again and again. (5) They've lost their interest because the discussion has reached a dead end. (6) The other is abusive. (7) et cetera"

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:33 PM EST
Read my post 8:30, genius.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:32 PM EST
How am I wrong? See? You do the same thing over and over again. You make a statement but never explain. Similar to how how you post a quote and not explain it.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:31 PM EST
There are many reasons stop talking. (1) They're tired of the stupidities uttered by the other. (2) They have more important things to do. (3) They've noticed that the other is not able to reason and argue properly. (4) They are tired of having to repeat everything again and again. (5) They've lost their interest because the discussion has reached a dead end. (6) The other is abusive. (7) et cetera

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:30 PM EST
I make sound arguments but when you go ahead and focus on one thing I say due to the fact that an actual person refuses to explain themselves such as yourself, what more is there to add other than the fact that they pull the liberal card and the sore loser card or even the sore winner or delusional card.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:30 PM EST
See what you're doing? You're over here assuming I didn't respond to the critical posts. Which in fact I did by posting back with critical responses. When you refuse to look at what else I write and focus on the bad things that others start, you basically throw yourself as a selective reader and listener.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:28 PM EST
"When people get quiet, it's cause they have nothing else to say thus they can't counter anything further which clearly means they lost an argument." Wrong.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:27 PM EST
When people get quiet, it's cause they have nothing else to say thus they can't counter anything further which clearly means they lost an argument. When everyone got quiet whenever I made my statements, it means I was right cause they can't defend their point.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:24 PM EST
"Actually it does. All those names such as sore loser, liberal and delusional clearly have a lot to do with the emotional state and a poor emotional state can resort to bad results. One needs to have a clear mind to be logical. Not an emotional mind." Name-calling betrays an emotional mind. So don't call names. Stop saying "sore loser" and "delusional liberal" and start using sound arguments.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:23 PM EST
So what's wrong with this statement: "There's a difference between your criticisms and just flat out bashing. "Trump's a ___." that's really some good criticism there. Sounds more like bashing."? You pretend that people on JC don't have sound criticism, as all they do is call names saying "Trump's a ..." By only focusing on the posts of this nature and conveniently ignoring other critical posts you've built yourself a straw man.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:21 PM EST
"You can say somebody is a sore loser, a liberal or delusional, but all those qualifications will never refute a person's argument." Actually it does. All those names such as sore loser, liberal and delusional clearly have a lot to do with the emotional state and a poor emotional state can resort to bad results. One needs to have a clear mind to be logical. Not an emotional mind.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:20 PM EST
Let me explain, once again, why it's a false claim. It's very, very, very simple: you don't know what other people know. You can guess and surmise, but you won't have any certainty. Of course, you can back up your claim by saying that you can read people's minds, but I don't think that will make you sound credible. So learn your lesson well: never ever say in a discussion that the people you're talking to know that you're right.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:12 PM EST
Again, you clearly don't seem to comprehend well. Do you not understand the difference between criticism and bashing? Do I need to teach you that? Cause you seem to not understand the two "different" definitions.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:10 PM EST
Again with the straw man fallacy claims. You're automatically assuming again and that again, does not help you win arguments. Pick a different approach already cause the one you're using is not helping you or anybody understand what you're even trying to achieve.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:08 PM EST
And what makes it a false claim? Clearly you're the only person who assumes it's a false claim. You're assuming again. You need to stop that. Assumptions in discussions are not going to help you. All you're doing is repeating yourself over and over again but you never explain how with anything. All you do is quote things but never explain. You need to fix that. That's not how to get your point across.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 8:05 PM EST
"And for the person keeping on referencing talking about ad hominems, lol come up with something new already." Well, stop resorting to ad hominem attacks. It's useless anyway. You can say somebody is a sore loser, a liberal or delusional, but all those qualifications will never refute a person's argument.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 7:46 PM EST
"Trump won everybody. Get over it already." So what? Waht do you mean? Any president who won the elections is above criticism? Does that mean that Obama should never have been criticized either?

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 7:43 PM EST
"There's a difference between your criticisms and just flat out bashing. "Trump's a ___." that's really some good criticism there. Sounds more like bashing." Straw man fallacy. Don't do it.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 7:42 PM EST
"It's pretty funny how everyone is so hurt all of a sudden and cause they know I'm right." Oh my God, you do it again! "... cause they know I'm right". Who told you that such a childish false claim would work in discussions?

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 7:40 PM EST
It's pretty funny how everyone is so hurt all of a sudden and cause they know I'm right. There's a difference between your criticisms and just flat out bashing. "Trump's a ___." that's really some good criticism there. Sounds more like bashing. Trump won everybody. Get over it already. And for the person keeping on referencing talking about ad hominems, lol come up with something new already.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 7:12 PM EST
5:18, those who point out Trump's shortcomings may be Democrats, Republicans, nonpartisans or whatever. When you don't like their criticism, don't say they're sore losers. Whether they are sore losers or not, their criticism may still hold water. Dissect their criticism and stay away from ad hominem attacks. You can't win an argument through ad hominem attacks once you have been called out. You have been called out numerous times now.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 6:27 PM EST
5:18, learn this lesson well: you may not be able to see Trump's shortcomings, but accept that others may be aware of them and will point them out.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 6:25 PM EST
5:18, where were you when Obama was in office? Didn't you notice the bashing? It went on and on. I must say there's nothing wrong with being critical. If you can't handle criticism, you have some growing up to do. Criticism will be nasty though, when the argumentation is flawed. Remember when they accused Obama of not being a true American? They couldn't back up their claim. That's nasty.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 6:18 PM EST
4:33, the bashers were the Obama supporters. Rubbing it in everyone's faces like sore winners and cause they lost this last election to a non politician, they're sore losers. You have some growing up to do. It's called learning how to lose and learning how to win. Winning and rubbing it in means you need to grow up. Losing and then complaining all the time, you need to grow up.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 5:18 PM EST
4:04, just look at what's happening here on JC. When Obama was in office, the bashers were bashing. Non-stop. Now that Trump is in office, you can't handle any criticism? Grow up.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 4:33 PM EST
Don't kid yourself, the Clintons are no longer relevant.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 4:27 PM EST
Because when Obama was in office and the previous presidents were no longer relevant, Democrats brought them up. Democrats are hypocrites.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 4:04 PM EST
Don't kid yourself, the Clintons still have more power than Trump does.

UNITED STATES / AUG 19, 2017 3:39 PM EST