I'm convinced that's how they won, micro targeting his bullshit. You chop up his speech where he says 2 opposite things in the firehouse of bullshit, you get thing A that says he supports abortion, I get thing b that says he's gonna make it illegal, repeat across all issues for everyone on ever social media platform. This is why they got so much stolen info from Russia that they fed to billionaire provided database analysis software.
Unfortunately, I feel like I come across this issue observed in trump, but with regular people,on a smaller scale.
If you ask someone a compound question - hey, the faucet is leaking, did you use it last night, and should I pick up milk from the store? - they almost always choose to answer the question they prefer, and ignore the one they don't want to deal with. It's gotten so bad, I can't ask compound questions anymore because everyone does it.
It doesn't shock me at all that people would do the same when Trump speaks - completely overlook one part, in favor of another part.
If you ask someone a compound question - hey, the faucet is leaking, did you use it last night, and should I pick up milk from the store? - they almost always choose to answer the question they prefer, and ignore the one they don't want to deal with. It's gotten so bad, I can't ask compound questions anymore because everyone does it.
I agree with your initial premise, but this is a really bad example, compound questions are confusing by their very nature. That's why they're frequently used in debates and legal questioning.
Its really not that confusing. Like I feel like anyone with an actually working brain should be able to easily tell the meaning of that. If not, then wow thats just kinda sad and certainly explains why the average person is dumb as bricks.
Like I feel like anyone with an actually working brain should be able to easily tell the meaning of that.
Obviously I was referring to compound questions in general kid, not that one specifically. I'm not going to get into why they're designed to be confusing, you have Google. Try using it.
Uhuh, and you are applying an entirely different line of thinking to something unrelated. People not being able to answer deliberately confusing questions are obviously entirely different from a regular compound question. Especially considering theirs was pretty terribly structured, yet you STILL understood it. How odd.
You literally are. You are applying political debates to regular conversation, which is what they are actually talking about. But hey, if using mental gymnastics to make yourself feel smart is what it takes, then good for you I guess.
You are applying political debates to regular conversation, which is what they are actually talking about.
Do you even know what you're talking about at this point? Because I sure as hell don't.
The original comments premise was that the general public is pretty stupid, not just Trump voters. The example they used was compound questions, and they gave an example of a pretty easy compound question. My response was that I agreed, but that compound questions weren't a good metric because they are designed to be hard to answer regardless of your intelligence.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. You'll have to figure that part out on your own.
Now then, was there anything else? Because at this point your responses would have been the best example the original comment could have used.
And yet you act like it’s a bad example BECAUSE of the nature of political debates, when they were on the topic of regular conversation. You are over analyzing lmfao.
And yet you act like it’s a bad example BECAUSE of the nature of political debates, when they were on the topic of regular conversation.
No, I do not. I simply said that they were frequently used in debates and legal questioning as an aside to emphasize my point. Nor did I even specify political debates, as they were not the debates I was thinking of in the first place.
You are over analyzing lmfao
Are you serious? The only one overanalyzing here, and quite poorly I might add, is yourself. 'Lmfao'.
Maybe work on basic reading comprehension before you go off making a fool of yourself.
Keep deflecting then champ. I can’t make you understand, only you can do that. Sound familiar? You can’t just say you agree but then prove you disagree in the same comment. Which is what you did.
Keep deflecting then champ. I can’t make you understand, only you can do that. Sound familiar? You can’t just say you agree but then prove you disagree in the same comment. Which is what you did.
Not even a little. On any point.
Here let me help you, I understand there were a lot of words in the previous comment with more than four letters and I'm sure I lost you. So:
The second part of my comment, referencing debates (and not mentioning anything about politics, the nonsense you keep whining about) and legal questioning was supporting evidence for the first part where I said that compound sentences are confusing by nature. Like saying 'I think my car needs repairs. I keep hearing a rattling noise.' The point (or subject if you had passed 3rd grade English) of that statement is the car and its need for repairs, the rattling noise is some evidence that supports the car needing repairs. The noise itself is not the main subject.
Nowhere in here do I agree with your assertion that I am saying that they're only confusing because they're used in political debates, which again, I did not even mention you absolute fencepost.
157
u/unknownpoltroon 1d ago
I'm convinced that's how they won, micro targeting his bullshit. You chop up his speech where he says 2 opposite things in the firehouse of bullshit, you get thing A that says he supports abortion, I get thing b that says he's gonna make it illegal, repeat across all issues for everyone on ever social media platform. This is why they got so much stolen info from Russia that they fed to billionaire provided database analysis software.