It is usual for endorsements to be exclusive but that condition is not a requirement. There are good reasons to criticize that bloated party clown. This is not one of them.
There’s nothing about “complete” or “total” that implies exclusivity. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, he was bound to stumble into a logically consistent position eventually.
You are specifically choosing things that are not mutually exclusive in these contrived examples, come on.
Of course this is stupid to argue about in the context of all the rapes and corruption he has done. You’re right that this line of discussion is dumb as heck. Get your last word in but I’m done. Thanks for snapping me out of it.
Snapping out of it was all I wanted. This is nothing, even if I agree it is idiotic. There are much more important things to be talking about.
That said, since you invited me to have the last word and because I enjoy having the last word: Contrived? Bruh. The salt and pepper was contrived, yes, as an underhand toss to get the idea of non-exclusion in without political charge. The other examples were specifically not contrived. Non-specific examples of the exact thing being examined. C’mon.
i cant find another example of this sort of endorsement in a brief glance at google, which is not to say it hasnt happened before.
just because it is not traditional doesnt mean it’s stupid. can you find another example of an american party switching presidential candidates at the last minute? it is as much as saying he doesnt endorse either, or that he’ll support the winner. it would be stupid if he was a normal person running a normal campaign, but hes not. hes a wannabe dictator who depends on doublespeak and confusion and lies and contradiction and insult. it works for him because the people who vote for him are stupid. it is smart to take advantage of stupidity. trump is playing both sides, so he always comes out on top.
you know what is stupid? spending any amount of time at all talking about this fucking nothing burger. the man lead a coup. he ignored a pandemic because it was politically expedient to do so at the time. his mental calculus is not the same as yours or mine, it doesnt include morality or longer term planning than the next immediate personal objective. he rapes children and you wanna complain to me (in all unimaginative ignorance) that its stupid that he endorsed two candidates for the same race.
i will give you props for actually replying instead of dropping a kneejerk hivemind disagreement downvote to fortify the opinion you came in with.
It is usual for endorsements to be exclusive but that condition is not a requirement. There are good reasons to criticize that bloated party clown. This is not one of them.
I’m just good enough to criticize him for all of them!
you have my permission to criticize whomever you wish, even for bad reasons. i will allow this.
“Complete and total,” is what makes it idiotic, not simply endorsing two different people for one role.
There’s nothing about “complete” or “total” that implies exclusivity. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, he was bound to stumble into a logically consistent position eventually.
I guess technically there is no implication, sure. Instead it is more like the literal definitions of “complete” or “total.”
I invite you to find a definition of those which supports your position.
You are specifically choosing things that are not mutually exclusive in these contrived examples, come on.
Of course this is stupid to argue about in the context of all the rapes and corruption he has done. You’re right that this line of discussion is dumb as heck. Get your last word in but I’m done. Thanks for snapping me out of it.
Snapping out of it was all I wanted. This is nothing, even if I agree it is idiotic. There are much more important things to be talking about.
That said, since you invited me to have the last word and because I enjoy having the last word: Contrived? Bruh. The salt and pepper was contrived, yes, as an underhand toss to get the idea of non-exclusion in without political charge. The other examples were specifically not contrived. Non-specific examples of the exact thing being examined. C’mon.
Is there an example where two people running against each other were endorsed by the same person and it wasn’t a stupid thing to do for some reason?
i cant find another example of this sort of endorsement in a brief glance at google, which is not to say it hasnt happened before.
just because it is not traditional doesnt mean it’s stupid. can you find another example of an american party switching presidential candidates at the last minute? it is as much as saying he doesnt endorse either, or that he’ll support the winner. it would be stupid if he was a normal person running a normal campaign, but hes not. hes a wannabe dictator who depends on doublespeak and confusion and lies and contradiction and insult. it works for him because the people who vote for him are stupid. it is smart to take advantage of stupidity. trump is playing both sides, so he always comes out on top.
you know what is stupid? spending any amount of time at all talking about this fucking nothing burger. the man lead a coup. he ignored a pandemic because it was politically expedient to do so at the time. his mental calculus is not the same as yours or mine, it doesnt include morality or longer term planning than the next immediate personal objective. he rapes children and you wanna complain to me (in all unimaginative ignorance) that its stupid that he endorsed two candidates for the same race.
i will give you props for actually replying instead of dropping a kneejerk hivemind disagreement downvote to fortify the opinion you came in with.