During a press conference on Tuesday, Jan. 7, the 78-year-old president-elect shared his plan for renaming the Gulf of Mexico. “We’re going to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America,” Trump told reporters.
You said we, this is a normal response that isn’t super accusatory or aggressive. It just sounds it because you’re interpreting it as directed towards you the individual, but it’s for “you all,” which is the standard way to respond to a comment in the first person plural
In my original comment, I specify. He’s bonkers is referring to Trump, the actor of those referred to actions.
In your reply, you state ‘YOU’, as if the people against this / and? the people pushing it are responsible for that radicalization, and I take no responsibility for that shitstain’s actions against our allies.
You could have easily been more clear by stating ‘conservatives’ or Trump supporters or - if you meant a blanket indictment - you idiots who didn’t punish the insurrection / pay taxes to a corrupt system of governing etc., hence my dismissal of your reply.
Vague aspersions cast without insight generally get that response.
I wasn’t the person who originally answered you, just someone who saw you lash out at someone and understood why. You said this (emphasis mine):
Invade Mexico, invade greenland, rename the gulf… hello… he’s bonkers, what the fuck are we doing letting this shit back in power…
And someone answered your question in the way that makes sense (second person plural). It’s not an aspersion, it’s literally just stating the consequences of us electing trump (we as a country did, regardless of whether you or I voted for him).
You are radicalizing your former allies and neighbors, that is what you are doing.
Removed by mod
You said we, this is a normal response that isn’t super accusatory or aggressive. It just sounds it because you’re interpreting it as directed towards you the individual, but it’s for “you all,” which is the standard way to respond to a comment in the first person plural
Thanks, that was the spirit in which the reply was intended. He asked, I answered. Grammar is a motherfucker.
I’m not advocating for radicalization. I’m saying they are predictable consequences.
In my original comment, I specify. He’s bonkers is referring to Trump, the actor of those referred to actions.
In your reply, you state ‘YOU’, as if the people against this / and? the people pushing it are responsible for that radicalization, and I take no responsibility for that shitstain’s actions against our allies.
You could have easily been more clear by stating ‘conservatives’ or Trump supporters or - if you meant a blanket indictment - you idiots who didn’t punish the insurrection / pay taxes to a corrupt system of governing etc., hence my dismissal of your reply.
Vague aspersions cast without insight generally get that response.
I wasn’t the person who originally answered you, just someone who saw you lash out at someone and understood why. You said this (emphasis mine):
And someone answered your question in the way that makes sense (second person plural). It’s not an aspersion, it’s literally just stating the consequences of us electing trump (we as a country did, regardless of whether you or I voted for him).
quod erat demonstrandum
ipso facto vis-a-vis
shut the fuck up