So the riots weren’t that big of deal?No, it isn't, nor does it suggest anything about whether my post had commentary - much less try to 'mislead' people into thinking that something they can scroll up to see is suddenly not there.
Hell, I don't even have those editing privileges.
It focuses on the fact that you asked about how to judge 'something' that was 'brought up a couple of weeks ago when that was published' in terms of 'figurative cost in votes going to Trump or actual cost of over a billion dollars'.
Unless a claim in my commentary directly prompted that question in those metrics, there is no basis to construe my pointing out the disparity between your question and the actual claims in the article as an intentional bait-and-switch, since there is no advantage to be gained for me by doing it.
This being the case, what you did may be the actual misleading element in this discussion, since you're purposely shifting attention towards a less relevant element of the post that ultimately holds no bearing to the original point.
Or, as some prefer, a classic red herring.
You were vague. I made the same assumption that @compforce did.
"Studies" showing how "peaceful" the riots are are proof the unrest is hurting democrats and helping Trump.No, it isn't, nor does it suggest anything about whether my post had commentary - much less try to 'mislead' people into thinking that something they can scroll up to see is suddenly not there.
Hell, I don't even have those editing privileges.
It focuses on the fact that you asked about how to judge 'something' that was 'brought up a couple of weeks ago when that was published' in terms of 'figurative cost in votes going to Trump or actual cost of over a billion dollars'.
Unless a claim in my commentary directly prompted that question in those metrics, there is no basis to construe my pointing out the disparity between your question and the actual claims in the article as an intentional bait-and-switch, since there is no advantage to be gained for me by doing it.
This being the case, what you did may be the actual misleading element in this discussion, since you're purposely shifting attention towards a less relevant element of the post that ultimately holds no bearing to the original point.
Or, as some prefer, a classic red herring.
I think they were a big deal and really hurt the message of those who were peacefully trying to have their grievances addressed.
Sure, my inbox is open to continue the derail so we can let the broader discussion continue, in case I've already taken too much thread space responding to each reply.
Oh they were find and dandy here in Portland, hell the mayor even took part (and PPB had fun macing his ass) until they moved it to outside his house. Now they were a problem and he "has to move because of what this did to his neighbors".
I thought about the same cases/as conclusion. It's reasonable given the recent instances that had national attention.
I see your point, but I wouldn't at all characterize this as ironic.
