Sorry Charlie. You’re not my English teacher.
You asked what states would Cruz or Kasich win in addition to the Romney states. I said (#32): FL, OH, WI and IA. And gave a short argument for this, and then said the same would apply to Trump.
You said (#38) you wouldn’t bet the farm on Cruz carrying WI.
I didn’t call you stupid for not knowing that RealClear rates Wi a toss-up for Cruz, but a disaster for Trump. No. I informed you (#45) of the basis in fact of my opinion.
Nobody knows all the facts. Non-stupid people are capable of processing new information. Do you recall when Trump was talking about the risks of inoculations during, I think, the second debate? Do you remember Ben Carson calmly sharing some facts with Trump about this, and Trump modifying his position. That exchange spoke well of Trump (and also of Carson).
Carson has since distinguished between the “entertainer” Trump and the “thoughtful” Trump. I thought this was a left-handed compliment. But, the truth is, I have no idea how much of what Trump is doing is an act.
Anyway, it was after I shared the links to RealClear concerning Trump, that you came back with (#48): “You say that as though Trump would need WI to win.. this is the stupidity of this discussion.”
The stupid word. From out of nowhere. Or maybe I should say from out of you. When confronted with facts, you revert to Donald-like insulting.
So, let me close with something you will take as a compliment: I think you are a great advocate for the Donald Trump approach to politics.
I am certainly not your English teacher, because if I had been you would understand that in this sentence:
“You say that as though Trump would need WI to win.. this is the stupidity of this discussion.”
“Stupidity” is and adjective applied to the noun “this conversation”, your failure to continue to argue that this statement is the equivalent of being called stupid does indeed suggest a less than adequate understanding of the English language.
Calling a conversation stupid is not remotely the same as calling a person stupid. I am happy to allow you to find yourself someone with at least a bachelors degree English who agrees with your incorrect interpretation of a very clearly worded sentence. Until then you are simply display outrage which is based upon your own ignorance, which has been clearly pointed out to you twice now but you refuse to recognize it. What you are doing is no different than the black person who gets upset because someone uses the word niggardly and thinks it’s a racial slur because they are ignorant of the word, it’s definition or its language of origin.
So, before you go off all half cocked again, yes I did call your continued outrage over a very clearly worded sentence after it has been explained to you twice ignorant... And I am sure you will go off again because of that so let me be absolutely clear what I mean by that, because the word has several definitions.
The meaning of ignorant I am utilizing her is the following:
“lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.”
And given the issue you are incorrect about has already been explained to you twice and you continue to claim an insult where none was given, I really have no other option but to indeed use this word to describe your stance on this particular topic.
You, I am sure will feel that I have insulted you, but I have not, I have called a conversation stupid and defined your Inability to accept the proper meaning of the written word after it has been explained to you more than once showing ignorance on that particular topic.
I will await your evidence that my original sentence can be interpreted as calling you stupid, br forgive me if I go on living my life in the interim.