Oh yeah, Obama. He skims through things as well. He rightly calls ISIS a.k.a. ISIL a.k.a. Islamic State, terrorists while flatly denying that they are Islamic. Even though they are following the Koran precisely as written. I guess Obama deserves at least a half a kudo since he was half right.
We don't agree. I stated flat out that she will not be the democratic nominee, while you are sitting on the fence with may or may not be. It's easy to be right when one picks both sides of the coin, just as it's easier to have loose convictions.
To appease you I will google those words:
context: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
Yep just as I thought. Edgar3 added an additional statement so that it could be fully understood and assessed, and I agreed with him.
proportionality
1. Forming a relationship with other parts or quantities; being in proportion.
2. Properly related in size, degree, or other measurable characteristics; corresponding:
3. Mathematics Having the same or a constant ratio.
Again Edgar3's statement meets the requirements of proportionality (a relationship with other parts. Properly related by other measurable characteristics, Having the same ratio). So I still support Edgar3's statement.
Not sure what point you had hoped to prove by that exercise, but I played along.
About the only thing I can agree with you on is the fact that Hillary will indeed run. She hungers for power, but that is so obvious.
Let's assume Juan's epiphany vis-à-vis Clinton is related to 2016, is he really such an influential person that it will sway multitudes of voters? Or will it have little-to-no affect? My guess is the latter.
There I go again, writing a mini novel for you to not read fully.
P.S. Love your caps on for dramatic effect.
I’m a speech writer, political ad copy writer, among other talents - and the use of caps is for emphasis in the spoken word form. Sorry that escapes you.
But I’m more distressed that logic escapes you. All your cut and paste below, which I skimmed, doesn’t change one UNDENIABLE (oh, sorry for the caps) TRUTH.
Juan was making these comments in context of Hillary being the nominee, or at least a candidate. These are his comments, so we must use his context to understand them, let alone analyze them. Juan is part of a political talking head class, and in context, they all agree Hillary is serious 2016 contender. So not only Juan’s context, but the context of his entire industry.
And in the context that Hillary will run and be a major force at minimum, Juan’s comments were appropriate - and thus it is not relevant to bring up what he has or has not said in the past about other politicians. That is OUT of context.
In fact, you don’t know for damned sure he has “remained silent” on those other issues - you just can’t remember anything he said about them. How can you assume, let alone prove a negative like that?
It takes a certain foolish and infantile arrogance to think that reading one article or seeing one interview means you know a person’s full body of thought and work on the topic. You have that foolish infantile arrogance, else you wouldn’t make the comments you did.
All of which is academic, because you don’t know for a fact that Hillary won’t be the nominee, and you certainly can’t guarantee she won’t even run, therefore a Clinton comment vis a vis 2016 is fully proper and stands alone as valid.