(08-13-2018, 11:29 AM)jj82284 Wrote:

(08-13-2018, 11:18 AM)mikesez Wrote: Similes have a small number of explicit readings and a large number of possible implicit readings. The plainness of an implication is always debatable.  It's part of the art of political discourse to leave things implied but deniable.  And it used to be that way on the Republican side too, until mid 2016.

No reasonable person would lend ant weight to your version of her comments.  Frankly, ur just not challenging yourself enough.

Well, as soon as someone did, you'd call them unreasonable. It's OK.  I'm not mad.  You don't have to be either.  Channel that hate into thinking more rigorously next time.  Ask yourself- would you be mad if a female politician that you like had done this jiu jitsu to a male pundit that you don't like? Like what if John Stewart was pestering Sarah Palin for a debate?

---