Everyone, every time. Are you seriously arguing that when people say they support a candidate we are supposed to assume they support the "good" viewpoints and not the "bad" ones? That makes no sense. Later on you can try and clarify it but that tends to mean you don't actually support the person, you sort of support them.

Kero, you don't understand how politics works if you think an endorsement is 100% ratification of what someone has said or has ever said.

Party politics involves the coalition of like-minded people who broadly agree on a general direction, but who do not necessarily agree on all matters of specific policy.

Lol kerowo is a ****ing idiot.

You only support the good things, not the bad?!?!?! Doesn't make sense!!!

omg, Kerowo is a drooling moron(he is also a little bitch)!

Right. So when Lord says he's supporting Milo more what are we to make of it? Unless he says specifically what he supports and doesn't support what are we to assume when he says he supports Milo?

Just keep asking questions about this strange world you just don't understand, kerowo. Maybe one day you'll figure it out.

Bahaha you make yourself look like an utter moron constantly.

Considering the fact that no two politicians ever agree on everything, I assume you have one and only one politician to whom you pledge your undying support, then?

I mean it's either that or you don't really support anyone at all, right?

How are we supposed to know what you don't support of a person's positions when you say "I support milo?" Are we to read that as given a position Milo supports you are for or against that? If someone says "I support Obama" what is your assumption about their view on the ACA? How do you know? How can you know?

Hey, fair enough. But I would be careful about supporting someone who goes onto TV and obscures the racists beliefs of the alt-right. If you ignore those aspects of Milo, then you can't really blame people for speculating about why you might be ignoring them.

You can't know. Someone can think Obama would have been a better president than Romney or McCain while still thinking Obamacare is bad. That is a logically consistent position.

So you can say things about the aggregate. Like Obama supporters are more likely to support the ACA than average but you can't say that person x supports Obama therefore he must support Obamacare.

Do you really think that we are the same person? We both just ignored this whole tangent earlier since it is so ridiculous. Any mod could quickly confirm that we are very likely from different countries.

I noticed a pattern of this in the SJW forum. Anyone who agrees with ideas you reject is:

A troll

A payed chill

A banned user

An alt account of a 'deplorable'

Is it so hard to accept that a large amount of people from widely varying backgrounds fundamentally disagree with you?

Marn, be sure to refer to my playbook in future when facing these dishonest tactics.

That's ridiculous. Too much burden is placed on the listener and not on the speaker. If the speaker supports a person you can't fault the listener for assuming the speaker supports every position of the person they support. If it turns out the speaker only supports some of the person's positions they are responsible for clearing that up in later discussions but they will have the burden not the listener.

There are a lot of people who support Trump who has a lot of racist/bigoted views. It is up to the supporter to distance themselves from Trump's racist/bigoted views it is not up to the listener to assume that. And the listener is justified taking the speaker to task for supporting a racist even though they themselves are not racist.

That was a good post. Sometimes I just want to troll them since it is so frustrating to argue in good faith against such dishonest tactics but then I remind myself of what a strong woman like Michelle Obama said: 'when they go low you go high'.

Aren't all of your posts trolls Marn? That's pretty much how I read them.

This has now been cleared up.

So say you were a McCain supporter who didn't vote for Obama because you thought the ACA was bad. You can say that to the Obama supporter and then it is up to him to say "I agree but still think Obama is better because..." or "I think you are overstating how bad the ACA is" or whatever. All of this can be done without ever claiming to know what the Obama supporter believes on any particular issue.

"How can you support Trump when he says such racist/sexist things?" is better than "you must be racist/sexist if you support Trump."

So when Lord says he supports Milo I assume he is a racist and misogynist because of Milo's treatment of Leslie Jones.

Correct, it is up to the person supporting Obama to say "I support Obama but..." it's not up the McCain supporter to figure that out.

If you look at what I said again:

This is a more nuanced statement than "I support Milo".

The burden shouldn't be on the LISTENER!!!

No, when I talk trash about you, it is sincere!

The McCain supporter doesn't have to claim to know anything about the Obama supporter though. I added an edit to my other post that hopefully clears things up.

Conspiracy theories abound. Amazing detective work, people.