Bruh it’s not an assumption (required for a loaded question) to say that reasoning about the future in the case of a democratic win is speculation just like reasoning about the future in the case of a Republican win is.
but the part about the DNC does indeed fall into the realm of speculation.
The whole point of my comment is that speculation about the effects of a democratic win were initially portrayed as ironclad, while the speculation of the effects of a Republican win were downplayed due to being speculation. I’m not commenting on the message, I’m commenting on the delivery. You’re commenting on the message, not the delivery. Your comments are simply not relevant to mine.
When the guy you’re “defending” and I are in agreement, what are you doing? Are you going to explain what they “really” meant with their comment?
Bruh it’s not an assumption (required for a loaded question) to say that reasoning about the future in the case of a democratic win is speculation just like reasoning about the future in the case of a Republican win is.
That is 100% a fact. Once again, the guy you’re defending has arrived at the same conclusion:
The whole point of my comment is that speculation about the effects of a democratic win were initially portrayed as ironclad, while the speculation of the effects of a Republican win were downplayed due to being speculation. I’m not commenting on the message, I’m commenting on the delivery. You’re commenting on the message, not the delivery. Your comments are simply not relevant to mine.
When the guy you’re “defending” and I are in agreement, what are you doing? Are you going to explain what they “really” meant with their comment?