Why does he refuse to condemn them?

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2020, 10:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: Dude. You heavily implied that Trump's answer was "fore some reason" not good enough "for many"... how typical of them, right? When you take this stance with the attitude you took, you don't get to be offended when being "accused" of talking about a perfectly fine, hence strong condemnation.

If it were not a strong condemnation, there'd be no reason for you to wonder why it's not good enough for many. Because in that case it would have been weak, and many might reasonably feel that weak is not good enough. So nope, I respectfully reject your attempt at shaming me. Your whole point bites itself in the behind.

Also, Caesar: If you do not see a strong condemnation (the part you took issue with), why don't you just say so. It might even help you understand where other people are actually coming from. Why respond like you did? Earnestly, Gaius Julius, I have no issue with disagreement, but some issue with this particular kind of response.

I thought I explained that when I described the condemnation simple and plain. 

But yeah, a simple condemnation was not good enough for many. I didn't imply that, I plainly stated it. 

Reject all you want, but that doesn't mean you didn't make up shit I said.