[loceng]

My perspective is valid, you've done nothing to prove it's not - other than putting your own "much simpler explanation;" where you're also making assumptions. Hope you enjoyed the thought exercise writing out your reply.

It's interesting how I can reference, with no personal opinion attached to it, a factual, recent situation that's comparable to the thread - about a well-known person who happens to be a politician - happens to be a politician, and as you said, because you're exhausted of hearing about them, you'd prefer they be censored/avoided in conversation. It's interesting to say the least.

P.S. Triggered is a valid word, I used it in the correct context - and you were in fact triggered by using it and are trying to gate keep its use.

[rootusrootus]

What you are doing here is a pretty good real world demonstration of Russell conjugations. Also very non-productive, so I don't think there is any reason to try continuing the discussion. Have a great day!

[loceng]

Re: Russel conjugations - there was no "spin" to anything I said, I stated facts that were neutral - yes, that neutrality which is certainly a better light than you're appearing to believe Ted Cruz deserves (which has nothing to do with my own perception of him - it's your own belief or reaction you're applying to the facts). There is a difference - and if you read the examples at Google for searching "what is russell conjugation" - https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/ - then none of them fit what I said because I was just listing fact, so my points still stand and I wasn't using any fallacies or bad faith arguments. I won't analysis the conversation further because it'll become inflammatory. I'd love for you to show exactly where I am applying bias to the facts I listed.