[9rx]

> So I'd assume it was implying Democrats were in a superior position.

And that is an equally fair assumption. But it is not written into the original comment. You cannot logically project your own take onto what someone else wrote.

[FrustratedMonky]

Since you seem to have a penchant for the pedantic. And I do too. I can retort, of course I can assume the meaning of common language idioms. All language is projecting onto what others say.

[9rx]

You can assume a meaning for the sake of your own purposes, but it does not reflect back on the original comment.

Your quip "So it is the Democrats fault we have Trump???" presumably demonstrates that you understand exactly that. After all, if you could have logically projected your interpretation onto the original comment there would have been no need to ask. You'd have already known.

Still, how you managed establish that there was even potential suggestion of "fault" is a head scratcher. Whether or not the account in the original comment is accurate, it clearly only tells a story of what (supposedly) happened. There is no sensible leap from an ostensible historic account to an attribution of blame.

You seem to indicate, if I understand you correctly, that because you randomly had that idea pop into your head (that Democrats are at fault) when reading the comment that the other party must have also been thinking the same thing, but I find that a little unsatisfactory. Perhaps we need to simply dig deeper, freeing ourselves from the immediate context, and look at the line of thinking more broadly. What insights can you offer into your thought processes?

[FrustratedMonky]

>>> "It's the White House that wanted Trump to be candidate. They played Republican primary voters"

The original comment did seem to imply that the 'White House' was in control, with a plan, and 'played' the Republicans.

The original comment made the connection that Democrats were taking action. If I'm allowed to assume that when someone makes a comment, that sentences are related. That sentences can follow one another and be related in a context.

And as far as my context viewing the comment. I have heard this idea ::

Trump is doing bad things -> Democrats failed to beat Trump -> Thus Democrats are the cause of bad things.

The original comment seemed to be in that vein. To attribute much greater responsibility to the Democrats for our current situation, instead of the people actually doing the bad things. aka Republicans. They are actually doing the bad things.

[9rx]

> The original comment made the connection that Democrats were taking action.

Yes, it claims that the Democrats took action. That does not equate to blaming Democrats.

You could blame the Democrats for what they supposedly did if that's what the randomly firing neurons in your brain conclude is most appropriate in light of the "facts" presented, but blame is just arbitrary thought. It doesn't mean anything and certainly wouldn't have a place in an online discussion.

[FrustratedMonky]

I think you are losing the thread of your own thoughts.

You also agreed with me in that interpretation.

Your reply >>> "Yes, that is what he thinks. Did you not read the comment? It is, like, uh, right there...

"

Are you sure you aren't using this circular logic to keep someone engaged, in order to have someone to talk to?