Except that I'm able to have rational conversations with a great many people.  Not always, but a decent amount of time.  I just can't if the other person isn't willing to be rational and thoughtful. And since I'm not going to simply make personal attacks, I'll actually explain what I mean.

If I tell my friend "save a seat for me, I need to go get popcorn", am I saying that popcorn is literally essential for my life?  No, I'm saying I want to get popcorn. If an announcer says "Green Bay needs this touchdown", are they literally saying that the touchdown is necessary for Green Bay's survival?  No, they're saying that Green Bay needs the touchdown if they want to win the game.  When someone comes home and says "I need a drink" are they literally saying they'll expire if they don't have a shot of whiskey?  No, they're saying they really want a drink.  When Neil Young says "I need somebody to love me the whole night through" is he expressing a necessity?  No he's expressing a desire.  When a boxing announcer says "Mayweather has to keep his gloves up" does that mean Mayweather has no choice but to do so?  No, he means that Mayweather should do so if he doesn't want to get hit in the face.

Obviously the word need does not always mean that something is absolutely required.  In fact, we very rarely use the word need in that sense.  So when I say that the president needs to know what's going on in the world, what an intelligent person interested in rational conversation should be thinking is "what usage of the word needs makes most sense in this context"?  Instead, you decided that one usage of need was the correct one, and ignored the obvious context for the sake of proving something wrong on a technicality.   Like I said earlier it's incredibly childish.  "No, you didn't say go to sleep, you said go to bed."  "No, you said stop tocuhing you.  I'm not touching you, I'm touching your shirt!" "No, you said don't hit my sister.  I'm kicking her".    If you want to be a part of grown up discussions, you have to actually make an effort to understand the other person is conveying instead of trying to play petty little word games.

Now, if you were actually interested in defending Donald Trump, that was an opportunity for you to bring up something about his knowledge on international politics.  For example, "IIIIITHE1IIIII" actually brought up his comments on the Iraq war.  While that was a flawed example, it at least clearly showed he was trying to engage thoughtfully on the matter, and clearly understood the point.  And that's why we were able to have an actual exchange of ideas.

If that was too complex for you, I'll simplify. The phrase "the president needs to know what the fuck is going on in the world" can mean "the president is literally required to know what is going on to be legally allowed to hold office".  It could also mean "the president needs to know about foreign affairs to effectively do their job".  As a person who is, in theory, trying to participate in an intelligent conversation, it is your job to try your best to discern which meaning makes more sense.  Considering the context of the conversation was whether or not people should vote for Trump, and not whether or not Trump is legally allowed to run, I assumed your reading skills would be strong enough to figure out that the latter meaning is the only one that makes sense in this context.  Since you either were being willfully ignorant, or you simply never learned how to use context clues, I corrected you when you misunderstood the obvious meaning.  That is not "changing the goalposts".

And what exactly were you trying to prove?  Let's say for argument's sake, you did prove that I was wrong on that point?  Congratufuckinglations.  How does that get us any closer to figuring out whether Trump would be a good candidate that should be supported?  What is the point of doing that, except for your desire to be right on a technicality (which you didn't even succeed in)?  Is that even a conversation you think is worth having?  Is your goal to discuss whether or not Trump is a good candidate, or to argue about what "need" means?  Is your goal to show me that Trump is indeed a worthwhile candidate, or just to say "HA I GOT YOU!!!"

but you just guys pretty recently had a guy like him, Berlusconi

On the sociopath scale from 1 to 10, I'd say he's somewhere between a 9 and a 37.

You don't get it, do you ? 

You don't argue the absolute if you don't have any evidence to back that claim up, what you get is an asspull on your part ... 

No we don't need the literal meaning of everything and you're right about that but it becomes a problem when you invent things up with gaps in logic so at that point your interpretation is no different than a lie. I assure you that I'm not playing these petty word games but you on the other hand is playing the backtracking game ...

I am not that interested in defending Donald Trump, what I'm interested in is preserving the TRUTH, big difference there ... 

People voting for him or not is an OPINION! I'm not interested in aruging against your opinion of Donald Trump and if changing goalposts isn't making up two lies on the fly to suit your argument then I don't know what is ...  

I don't even want or need prove that Trump is a worthwhile candidate since that's ALL BASED ON OPINIONS! The one university level math course that I attended to hit home the point VERY STRONGLY is that YOU CANNOT MAKE PROOFS BASED OFF OF OPINIONS. I'm just here to bust all the myths regarding Trump and me poking at your logic with a stick is just on the side ... 

Don't pity me by giving me a chance, I'm the one pitying you by giving the benefit of the doubt that you were open minded ... 

Is Hillary Clinton a compulsive liar?

Simply yes and I worry about some of his more fanatic voters.

No; her lies are strategic, not of compulsion.  Drumpf on the other hand is bullshitting so frequently it is hard to tell if it is out of compulsion or merely symptomatic of being mentally unwell.  Better a competent liar in charge than an incompetent bullshitter.

You don't get it, do you ? 

You don't argue the absolute if you don't have any evidence to back that claim up, what you get is an asspull on your part ... 

No we don't need the literal meaning of everything and you're right about that but it becomes a problem when you invent things up with gaps in logic so at that point your interpretation is no different than a lie. I assure you that I'm not playing these petty word games but you on the other hand is playing the backtracking game ...

Actually, I don't think I get it.  I really can't entirely understand what you're saying.  There are literally 39 consecutive words without any sort of punctuation.  

I'm not interested in aruging against your opinion of Donald Drumpf and if changing goalposts isn't making up two lies on the fly to suit your argument then I don't know what is ...  

No.  

A compulsive liar is someone who lies for no external reason.

So, if you want to argue that Hillary is lying about Benghazi for instance, there is a clear external reason for that, to avoid getting into trouble.  You could say it's dishonest, but it's not the trait of a compulsive liar.  

On the other hand, when Donald Drumpf claims that the NFL sent him a letter about the debates, and they deny such a letter exists, that IS a sign of a compulsive liar.  Because there is no clear external reason for that lie.  

JWeinCom said: You don't get it, do you ?  You don't argue the absolute if you don't have any evidence to back that claim up, what you get is an asspull on your part ...  No we don't need the literal meaning of everything and you're right about that but it becomes a problem when you invent things up with gaps in logic so at that point your interpretation is no different than a lie. I assure you that I'm not playing these petty word games but you on the other hand is playing the backtracking game ... Nobody is arguing about absolutes.  I'm arguing my opinion.  While I feel it is very well supported, I never claimed to be infallible.   Since you need to have evidence to back things up as you just said, can you show the evidence that I'm backtracking? Or inventing things with gaps in knowledge?  Please provide direct quotes or the like.   I am not that interested in defending Donald Drumpf, what I'm interested in is preserving the TRUTH, big difference there ...  And you've done neither.  You've addressed next to nothing I or anyone else has said about Drumpf. I'm not interested in aruging against your opinion of Donald Drumpf and if changing goalposts isn't making up two lies on the fly to suit your argument then I don't know what is ...   I literally have no idea what this means.  Changing goalposts is making up two lies?  What lies?  What goalposts?  You said you needed to back things up with evidence, so please do so.  I can't address anything if you don't give specifics. I don't even want or need prove that Drumpf is a worthwhile candidate since that's ALL BASED ON OPINIONS! The one university level math course that I attended to hit home the point VERY STRONGLY is that YOU CANNOT MAKE PROOFS BASED OFF OF OPINIONS. I'm just here to bust all the myths regarding Drumpf and me poking at your logic with a stick is just on the side ...  Opinions may not be able to be proven (some can and some can't), but we have to choose between opinions all the time.  For example, if you and your girlfriend or boyfriend are choosing a location for a vacation, it's an opinion based question.  There is no definitively right or wrong answer as to which vacation will be better.  That doesn't mean you can't evaluate the two locations and what they offer to decide which one is more likely to be enjoyable.  Just like we can try to decide which candidate will more likely make a better president. As for busting myths, the only "myth" you addressed, was the myth that we can't ban immigration based on religion, which is something nobody brought up buy you. As for poking at my logic, repeatedly attacking me doesn't count.

It's a lost cause to even try responding but I'll bite your bait ... 

"I was talking about him saying we should consider a registry for muslims in the US." "And that is a straight up violation of the 14th amendment which does not apply to Chinese people in China, but does apply to Muslim people in the US."  

I proved otherwise and the US Supreme Court seems to disagree with you that you can't profile groups based on these factors but lo and behold this comes from you, "And no, that doesn't make Trump right because even if you can it may not be a good idea." so all of a sudden what I proved as a possibility means that I also have to disprove your opinion too ? Well what am I supposed to expect when desperate times calls for desperate measures ... *shrugs*

"Arguing that we deport US born citizens in defiance of the 14th amendment is objectively bad presidenting" to which he said absolutely none of that even when questioning about anchor babies and even if you meant that "he will strip of birthright citizenship" from anchor babies he also didn't claim that either in the interview with Bill O Reilly but here's where your jump in logic gets you into big trouble with your claim of "Donald Trump will deport anchor babies" when his last statement, "I'd much rather find out whether or not 'anchor babies' are actually citizens, because a lot of people don't think they are." in that piece makes it clear with that he has uncertainty of his own assertion ... 

To put this into discrete logic, A implies B or that A does not imply B and that B implies C does not ALWAYS MEAN that A implies C therefore you can't ever be sure that your claim of Donald Trump is true since his compound statement DOES NOT ALWAYS RETURN TRUE in your case ... (i.e. it's NOT A TAUTOLOGY!) 

So your statement that "Yes, he specifically said he would deport people born in the US" is both false in the literal sense AND in the logical sense but what's more is that he NEVER affirmed that "he will strip anchor babies of their citizenship". Both very dumb and stupid statements that you made up and I clearly pointed out to be lies ...  

*Still waiting for you to admit that you've lied*