That's like saying, "Except for my student loans, I am 100% debt free." It muddles your point.
Just a nit.
Let's take the statement "I'm 100% for punishing people that deserve it". That's a perfectly good statement, and the "100%" shows certainty across the category. Reinterpreting it as "I'm 40% for punishing people" is just being bad at discourse. The scope is not arbitrary, and shouldn't be treated separately.
But would it not be linguistically simpler (and maybe less taxing for the reader) to use emphasis without resorting to percentages? The fact that 100% can be mapped to an unqualified boolean ("Yes, in favor, no buts.") and 40% cannot be doesn't mean that either are appropriate.
It's not elegant to parse sentence structure as categories to contrive percentage use as correct, even if it's technically sound. I understood the parent's sentence, but I had to read it several times because it just came across as a bit odd.
Honestly, when we start using category theory to analyze whether or not someone has appropriately quantified their stance on something, we've gone pretty far off the reservation.
I suppose my overall point here is that we shouldn't use percentages to quantify our opinions in place of emphasizing in a more linguistically elegant way. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree?
The government does some things horribly, but the private sector does some things even worse. I think it's reasonable to look at the evidence and conclude that the balance is wrong sometimes.
> Except for my student loans, I am 100% debt free
This is wrong. This is exactly how they want you to think. Cab drivers are not going to become homeless or jobless, they will work(drive) for a new companies(I agree if market is healthy enough, which is not).But they frame the issue kind of like "losing job" and "becoming homeless" just because they don't want to change. (I said cab drivers because it is what we talk. Other sectors are the same)
P.S. when it comes to education and health and natural environment, I am 100% pro regulation and government interference(kind of like I am firm communist in those three categories). But other than those three I am 100% percent for free market, and I believe invisible hand will get the job done.