I'm not against that but you're quite uncharitable to me so I don't think its likely and I'm skeptical you're interested in anything of the sort.
Based on what? Based on the way that
BFoe and I were able to come to a point of mutual understanding through reasonable conversation? I've already demonstrated my good faith. You've only demonstrated your bad faith. What you trade in is called sophistry. It's been annoying for thousands of years. It's still annoying.
This is you trying to win an argument on a minor technical point while missing the forest for the trees.
No, it's me telling you that arguing a different point than the one that I made is not arguing the point that I made. Again, what you're doing is called sophistry, and I have no interest in it.
You don't even contest that but instead try to retreat to this semantic argument which is telling.
Telling of what? Of what I told you when I pointed out that one
could get wrapped up in a semantic battle but that it was not necessary to do so?
Now, if you want to counter my point with a charge of pedantry, that the semantics of "contesting" and "overturning" and what have you is irrelevant to the question of whether what specifically Trump did was right or wrong, legal or illegal, good for the country or bad for the country, I'm already on record saying that his actions were Nixon-esque and absolutely wrong/illegal/bad for the country. Once again, it'd appear that we're in agreement, yet you're so intent on combating me...which, I might add, proves my point about anti-Trumpers being so fanatical as to alienate those who would otherwise be allies, which is a problem of rhetoric, which was my original point to which you took such intense umbrage.
What if anything remains for me to address?
Did you even read that part?
My intention is to push back against the idea that singling out Trump as a uniquely unfit candidate is wrong and rhetorically ineffective. I think its both true and should figure as a core part of the campaign against him.
I know this already. It's why you picked this fight. I don't care what you do, though. I've accepted that nothing that I say will change what you think or how you act. That's not why you're here and that's fine. If you want to keep banging your head against the wall, go to it. Just don't pick fights with people who suggest that banging one's head against the wall is not advisable and then deny that you're banging your head against the wall
.
To use your own argument against you, why doesn't BFoe liking my posts give you any pause as to whether or not I'm making a fair case here? You respect his take right?
I respect
him. He's proven to be capable of introspection, of adjusting himself and his tone, of reassessing his opinion of me through honest and intelligent conversation. And I've demonstrated the same thing. Our exchange is what it should look like when mature people who don't share the same views converse. I'm not going to extend the same courtesy to you because you haven't earned that courtesy from me. Remember, again: You started this. You picked a fight with me. I don't care why, but you did, and so it's not incumbent upon me to like you or respect you based on the way that you've conducted yourself thus far. You'll have to do something different for me to see and treat you different. Can you find anything that you've said that you think is evidence of a misunderstanding, or a strawman, or sophistry? Could you even point to a single part of a single post about which you'd say that you expressed yourself poorly? Give me something. Anything. Show me that you're not just arguing for the sake of arguing, that you're actually interested in understanding what I'm saying. If you can't do this, then don't bother responding, because this will be the last time that I respond to any of your posts.
There are a number of States, as well a Federal investigation now starting to charge Trump and those in his campaign with a strategic plan to upset the electoral count, as part of a bigger plan to force the election to the HOuse in a Contingent election, in which the republicans win, if they all vote together.
Trump may escape these cases thanks to the SC giving him wide immunity, but the others will not.,
If/When they are all found guilty of these actions, as the evidence is immense thus far, that we have had glimpses of, will you say you were duped prior?
"Duped" about what, and prior to what? Did you mean to quote me here?
The equivalency does not exist.
Yes, it does, but I see what's tripping you up.
That is like saying because people disagree in debate it is the same thing as disagreeing by trying to assault someone. What Trump attempted to do,as the Commander in Chief, is one of the highest offenses conceived by the founders and NO, nothing else done by other POTUS prior, in recent history or even a much wider lens does NOT equate.
Look at the part that I've bolded and underlined. Similar ≠ Same. Equivalent ≠ Identical. Assuming you're not being intentionally obtuse just to argue, try rereading what I've said with these distinctions in mind and see if you still can't wrap your brain around any of it.
