‘Decisions are imminent’ on charges in Trump’s effort to overturn 2020 election

Just pointing out your stereotyping the characteristics of pundits and judges.

 

Posturing is not a point -- it does not improve an argument. Posturing is a non argument.

Mockery does not improve an argument. Mockery is a non argument.

In fact, I'm not seeing a point at all here in your rebuttal.

As they should.

Since Heller, etc., are not the subject of this thread, you have not made a point.

Except that....

Mockery does not improve an argument. Mockery, is a not a point, it is a non argument.

In case you forgot, my original point, from which your rebuttal springs, was the point that punditry with which one disagrees with, given the tendency for pundits to indugle in histrionics, cannot be tossed in the same category as a court ruling by a judge one disagrees with, as a judge is not going to indulge in histrionics.

Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with a Judge's ruling is irrelevant to that point.

So, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Mockery isn't a point.

See, you, or whoever it was, tried to argue that the judge was no better than the pundits therefore his ruling has no credibility.

That argument just doesn't fly.

The essence of the rebuttal was a kill-the-messenger pseudo-debate trick.

Find another argument, thank you.

And, by the way, as for pundits, depends on the pundit. You can't toss everyone of them in the same basket, either. In short, the argument is vacuous.





.

 

Inadequate rebuttal, lacks foundation.

Besides, you're the one that lopped judges and pundits in the same category.

 

. "Lacks foundation" All one has to do is look at your string of posts above. Nice try.

huh?

 

Inadequate rebuttal, no counter point offered.

Okay, let's look at the conversation we have been having:

I wrote:

His "belief" is meaningless--Trump lies and lies often.

There is overwhelming proof that he knew there was no fraud yet he pursued Raffensperger anyway.

You replied

Oh, let's see it. Not LW opinion pieces or LW "pundits" blathering, but actual proof.

My rebuttal:

LW Pundits? Hardly, these are the rulings of US District Court Judge David Carter (and i provided a link and his quotes)

Your reply

Sorry, I forgot to mention LW officials.


Since I made the distinction between "LW pundits" whose opinions you trashed, and a judge, you replied to include 'LW officials" with your 'LW pundits" and thereby impugning the credibility of judges, (I infer you meant judges,which is reasonable given your immediate response to my reference to them) lumping them in with pundits.

Therefore, you were the one who put judges and pundits in the same category, which is to say, persons sufficient you think you can trash them.

Now, given that you are putting judges at the same level as pundits, the fact that you did that is to impugn their credibility.

Then you tried this argument:

Being I [a] judge doesn't endow wisdom, nor infallibility, nor partisanship.

No, any judge can rule in ways we don't like, but to say that is not to impugn their credibility, but to lump them in with pundits, DOES.

And that, bullseye, is the point.

 

Deleted

 

Fact remains:
Your standard only applies when you want it to.

 

Don't you lefties know gnything?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...oping-for-an-electoral-college-revolt/508433/

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/17/how-democrats-attempted-a-2016-electoral-college-coup/

 

I'm not a lefty, and your link doesn't support your claim. You probably should have read it before linking to it.

 

Sure it does. You are a lefty. And I did read it.

 

You definitely didn't read it. Your claim was the Clinton organized some changing of EC votes. Your link does not support that claim. You would know that if you had read it. So clearly you didn't read it. And the fact that you don't know what the word "lefty" means isn't my fault. We can discuss the article if you want, but it will require you reading it, and you don't appear to be willing to do that.

 

I am content to let our readers decide.

 

Yet you refuse to read it yourself. Hence why you can't quote anything supporting your case. But I'm sure you can find some right wing conspiracy theorists who will also refuse to read the articles and yet also pretend it says what it doesn't. I'm sorry reading your own articles was too much to ask for.

 

Would you like to debate and/or forward the discussion offered in the OP?

Let me know. If not, I'll put you on ignore, because engaging in non arguments does not forward the discussion/debate, etc.

 

I don't know what point you are trying to make, so let me guess.

You are saying that what Trump has done, Dems did before, is that it? If so....

No, Trump has engaged in a grand conspiracy to overturn the election. NOTHING any Dem candidate for president has done comes close to what Trump did.

Mssrs Michael Baca and Bret Chiafalo are rogue operators and NOT part of any scheme by Hillary, nor was any attempt
to persuade some electors to become faithless, nor any rogue (and legal) attempts to object to electoral counts in the Joint Session of congress, none of these things equal Trump's grand scheme because none of them were part of any Hillary concocted scheme to overturn the election, . nor do your links prove it.

So you have committed a logical fallacy known as the False equivalency.

 

I took issue with -your- statement, which, as -you- placed it here, -you- offered it up for discussion, and made it fair game.
-You- submitted for discussion your standard; I responded to that standard -- and thus, I -am- on topic, and I -am- driving that topic forward.
Your failure to effectively respond to my criticism of that standard -- that it is a standard of convenience and only applies when you want it to - is perfectly valid and, so far, has gone unchallenged.
I am sure this will not change, because I am sure you have no effective response.

Ah - can't handle the heat, so you pop smoke and didi.
Be sure to tuck that tail in tight when you run away.

 

I responded to the statement "Trump pressured folks to overturn the election."

and so did Hilary.

Here is another attemp by Hilary to influence the EC.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinto...ng-electoral-college-on-russian-interference/

 

What counter point and/or contribution to the OP are you offering for debate and/or move the discussion forward?

Let's see it.

snarky rhetoric doesn't improve an argument. But, of course, you haven't offered one.

Let's take a look at your comments on this thread:


As far as I can tell, your first post was #511, there you just asked a question.

Your second post was at #542, you wrote:

Good to know you fully accept Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen.
Oh, and Dobbs.

As I rebutted, That's not an argument, it's a statement with an assumed premise irrelevant to the comment to which you responded, where all I was doing was making a distinction between the credibility of a judge and that of "Pundits". Claims of judicial fallibility and/or whether or not one agrees with a court ruling is a red herring to the aforementioned point.


Your comment at #549 was more of the same, the substance of that comment was no different than #542

Your comment at #557 made no contribution insofar as moving the discussion forward.

And that brings us to your latest comment, #566, where you claim to have posted something of substance, something that contributes to the discussion, moves it forward. However, for my diligent search of all your comments thus far, I find none.

Not one substantive post that reflects someone who knows how to frame an argument, and/or counter argument, and/or, contribute to the discussion under topic and move it forward..

Nothing but snarky rhetoric.

Apparently, that's all you are good for, well, please go pester someone else.

 

The point being, when all else fails you throw up a wall of words. I know!

 

I addressed this.
You have not offered an effective response.

Apparently, you have any number of standards that only apply when -you- want them do.

I accept your surrender.

 

Clearly, you are not interested in debate.

Now pester someone else.

 

You don't debate - any point you can't refute you just dismiss; you seem to think you are both participant and a debate judge at the same time.

 

Lol, copy and pastes, no less.

 

Got to hand it to you, you've managed to get down the anti-Trump's talking points down pat. (the bolded above)

Now, do you have any concrete proof for what you've alleged, or just tossing the proverbial crud at the wall, and hoping it sticks?

@me because I'm not waiting for your usual obfuscation.

 

I'll debate any argument offered, if it's an actual argument. In other words, if you have an actual point, or counter point.

Try me.