Dear Democrats - Stop Freaking Out by Eugene Robinson

[Sun Devil 92]

Can't argue that logic....except that it isn't logic. It's crap.

Actually it's pretty much perfectly sensible. Which is why you had nothing to refute it with.

What correlates being secretary of state to being a good president ?

How many past presidents were previously secretaries of state ? Let's look at that.

Then we'll look at the term "dangerous demagogue". What is that ? Can you specify what that means and what metrics are used in analyzing it ?

Actually I referred to the Rump part. You know --- the part nobody wants to talk about.

Can you post something that makes sense ?

Now, were you going to answer the questions ?

 

[Pogo]

Can't argue that logic....except that it isn't logic. It's crap.

Actually it's pretty much perfectly sensible. Which is why you had nothing to refute it with.

What correlates being secretary of state to being a good president ?

How many past presidents were previously secretaries of state ? Let's look at that.

Then we'll look at the term "dangerous demagogue". What is that ? Can you specify what that means and what metrics are used in analyzing it ?

Actually I referred to the Rump part. You know --- the part nobody wants to talk about.

Can you post something that makes sense ?

Now, were you going to answer the questions ?

I don't have any questions, and everything I post makes sense.

Once again to recap --- I referred to this:

A former senator and secretary of state, eminently qualified to be president, is running against a dangerous demagogue who has never held public office and should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. Ought to be case closed.

**********************

Can't argue that logic....except that it isn't logic. It's crap.

-- to which I replied, and this is all right there in the record, that it wasn't "crap" at all, which is why you had nothing to refute it with. Which you didn't.

And apparently still don't.

That's your own OP I'm quoting there too. The memory is the second thing to go...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Can't argue that logic....except that it isn't logic. It's crap.

Actually it's pretty much perfectly sensible. Which is why you had nothing to refute it with.

What correlates being secretary of state to being a good president ?

How many past presidents were previously secretaries of state ? Let's look at that.

Then we'll look at the term "dangerous demagogue". What is that ? Can you specify what that means and what metrics are used in analyzing it ?

Actually I referred to the Rump part. You know --- the part nobody wants to talk about.

Can you post something that makes sense ?

Now, were you going to answer the questions ?

I don't have any questions, and everything I post makes sense.

Once again to recap --- I referred to this:

A former senator and secretary of state, eminently qualified to be president, is running against a dangerous demagogue who has never held public office and should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. Ought to be case closed.

**********************

Can't argue that logic....except that it isn't logic. It's crap.

-- to which I replied, and this is all right there in the record, that it wasn't "crap" at all, which is why you had nothing to refute it with. Which you didn't.

And apparently still don't.

That's your own OP I'm quoting there too. The memory is the second thing to go...

Oh, it's been refuted already. The general assertions are garbage and can't be proven with any agreed upon set of metrics.

Your little cut and paste horsehocky posts are funny to read.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I wonder if Eugene has changed his mind.

The RCPolitics average is now 0.9.

The trend can't make the failing Hillary campaign (or many of us) happy.

Right now, she is tanking.

 

[Pogo]

Actually it's pretty much perfectly sensible. Which is why you had nothing to refute it with.

What correlates being secretary of state to being a good president ?

How many past presidents were previously secretaries of state ? Let's look at that.

Then we'll look at the term "dangerous demagogue". What is that ? Can you specify what that means and what metrics are used in analyzing it ?

Actually I referred to the Rump part. You know --- the part nobody wants to talk about.

Can you post something that makes sense ?

Now, were you going to answer the questions ?

I don't have any questions, and everything I post makes sense.

Once again to recap --- I referred to this:

A former senator and secretary of state, eminently qualified to be president, is running against a dangerous demagogue who has never held public office and should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. Ought to be case closed.

**********************

Can't argue that logic....except that it isn't logic. It's crap.

-- to which I replied, and this is all right there in the record, that it wasn't "crap" at all, which is why you had nothing to refute it with. Which you didn't.

And apparently still don't.

That's your own OP I'm quoting there too. The memory is the second thing to go...

Oh, it's been refuted already. The general assertions are garbage and can't be proven with any agreed upon set of metrics.

Your little cut and paste horsehocky posts are funny to read.

And you've just repeated your own failure to support the point. Going "lalala it's been refuted already" is not making an argument. It's an "everybody knows" fallacy. And it's the same empty nonargument you already posted.

---- Which is what I noted in the first place. Last week.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What correlates being secretary of state to being a good president ?

How many past presidents were previously secretaries of state ? Let's look at that.

Then we'll look at the term "dangerous demagogue". What is that ? Can you specify what that means and what metrics are used in analyzing it ?

Actually I referred to the Rump part. You know --- the part nobody wants to talk about.

Can you post something that makes sense ?

Now, were you going to answer the questions ?

I don't have any questions, and everything I post makes sense.

Once again to recap --- I referred to this:

A former senator and secretary of state, eminently qualified to be president, is running against a dangerous demagogue who has never held public office and should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. Ought to be case closed.

**********************

Can't argue that logic....except that it isn't logic. It's crap.

-- to which I replied, and this is all right there in the record, that it wasn't "crap" at all, which is why you had nothing to refute it with. Which you didn't.

And apparently still don't.

That's your own OP I'm quoting there too. The memory is the second thing to go...

Oh, it's been refuted already. The general assertions are garbage and can't be proven with any agreed upon set of metrics.

Your little cut and paste horsehocky posts are funny to read.

And you've just repeated your own failure to support the point. Going "lalala it's been refuted already" is not making an argument. It's an "everybody knows" fallacy. And it's the same empty nonargument you already posted.

---- Which is what I noted in the first place. Last week.

Keep trying Mr. WannabeLegal.

There is no metric for when someone is or isn't a dangereous demagogue.

If you have it, produce it.

Otherwise, we'll just call Hillary a truth-stretching narssacist

What correlates being secretary of state to being a good president ?

How many past presidents were previously secretaries of state ? Let's look at that.

Then we'll look at the term "dangerous demagogue". What is that ? Can you specify what that means and what metrics are used in analyzing it ?

Actually I referred to the Rump part. You know --- the part nobody wants to talk about.

Can you post something that makes sense ?

Now, were you going to answer the questions ?

I don't have any questions, and everything I post makes sense.

Once again to recap --- I referred to this:

A former senator and secretary of state, eminently qualified to be president, is running against a dangerous demagogue who has never held public office and should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. Ought to be case closed.

**********************

Can't argue that logic....except that it isn't logic. It's crap.

-- to which I replied, and this is all right there in the record, that it wasn't "crap" at all, which is why you had nothing to refute it with. Which you didn't.

And apparently still don't.

That's your own OP I'm quoting there too. The memory is the second thing to go...

Oh, it's been refuted already. The general assertions are garbage and can't be proven with any agreed upon set of metrics.

Your little cut and paste horsehocky posts are funny to read.

And you've just repeated your own failure to support the point. Going "lalala it's been refuted already" is not making an argument. It's an "everybody knows" fallacy. And it's the same empty nonargument you already posted.

---- Which is what I noted in the first place. Last week.

Nope, it's crap. It's a fallacy. There is no agreed upon metric for being a "dangerous demagogue".

So, Mr. Wannabelegalguy.....it's crap.

 

[Pogo]

Actually I referred to the Rump part. You know --- the part nobody wants to talk about.

Can you post something that makes sense ?

Now, were you going to answer the questions ?

I don't have any questions, and everything I post makes sense.

Once again to recap --- I referred to this:

A former senator and secretary of state, eminently qualified to be president, is running against a dangerous demagogue who has never held public office and should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. Ought to be case closed.

**********************

Can't argue that logic....except that it isn't logic. It's crap.

-- to which I replied, and this is all right there in the record, that it wasn't "crap" at all, which is why you had nothing to refute it with. Which you didn't.

And apparently still don't.

That's your own OP I'm quoting there too. The memory is the second thing to go...

Oh, it's been refuted already. The general assertions are garbage and can't be proven with any agreed upon set of metrics.

Your little cut and paste horsehocky posts are funny to read.

And you've just repeated your own failure to support the point. Going "lalala it's been refuted already" is not making an argument. It's an "everybody knows" fallacy. And it's the same empty nonargument you already posted.

---- Which is what I noted in the first place. Last week.

Keep trying Mr. WannabeLegal.

There is no metric for when someone is or isn't a dangereous demagogue.

If you have it, produce it.

Otherwise, we'll just call Hillary a truth-stretching narssacist

Actually I referred to the Rump part. You know --- the part nobody wants to talk about.

Can you post something that makes sense ?

Now, were you going to answer the questions ?

I don't have any questions, and everything I post makes sense.

Once again to recap --- I referred to this:

A former senator and secretary of state, eminently qualified to be president, is running against a dangerous demagogue who has never held public office and should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. Ought to be case closed.

**********************

Can't argue that logic....except that it isn't logic. It's crap.

-- to which I replied, and this is all right there in the record, that it wasn't "crap" at all, which is why you had nothing to refute it with. Which you didn't.

And apparently still don't.

That's your own OP I'm quoting there too. The memory is the second thing to go...

Oh, it's been refuted already. The general assertions are garbage and can't be proven with any agreed upon set of metrics.

Your little cut and paste horsehocky posts are funny to read.

And you've just repeated your own failure to support the point. Going "lalala it's been refuted already" is not making an argument. It's an "everybody knows" fallacy. And it's the same empty nonargument you already posted.

---- Which is what I noted in the first place. Last week.

Nope, it's crap. It's a fallacy. There is no agreed upon metric for being a "dangerous demagogue".

So, Mr. Wannabelegalguy.....it's crap.

Aaaaaaaand once AGAIN ------ simple ipse dixit does not a point make.

See you next week. We'll do it all over again, expecting different results.

SMH

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Can you post something that makes sense ?

Now, were you going to answer the questions ?

I don't have any questions, and everything I post makes sense.

Once again to recap --- I referred to this:

A former senator and secretary of state, eminently qualified to be president, is running against a dangerous demagogue who has never held public office and should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. Ought to be case closed.

**********************

Can't argue that logic....except that it isn't logic. It's crap.

-- to which I replied, and this is all right there in the record, that it wasn't "crap" at all, which is why you had nothing to refute it with. Which you didn't.

And apparently still don't.

That's your own OP I'm quoting there too. The memory is the second thing to go...

Oh, it's been refuted already. The general assertions are garbage and can't be proven with any agreed upon set of metrics.

Your little cut and paste horsehocky posts are funny to read.

And you've just repeated your own failure to support the point. Going "lalala it's been refuted already" is not making an argument. It's an "everybody knows" fallacy. And it's the same empty nonargument you already posted.

---- Which is what I noted in the first place. Last week.

Keep trying Mr. WannabeLegal.

There is no metric for when someone is or isn't a dangereous demagogue.

If you have it, produce it.

Otherwise, we'll just call Hillary a truth-stretching narssacist

Can you post something that makes sense ?

Now, were you going to answer the questions ?

I don't have any questions, and everything I post makes sense.

Once again to recap --- I referred to this:

A former senator and secretary of state, eminently qualified to be president, is running against a dangerous demagogue who has never held public office and should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. Ought to be case closed.

**********************

Can't argue that logic....except that it isn't logic. It's crap.

-- to which I replied, and this is all right there in the record, that it wasn't "crap" at all, which is why you had nothing to refute it with. Which you didn't.

And apparently still don't.

That's your own OP I'm quoting there too. The memory is the second thing to go...

Oh, it's been refuted already. The general assertions are garbage and can't be proven with any agreed upon set of metrics.

Your little cut and paste horsehocky posts are funny to read.

And you've just repeated your own failure to support the point. Going "lalala it's been refuted already" is not making an argument. It's an "everybody knows" fallacy. And it's the same empty nonargument you already posted.

---- Which is what I noted in the first place. Last week.

Nope, it's crap. It's a fallacy. There is no agreed upon metric for being a "dangerous demagogue".

So, Mr. Wannabelegalguy.....it's crap.

Aaaaaaaand once AGAIN ------ simple ipse dixit does not a point make.

See you next week. We'll do it all over again, expecting different results.

SMH

Aaaaaaaaaaaand once again - there is no argument without a metric.

The play stands as called.....the OP is crap.

 

[Pogo]

I don't have any questions, and everything I post makes sense.

Once again to recap --- I referred to this:

-- to which I replied, and this is all right there in the record, that it wasn't "crap" at all, which is why you had nothing to refute it with. Which you didn't.

And apparently still don't.

That's your own OP I'm quoting there too. The memory is the second thing to go...

Oh, it's been refuted already. The general assertions are garbage and can't be proven with any agreed upon set of metrics.

Your little cut and paste horsehocky posts are funny to read.

And you've just repeated your own failure to support the point. Going "lalala it's been refuted already" is not making an argument. It's an "everybody knows" fallacy. And it's the same empty nonargument you already posted.

---- Which is what I noted in the first place. Last week.

Keep trying Mr. WannabeLegal.

There is no metric for when someone is or isn't a dangereous demagogue.

If you have it, produce it.

Otherwise, we'll just call Hillary a truth-stretching narssacist

I don't have any questions, and everything I post makes sense.

Once again to recap --- I referred to this:

-- to which I replied, and this is all right there in the record, that it wasn't "crap" at all, which is why you had nothing to refute it with. Which you didn't.

And apparently still don't.

That's your own OP I'm quoting there too. The memory is the second thing to go...

Oh, it's been refuted already. The general assertions are garbage and can't be proven with any agreed upon set of metrics.

Your little cut and paste horsehocky posts are funny to read.

And you've just repeated your own failure to support the point. Going "lalala it's been refuted already" is not making an argument. It's an "everybody knows" fallacy. And it's the same empty nonargument you already posted.

---- Which is what I noted in the first place. Last week.

Nope, it's crap. It's a fallacy. There is no agreed upon metric for being a "dangerous demagogue".

So, Mr. Wannabelegalguy.....it's crap.

Aaaaaaaand once AGAIN ------ simple ipse dixit does not a point make.

See you next week. We'll do it all over again, expecting different results.

SMH

Aaaaaaaaaaaand once again - there is no argument without a metric.

The play stands as called.....the OP is crap.

Thank you. Sure can't disagree with that. In fact I already didn't.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

From the article:

And by the way, I'm well aware that Trump has said worse things about the voting public; there is video of him opining that half of Americans are freeloaders. I'm also aware that in the larger sense there is no real comparison between Clinton's serious, inclusive, fact-based campaign and Trump's noxious stew of bigotry, resentment and juvenile fantasy.

********************

You mean it really was a video ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Hillary is back up to 2.1 point lead.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

HIllary was up to a 3 point lead.

She is now back down to 2.5.

RealClear just put N.H. in the toss up category.