For my one and only post to you and my last overall until late tonight, once again as I have stated previously, your response,
which you have used before, corroborates how clueless you are when it comes to debating and thinking clearly and logically!!
To say/imply as you just did that a conviction is a minor thing and that is all we have is like saying that if one robs a bank,
has been indicted and awaits trial and a verdict, that a conviction is all that the prosecuting attorney ha,s and without it using your
terminology, he has jackshit!! lol
In both instances, your inference is that a conviction is independent of the circumstances that engendered the conviction and a
completely different matter rather than an integral part of the entire legal matter of the case at hand!!
If you can't understand and/or are so close-minded as to refuse to accept that, then God help you!!
Back sometime after 10 tonight!!
I want every objective reader of my response above which was /is reference to Lenny's contention/implication that a conviction
has to be considered as an entity on its own to read Lenny's response to this which in effect does not DIRECTLY address any of
my points and in essence is simply a rehash of what he posted earlier.
This is and always has been the modus operandi when I have cornered him!!
As usual this indicates one or more of the following possibilities in no particular order:
1) He doesn't have the native intelligence to grasp the salient points I made.
2) He does understand them but doesn't have anything to rebut directly what I said, and the best way to respond is to simply rehash
what he said originally and hope that it will fly!!
3) Along the same lines of #1 and #2, he lacks the debating skills and education to realize that what he said originally about
the relationship of crimes and conviction to realize that his original response is totally irrelevant to the points I made and
as always been the case when confronted and overwhelmed by points made by me, simply posts anything to try to
meekly by me, just fires back anything in desperation that not just includes what I cited but also begging the question,
poisoning the well and name-calling to drive home his weak "response."
Here is the repost of his post in reference to mine that I quoted at the beginning of this post:
"So once again until you tell me that if there are no convictions before Election Day you keep proving my point that without one your party has got Jack shit pip squeaki .
Or clarify and tell me Trump is still finished even without a conviction .
Enjoy prime time clown News Network coverage ."