Ok let's go with part 2 and you trying to compare my contention of Trump having no chance to be elected POTUS as a rationalization/
weak excuse so as not to answer the question in my post about your static approach to everything and not even allowing even
the possibility that the economic conditions as they exist now could change one way for the better or worse the polling data between
now and the Election to impact who people vote for.
Where your rationale and reasoning go astray is that unlike you I gave specific reasons looking ahead as to why Trump won't win
the Election and very possibly even the nomination.
Whether my scenarios come true or not, unlike you at least I consider what the future might hold.
In fact a few days ago and to be fair, I even stated that if my scenario doesn't unfold pretty much as I see it looking ahead,
Trump could be elected, although I consider it very unlikely.
Conversely, you see any polling data today that favors Trump as a given and that cannot and will not change between now and the Election.
I amended his in the last day or so to state that if the present data and conditions ARE NOT favorable to Trump, you CAN AND
WILL change your tune about the future and make predictions and scenarios such as you did with Jack Smith so that
Trump still comes out as the winner!!
That's it!!
ps Just as importantly, you continue to refuse to answer the question as to why you will not openly disagree with sbd about
anything when you obviously do and instead, refuse to answer and/or run away and hide or change the subject!!
Thanks once again for allowing me to prove my point by avoiding the post cited above and the other one that follows.
Could it be that once again, you realize that I have debating skills you do not because of my experience and education
you do not, and rather than admit that I am right, you simply take the cowardly/lowlife approach and run away and hide!!
Here you go with my other response for which you do not have any "response" other than running away and hiding rather
than address it DIRECTLY!!
And it goes without saying and as I keep repeating you have shown time and time again that you are gutless and a coward by
not openly admitting that you disagree with sbd about such things as Trump's devolution when you obviously do.
My suggestion to you, lenny, is to consult an orthopedic doctor not for such common things as lower back pain, arthritis
bur rather because you are SPINELESS!!
Here you go with my other post which floored you and you continue to aviod/hide from because you are obviously unable to
rebut it:
Ok lets start with this post and about my irrelevant post about the SCOTUS:
Here is what I asked:
Who appointed three of the members of the existing SCOTUS members-how about a former ex-POTUS!!
Here is a capsule summary of the three Trump appointees-just read the headline for now:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/26/politics/trump-kavanaugh-gorsuch-barrett-supreme-court/index.html
First, for me the operative question is did Trump appoint these people with no regard to his own personal convictions and opinions,
yes or no??
Also, do you think along the same lines that Trump might have appointed these people in case he found himself in a constitutional crisis
such as he finds himself hoping and/or assuming that they would rule in his favor, yes or no?
if you answer "no," there is no point in continuing without an explanation on your part.
Now let's take a similar look at Biden.
Do you think that he appointed Garland as AG along the same lines that Trump appointed his three SCOTUS appointments??
Do you think along the same lines, that Jack Smith was appointed by Garland as an extension of this??
In essence as in Trump's case above, if the answer is not, we can end he discussion right now unless you can explain why not.
To cut to the choice and using my logic, imo there is absolutely no difference in the modus operandi of Trump and Biden.
My conclusion is that if one wishes to state the DOJ has been victimized/criminalized by Biden, in the same manner, I can
say the same thing about Trump's choices foe the SCOTUS!!