Presumptions of personal failings that are neither cited nor supported are ad hominem arguments in lieu of actual supporting or refuting argument. Here, they are vague arm-wavings in lieu supported reason.
Wow, you needed a
second go↑ at it?
It's almost of a third go, though not entirely; you recognized the point about the
Seventeenth↑ a little over a week ago, so pretending ignorance isn't really an option on that one. And, besides, it seems you just wanted to object to what Iceaura was saying; you showed no clue,
at the time↗, what you were on about. And your failure to grasp the basics of American
white supremacism↗ also involves your your botching of the difference between law and law enforcement, or, as you had it, the law and the
legal system↗,
i.e., the means for enforcing laws.
So, to wind back to your post eight days ago:
What you imagine the popular election of US senators (17th amendment) has to do with any of this ....
As I pointed out, those failures are, like your present bungle about the Bidens, your argument relies on ignorance, or, at the very least, an extraordinary pretense thereof.
For instance, questions of the DNC's actions vis à vis Paul Manafort and records of his work in a deposed former government can become mired in the details of particular information and assistance, to the one, and the history of Party committees having anything whatsoever to do with foreign nationals and governments. In any case, as distasteful as the American people might find any foreign participation in our political discussions, that is a more general question than the particular differences between the DNC's behavior and whether or not the candidate or president is personally involved. As to the Biden story, what you're looking at are two aspects of American history often criticized but never properly addressed. One part is classism itself, which is a question pretty much any day, except it is brought to extraordinary focus by the proposition that Donald Trump and his supporters would attempt to sacrifice the entire American bourgeoisie, our American aristocracy, including Trump's own family, just to get a piece of Joe Biden. The other part of the Biden-PGA story has to do with American capitalism. The timeline reads grotesquely, but so does pretty much any complicated tangle of American political and business success.
And here we might as well mention a couple comparisons: Twenty-two emails a day, on average; all of eleven emails sent, and eleven received. We were supposed to panic about twenty-two emails a day in a personal account parsed by a lawyer's answer to a question. Do you even know why we were supposed to panic? Here's another twenty-two: When allegations of lawbreaking arose in the Department of Justice under George W. Bush, it turned out the Bush administration had outsourced its email needs to the RNC, who (¡ahem!) lost
twenty-two million allegedly official government emails. But that episode wasn't something to panic about.
Speaking of a lawyer's answer: That's what got Bill Clinton into trouble. Playing word games about an extramarital affair was enough for impeachment. Coordinating a disinformation campaign to move the country to war was not. Well, you know, for Republicans.
It's easy to make certain arguments within a pretense of
tabula rasa, as if nothing is defined. Part of the problem with your perpetual thoughtless partisan toeing of lines is that you don't seem to know what you're on about; it's not so much that your understanding of history is awry, but, rather, that you don't seem to have any substantial comprehension of the history your arguments pretend to address.
There is a rhetorical rule called the Principle of Charity, in which one is to seek the least condemning explanation for what someone else says. In more functional discourse, this can be very important in understanding what other people are saying; in more particular politics, though, it's part of what people are appealing to when begging sympathy for those who require harm unto others. In your case, though, it's more a lack of anything to sympathize with. When measuring dysfunctional discourse presented nearly enough to on cue, and very nearly hitting its marks, finding that charitable pathway is tricky, because the most part of the range is occupied by a dualistic proposition of willful versus accidental wrongness, and after enough repetitions we're up to that razor insult people like to brandish from time to time about criminality and stupidity. Or, scaled to the moment, it becomes a question of how you are so well and thoroughly uninformed and misinformed you turn out to be. And if you're not just going out of your way to be a poo-flinging troll, then please understand that striking, pointed ignorance isn't much better an option. In either case, you diminish yourself.
Or, as I noted
last month↑, the particular ignorance Trump defenders seem to require in order to make their cases ranges well beyond unbelievable. And, to be certain, we get it, it's not just you. I
covered that part↑, too.
And it's worth reminding that at some point we must check in with reality. When we're out on the valence that we can make this about George Soros because George W. Bush once gave Hunter Biden a cush job, well,
no, we're not, unless someone comes up with a much, much better reason than what has long been known about Soros having money in Shrub. Which reminds, in turn: It wasn't simply the open cronyism of the Iraq War contracting, but where was all this rightist outrage about aristocracy, capitalism, and bourgeois privilege when it was the Bushes and the Carlyle Group? Right. It wasn't.
For the masses watching, suffering, enduring the games pretending gods and monsters, this is one time when it's a genuine both-sides, all-sides issue that nobody really knows what to do about, but therein lies the hook. The difference about questions of improperly handling classified materials come down to intent, parsed by lawyers; Colin Powell having his Yahoo account hacked while he was improperly conducting State Department business thereby is an historical footnote, but there are reasons he wasn't prosecuted. Same with any number of people we have and have not heard of, over the years. Really, though, who the hell complains that Sandy Berger got a raw deal? Sometimes, they just run out of excuses. But by what reasonable logic would you or anybody else expect the bourgeoisie, or even the working classes that loathe lawyers until they need one, to nuke the pretense of lawyerly parsing and rhetoric just to get
one political opponent? That is,
reasonable, which requires better logic than the already known corruption of the Republican Party,
e.g., then-Majority Leader McCarthy did, in fact,
boast of abusing Congressional power to harm political opponents.
Just like they're not going to blow up the perquisites of who they know and what those people can do toward family gain. It's not that there isn't anything to talk about; rather, the ignorance required to attend some discussions means some disproportionate share of the effort will be given to bringing the ostensibly uninformed up to par. There is much to discuss of classism and privilege in American society, and, sure, especially at the valence of national politics. So much of defending Donald Trump against his scandals is not so much a perverse take on history and discourse, but, rather, the absence of that history and discourse from the defense. It's not that you've a weird take on certain issues of history, but, rather, that they just don't seem to exist for you.
And that's how you keep screwing up your assessments. If there wasn't a history regarding institutional disruption of voters, questions about the Seventeenth Amendment in re Arizona Republicans wouldn't make sense; or, more directly, you couldn't understand what Iceaura said because you didn't know the history. Or, if there wasn't such a rich literary and historical record on the subject, maybe some person who happens to be a white guy from the South saying something about Anglo-American heritage to a roomful of southern sheriffs would be a funny story about how words work, or something; your innovation was to depart from the usual advocacy by simply not having a clue what you were on about. And, you know, if you hadn't botched up that part ... okay, look, the bit with the difference between law and law enforcement remains inexplicable.
Inasmuch as you might bawl about ad hominem, the problem is that you just don't stop with this sort of vapidity. To
reiterate↑: As with your prior failures to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique, the current problem with your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range is ignorance. The resulting unreliability about your assessments is a reputation that precedes you.
