The non sequitur was when you brought it up. I can't explain that.
Of course you can't.
It's just an example, and for over a month you have shown yourself incapable of understanding despite being told repeatedly:
• Your constant failure to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique is its own self-inflicted denigration. (
#813↑)
• As with your prior failures to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique .... (
#818↑)
• For instance, your inability to follow along from post to post results, in some part, from not actually knowing what you're on about, just like when you waxed ignorant about the Seventeenth, or white supremacism, or even the basic difference between law and law enforcement; the problem with your argument is that it's excrement. (
ibid)
• The resulting unreliability about your assessments is a reputation that precedes you. (
#843↑)
• But therein we start to see the range that confuses you. As I said in
#813↑, the problem here is your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range. It's true, you skipped out on it in
#817↑, but since it tied into your question about why I raised the question of the Seventeenth, I reminded explicitly:
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. (
#872↑)
We might also note much of this is reiteration of what was listed in
#871↑, but that is simply because you're running around in circles:
I see a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense and links to whole posts, which themselves are mostly unsubstantiated nonsense. If you had a point, one would assume you could simply make it, without all the color commentary and with, perhaps, a few specific points directly addressed. You seem incapable of that, so it's a waste of time. You just blather on as if your assumptions are somehow clear to others or based in fact, without ever supporting either presumption.
Considering that you can't be bothered to reasonably address pretty much anything, maybe you should reconsider the wisdom of demanding what is already on record; we end up simply repeating ourselves, running in circles in order to accommodate you. As much as you might pretend to
trust↑ the
reader↑, you seem to be trusting in a pretense of their ignorance, and, sure, in some circles that's a safe bet, but only when preaching to the feathered choir or an imagined gallery audience; were you actually trying to persuade informed people who happen to disagree with you, investing your arguments in pretenses of requisite ignorance is neither wise nor useful.
Furthermore, if we wind all the way back to where the question arises, in
#813↑, the point remains that your argument in
#757↑, reminding that, "Presidents do have executive privilege and pardon power," and asserting, "Nothing unlawful about either," is erroneous for its inappropriate application, as I noted in
#758↑:
Executive privilege is not unlimited, neither is pardon power. Your response in
#768↑, complaining of a, "Straw man," because you, "Never said either was unlimited", is itself fallacious; proclaiming as your support the observable fact of inappropriate omission does not actually help your argument. Or, as you were reminded in
#776↑:
The reminder that executive privilege and pardon power are not unlimited attends your unbound statement that, "Presidents do have executive privilege and pardon power. Nothing unlawful about either." Such as it is, those sentences might be generally correct, but they are not necessarily appropriate to the particular application.
And that is still true, six weeks and all these posts later. Two plus two can equal four, but that doesn't address whether the scale is working properly; considering that grift has been around since ancient times, it would probably be best to not think you're innovating any particular sleight.
Fallacious application of generalizations only accurate in abstract presupposition not accurately describing circumstances in effect, are dysfunctional. Run around in cricles all you want, but the formulations will eventually and substantively fall apart if what you're trying to describe is actually a heptadecagon. Sometimes the difference between an ouroboros and a cyclic polygon ought to be apparent. And when your counterpoint is to repeatedly assert and behave as if you can't tell the difference, it's true that others will notice. Or, as I said back in September (
#741↑),
the particular ignorance Trump defenders seem to require in order to make their cases ranges well beyond unbelievable.
Look at your paragraph about what you see: If you aren't what you resent being seen as, then maybe, just maybe, you should try something else. You know, show something better. Don't simply trust in sympathetic readers choosing to not put any effort into figuring out what they wouldn't want to accept, anyway.
