Twice in the last week I have posted or responded to a post in which a WEAKNESS in Trump's argument should be more closely examined.

BOTH TIMES I was jumped on like I was the enemy.

The first was when Ramsdale got Michigan and Minnesota counties intermingled in his analysis. I was called a shill and a 'cuck' for this. But... I was right.

This morning I responded to the Guiliani claim that 2.4 million absentee votes took place with there were 1.8 million absentee ballot applications. There is legitimate concern that these numbers come from DIFFERENT data sets. The fact that the State of Pennsylvania has removed the most recent data adds to my suspicion that they are setting Rudy up for a courtroom embarrassment.

To my POINT...

We have to do this RIGHT, dammit. We cannot be SLOPPY.

And we have to be willing to LISTEN to those who insist upon an airtight case as opposed to those who just want to chuck a ton of arguments hoping one sticks.

It is better to have three arguments that are unassailable than to have those same three surrounded by 5 more that are weak and prone to failure.

Time to think OBJECTIVELY and stop the bullshit name calling on those who are more mature, more knowledgeable and more demanding that the legal arguments be as airtight as humanly possible.

And it is time to start RESPECTING such people instead of throwing them under the bus.