-So you understand my point of view in detail I am perfectly comfortable with ad hominem but generally aim to avoid it in the interest of demonstrating an ability to debate beyond the early elementary school level for the most part. But occasional spice or humor worked in is more along the lines of just not being boring or keeping it real.
Further it is not technically ad hominem nor any other item you attempted to frame as fallacious use. Here's why: Fallacious use is not about restating your position in my own words or something because we have the word strawman that describes something like that, lol. That actually would not be a strawman fallacy.
Fallacious use is all about using the particular tactic described or the systematic use of various of them in a methodical attempt to evade examination and supporting evidence of the original core topic, your original comments. So while you may think you seem creative in fact you are simply demonstrating fallacy after fallacy in every part of every message you fail to produce any supporting evidence for your original comments. It is not fallacious for me to reply with what's wrong with your little diversions in detail. It is logical to respond and aim to get back to point A at the same time. That's the key tell: Obviously my primary focus is not evasion of the core topic, but pursuit of it. Secondarily I answer your fallacious diversions. It is not fallacious to describe what you are doing in such messages nor to respond to it in all of its implications. Plainly, you have demonstrated no awareness of this. So much for your education. See the problem?
I aim to be reasonable where I can. A little ad hominem is probably to be expected and natural to a certain extent. So I am not bothered by it because it can also be an indication of candor or sincerity and it can add spice. But then it should be creative or humorous in some way to the extent possible. Often the other will not laugh but then minimally I would say there should be a perceptible attempt at humor that gets across at least. So saying, as you quoted "You need to get an education (right back in responding to you doing basically the same thing), but nice projection Hannibal“ is not quite the same as just calling people idiots and uneducated super methodically as you have in countless examples under this post simply because they have a different point of view and want to talk to you and explore yours and the contrasts with theirs.
That is not someone likely to be educated for another set of reasons too: It directly demonstrates extreme closed mindedness to learning anything they don't already think. It is evasion and demonstrable hostility towards diversity of opinion, and it conveys extreme avoidance and fear of exploring their own stated views as well. Exceptions understandably occur, but mostly such people are simply not your "thinkers."
Saying things like "idiot" every two seconds to various people who engage you, or repeating Democrats who lost the civil war by just making up that you are more educated than someone with a masters when you still can't defend your first few comments is only self-deprecating to you. Because it reflects a bad attitude, evasion, inability or unwillingness to defend the things they say, total lack of creativity, lying, poor social skills and low IQ on the part of that person, desperation, fear, etc. Not the people they are calling idiot. That is the opposite of sounding more intelligent, basically saying idiot to people over and over. It is itself the telltale language limitations of the simpleton. Prove me wrong.
-Abortion and urban plantations have only grown US socialism and communism as well as mass murder via infanticide in those same areas. It does not create a net reduction at all nor anything even close. When does the reduction start since we are 50 million in then do you suppose? Applying that logic in hypothetical after hypothetical is actually fabulous for the Democrats. The reason is your argument would hypothetically 86 Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan as to you they just should of been leftists killing themselves. Far from being bad for Democrats it is plain your thinking would make it unlikely there would even be a Republican Party.
-Your argument reveals a gaping chasm in your understanding of how the parties differ in makeup and acquire membership through the lifespan. Overwhelmingly younger voters vote left. The decade after their frontal lobes are fully formed in their late twenties, when they have been out of the taxpayer funded madrassas baptizing them in the state religion of leftism full time and into the real world during their 30s is the age range the largest swell of voters migrating from left to right occurs. Other co-factors cited are often simply the experience gained from the time they are able to vote based on hearing pie in the sky promises and then watching the actual results as a participating voter over the course of a few elections is itself most educational for those who take interest contributing to this mass shift in the 30s. Those in this migratory swell also tend to cite growing tired of being emotionally manipulated by this point.
This is yet another complex set of problems neglected in your arguments, which are really just oversimplifications you don't appear to want to have to expend mental energy understanding. So you see it is not Democrats primarily hurting Democrats at all. It should be self-evident Democrats are not hurting their ability to seize power on its face given they oppose things they previously supported on a dime on an ongoing basis simply to oppose whatever King Trump says for example. You would be primarily preventing Republican majorities in actuality. Despite the unique issues surrounding the bulk of the black vote for example. And again your logic hypothetically applied would seem to prevent the ending of slavery as we experienced it and appears as working to ensure the Republican Party existing today given Lincoln and Reagan's families were not born of Republicans exists at all.
Back then you had a pro slavery party, and a party that was "pro choice" on slavery. As with abortion these are both euphemisms showing intent to lie. If you support abortion as ok, you are pro legalized abortion. There is no difference other than the intent to mislead to make one sound nicer rather than saying that's true, both are pro abortion. So that demonstrates intent to be intellectually dishonest. As I said, Hitler was not for abortion for his personal offspring either. That's in no way a feather in either your cap or his cap.
-Hitler and the Democrat KKK sure understood that opinion in their day. Again, the results of what you propose have only ever increased it. So you see it is only one giant telltale logical inconsistency after another without any evidence to support it. You advocate the Hitler position and regard it as high IQ in the modern first world. Dude, do you know how much that amuses me. It is a very outdated failed point of view. I agree you did not say the exact words to describe the exact same thing you explained as I did. That's the beauty of speaking a language like English fluently. I don't actually have to repeat your preferred slogan to still describe exactly what you have conveyed and to talk about what it means, what it's saying, what it advocates with you. It does not need to be an exact quote to convey the exact same meaning in a language like English. You won't disagree. What you are actually doing is attempting to prevent examination and disagreement through discussion that reveals your view for what it is. If no words but mine may be used you could never materially answer me. You would had to have been replying with agreement and my quotes entirely. Ah ah, nothing else is permissible.
-Supporting murder is not choice. It's the explicit abnegation of individual choice, condoning ending the most innocent life among us for convenience. It is not being for "choice" to prevent an individual from having any. It doesn't work anymore bro. You are not actually conservative if you think it to be otherwise. That is manifestly not conservative. Thus yet another telltale indication you are full of shit as was already indicated by another user.
-Correct, I won't because as extensively described it is an lolzy transparently hasty generalization fallacy on your part.
-You have not even started to refute anything that would be non fallacious. To start you would have to support your own original comments and provide the citations you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to provide when asked. All of your ad hominem and everything since is only you attempting to stay away from something you were manifestly unable to support or provide citations for multiple times. If you're trying to fool anyone you're wasting your time unless you are just trying to fool yourself. It would be a disservice to you to pretend it could appear otherwise.
-I am quite familiar with abortion statistics. For example due to privacy laws there are no great hard stats on political views when going into get your child doused with saline solution, poisoned, cut up, and sucked out. But as it turns out it doesn't matter. I'm supposed to provide every citation you couldn't make and teach them and you? Fucking unlearned peasant. Spewing peasant bullshit.
-If it's a novel obviously you lack the mental energy for actual novels then. That is also under the category of not my problem.
-Yes it is obvious indeed you are simply repelled by sustained interest in the details. It would seem to be your most obviously sincere statement. That's why you don't know anything. The work of focusing is too much for you. You think saying idiot is compensation. No, it's totally obvious. Don't worry.
-Except you still are focusing on this minutia because you want it to be forgotten way back in the thread that when asked again and again and again you could cite 0. You could could produce 0 evidence. Other than this sort of back and forth that you are trying very hard to make about everything but the obvious. Which is you cannot support the topic. Beyond this you actually asked me to support your arguments for you with citations you could not provide. So, who's the real clown though bro. As with everything else, you obviously don't know that either. Prove me wrong.
-Again those are assertions of rightness, without even an underlying argument to support them. You are really asserting science exists you could not produce and then asking me to accept that asserting something is correct you could not coherently detail somehow proves mass infanticide hurts Democrats. Supporting the issue the Democrats care more about than any other, other than perhaps immigration, hurts them in your view.
You are the personification of a clown.
-So you understand my point of view in detail I am perfectly comfortable with ad hominem but generally aim to avoid it in the interest of demonstrating an ability to debate beyond the early elementary school level for the most part. But occasional spice or humor worked in is more along the lines of just not being boring or keeping it real.
Further it is not technically ad hominem nor any other item you attempted to frame as fallacious use. Here's why: Fallacious use is not about restating your position in my own words or something because we have the word strawman that describes something like that, lol. That actually would not be a strawman fallacy.
Fallacious use is all about using the particular tactic described or the systematic use of various of them in a methodical attempt to evade examination and supporting evidence of the original core topic, your original comments. So while you may think you seem creative in fact you are simply demonstrating fallacy after fallacy in every part of every message you fail to produce any supporting evidence for your original comments. It is not fallacious for me to reply with what's wrong with your little diversions in detail. It is logical to respond and aim to get back to point A at the same time. That's the key tell: Obviously my primary focus is not evasion of the core topic, but pursuit of it. Secondarily I answer your fallacious diversions. It is not fallacious to describe what you are doing in such messages nor to respond to it in all of its implications. Plainly, you have demonstrated no awareness of this. So much for your education. See the problem?
I aim to be reasonable where I can. A little ad hominem is probably to be expected and natural to a certain extent. So I am not bothered by it because it can also be an indication of candor or sincerity and it can add spice. But then it should be creative or humorous in some way to the extent possible. Often the other will not laugh but then minimally I would say there should be a perceptible attempt at humor that gets across at least. So saying, as you quoted "You need to get an education (right back in responding to you doing basically the same thing), but nice projection Hannibal“ is not quite the same as just calling people idiots and uneducated super methodically as you have in countless examples under this post simply because they have a different point of view and want to talk to you and explore yours and the contrasts with theirs.
That is not someone likely to be educated for another set of reasons too: It directly demonstrates extreme closed mindedness to learning anything they don't already think. It is evasion and demonstrable hostility towards diversity of opinion, and it conveys extreme avoidance and fear of exploring their own stated views as well. Exceptions understandably occur, but mostly such people are simply not your "thinkers."
Saying things like "idiot" every two seconds to various people who engage you, or repeating Democrats who lost the civil war by just making up that you are more educated than someone with a masters when you still can't defend your first few comments is only self-deprecating to you. Because it reflects a bad attitude, evasion, inability or unwillingness to defend the things they say, total lack of creativity, lying, poor social skills and low IQ on the part of that person, desperation, fear, etc. Not the people they are calling idiot. That is the opposite of sounding more intelligent, basically saying idiot to people over and over. It is itself the telltale language limitations of the simpleton. Prove me wrong.
-Abortion and urban plantations have only grown US socialism and communism as well as mass murder via infanticide in those same areas. It does not create a net reduction at all nor anything even close. When does the reduction start since we are 50 million in then do you suppose? Applying that logic in hypothetical after hypothetical is actually fabulous for the Democrats. The reason is your argument would hypothetically 86 Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan as to you they just should of been leftists killing themselves. Far from being bad for Democrats it is plain your thinking would make it unlikely there would even be a Republican Party.
-Your argument reveals a gaping chasm in your understanding of how the parties differ in makeup and acquire membership through the lifespan. Overwhelmingly younger voters vote left. The decade after their frontal lobes are fully formed in their late twenties, when they have been out of the taxpayer funded madrassas baptizing them in the state religion of leftism full time and into the real world during their 30s is the age range the largest swell of voters migrating from left to right occurs. Other co-factors cited are often simply the experience gained from the time they are able to vote based on hearing pie in the sky promises and then watching the actual results as a participating voter over the course of a few elections is itself most educational for those who take interest contributing to this mass shift in the 30s. Those in this migratory swell also tend to cite growing tired of being emotionally manipulated by this point.
This is yet another complex set of problems neglected in your arguments, which are really just oversimplifications you don't appear to want to have to expend mental energy understanding. So you see it is not Democrats primarily hurting Democrats at all. It should be self-evident Democrats are not hurting their ability to seize power on its face given they oppose things they previously supported on a dime on an ongoing basis simply to oppose whatever King Trump says for example. You would be primarily preventing Republican majorities in actuality. Despite the unique issues surrounding the bulk of the black vote for example. And again your logic hypothetically applied would seem to prevent the ending of slavery as we experienced it and appears as working to ensure the Republican Party existing today given Lincoln and Reagan's families were not born of Republicans exists at all.
Back then you had a pro slavery party, and a party that was "pro choice" on slavery. As with abortion these are both euphemisms showing intent to lie. If you support abortion as ok, you are pro legalized abortion. There is no difference other than the intent to mislead to make one sound nicer rather than saying that's true, both are pro abortion. So that demonstrates intent to be intellectually dishonest. As I said, Hitler was not for abortion for his personal offspring either. That's in no way a feather in either your cap or his cap.
-Hitler and the Democrat KKK sure understood that opinion in their day. Again, the results of what you propose have only ever increased it. So you see it is only one giant telltale logical inconsistency after another without any evidence to support it. You advocate the Hitler position and regard it as high IQ in the modern first world. Dude, do you know how much that amuses me. It is a very outdated failed point of view. I agree you did not say the exact words to describe the exact same thing you explained as I did. That's the beauty of speaking a language like English fluently. I don't actually have to repeat your preferred slogan to still describe exactly what you have conveyed and to talk about what it means, what it's saying, what it advocates with you. It does not need to be an exact quote to convey the exact some meaning in a language like English. You won't disagree. What you are actually doing is attempting to prevent examination and disagreement through discussion that reveals your view for what it is. If no words but mine may be used you could never materially answer me. You would have to had to been replying with agreement and my quotes entirely. Ah ah, nothing else is permissible.
-Supporting murder is not choice. It's the explicit abnegation of individual choice, condoning ending the most innocent life among us for convenience. It is not being for "choice" to prevent an individual for having any. It doesn't work anymore bro. You are not actually conservative if you think it to be otherwise. That is manifestly not conservative. Thus yet another telltale indication you are full of shit as was already indicated by another user.
-Correct I won't because as extensively described it is an lolzy transparently hasty generalization fallacy on your part.
-You have not even started to refute anything that would be non fallacious. To start you would have to support your own original comments and provide the citations you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to provide when asked. All of your ad hominem and everything since is only you attempting to stay away from something you were manifestly unable to support or provide citations for multiple times. If you're trying to fool anyone you're wasting your time unless you are just trying to fool yourself. It would be a disservice to you to pretend it could appear otherwise.
-I am quite familiar with abortion statistics. For example due to privacy laws there are no great hard stats on political views when going into get your child doused with saline solution, poisoned, cut up, and sucked out. But as it turns out it doesn't matter. I'm supposed to provide every citation you couldn't make and teach them and you? Fucking unlearned peasant. Spewing peasant bullshit.
-If it's a novel obviously you lack the mental energy for actual novels then. That is also under the category of not my problem.
-Yes it is obvious indeed you are simply repelled by sustained interest in the details. It would seem to be your most obviously sincere statement. That's why you don't know anything. The work of focusing is too much for you. You think saying idiot is compensation. No, it's totally obvious. Don't worry.
-Except you still are focusing on this minutia because you want it to be forgotten way back in the thread that when asked again and again and again you could cite 0. You could could produce 0 evidence. Other than this sort of back and forth that you are trying very hard to make about everything but the obvious. Which is you cannot support the topic. Beyond this you actually asked me to support your arguments for you with citations you could not provide. So, who's the real clown though bro. As with everything else, you obviously don't know that either. Prove me wrong.
-Again those are assertions of rightness, without even an underlying argument to support them. You are really asserting science exists you could not produce and then asking me to accept that asserting something is correct you could not coherently detail somehow proves mass infanticide hurts Democrats. Supporting the issue the Democrats care more about than any other, other than perhaps immigration, hurts them in your view.
You are the personification of a clown.
-So you understand my point of view in detail I am perfectly comfortable with ad hominem but generally aim to avoid it in the interest of demonstrating an ability to debate beyond the early elementary school level for the most part. But occasional spice or humor worked in is more along the lines of just not being boring or keeping it real.
Further it is not technically ad hominem nor any other item you attempted to frame as fallacious use. Here's why: Fallacious use is not about restating your position in my own words or something because we have the word strawman that describes something like that, lol. That actually would not be a strawman fallacy.
Fallacious use is all about using the particular tactic described or the systematic use of various of them in a methodical attempt to evade examination and supporting evidence of the original core topic, your original comments. So while you may think you seem creative in fact you are simply demonstrating fallacy after fallacy in every part of every message you fail to produce any supporting evidence for your original comments. It is not fallacious for me to reply with what's wrong with your little diversions in detail. It is logical to respond and aim to get back to point A at the same time. That's the key tell: Obviously my primary focus is not evasion of the core topic, but pursuit of it. Secondarily I answer your fallacious diversions. It is not fallacious to describe what you are doing in such messages nor to respond to it in all of its implications. Plainly, you have demonstrated no awareness of this. So much for your education. See the problem?
I aim to be reasonable where I can. A little ad hominem is probably to be expected and natural to a certain extent. So I am not bothered by it because it can also be an indication of candor or sincerity and it can add spice. But then it should be creative or humorous in some way to the extent possible. Often the other will not laugh but then minimally I would say there should be a perceptible attempt at humor that gets across at least. So saying, as you quoted "You need to get an education (right back in responding to you doing basically the same thing), but nice projection Hannibal“ is not quite the same as just calling people idiots and uneducated super methodically as you have in countless examples under this post simply because they have a different point of view and want to talk to you and explore yours and the contrasts with theirs.
That is not someone likely to be educated for another set of reasons too: It directly demonstrates extreme closed mindedness to learning anything they don't already think. It is evasion and demonstrable hostility towards diversity of opinion, and it conveys extreme avoidance and fear of exploring their own stated views as well. Exceptions understandably occur, but mostly such people are simply not your "thinkers."
Saying things like "idiot" every two seconds to various people who engage you, or repeating Democrats who lost the civil war by just making up that you are more educated than someone with a masters when you still can't defend your first few comments is only self-deprecating to you. Because it reflects a bad attitude, evasion, inability or unwillingness to defend the things they say, total lack of creativity, lying, poor social skills and low IQ on the part of that person, desperation, fear, etc. Not the people they are calling idiot. That is the opposite of sounding more intelligent, basically saying idiot to people over and over. It is itself the telltale language limitations of the simpleton. Prove me wrong.
-Abortion and urban plantations have only grown US socialism and communism as well as mass murder via infanticide in those same areas. It does not create a net reduction at all nor anything even close. When does the reduction start since we are 50 million in then do you suppose? Applying that logic in hypothetical after hypothetical is actually fabulous for the Democrats. The reason is your argument would hypothetically 86 Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan as to you they just should of been leftists killing themselves. Far from being bad for Democrats it is plain your thinking would make it unlikely there would even be a Republican Party.
-Your argument reveals a gaping chasm in your understanding of how the parties differ in makeup and acquire membership through the lifespan. Overwhelmingly younger voters vote left. The decade after their frontal lobes are fully formed in their late twenties, when they have been out of the taxpayer funded madrassas baptizing them in the state religion of leftism full time and into the real world during their 30s is the age range the largest swell of voters migrating from left to right occurs. Other co-factors cited are often simply the experience gained from the time they are able to vote based on hearing pie in the sky promises and then watching the actual results as a participating voter over the course of a few elections is itself most educational for those who take interest contributing to this mass shift in the 30s. Those in this migratory swell also tend to cite growing tired of being emotionally manipulated by this point.
This is yet another complex set of problems neglected in your arguments, which are really just oversimplifications you don't appear to want to have to expend mental energy understanding. So you see it is not Democrats primarily hurting Democrats at all. It should be self-evident Democrats are not hurting their ability to seize power on its face given they oppose things they previously supported on a dime on an ongoing basis simply to oppose whatever King Trump says for example. You would be primarily preventing Republican majorities in actuality. Despite the unique issues surrounding the bulk of the black vote for example. And again your logic hypothetically applied would seem to prevent the ending of slavery as we experienced it and appears as working to ensure the Republican Party existing today given Lincoln and Reagan's families were not born of Republicans.
Back then you had a pro slavery party, and a party that was "pro choice" on slavery. As with abortion these are both euphemisms showing intent to lie. If you support abortion as ok, you are pro legalized abortion. There is no difference other than the intent to mislead to make one sound nicer rather than saying that's true, both are pro abortion. So that demonstrates intent to be intellectually dishonest. As I said, Hitler was not for abortion for his personal offspring either. That's in no way a feather in either your cap or his cap.
-Hitler and the Democrat KKK sure understood that opinion in their day. Again, the results of what you propose have only ever increased it. So you see it is only one giant telltale logical inconsistency after another without any evidence to support it. You advocate the Hitler position and regard it as high IQ in the modern first world. Dude, do you know how much that amuses me. It is a very outdated failed point of view. I agree you did not say the exact words to describe the exact same thing you explained as I did. That's the beauty of speaking a language like English fluently. I don't actually have to repeat your preferred slogan to still describe exactly what you have conveyed and to talk about what it means, what it's saying, what it advocates with you. It does not need to be an exact quote to convey the exact some meaning in a language like English. You won't disagree. What you are actually doing is attempting to prevent examination and disagreement through discussion that reveals your view for what it is. If no words but mine may be used you could never materially answer me. You would have to had to been replying with agreement and my quotes entirely. Ah ah, nothing else is permissible.
-Supporting murder is not choice. It's the explicit abnegation of individual choice, condoning ending the most innocent life among us for convenience. It is not being for "choice" to prevent an individual for having any. It doesn't work anymore bro. You are not actually conservative if you think it to be otherwise. That is manifestly not conservative. Thus yet another telltale indication you are full of shit as was already indicated by another user.
-Correct I won't because as extensively described it is an lolzy transparently hasty generalization fallacy on your part.
-You have not even started to refute anything that would be non fallacious. To start you would have to support your own original comments and provide the citations you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to provide when asked. All of your ad hominem and everything since is only you attempting to stay away from something you were manifestly unable to support or provide citations for multiple times. If you're trying to fool anyone you're wasting your time unless you are just trying to fool yourself. It would be a disservice to you to pretend it could appear otherwise.
-I am quite familiar with abortion statistics. For example due to privacy laws there are no great hard stats on political views when going into get your child doused with saline solution, poisoned, cut up, and sucked out. But as it turns out it doesn't matter. I'm supposed to provide every citation you couldn't make and teach them and you? Fucking unlearned peasant. Spewing peasant bullshit.
-If it's a novel obviously you lack the mental energy for actual novels then. That is also under the category of not my problem.
-Yes it is obvious indeed you are simply repelled by sustained interest in the details. It would seem to be your most obviously sincere statement. That's why you don't know anything. The work of focusing is too much for you. You think saying idiot is compensation. No, it's totally obvious. Don't worry.
-Except you still are focusing on this minutia because you want it to be forgotten way back in the thread that when asked again and again and again you could cite 0. You could could produce 0 evidence. Other than this sort of back and forth that you are trying very hard to make about everything but the obvious. Which is you cannot support the topic. Beyond this you actually asked me to support your arguments for you with citations you could not provide. So, who's the real clown though bro. As with everything else, you obviously don't know that either. Prove me wrong.
-Again those are assertions of rightness, without even an underlying argument to support them. You are really asserting science exists you could not produce and then asking me to accept that asserting something is correct you could not coherently detail somehow proves mass infanticide hurts Democrats. Supporting the issue the Democrats care more about than any other, other than perhaps immigration, hurts them in your view.
You are the personification of a clown.
-So you understand my point of view in detail I am perfectly comfortable with ad hominem but generally aim to avoid it in the interest of demonstrating an ability to debate beyond the early elementary school level for the most part. But occasional spice or humor worked in is more along the lines of just not being boring or keeping it real.
Further it is not technically ad hominem nor any other item you attempted to frame as fallacious use. Here's why: Fallacious use is not about restating your position in my own words or something because we have the word strawman that describes something like that, lol. That actually would not be a strawman fallacy.
Fallacious use is all about using the particular tactic described or the systematic use of various of them in a methodical attempt to evade examination and supporting evidence of the original core topic, your original comments. So while you may think you seem creative in fact you are simply demonstrating fallacy after fallacy in every part of every message you fail to produce any supporting evidence for your original comments. It is not fallacious for me to reply with what's wrong with your little diversions in detail. It is logical to respond and aim to get back to point A at the same time. That's the key tell: Obviously my primary focus is not evasion of the core topic, but pursuit of it. Secondarily I answer your fallacious diversions. It is not fallacious to describe what you are doing in such messages nor to respond to it in all of its implications. Plainly, you have demonstrated no awareness of this. So much for your education. See the problem?
I aim to be reasonable where I can. A little ad hominem is probably to be expected and natural to a certain extent. So I am not bothered by it because it can also be an indication of candor or sincerity and it can add spice. But then it should be creative or humorous in some way to the extent possible. Often the other will not laugh but then minimally I would say there should be a perceptible attempt at humor that gets across at least. So saying, as you quoted "You need to get an education (right back in responding to you doing basically the same thing), but nice projection Hannibal“ is not quite the same as just calling people idiots and uneducated super methodically as you have in countless examples under this post simple because they have a different point of view and want to talk to you and explore yours and the contrasts with theirs.
That is not someone likely to be educated for another set of reasons too: It directly demonstrates extreme closed mindedness to learning anything they don't already think. It is evasion and demonstrable hostility towards diversity of opinion, and it conveys extreme avoidance and fear of exploring their own stated views as well. Exceptions understandably occur, but mostly such people are simply not your "thinkers."
Saying things like "idiot" every two seconds to various people who engage you, or repeating Democrats who lost the civil war by just making up that you are more educated than someone with a masters when you still can't defend your first few comments is only self-deprecating to you. Because it reflects a bad attitude, evasion, inability or unwillingness to defend the things they say, total lack of creativity, lying, poor social skills and low iq on the part of that person, desperation, fear, etc. Not the people they are calling idiot. That is the opposite of sounding more intelligent, basically saying idiot to people over and over. It is itself the telltale language limitations of the simpleton. Prove me wrong.
-Abortion and urban plantations have only grown US socialism and communism as well as mass murder via infanticide in those same areas. It does not create a net reduction at all nor anything even close. When does the reduction start since we are 50 million in then do you suppose? Applying that logic in hypothetical after hypothetical is actually fabulous for the Democrats. The reason is your argument would hypothetically 86 Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan as to you they just should of been leftists killing themselves. Far from being bad for Democrats it is plain your thinking would make it unlikely there would even be a Republican Party.
-Your argument furth reveals a gaping chasm in your understanding how the parties differ in makeup and acquire membership through the lifespan. Overwhelmingly younger voters vote left. The decade after their frontal lobes are fully formed in their late twenties, when they have been out of the taxpayer funded madrassas baptizing them in the state religion of leftism full time and into the real world during their 30s is the age range the largest swell of voters from left to right occurs. Other co-factors cited are often simply the experience gained from the time they are able to vote based on hearing pie in the sky promises and then watching the actual results as a participating voter over the course of a few elections is itself most educational for those who take interest contributing to this mass shift in the 30s. Those in this migratory swell also tend to cite growing tired of being emotionally manipulated by this point.
This is yet another complex set of problems neglected in your arguments, which are really just oversimplifications you don't appear to want to have to expend mental energy understanding in appearance. So you see it is not Democrats primarily hurting Democrats at all. It should be self-evident Democrats are not hurting their ability to seize power on its face given they oppose things they previously supported on a dime on an ongoing basis simply to oppose whatever King Trump says for example. You would be primarily preventing Republican majorities in actuality. Despite the unique issues surrounding the bulk of the black vote for example. And again your logic hypothetically applied would seem to prevent the ending of slavery as we experienced it and appears as working to ensure the Republican Party existing today given Lincoln and Reagan's families were not born of Republicans.
Back then you had a pro slavery party, and a party that was "pro choice" on slavery. As with abortion these are both euphemisms showing intent to lie. if you support abortion as ok, you are pro legalized abortion. There is no difference under than the intent to mislead to make one sound nicer rather than saying that's true, both are pro abortion. So that demonstrates intent to be intellectually dishonest. As I said, Hitler was not for abortion for his personal offspring either. That's in no way a feather in either your cap or his cap.
-Hitler and the Democrat KKK sure understood that opinion in their day. Again, the results of what you propose have only ever increased it. So you see it is only one giant telltale logical inconsistency after another without any evidence to support it. You advocate the Hitler position and regard it as high IQ in the modern first world. Dude, do you know how much that amuses me. It is a very outdated failed point of view. I agree you did not say the exact words to describe the exact same thing you explained as I did. That's the beauty of speaking a language like English fluently. I don't actually have to repeat your preferred slogan to still describe exactly what you have conveyed and to talk about what it means, what it's saying, what it advocates with you. It does not need to be an exact quote to convey the exact some meaning in a language like English. You won't disagree. What you are actually doing is attempting to prevent examination and disagreement through discussion that reveals your view for what it is. If no words but mine may be used you could never materiallt answer me. You would have to had to been replying with agreement and my quotes entirely. Ah ah, nothing else is permissible.
-Supporting murder is not choice. It's the explicit abnegation of individual choice, condoning ending the most innocent life among us for convenience. It is not being for "choice" to prevent an individual for having any. It doesn't work anymore bro. You are not actually conservative if you think it to be otherwise. That is manifestly not conservative. Thus yet another telltale indication you are full of shit as was already indicated by another user.
-Correct I won't because as extensively described it is an lolzy transparently hasty generalization fallacy on your part.
-You have not even started to refute anything that would be non fallacious. To start you would have to support your own original comments and provide the citations you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to provide when asked. All of your ad hominem and everything since is only you attempting to stay away from something you were manifestly unable to support or provide citations for multiple times. If you're trying to fool anyone you're wasting your time unless you are just trying to fool yourself. It would be a disservice to you to pretend it could appear otherwise.
-I am quite familiar with abortion statistics. For example due to privacy laws there are no great hard stats on political views when going into get your child doused with saline solution poisoned, cut up, and sucked out. But as it turns out it doesn't matter. I'm supposed to provide every citation you couldn't make and teach them and you? Fucking unlearned peasant. Spewing peasant bullshit.
-If it's a novel obviously you lack the mental energy for actual novels then. That is also under the category of not my problem.
-Yes it is obvious indeed you are simply repelled by sustained interest in the details. It would seem to be your most obviously sincere statement. That's why you don't know anything. The work of focusing is too much for you. You think saying idiot is compensation. No, it's totally obvious. Don't worry.
-Except you still are focusing on this minutia because you want it to be forgotten way back in the thread that when asked again and again and again you could cite 0. You could could produce 0 evidence. Other than this sort of back and forth that you are trying very hard to make about everything but the obvious. Which is you cannot support the topic. Beyond this you actually asked me to support your arguments for you with citations you could not provide. So, who's the real clown though bro. As with everything else, you obviously don't know that either. Prove me wrong.
-Again those are assertions of rightness, without even an underlying argument to support them. You are really asserting science exists you could not produce and then asking me to accept that asserting something is correct you could not coherently detail somehow proves mass infanticide hurts Democrats. Supporting the issue the Democrats care more about than any other, other than perhaps immigration, hurts them in your view.
You are the personification of a clown.