"For the Record" (November 2016)

07/11/2016 --

"Trump has almost no chance of carrying Vermont, but do continue living in a fantasy world.

"Also, there is no chance Clinton will be indicted, and there never has been. The claims that an indictment was imminent, and even anything resembling a realistic possibility have all been baseless conspiracy theory bullshit from the start."

Sunday, 6 November, 2016

https://www.librarything.com/topic/236036#5788973-- "Stormraven"

So you're doubling-down on a claim that Trump is going to win Vermont, a state where the worst poll for Clinton this election was Clinton being a mere 15 points ahead, and an average of recent polls is in the range of her being ahead 25 to 30 points?

••• " you're doubling-down on a claim that Trump is going to win Vermont, " •••

Go ahead-- cite verbatim where I actually claimed that.

There's no "doubling down" on a claim you imply I made when I never made the claim in the first place. DO NOT put words--especially assertions--in my mouth. It's the argumentative tactic of a shit-ass scoundrel --and we know you don't want to be one of those.

>3 proximity1: cite verbatim where I actually claimed that.

You claimed that in post 1. There's virtually no other interpretation of what you're doing when you start a thread labeled '"For the Record" (November 2016)' and quote your opponent as saying "Trump has almost no chance of carrying Vermont, but do continue living in a fantasy world."

DO NOT put words--especially assertions--in my mouth.

Then use your words to make it clear what you mean, instead of posting shit like this thread.

>4 prosfilaes:

" There's virtually no other interpretation of what you're doing when you start a thread labeled '"For the Record" (November 2016)' and quote your opponent as saying "Trump has almost no chance of carrying Vermont, but do continue living in a fantasy world."

Demented rubbish.

I make and I made _no_ claims whatsoever about Trump's potential for actually winning Vermont's electoral votes. I posited a hypothetical. Period. That's the "other interpretation" you deny exists.

Your reasoning is laughable.

I now expect and am predicting here that, before his official business is done, Obama shall issue a preemptive pardon of Hillary Clinton "for any crimes she may have committed" à la Ford's' pardon of Nixon. --a second disgrace of the kind.

Trump's declaration that Obama is a "good man"bodes ill for the Clintons being held to account legally.