At no point have you made a coherent argument based on them, though.
Don’t switch your criticisms mid stream.
No, this is exactly the same criticism! It’s exactly the gish galloper’s technique - make a series of nonsense claims, firing salvo after salvo of nonsense into the argument. There’s no point me engaging with any of your other claims until you accept that you were talking nonsense with the first. We don’t have a basis for discussion unless we agree what counts as sane or rational points to make from data. I think that any points that require one non-democrat to be three republicans can’t possibly have merit, and for a fleeting moment I thought you had accepted that your argument on that specific point was erroneous, but I just now read that you don’t recant that assertion at all. Why would I engage with other data if you can’t agree that that didn’t make sense?
No, this is exactly the same criticism! It’s exactly the gish galloper’s technique - make a series of nonsense claims, firing salvo after salvo of nonsense into the argument. There’s no point me engaging with any of your other claims until you accept that you were talking nonsense with the first. We don’t have a basis for discussion unless we agree what counts as sane or rational points to make from data. I think that any points that require one non-democrat to be three republicans can’t possibly have merit, and for a fleeting moment I thought you had accepted that your argument on that specific point was erroneous, but I just now read that you don’t recant that assertion at all. Why would I engage with other data if you can’t agree that that didn’t make sense?