Chris Christie, YES PLEASE!

That's not what you wrote that I responded to. Are you confused?

 

I asked you to read the ECA and you called it slime, so I'll have to leave it at that. I'm sorry the facts are inconvenient for you.

 

I'm still here. At some point you're going to have to learn the hard lesson. Agree to disagree and then move on. I know "winning" is the game you crave, but it's not going to happen.

 

Yep. You forgot what you wrote which I called slime.

 

One second you say you revere the ECA and the next (since you are now learning it contradicts your dogma) you call it slime. That's on you, not me. At some point you are going to learn a hard lesson. Try for intellectual honesty or accept that your position is inconsistent and based on nothing but feelings. I know running away and refusing to read the sources you claim to be relying on is the game you crave, but it's intellectually dishonest.

 

Nothing about the ECA in this:

"You can go ahead and vote for the guy who wants to overthrow democracy if you want. Weird to vote for someone who wants to be installed as a dictator regardless of the vote, though. But you do you, fam."

You've lost your way.

 

Fake argument. Read what I actually quoted from the ECA.

 

what’s with this “fam” label? I have no idea what you’re calling me.

 

That's a direct quote from you which I responded calling it slime. You're not winning this one so just stop with this deflection.

 

That was odd.

 

Seems like it’s a disparagement of some sort and not meant as an endearment.

 

Who is “fam”?

 

Could be, but then we can't call it an ad hom if we don't know what it stands for.

 

Again, not what ad hom means.

 

Forget that. What does "fam" stand for?

 

Family. It's short or family. And, again, that's not what an ad hom is. An ad hom fallacy is when you say that someone's argument is wrong because of some sort of personal characteristic rather than any actual flaw in their argument. Still waiting to understand why you refuse to read the ECA, by the way.

 

I already read it. Still waiting for you to concede the point I made as it relates to Trump.

 

So you read that part that I quoted earlier and now understand that Trump's plan violated the ECA as his own supporters admitted?

 

He says it's short for family, but I'm not buying it. The word makes no sense in the sentence.

 

It's slang that the kiddos say these days. You can look it up if you want (which you won't . . . just like you refuse to look up the ECA).

 

You can continue asking the same question over and over again, but until you concede my point this will not proceed in the direction you're trying to steer it.

 

Still slipping into the ad hom mode.

 

I only have to ask it again because you still refuse to read the ECA. Until you concede to read it this will not proceed in the direction you are trying to steer it. There's a reason I've quoted it and you ran and hid when I did so and refuse to quote it yourself.

 

Still not understanding what "ad hom" actually means. And still failing to read the ECA.

 

So you are calling me a liar. That's not nice.