Undemocratic Democrats

[Rob Lister]

that'll scare him.

technically, it wasn't a non-seq, it was just non-starter. Proving a neg generally is.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

that'll scare him.

technically, it wasn't a non-seq, it was just non-starter. Proving a neg generally is.

It's a perfectly straightforward bit of research. Did the Republican and Democrat parties ever have to collect 25 000 signatures? Yes or no, easy as that.

I don't know whether they did or not, I just know that he isn't entitled to assume the answer is yes, and that it's not in any way a non sequitur to point this out.

Ignoring mendacious posters isn't meant to scare them, it's meant to make my life more pleasant by their absence. There are plenty of people in the world I can disagree with, I don't need to put up with Art.

 

[Art Vandelay]

that'll scare him.

technically, it wasn't a non-seq, it was just non-starter. Proving a neg generally is.

Yes, it was a non sequitur. His response had nothing to do with the issue of how a party that is not established could be in a position to write laws.

How is pointing out that you made a questionable assumption a non sequitur?


Oh, never mind. I'll put you on Ignore and save myself the aggravation.

So first you post a post that rudely started out with "I'm at a loss as to the mental processes that result in such a question", then you ask a loaded question, but declare that you won't be listening to my response anyway, and finally call me a liar.

I don't know whether they did or not, I just know that he isn't entitled to assume the answer is yes,

I never claimed I am.

and that it's not in any way a non sequitur to point this out.

It is when I'm asking a separate question.