>>>Right - and that is my entire point. You can't compare Trump to HRC and be of any reasonable intelligence and come to the conclusion that Trump is/was a better option for president.
>
>Well, according to that autopsy you studiously ignore, it was the educated whites that went for Trump while HRC won the deplorables- and according to figures yesterday, his support in university-educated people is rising while deplorable support is falling. Your version is described as a trite media error in the autopsy.
>
>I'd also observe that when challenged, you often claim status as the smartest person in the room while anybody who disagrees is a dummy which PROVES you're the cleverest person in the room, et voila. My experience of years of dealing with extremely smart people, is that they never compete on qualification or claim monopoly on understanding, preferring to argue facts. Like the facts in the autopsy, for instance.
>
> >>I'm not going to sit here and rehash all the reasons why this is because it's so blatantly obvious that anyone who can't see this is incapable of a logical and informed discussion for whatever reason...be it ignorance, stupidity, denial, brainwashing or whatever has caused this defective thinking pattern.
>
>QED. What you call a point is a garish tapestry of fallacies: argument from authority, ad hominem fallacy, bandwagon fallacy, begging the question, false dilemma, emotional appeal, fallacy of exclusion, hasty generalization, non sequitur, red herring, straw man... where do I stop?

Ad hominem he said....ROFL