So you couldn't bother to Google argumentum ad logicam. Figures. The point is that whether Zipr's argument was sound or not has no effect on the fact that you are a Trumplicker.
Except that I am not a "Trumplicker", so your argument is wrong no matter how much gratuitous Latin you use.
Despite your protests your tunnel vision has become unmistakable. You defended John McCain -- whom I admire -- with a fallacy and refused to click the links I posted to refute your ignorance.
I did defend him because you kept unfairly attacking him. For example on the Sunni/Shia issue where I showed that you were wrong.
The final straw was when you placed your Mayor of Alaska
Governor of Alaska. And I was right about you that you will keep bringing up that typo over and over again. That is your MO because you simply have nothing else.
I did not put her on a pedestal. I just think she is more accomplished than she is given credit for, which is a far cry from putting her on a pedestal given the very low regard those on the left give her. I still think she was not the right choice for McCain, but she is not nearly as stupid as your Ilk thinks.
while denigrating Every.Single.Woman to the left of Sean Hannity.
BS. Criticizing is not the same as "denigrating".
Your attempts to denigrate Ms. Harris -- (are her shoes still upside down?) -- are stupid wastes of time. To paraphrase your own fellow Gingrich-licker Don Rumsfeld, we fight the fascists with the candidates we have, not the candidates we wish we had.
Why is it a "stupid waste of time" to criticize Kamala Harris? Why do you think Democratic women should be beyond criticism?
Energy policy is very important and it is right to scrutinize the VP's positions on it. Especially since they might become an issue for the VP debate later on.