It’s not a presumed “logic lesson.” If it were a lesson, it would be a lesson in empiricism, which is very distinct from logic. In any case, I’m convinced you hope it will not succeed.
Palin is “unprepared” and “dumb.” This is what they started out saying. At this point, it’s simply “she can’t win.”
But the lesson in logic here (not painful, though) is that a person who comes up sometimes in first place and sometimes in second (the only unannounced candidate among the rest who have officially declared their candidacy) is easily positioned, logically speaking, to win in a race that doesn’t end for more than a year.
>>It’s not a presumed “logic lesson.” If it were a lesson, it would be a lesson in empiricism, which is very distinct from logic. In any case, I’m convinced you hope it will not succeed.<<
That is not what you said. You said I SAID I hoped it wold not succeed. Find the post where I said that or admit you lied. Again.
>>Palin is “unprepared” and “dumb.” This is what they started out saying. At this point, it’s simply “she can’t win.”
Post the link to the post where I siad that. Or admit you lied. Again.
>>But the lesson in logic here (not painful, though) is that a person who comes up sometimes in first place and sometimes in second (the only unannounced candidate among the rest who have officially declared their candidacy) is easily positioned, logically speaking, to win in a race that doesn’t end for more than a year.<<
You don’t have any background in logic nor communications forensics do you?
Your statement is a complete non sequiter.
Now you are in the unenviable position of admitting you are a liar (or post the links and posts to support your original posts) AND uneducated.
You should have quite while you were behind.