Comment: I said "he lost, therefore he would not have won"

to show the absurdity of the arguments reverse "he lost, but actually he won" -- which is what people have been saying on various threads -- since he lost.

Also -- I never said that "studliness" was the only characteristic -- in each case they "came off" as either more viril, more manly, more articulate.........why am I repeating; just read what people write before you comment, hahahahaha.

People make venile choices -- this is not a new "summation" or generality.

I like to make "obvious" posts and watch how people circumvent observable truisms to build the fantasy they'd rather have -- which is why there's never been a man of liberty in the white house; the very nature of voting and lobbying (especially the 1790 kind) means (by definition) that you are not going to win an individualist as the pop-leader.