Not ist n????tig

[_canpakes]

No side-step is offered.

nope, clearly a side step...see, when you are presented with a question and respond by not answering the question or by acvoiding the question - that is the very definition of sidestep...ergo you actually did sidestep.

OK, I see why you're getting distracted and misinterpreting what's happening here. You just don't want to see the answer that I'm illustrating, so I'll simplify the answer and walk you through it. In short, the answer is that your premise isn't responsible for the supposed demise of Democrats in general or the Democratic candidate any more so than it is responsible for the demise of Republicans in general or the Republican candidate, especially given that the Republican candidate essentially promised to gift his voters with every little thing that they wanted that would make them feel safe and secure in their horribly out-of-control lives so filled with nasty immigrants, dirty terrorists, and flamboyant cross-dressers, right on up to the point of promising to make them all a nice, warm glass of milk to sip like a toddler while he entertains them with bedtime tuck-in stories about a resurgent coal industry, zero crime and 25 million new jobs.

Contrary to your premise - and based on simple observation of the results from the last election - it could be argued that the Democrats should have engaged in this behavior a little more strongly and frequently, given that it seems to have led to a measure of success for the Republicans when used in excess.

On the contrary, if the premise can be applied to all voters then there's no logic in discussing it as a unique factor to a particular ideological cohort, especially given the looseness of that defining description.

How can a pointedly direct question(s) from the OP be described as loose?

Reread my sentence. You are misinterpreting what "looseness" refers to, which in this case is the defining description of "liberals".

In any event, you would still need to account for a popular vote that favored the Democratic candidate, given the claim that this universally demonstrated behavior has somehow disadvantaged Democrats. After all, you are addressing the situation of the voting public, and not members of the electoral college in particular.

The behavior described in the OP is not conditional on whether a person voted or not...rather conditional on whether the overwhelming response from Liberal community surrogate/representatives/spokespeople/laymen is indicative of a political platform they associate with, etc.

Which brings you back to the opening response above and the fact that the syndrome that you attempt to assign to liberals is observed to be present as much or more within members of the opposition (presumably conservative) community... and so your premise is undone both by that fact as well as the final tally of the popular vote.

[_Gunnar]

subgenius's talent for obfuscation challenges that of Trump himself. That has long been apparent on this forum. He and Trump are in some ways like two peas from the same pod.