First of all this is pure and ludicrous semantics
I literally gave you an example of a real world scenario anyone would understand and if you ever had kids, you would understand that at some point every. single. child. goes through this. If you have a problem after that, it's either because you're low intelligence or you're stubborn. Or you're still a child who hasn't hit that stage of understanding language.
Everything you say after that wasn't even worth my time reading.
every. single. child. goes through this.
I would not expect a child barely capable language to be commenting on a US politics story.
If you have a problem after that, it's either because you're low intelligence or you're stubborn
Thank you for remaining civil.
When you learn how to debate, discuss, and not like drivel crap out of your mouth like you're a member of the terrorist left, then we can discuss things. Until then, this is the kind of treatment you can expect from more and more people as they get tired of the nonsense approach people like you take when someone tries to talk to you.
First of all this is pure and ludicrous semantics, if everyone was to to specifically define everything they say/type down to lowest level of interpretation all the time conversation would be completely incoherent (i.e. autism). Also your assertion that "all" is a reasonable assumption when concerning such a broad reaching topic may be a reasonable within sets of fringe belief systems/groups who utilize ham-fisted "all or nothing" ideologies, but to assume the average rational person thinks that way is rather unreasonable.
Absolutely a strawman, you took a lack of information to create an assumption and then manufactured a position based on a lack of evidence.
So what is your argument against the declassification of election documents?