You didn't quantify how much transparency. Without a quantity, it is reasonable to assume "all."
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.
So not at all a strawman
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?
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.
You've made my point for me. But in case it was lost in the translation... You didn't quantify how much transparency. Without a quantity, it is reasonable to assume "all." For example: "Sweep the floor" is much different from "Sweep the east corner of the floor."
So not at all a strawman. Just taking you 100% at your word.