Those seem like words with actual legal definitions, which is a problem for you. Your argument would look less silly if you picked words without legal definitions. Otherwise the simple counterargument to your (silly) claim that (e.g.) “Carter murdered people” is “no he didn’t.”
On the other hand, if you were to argue that “Carter committed grievous mopery,” then your argument may not be any less silly, but it can’t be dismissed offhand. I mean, it can, but not by people quoting dictionaries at you.
Y’know, WillFarnaby, for a guy who claims to be a libertarian, you sure do support authoritarianism pretty strongly. Subverting democracy and embezzling are “neutral to positive”?
[ol]
[li]Conspiring with a hostile nation to subvert democracy[/li][li]Use of charities as slush funds[/li][li]Skimming of inaugural funds[/li][li]Hold meetings with foreign officials in the Oval Office while demanding that no witnesses be present[/li][/ol]
I removed the last two, since you acknowledged that they were “icky”, but that leaves us with these four. “Most” would mean at least three of the things on that list. So, which three do you consider neutral to positive?
Same here. I didn’t have fighting back in mind and have no interest in that, I was thinking of coping with his attacks and how well a candidate might be equipped to do that. Apologies for being unclear.
Firstly “conspiring with a hostile nation to subvert democracy” is political jargon for “tried to get dirt on Clinton from shady characters severa degrees removed from Russian government” - neutral