Apparently I read more into your initial complaint than was actually there. Mea culpa, I was wrong. I'll also confess to being confused about what you're actually complaining about other than disagreeing with the scientific polls referenced in the article. I'm not sure what point is to be made with arguing against something backed by facts. You liked his performance against Hillary, but beyond that?
So you are not, in fact, arguing that Donald Trump did not lie about winning all the polls?
I am representing precisely what I stated. If you wish to take issue with any of what was stated please do so.
To which "fact" in my initial comment am I not entitled to?
Apparently I read more into your initial complaint than was actually there. Mea culpa, I was wrong. I'll also confess to being confused about what you're actually complaining about other than disagreeing with the scientific polls referenced in the article. I'm not sure what point is to be made with arguing against something backed by facts. You liked his performance against Hillary, but beyond that?
This is always your tack, thus you are always wrong.
You don't like me or my opinions thus you manufacture and attribute points with which to disagree.
My comment is/was concise and to the point, learn to read what's written.
once again:To which "fact" in my initial comment am I not entitled to?