Simon, when one attempts to refute an argument, he generally makes an effort to show the error in thinking or logic by doing a bit of analysis. For instance, you cannot refute my claim that the DNC lied, cheated, and colluded when the WkiLeaks disclosure of lying, cheating, and collusion was shared with the entire country. If those claims were not accurate, or factual, then Wasserman-Schultz would not have been fired in disgrace by the DNC, and Clinton wouldn’t have completed the obvious quid pro quo by hiring her as a campaign manager of some sort.
Now, if you would like to refute that claim, you would need to provide at least one fact and then explain your rationale as to why I have reached erroneous conclusions.
Furthermore, you accuse me of a thinking deficit, which I suppose is supposed to reference a flaw in logic, without any explanation as to why or how that deficit manifests itself. To just resort to name-calling is reminiscent of the Monty Python skit where the gentleman signs up for an argument, but he encounters mere contradiction.
Finally, you have surmised incorrectly in assigning me to the GOP or to Bernie. While I am a conservative, I have rejected Trump from the beginning. I think Reince Priebus is a fraud who needs firing, and while I admire Bernie’s earnestness, I reject completely any notion of a socialist approach to a federal government.