No.---you have the ass end of the stick. The thread title was about the formation of a 3rd party, not about Trump running as a 3rd party.
Again, you're incorrect. My post was a response to the [quote about] Trump quote, that I quoted ... regardless the thread title.
Wrong. Trump hasn't made any quote. You are quoting another member's opinion or an editor's opinion when talking about running as a 3rd party. The leverage that is purported by the OP and then the article later in the thread talk about "starting" or "forming" a 3rd party. Trump can do that whether convicted unconstitutionally or not. Your logic argument has swiss cheese holes in it.
True, and intentional. I corrected my syntax to make that clear. The opinion used "Trump," not "I." It's clearly an opinion, which I agreed with straight away by saying "Exactly ..." Exactly ... and I agreed with the the OP. Yes. While Trump probably doesn't even know if he'll run, my post was mainly concerning that possibility, however: If he starts a third party, it would still be in the best interest of the GOP if he didn't run. If he did run, he'd likely draw more votes from the GOP. So it's in the best interest of the GOP for him not to run ... and make that a certainty with a conviction. Trump wants the GOP to believe that he can draw the same crowd, after four years, without twitter, and even if he weren't running. I doubt Trump actually believes that.
Your premise was a fallacy. You claimed that Trump's brain couldn't understand logic, but the logic was presented in a false and twisted manner. You responded to this-- "So the choice is vote to acquit to stop Trump from running as a third party candidate or vote to convict so he can't run as either a third party or GOP candidate." ------and this opinion assumes Trump is running as a 3rd party, when in fact the discussion in this thread and in the article was about Trump forming a party. ----You've been defeated on this subject of logic. It's time to go to something else.