Tulsi Gabbard Has Just Dropped A Bomb On Hillary Run For President She Stepped Down A Vice-Chair DNC

[Jack V Savage]

This has been a most entertaining thread.

I'm just glad it's not me getting sucked in dealing with one of these guys for once.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I stated I have never seen this lack of polling info in the last 20 years, asked for any evidence that this had occurred

This is a great example of the sort of poor argumentation I was referring to. Do you not recognize the problem with this?

As for the rest, what you read as a "complex rebuttal, that reads like a book" is really just a clear laying out of things. I haven't lied. You simply can't seem to keep track of your own posting.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I'm just glad it's not me getting sucked in dealing with one of these guys for once.

Luckily I have a funeral to attend in a few days and so won't be able to post too much more. I also thought that given my clear and regular statements and support for Sanders that Hendo would perhaps listen.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

To state as clearly as possible once again, I stated I have never seen this lack of polling info in the last 20 years, asked for any evidence that this had occurred, I then offered a theory, that I clearly stated was a theory. This whole interaction has been you refusing to offer any evidence that this isn't unusual in the the lack of polling info, and you attacking my theory, as if I made a statement of fact.
.

Now, I might just be jumping in halfway and misunderstanding something... but wouldn't it be a lot easier (as in, actually possible) to prove that there had been polling data in prior years than that there hadn't been and that, therefore, a lack of polling data is not actually unusual?

You can't disprove God, proving a negative, etc, etc, and so on, and so forth...

 

[UpaLoompa]

Now, I might just be jumping in halfway and misunderstanding something... but wouldn't it be a lot easier (as in, actually possible) to prove that there had been polling data in prior years than that there hadn't been and that, therefore, a lack of polling data is not actually unusual?

You can't disprove God, proving a negative, etc, etc, and so on, and so forth...

1/2

 

[VivaRevolution]

Luckily I have a funeral to attend in a few days and so won't be able to post too much more. I also thought that given my clear and regular statements and support for Sanders that Hendo would perhaps listen.

Yeah, exactly, you have no rebuttal to me, and this point I have repeated over and over here.

I don't care if you are a sanders supporter. That has nothing to do with the honesty of your posts.

I gave you a chance earlier to retreat. You are going to be offered no quarter now.

Come back after your funeral and pick this up if need be, or admit you are tucking tail.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

1/2

Did I miss something? It's late and I'm groggy... yet cannot sleep.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Yeah, exactly, you have no rebuttal to me, and this point I have repeated over and over here.

I don't care if you are a sanders supporter. That has nothing to do with the honesty of your posts.

I gave you a chance earlier to retreat. You are going to be offered no quarter now.

Come back after your funeral and pick this up if need be, or admit you are tucking tail.

What do I need quarter from? Bad arguments? The post you refer to as a book makes it clear why and how you're wrong. Your squealing is really just pathetic.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Did I miss something? It's late and I'm groggy... yet cannot sleep.

One other big one, yeah. He's asking others to provide evidence regarding his assertion--which graciously ignores the issue of proving a negative.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Now, I might just be jumping in halfway and misunderstanding something... but wouldn't it be a lot easier (as in, actually possible) to prove that there had been polling data in prior years than that there hadn't been and that, therefore, a lack of polling data is not actually unusual?

You can't disprove God, proving a negative, etc, etc, and so on, and so forth...

Of course it would.

With that said, can you ever remember seeing contested primary state with no polling info?

I'll admit that I asked for something that would be difficult to find, unless you remembered it occurring, but I don't see that as me asking to disprove god.

It is a fair rebuttal, and weakens the case that my request for this evidence, and the lack of it being provided, is evidence for my point of view.

But I think it is still legit to comment on the appearance of how unusual this is, and question it.

 

[VivaRevolution]

What do I need quarter from? Bad arguments? The post you refer to as a book makes it clear why and how you're wrong. Your squealing is really just pathetic.

No you want me to debate you on your grounds, and I am demanding you debate me on mine, when you are the one who attacked me.

Looks like you found time to post before your funeral though.

 

[UpaLoompa]

No you want me to debate you on your grounds, and I am demanding you debate me on mine, when you are the one who attacked me.

You're right, I prefer to debate based on substantive argument and logically consistent positions. I'll happily claim that ground.

Also, where did I attack you before you went off the rails? Are you so delicate you can't defend your positions? The first post in which I make any sort of personal comment is 151, after you'd begun insulting me.

Looks like you found time to post before your funeral though.

Maybe the problem is you can't read good and stuff. What I wrote: "a funeral to attend in a few days and so won't be able to post too much more". That can't be read as a statement of an immediate end to posting. My suggestion for you:

 

[Madmick]

Tulsi Gabbard just dropped a bomb on Hillary Clinton run for President she stepped down from the co-chair of the DNC to officially support Bernie Sanders run for President.

Well, looks like the bomb-drop was about as accurate as the USA's AI drone program.

It ended for Sanders on Super Tuesday. The GOP race is still a dogfight: the most bizarre we have seen in the postmodern age.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You're right, I prefer to debate based on substantive argument and logically consistent positions. I'll happily claim that ground.

Also, where did I attack you before you went off the rails? Are you so delicate you can't defend your positions? The first post in which I make any sort of personal comment is 151, after you'd begun insulting me.
Maybe the problem is you can't read good and stuff. What I wrote: "a funeral to attend in a few days and so won't be able to post too much more". That can't be read as a statement of an immediate end to posting. My suggestion for you:

Oh I see. Your grounds of debate are logical and fact based, while you refuse to respond to the same point I have been making all along, of you speaking out of both sides of your mouth, in claiming I infer, and state with certainty. That is the attack, that is the lie.

I gave you a chance to concede this ground, you refused. Now here we are running in circles, as you try and pull this conversation back to the general debate, and refuse to engage on what my problem with you here is.

 

[UpaLoompa]

It ended for Sanders on Super Tuesday. The GOP race is still a dogfight: the most bizarre we have seen in the postmodern age.

The path to the nomination is pretty fucking thin for Sanders at this point. Clinton is holding or pulling ahead in MI and while he's kept it close in a lot of big delegate states, the trouncing in TX was bad. Is Florida winner take all like it is for the GOP?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Well, looks like the bomb-drop was about as accurate as the USA's AI drone program.

It ended for Sanders on Super Tuesday. The GOP race is still a dogfight: the most bizarre we have seen in the postmodern age.

Really man?

Are you really going to argue that bernie with 5 states, is somehow done with, but the Republicans are still in a dogfight, or was that satire?

 

[UpaLoompa]

Oh I see. Your grounds of debate are logical and fact based, while you refuse to respond to the same point I have been making all along, of you speaking out of both sides of your mouth, in claiming I infer, and state with certainty. That is the attack, that is the lie.

I gave you a chance to concede this ground, you refused. Now here we are running in circles, as you try and pull this conversation back to the general debate, and refuse to engage on what my problem with you here is.

Lol. So you didn't "infer, and state with certainty". Okay, that's gibberish so I don't have a response. Inferring what you meant, you twice stated the same thing. If you don't mean the things you state in a declarative manner, don't blame me.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Really man?

Are you really going to argue that bernie with 5 states, is somehow done with, but the Republicans are still in a dogfight, or was that satire?

The problem, again, comes down to numbers. The states Sanders has won (and Iowa was a tie) haven't been as important as the ones Clinton has won:

Clinton got 148 to Sanders' 69 delegates in Texas. For the five states Sanders won, Sanders got 135 to Clinton's 83 delegates.

Like you I was hoping that Sanders would over perform his polling on Tuesday. He didn't and now he's down 606 to 405 in pledged delegates. There's only a really narrow path left to him and slipping in Michigan can close that off.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Lol. So you didn't "infer, and state with certainty". Okay, that's gibberish so I don't have a response. Inferring what you meant, you twice stated the same thing. If you don't mean the things you state in a declarative manner, don't blame me.

Spin away. That is a simplified explantion. I have given you paragraphs explaining my issue. This is the first time you feigned dumb, in understanding what my issue is.

Are you just now coming to this realization that you don't even understand my point?

Did you not understand it when you refused to give up ground and concede this 20 posts ago?

 

[UpaLoompa]

Spin away. That is a simplified explantion. I have given you paragraphs explaining my issue. This is the first time you feigned dumb, in understanding what my issue is.

Are you just now coming to this realization that you don't even understand my point?

Did you not understand it when you refused to give up ground and concede this 20 posts ago?

What is there to concede you simpleton? You asserted that the lack of polling data in Minnesota and Colorado was aberrant. I've quoted that repeatedly. Drop it you cry baby.