Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Jack V Savage]

Probably the shit I flat-out called you a liar on, challenged you to prove me wrong, and you didn't.

You didn't cite anything I lied about. I pointed out that you lied repeatedly in assigning a position to me that I never expressed and explicitly disagreed with. The "liar" charge from you was just along the lines of you saying that I'm glue and you're rubber. You were caught, and you threw the accusation back to me.

The point was simple. Genetically and customarily, having only one distant ancestor belonging to a certain heritage is insufficient for a claim to that heritage. That's why you kept up with the strawmen. You couldn't admit that Warren claiming to "be" NA was always bogus. Further evidenced by her retracting the claim well before taking any DNA test. No honest person who isn't mentally handicapped would call this ball red.

She didn't retract any claim. She said that she heard she had a distant NA ancestor, and it turned out that she did. Case closed as a factual matter. You're just arguing semantics.

 

[Trotsky]

Probably the shit I flat-out called you a liar on, challenged you to prove me wrong, and you didn't. Instead you had your little meltdown that @waiguoren quoted part of, then ultimately getting timed out by a mod.




The point was simple. Genetically and customarily, having only one distant ancestor belonging to a certain heritage is insufficient for a claim to that heritage. That's why you kept up with the strawmen. You couldn't admit that Warren claiming to "be" NA was always bogus. Further evidenced by her retracting the claim well before taking any DNA test. No honest person who isn't mentally handicapped would call this ball red.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

lol. The dude's shameless. But I've already cleaned his clock on this so don't sweat it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

lol. The dude's shameless. But I've already cleaned his clock on this so don't sweat it.

You "cleaned my clock" by inventing a position for me, no? On the real argument, you agreed that I was right, and you still seem to be denying the position you were advancing. So overall, I think the conclusion was that we all agreed I was right and that you are a liar.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You "cleaned my clock" by inventing a position for me, no?

Give it up, chief.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Give it up, chief.

It's objectively true. You interpreted my comment that what you tried to separate into two statements were "the same" as me saying that they were logically equivalent rather than that they were two parts of one whole, which is a somewhat understandable mistake, but then I immediately corrected you on it, and you continued to insist that I said that they were logically equivalent, which was just dishonest on your part.

 

[waiguoren]

Now I'm not only a partisan, but a rabid one? Can you define "partisan" as you're using it? The normal definition would clearly not refer to me.

Definition of partisan (Entry 1 of 3)
1 : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person
especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

 

[Jack V Savage]

Definition of partisan (Entry 1 of 3)
1 : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person
especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

Yeah, doesn't apply to me. So what definition are you using when you call me that?

 

[waiguoren]

The point was simple. Genetically and customarily, having only one distant ancestor belonging to a certain heritage is insufficient for a claim to that heritage.

This is not the same as @Cubo de Sangre "claiming that Warren claimed she was full-blooded Native American".

Did you strawman him?

 

[waiguoren]

Yeah, doesn't apply to me. So what definition are you using when you call me that?

Obviously, I think it applies to you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is not the same as @Cubo de Sangre "claiming that Warren claimed she was full-blooded Native American".

Did you strawman him?

His position was in flux during the discussion.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Obviously, I think it applies to you.

Oh, you don't.

Most voters are true partisans in the sense that they don't follow issues enough to have opinions on them and don't have a consistent ideology (most people can't even identify the "left" or "right" positions on issues). Having philosophical views that lead in a certain direction consistently is an alternative to partisanship. It's just sloppy use of the word. What you want to do is angrily accuse me of having a coherent philosophy, but it doesn't sound so bad when you put it that way.

A good illustration of partisanship in action is people who were insisting that the national debt was an existential threat to the country that needed to be addressed immediately before Nov. 2016 and then enthusiastically supported a massive debt-financed giveaway to the rich in 2017. You won't ever see anything like that from me.

Another example: people who claim to be serious believers in constitutionalism but then also advocate for the federal gov't to be fanatical about border security when their party has decided that that's a key electoral issue.

 

[Trotsky]

My take is that you are a sloppy, hopelessly partisan person who writes well. Basically, you've made a home on these forums arguing with people who don't have time and/or patience and/or the requisite intellect to match you.

You're heavily emotionally invested in these exchanges. There is no other possible reason why you would tell another poster he should kill himself.

I am interested in psychoanalyzing you. I think you have issues.

Yikes, methinks you're teetering on the edge of self-realization here. Even if I agree with your (broad) position on free trade, it's pretty clear that JVS is the more collected party to this exchange...and it's also clear that you care quite a lot about his opinions and are emotionally invested in your exchanges with him. Which is fine and nothing to be ashamed of. But projecting that emotional investment (in addition to accusations of partisanship, which are independently ludicrous given you and his respective levels of partisan activity) and hysteria onto him....well, it kinda does give the impression that you have problems.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This is not the same as @Cubo de Sangre "claiming that Warren claimed she was full-blooded Native American".

Did you strawman him?

Here's a good summary.

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...rican-ancestry.3849819/page-51#post-145865663

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yikes, methinks you're teetering on the edge of self-realization here. Even if I agree with your (broad) position on free trade, it's pretty clear that JVS is the more collected party to this exchange.

What is his position on free trade? He's been oddly reluctant to give one that I can see. My position is that it is generally good for everyone (both countries, and subgroups within the countries), though I do think that opening up trade to China was an exception to the general rule in the fairly short run.

..and it's also clear that you care quite a lot about his opinions and are emotionally invested in your exchanges with him. Which is fine and nothing to be ashamed of.

Indeed not! It reflects well on him.

 

[waiguoren]

it's pretty clear that JVS is the more collected party to this exchange

What's your evidence?

Also not sure why you'd focus on "this exchange" when we have lots of data from @Jack V Savage indicating a lack of emotional control. In all my years here I've never come anywhere close to telling another poster to kill himself.

Also consider Jack's

1) irrational animus toward Tulsi Gabbard. For example, he claimed that Robert O'Rourke is better qualified for the presidency than Gabbard in part because O'Rourke has played in a band....yet that band is responsible for some of the worst "music" you'll ever hear---so bad that literally no human would willingly listen to it except to laugh at it. A better argument is that the "music" disqualifies O'Rourke from the presidency (although that also wouldn't be a good argument).

2) labeling as a "Breitbart conspiracy theory" a well-documented report about Hillary Clinton's corruption as Secretary of State

3) Repeated labeling of @SBJJ as being of "subnormal intellect"

The guy is hopelessly partisan and gets emotional when called out on it.

 

[Trotsky]

What is his position on free trade? He's been oddly reluctant to give one that I can see. My position is that it is generally good for everyone (both countries, and subgroups within the countries)

That it isn't good for all economic groups within a country. I think he is correct that it has an upwardly distributional effect on wages in the more developed countries and (some of my editorializing now) undermines worker organizing and economic democracy generally.

 

[waiguoren]

Having philosophical views that lead in a certain direction consistently is an alternative to partisanship.

I agree, but I don't agree that you consistently evince "philosophical views that lead in a certain direction consistently".

A good illustration of partisanship in action is people who were insisting that the national debt was an existential threat to the country that needed to be addressed immediately before Nov. 2016 and then enthusiastically supported a massive debt-financed giveaway to the rich in 2017.

I disagree with your framing of the tax cut, but I agree with the broader point.

Another example: people who claim to be serious believers in constitutionalism but then also advocate for the federal gov't to be fanatical about border security when their party has decided that that's a key electoral issue.

That would be another good example. Good thing it doesn't fit my specific case.

 

[waiguoren]

Here's a good summary.

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...rican-ancestry.3849819/page-51#post-145865663

That didn't work for some reason. What's the post #?

 

[Jack V Savage]

1) irrational animus toward Tulsi Gabbard. For example, he claimed that Robert O'Rourke is better qualified for the presidency than Gabbard in part because O'Rourke has played in a band....yet that band is responsible for some of the worst "music" you'll ever hear---so bad that literally no human would willingly listen to it except to laugh at it. A better argument is that the "music" disqualifies O'Rourke from the presidency.

2) labeling as a "Breitbart conspiracy theory" a well-documented report about Hillary Clinton's corruption as Secretary of State

3) Repeated labeling of @SBJJ as being of "subnormal intellect"

The guy is hopelessly partisan and gets emotional when called out on it.

1. If I were partisan, I'd defend terrible candidates like Gabbard if my party put them up (the way you defend an even worse candidate/politician in Trump).
2. Can you cite the post of mine you're referring to?
3. ??? I believe that SBJJ is of subnormal intellect. What's wrong with that? This is a guy who wanted to account bet me that no one in the Obama administration used a surname. There are many other examples I could use. IMO, if it weren't for the fact that you guys are in the same party, you'd agree with my assessment.