2016 Presidential General Election Thread

[The Omega Concern]

It's a metaphor jack-ass. They reduced the Bernie vote to such a degree they render the meaning of a single person with a vote as less than.


They rigged electronic machines to tilt to Hillary







not to mention the ploy in California to make it difficult for Independent voters to get the right ballot as well as stall the count of those that did get through and worse:


Bernie Sanders Wins California Landslide BUT 2/3 of his Votes Aren’t Counted


Lots of dirty details in there.

[buzzard]

Originally Posted by Poots

it is called a false equivalency fallacy

You sure about that, buddy?

Originally Posted by Poots

you would have to be an idiot not to see how it applies here. As if the McDonalds mission statement has any relation at all or offers any insight into the DNC charter and bylaws. I'm surprised that he didn't trot out the most obvious false equivalent, the Nazi Party charter, as some sort of evidence that "charters are bullshit."

In actual fact, I was mocking your petty display by mimicking your post with the most ridiculous example that immediately came to mind. Although I figured that it might send you into your usual state of desperately grasping for consolation points, I didn't think it would be quite so effective.

What you're doing now, i.e. in ignoring my actual position and attacking a position that you've somehow invented from "lolololololol" and a McDonald's quote, is called a yellow wheat-stalks man fallacy and you would have to be an idiot not to see how it applies here.

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by Poots

No, primaries are actual national elections and subject to the same rules and regulations as the general election. Imagine turning away an 18 year old voter by saying "yeah I know the 26th amendment but nah fuck you this is just the primary that don't count here"

You said this

This is false

[JESUSNEEDSAHIT]

poots logic is one step away from citing right to happiness from the declaration is why the election was rigged

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Poots

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

Art IV, Section 4

I'm tired of doing your homework for you, so why don't YOU google "does the guarantee clause give legal precedent?"

[Elphenor]

The spirit of the constitution is not "one person one vote" that's not an idea that even really existed at the time of its creation

Not even national elections TODAY are run by one person one vote

[redbreegull]

I mean how hilarious will it be when you discover that Madison intended this clause to mean the people get a republic and NOT a democracy?

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by JESUSNEEDSAHIT

poots logic is one step away from citing right to happiness from the declaration is why the election was rigged

Awareness is a good thing. You have the understanding the vote was indeed rigged. To try and work deep in that truth to bring up a silly hypothetical of no consequence, just proves the desperation of your position.

[Elphenor]

Why can't you understand that there's no doubt she would have won anyway

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

It's a metaphor jack-ass. They reduced the Bernie vote to such a degree they render the meaning of a single person with a vote as less than.

Look I'm not trying to argue with you about who rigged what etc. Just don't bring up that 3/5ths shit on other message boards, it quite frankly makes you look like an idiot and extremely ignorant of history, to the point of insult. Take some advice.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Poots

it's a better analogy than McDonalds

it's fucking insulting and makes me want to slap a bitch, frankly

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

The spirit of the constitution is not "one person one vote" that's not an idea that even really existed at the time of its creation

Not even national elections TODAY are run by one person one vote

Yes it is.

15th amendment allowed black men to vote.

19th amendment allowed woman to vote.

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by reprise85

Look I'm not trying to argue with you about who rigged what etc. Just don't bring up that 3/5ths shit on other message boards, it quite frankly makes you look like an idiot and extremely ignorant of history, to the point of insult. Take some advice.

It's a minority of his posts that aren't ridiculous but the 3/5ths thing made me cringe

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Poots

I don't think you understand how those words were used back then, nor do I think you understand Madison's intention when writing it. Of course you could be right, it could mean that he meant for his words to be interpreted as "rig the election, fuck fair voting"

at this juncture you have the option to actually look this up, but you won't because you know that I am right

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by reprise85

it's fucking insulting

But the DNC ACTUALLY RIGGING THE ELECTION away from Bernie is acceptable to you? o.k. nice parameters you got there.

btw, I picked the 3/5ths phrase up from a black man (Dr. Of Common Sense) because that's how he expressed his feelings about the rigged election.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Yes it is.

15th amendment allowed black men to vote.

19th amendment allowed woman to vote.

ever heard of the electoral college bud

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

But the DNC ACTUALLY RIGGING THE ELECTION away from Bernie is acceptable to you? o.k. nice parameters you got there.

btw, I picked the 3/5ths phrase up from a black guy because that's how he expressed his feelings about the rigged election.

well he's an idiot too, don't take lines from idiots

i never said it was acceptable to me, either. just not surprising. she would have won anyway but it's a shitty thing to do.

[JESUSNEEDSAHIT]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

btw, I picked the 3/5ths phrase up from a black guy because that's how he expressed his feelings about the rigged election.

wow you are a fucking scumsucking cretin

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Yes it is.

15th amendment allowed black men to vote.

19th amendment allowed woman to vote.

They had to amend the thing to prevent it from being actively discriminatory with who gets the right to vote. Read it and take a look at the wording, it's about limiting what the gov can do, in this case, prevent a black man from voting

Constitution is about outlining what the limits of the gov are

[buzzard]

Originally Posted by Poots

so you create a strawman for your own position and then become indignant when someone knocks it down? Where did you learn debate, from a koala?

Now that you've taken a step or two towards improving your grasp of formal logic, it might be time to do some reading about the burden of proof. You may know it as "the responsibility of having to provide evidence for a claim."

Once you understand, please have another go at succeeding with your McDonald's straw man. It should be fun to watch.

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by Poots

Dear God, you're just on some other level in this discussion. There's the conversation some of us are having, then there's you.

The Supreme Court has found "one person, one vote" to be in the spirit of the Constitution. Specifically, the equal protection clause of the 14th. read baker v carr and reynold v sims. Come on dude.

Baker vs Carr ended in a split decision under the great and very activist Warren court who very much believed in "one person one vote" but the problem is that's not what's actually in the constitution even after the 14th amendment

[buzzard]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

I picked the 3/5ths phrase up from a black man (Dr. Of Common Sense) because that's how he expressed his feelings about the rigged election.

Hey, my best friend is a black guy.

It's cool because it means I can make racist jokes.

[Elphenor]

In fact a main point of contention was whether it was a constitutional matter at all ironically

[buzzard]

Originally Posted by buzzard

Now that you've taken a step or two towards improving your grasp of formal logic, it might be time to do some reading about the burden of proof. You may know it as "the responsibility of having to provide evidence for a claim."

Once you understand, please have another go at succeeding with your McDonald's straw man. It should be fun to watch.

Originally Posted by Poots

How about the evidence I posted of the DNC's fucking charter that proves everything I've been saying?

You can't be this thick. Surely.

I'm saying that, if you're claiming that my mocking of you meant anything other than what I've said it did, you're going to have to prove it. This should have been made painfully obvious by my final line in the above.

[ninsp]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Yes it is.

15th amendment allowed black men to vote.

19th amendment allowed woman to vote.

One woman?

[Disco King]

I'm surprised (well, not really) by the fact that we've gone this far with neither Poots nor ninsp trying to explain exactly how buzzard's analogy was an instance of false "equivalency."

Oh wait, I guess ninsp attempted to do so. To bad it made no sense.

Originally Posted by ninsp

It's literally in the phrase, buddy. It needs no explanation. What buzzard did was attempt to make an equivalency which has little to no bearing on the topic at hand. You know, a false equivalency fallacy.

A "false equivalence fallacy" (or "false equivalency phallus," because English is unique in that it allows you to switch syllables between words for no reason) is when one claims two entities are identical because they share some property, even if they do not share others. Object 1 has properties x, y, and z. Object 2 has properties a, b, and x. It would be false equivalence to conclude that Object 1 and Object 2 are identical because they share property x. For example, if I were to say "oranges are round and stars are round; therefore, oranges and stars are the same," that would be false equivalence.

I've also seen some people use "false equivalence" synonymously wit "false balance." That is when one presents two opposing arguments as equally reasonable and meriting equal consideration, despite the fact that evidence or logic clearly favours one over the other. For example, if one were to say "the jury is still out" on whether evolution or creationism better explains the origins of species.

Your definition is unrecognizable to me. You are saying buzzard "made an equivalency" that was irrelevant to the topic at hand. False equivalence is not a fallacy of relevance (and what buzzard posted was indeed relevant to the topic of language in the DNC's charter), but more a fallacy of defective induction.

It probably would had been better to go for "false analogy," but then you would be tasked with explaining the properties that make the things buzzard compared disanalogous.

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by ninsp

One woman?

And that woman's name?

Hillary Clinton.

[buzzard]

A friendly moderator really ought to sticky a glossary of terms so as to potentially shield members like Poots from embarrassment.

Those insecurities of his will be all flared up like a redhead with hay fever, now.

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by Poots

hmmm, that's a tough one. One was the DNC charter that mentioned the Constitution as being the binding central document of it's ideology, and the other one was McDonald's mission statement about how they are going to make the best hamburgers in the world. I wish I could do better, but I have to admit that these two things are so similar that you can draw inferences about one by looking at the other. Damn you logic!

It would probably be helpful to keep in mind that "disanalogous" does not mean "of unequal gravity."

Now try again.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by reprise85

ever heard of the electoral college bud

That process is not a hindrance to a vote per person. It's there so the politicians pay attention to less populated states and regions.