Moderator: Uccisore
jerkey wrote:It's not that I like them or don't. Both Your and mine sources are secondary, and have bias.
But the thing is, Uccisore, my inclination and leaning is toward what was characterized earlier on, as primary identification with the philosophical argument
nderpinnings within historical contexts, which go directly to the heart of another vpcharacterization of the Republican Party, that is fearful and holding their
ground. I am trying to sustain continuity, whereas
Now, here comes Trump who has true to prediction did become president, and he also is trying to curb judicial power, by going around process.
.The unconstitutionally of some of his actions have been pointed to,
jerkey wrote:OK.
I see your point, but you, ok we, are missing something. The forum is set up to make a choice between two opposing, or different points of view, where we are heading.
and this is why, the Republican Party is re-forming itself, rather than the other way.
There is no need to read other opinions on this, since most opinions are formed from others.
So far, there is an air of mystery and deception on the face of what can be observed, not merely , literally on the face of Trump, but on the changing, collusively inescapable show of the lack of a clear motive or program/objective on the part of this Republican administration.
Uccisore wrote:What is with this habit of spouting incoherent gibberish when you don't have a substantial point to make? Wouldn't silence be preferable? I can understand not wanting to think about or address the things I've said, but I don't
understand making it so obvious. Why say a bunch of shit that we both know doesn't actually mean anything, when you could have just posted a link to
your source on Trump's popularity numbers?
jerkey wrote:Check on any poll on his sinking popularity then you wouldn't call it a bunch of ...
Mr Reasonable wrote:Ucc has a lot of trouble understanding the difference between data and propaganda. Like he thinks that if he posts, "proof" of something from infowars, that you have to post something from another fake news site or else he's
giving you data and you're not backing up your claims.
You can really tell that he doesn't understand much of philosophy.
jerkey wrote:It doesent, but, I am just countering the assertion that polls show that his popularity is rising.
Whether the poll is an adequate presentation is another matter.
So, One could say, yeah, you said it's rising, but hey, another says that it is sinking. See, now what is the truth?
The assertion can be made either way, and the point is, a You introduced the poll as evidence, so I was justified in using other polls to show another story,
The fact is, that if polls can not present the true state of affairs adequetly, at least hey may have a not so well as nderstood function of changing opinions. But that too goes either way.
Uccisore wrote:Xunzian wrote: Good dude. Anyway, Bernie was supposed to be "red meat" for "the base" like Kucinich and Sharpton. They aren't actually going to win but they do a lot to motivate core constituencies that vote. it's an easy strategy for a coronation primary.
Depends on who you're putting the intentionality on the 'supposed to' there. Maybe he was supposed to be that for the people in his camp that actually wanted him to win, but for the DNC, he was supposed to generation donations from millennials and others that would be either supporting the Green party or else completely disaffected- and that's what happened. He was never intended to win or even do well. That the DNC transparently shafted him, then put the person most responsible for that shafting in charge of the HRC campaign right in front of everybody certainly didn't help.Republicans are straight up evil dude. Opposing them makes sense. It is 100% warrented. Always has been. That he is a standard Republican isn't shocking. That just means we have to oppose him more.
That's the kind of attitude that will continue the DNC's transition to being a regional party.
Uccisore wrote:jerkey wrote:It doesent, but, I am just countering the assertion that polls show that his popularity is rising.
Whether the poll is an adequate presentation is another matter.
So, One could say, yeah, you said it's rising, but hey, another says that it is sinking. See, now what is the truth?
Well, in all likelihood the truth is somewhere in the middle- I wouldn't be surrpised if his popularity is going down a little bit over the past few days. His news hasn't been that great lately. But it's certainly not plummeting enough to speculate wildly about and come up with some theory to explain it.The assertion can be made either way, and the point is, a You introduced the poll as evidence, so I was justified in using other polls to show another story,
But you DIDN'T use another poll. You just declared my poll didn't count, and then re-asserted your opinion based on nothing as far as I know. I still have no idea what your source is that Trump's popularity is tanking, or if you just made it up.The fact is, that if polls can not present the true state of affairs adequetly, at least hey may have a not so well as nderstood function of changing opinions. But that too goes either way.
But you're not the 'it could go either way' guy. You're the 'every single thing I say on these forums is about how horrible Trump is' guy, remember? You create a thread attacking him, usually based on false information, on a weekly or daily basis. So what's this 'who knows what's really going on' stuff coming from? You obviously carry on as if you do.
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users