Are you pretending that’s been your argument up to this point?
My dude, you are the one making claims. I’m just negating them as they come.
Btw, why didn’t you point out that both of them backtracked the comments?
Again… Manufactured consent. Why would two senior politicians make claims and then backtrack upon them without admitting they were wrong in the first place? Could it be that both of these politicians are dependent on the DNC for their political careers?
Just because someone is pressured into retracting a comment does not mean that it erases the material evidence the comments were based on.
I used the word argument, not claims. Are you suggesting you aren’t making an argument?
Again… Manufactured consent. Why would two senior politicians make claims and then backtrack upon them without admitting they were wrong in the first place?
So, how exactly did they rig it? You’re making some vague claims, but can point to nothing.
Yes, you made an assertion which is also known as a claim, I made a rebuttal.
Are you suggesting you aren’t making an argument?
An argument is between two sides, one making an affirmation and the other a negation. Since you were the first to make a claim, you are the affirmation. The negation of this claim is not in fact creating a new claim, or assertion.
My rebuttals are dependent on your assertions, so you are in fact steering the argument. So asking if I’m “pretending if that’s been my argument the whole time” is nonsensical.
So, how exactly did they rig it? You’re making some vague claims, but can point to nothing.
I never claimed anything was “rigged”, that’s a strawman of your own making. My rebuttals was that DNC was impartial, and the article I provided already explains how.
You are mostly arguing with yourself via shoddily applied logical fallacy.
You literally linked to two people saying it was rigged with the link text “they didn’t decide” and are now trying to argue that you never claimed it was rigged. This is amazing. You’ve got yourself so tied up trying to be right or trying not to be wrong, rather than figure out what’s right, that you don’t even know which way’s up anymore.
You literally linked to two people saying it was rigged with the link text “they didn’t decide”
Lol, the reason it’s in quotes is because it’s quoting you.
This branch of the argument derives from as a response to my original rebuttals. Which was “has the responsibility to remain impartial, and when it doesn’t, it’s not surprising that the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses”
You interpreted this as the DNC decided the election. In the article I provided, there is plenty of evidence to prove that the DNC did not remain impartial and chose to meddle the democratic process. You chose to ignore the entirety of the context to fixate on pedantry that furthers you logical fallacy.
Again, you don’t even realize you are fighting your own strawman argument.
You’ve got yourself so tied up trying to be right or trying not to be wrong, rather than figure out what’s right, that you don’t even know which way’s up anymore.
Lol, the reason it’s in quotes is because it’s quoting you.
It’s in quotes because I was quoting you. If it had been in quotes when I quoted it from you, I would have done something like “‘They didn’t decide.’” Although I wouldn’t have even done that, because I’m honest and not trying to be right. I would have wondered why I misinterpreted it. You don’t strike me as all that dumb, but to not even go and look three posts up to see if you had quoted it seems incredibly dumb, especially if you are basing your whole argument on it.
the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses.
Is what I originally said… You decided to take it out of context and change the phrasing, interpreting it as if I claimed they rigged the primaries. In reality they did decide who they thought deserves to be the president, the impartiality is clear.
You aren’t being very academically honest.
This is all moot, the original argument was that you claimed all the DNC did was write some bad email, and that’s just not true. The DNC showed a remarkable amount of bias in the primaries. All your other arguments have just been poor attempts to distract from the fact that your original statement was a lie.
They didn’t decide
Guessing you’ve never heard of the term “manufacturing consent”?
Are you pretending that’s been your argument up to this point?
Btw, why didn’t you point out that both of them backtracked the comments?
My dude, you are the one making claims. I’m just negating them as they come.
Again… Manufactured consent. Why would two senior politicians make claims and then backtrack upon them without admitting they were wrong in the first place? Could it be that both of these politicians are dependent on the DNC for their political careers?
Just because someone is pressured into retracting a comment does not mean that it erases the material evidence the comments were based on.
I used the word argument, not claims. Are you suggesting you aren’t making an argument?
So, how exactly did they rig it? You’re making some vague claims, but can point to nothing.
Yes, you made an assertion which is also known as a claim, I made a rebuttal.
An argument is between two sides, one making an affirmation and the other a negation. Since you were the first to make a claim, you are the affirmation. The negation of this claim is not in fact creating a new claim, or assertion.
My rebuttals are dependent on your assertions, so you are in fact steering the argument. So asking if I’m “pretending if that’s been my argument the whole time” is nonsensical.
I never claimed anything was “rigged”, that’s a strawman of your own making. My rebuttals was that DNC was impartial, and the article I provided already explains how.
You are mostly arguing with yourself via shoddily applied logical fallacy.
You literally linked to two people saying it was rigged with the link text “they didn’t decide” and are now trying to argue that you never claimed it was rigged. This is amazing. You’ve got yourself so tied up trying to be right or trying not to be wrong, rather than figure out what’s right, that you don’t even know which way’s up anymore.
Lol, the reason it’s in quotes is because it’s quoting you.
This branch of the argument derives from as a response to my original rebuttals. Which was “has the responsibility to remain impartial, and when it doesn’t, it’s not surprising that the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses”
You interpreted this as the DNC decided the election. In the article I provided, there is plenty of evidence to prove that the DNC did not remain impartial and chose to meddle the democratic process. You chose to ignore the entirety of the context to fixate on pedantry that furthers you logical fallacy.
Again, you don’t even realize you are fighting your own strawman argument.
Said the man to the mirror.
It’s in quotes because I was quoting you. If it had been in quotes when I quoted it from you, I would have done something like “‘They didn’t decide.’” Although I wouldn’t have even done that, because I’m honest and not trying to be right. I would have wondered why I misinterpreted it. You don’t strike me as all that dumb, but to not even go and look three posts up to see if you had quoted it seems incredibly dumb, especially if you are basing your whole argument on it.
Is what I originally said… You decided to take it out of context and change the phrasing, interpreting it as if I claimed they rigged the primaries. In reality they did decide who they thought deserves to be the president, the impartiality is clear.
You aren’t being very academically honest.
This is all moot, the original argument was that you claimed all the DNC did was write some bad email, and that’s just not true. The DNC showed a remarkable amount of bias in the primaries. All your other arguments have just been poor attempts to distract from the fact that your original statement was a lie.
Go kick rocks.