2020 Primaries

#5,154
#5,154
OHvol40 said:
You’re obviously not open to changing your stance or even addressing the issue, and you’d like to talk more about me than the matter at hand, so why bother? I don’t have a duty to convince you of something you refuse to be convinced of, but as I’ve said before, you’re in the minority on this amongst Americans.
Click to expand...

What in the hell are you talking about? You haven't even attempted to convince anyone of anything. You made bald assertions about "fairness" while refusing to define that very concept, which your entire assertion hinges on. How do you expect anyone to change their stance? Much less accuse someone of "obviously" closing themselves off to the possibility of changing?

Again... You haven't even made an argument.

And it's a bit cowardly to whine like you have about the impossibility of changing the EC, while refusing to make a rational argument against it, and then fall back to some "I don’t have a duty to convince..." victim complex. It'll be harder than that to hide the fact that you were completely blind to the emotional basis of your stance, and just came face to face with it as you realized you have no argument.

And...

but as I’ve said before, you’re in the minority on this amongst Americans.
Click to expand...

Argument ad populum is a logical fallacy, not a rational argument or basis for justice/fairness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and Electric Orange
#5,155
#5,155
Okay now you mentioned a bar graph. I'm assuming you have one that proves most Americans want no EC?
I gotta see this graph. Sounds legit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#5,156
#5,156
Orange_Crush said:
What in the hell are you talking about? You haven't even attempted to convince anyone of anything. You made bald assertions about "fairness" while refusing to define that very concept, which your entire assertion hinges on. How do you expect anyone to change their stance? Much less accuse someone of "obviously" closing themselves off to the possibility of changing?

Again... You haven't even made an argument.

And it's a bit cowardly to whine like you have about the impossibility of changing the EC, while refusing to make a rational argument against it, and then fall back to some "I don’t have a duty to convince..." victim complex. It'll be harder than that to hide the fact that you were completely blind to the emotional basis of your stance, and just came face to face with it as you realized you have no argument.

And...



Argument ad populum is a logical fallacy, not a rational argument or basis for justice/fairness.
Click to expand...
In this case
Why bother?
 
#5,158
#5,158
Orange_Crush said:
What in the hell are you talking about? You haven't even attempted to convince anyone of anything. You made bald assertions about "fairness" while refusing to define that very concept, which your entire assertion hinges on. How do you expect anyone to change their stance? Much less accuse someone of "obviously" closing themselves off to the possibility of changing?

Again... You haven't even made an argument.

And it's a bit cowardly to whine like you have about the impossibility of changing the EC, while refusing to make a rational argument against it, and then fall back to some "I don’t have a duty to convince..." victim complex. It'll be harder than that to hide the fact that you were completely blind to the emotional basis of your stance, and just came face to face with it as you realized you have no argument.

And...



Argument ad populum is a logical fallacy, not a rational argument or basis for justice/fairness.
Click to expand...

What basis to you keep evoking emotion? We literally run every election in the country by popular vote, that’s not emotion, it’s a fact. If nothing else the people who fight tooth and nail for the EC are motivated by emotion. They’re fearful that most Americans don’t agree with them and prefer to tip the scales in their favor.

Just keep repeating the same thing and side-stepping the issue. I’m sure you’ll convince someone you’re right.
 
#5,159
#5,159
OHvol40 said:
What basis to you keep evoking emotion? We literally run every election in the country by popular vote, that’s not emotion, it’s a fact. If nothing else the people who fight tooth and nail for the EC are motivated by emotion. They’re fearful that most Americans don’t agree with them and prefer to tip the scales in their favor.

Just keep repeating the same thing and side-stepping the issue. I’m sure you’ll convince someone you’re right.
Click to expand...

Cool. Then put every senator and representative on the ballot for everyone to vote on from every state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and DynaLo
#5,164
#5,164
OHvol40 said:
What basis to you keep evoking emotion? We literally run every election in the country by popular vote, that’s not emotion, it’s a fact. If nothing else the people who fight tooth and nail for the EC are motivated by emotion. They’re fearful that most Americans don’t agree with them and prefer to tip the scales in their favor.

Just keep repeating the same thing and side-stepping the issue. I’m sure you’ll convince someone you’re right.
Click to expand...

You're the one who based your argument on the undefined concept of "fair", and are yet to found it despite my repeated requests. You obviously can't do it. I'm not sure ow yu could have expected to have had any sway in discussion at all.

And you seem to be struggling with some internal contradictions. Your argument a coupe of pages ago was that it's impossible to get the EC changed. Now you're trying to convince me that EC supporters are afraid of a supposed popular opinion on the matter?

You really need to step back, take a break, and get your thoughts in order.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#5,167
#5,167
Orange_Crush said:
You're the one who based your argument on the undefined concept of "fair", and are yet to found it despite my repeated requests. You obviously can't do it. I'm not sure ow yu could have expected to have had any sway in discussion at all.

And you seem to be struggling with some internal contradictions. Your argument a coupe of pages ago was that it's impossible to get the EC changed. Now you're trying to convince me that EC supporters are afraid of a supposed popular opinion on the matter?

You really need to step back, take a break, and get your thoughts in order.
Click to expand...
Common definition of fair (can’t believe I have to hold your hand through this concept, I feel like a grade school teacher): lack of favoritism toward one side or the other.
 
#5,171
#5,171
OHvol40 said:
Common definition of fair (can’t believe I have to hold your hand through this concept, I feel like a grade school teacher): lack of favoritism toward one side or the other.
Click to expand...
in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate. (Seems to me that you're fighting against fairness since you're fighting against the rule of law.)

See? We can both quote definitions.

Now, for what I've been asking for: Make the rational argument why it's more fair for 1-person-1-vote. You've ignored two distinctions that I've made and asked for.

Is it fair for several men to rape a woman? One person, one vote. Right?

Is it fair for a collective to vote you out of your own personal property. One person, one vote.

Or no?

I think you'd agree that neither was fair, so again... You obviously still have meat on the bone.

You have a rational argument to make as to why a popular vote is more fair when it allows the interests of a few geographic locations/states to deny the interests of far more geographic locations/states.
 
#5,172
#5,172
They are so pissed and downvoting me like crazy on Bernie's second site, r/politics. I love it. Serves them right for how they treated our campaign. **** them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#5,174
#5,174
Orange_Crush said:
in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate. (Seems to me that you're fighting against fairness since you're fighting against the rule of law.)

See? We can both quote definitions.

Now, for what I've been asking for: Make the rational argument why it's more fair for 1-person-1-vote. You've ignored two distinctions that I've made and asked for.

Is it fair for several men to rape a woman? One person, one vote. Right?

Is it fair for a collective to vote you out of your own personal property. One person, one vote.

Or no?

I think you'd agree that neither was fair, so again... You obviously still have meat on the bone.

You have a rational argument to make as to why a popular vote is more fair when it allows the interests of a few geographic locations/states to deny the interests of far more geographic locations/states.
Click to expand...

you beg me to define fairness and then discount a generic definition because you don’t like it. Lol good lord you’re disingenuous.
 
#5,175
#5,175
hog88 said:
Then all they have to do is change the constitution. Quit bitchin and get to work.
Click to expand...

It took us 150 years to give women the right the vote... forgive my skepticism that small population states will willingly give up their undeserved disproportionate influence on presidential elections.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top