Reply #230: You're That Cocky After Such An Amateur And Weak Argument? ROFLMAO!!!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Whole lotta words, not ONE legitimate defense as to why the results of caucuses yield a more representative result than that of the record breaking florida vote. Not one. You provided nothing but fluff and irrelevance, yet made no case whatsoever as to why caucuses represent the will of democratic voters in a way more valid than the record breaking millions that voted in Florida. Yet having failed to do so or even come close to doing so, you step up on your flimsy stool and declare victory like a dolt. How embarrassing for you.



"First, you state that caucuses would be laughed at around the world. Is this just staggering ignorance or were you hoping that no one here would know the truth? Because caucuses ARE currently used IN MANY PLACES AROUND THE WORLD. In fact, many of our most prominent allies use them to guide hugely important procedures in their governments. See ENGLAND. See NEW ZEALAND. See AUSTRALIA. See CANADA. But good work. It's only paragraph one and already you've had your ass handed to you."

Tell me oh wise one: Do any of them use them to elect a President? But who even cares. What I laugh at the most is your insinuation that the caucuses in those nations are comparable or equal to the caucuses we are speaking of here. They're not. Right off the bat you let your amateur and even embarrassing logic shine through. How sad for you.


"Second, there is the question of their legitimacy. Do I think that caucuses are an ideal format? No."

You're right, they're not.

"Am I quite certain that they are part of an agreed upon format that all the candidates signed on for and made not one peep about prior to the primary/caucus season? Yep."

Irrelevant


"Do they have a long history? Yep, a history as long as the history of our country- in fact, a history longer than that of our country, even on this very continent."

Irrelevant. Also see point one. Incomparable.


"Now is there a proud tradition of elections where only one major candidate is on a ballot, because only that one candidate has refused to abide by her own signed pledge? No. No there is not."

Haven't mentioned Michigan. I'm talking about Florida. Irrelevant.



"Is there a proud tradition of elections where no campaigning or communicating with the people is allowed prior to voting? Well, to an extent there is, as candidates themselves viewed it as beneath them to make direct appeals to the people. But there is surely no tradition of this sort of absence of campaigning existing in a world where campaigning and communicating with the people is the rule of the day."

The people of florida knew both candidates more than well enough to let their intentions be known. Do you think they don't have tv's? Do you think they don't read the paper? Do you think they live in caves? Do you hear outcries from people there that with what they know now, they would've never voted for Hillary? Isn't Hillary still whipping the shit out of Obama there as it relates to polls? Did Obama not have a national ad running during that time? Do you think the people of florida are that stupid that they didn't know the candidates well enough to make a valid choice? All of them in record breaking numbers? You need to get a grip son.



"Most importantly, is there a tradition of holding an election under circumstances where votes are explicitly described as not counting and then counting those very votes? No. Of course not. To suggest so is to be absurd, but then, that's not a stretch for you, is it?"

1.7 million voted. 1.7 million. Record breaking numbers. Sorry pal, but ya can't tell me that made people stay home. You can't tell me with any integrity that people went to the polls and said "ya know, if it counted I'd vote for Obama, but since it doesn't I'm voting for Hillary". To wage such an argument would be flat out dumb. 1.7 million people went and voted. There is no legitimate nor intelligent reason to believe whatsoever that those that didn't go for such reasons, would've been slanted to any statistically significant degree to any candidate. Your argument has no merit. 1.7 million. Yeah, I'd say that's one hell of a sample as far as intention towards a candidate is concerned.


You failed and failed big. You not only failed to give ANY reason as to why the results of caucuses are more legitimate than that of the vote in florida, but the points you did try to make were amateurish, weak and laughable.

So yes, I enjoyed my schooling quite much, thank you. In fact, I'm still laughin my ass off from it! :rofl:

Buh-bye.