Reply #232: No, I'm that confident because I'm right. Things aren't irrelevant just because you say so.

[jsmirman]

What your post really amounts to is a random selection of what you consider relevant and irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant to note that the Iowa Caucuses have been held for more than one hundred years, whereas the practice of changing votes that do not count into votes that do count, is - to my knowledge - a relatively recent one? Because you say so?

How could it possibly be irrelevant that the system, for better or for worse, was signed onto by all the candidates, as it has been in election after election, while I don't believe any of the candidates signed on to the idea of the Florida votes counting? Oh, that's right. They actually signed on to a pledge that said THE OPPOSITE.

But the fact that we have something that all candidates agreed to on one hand and then another thing that is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what all the candidates agreed to on the other hand is suddenly irrelevant. Because you say so. Riiiight.

So you didn't bring up Michigan in this part of the thread. However, elsewhere, you said that Clinton, who DID bring up Michigan was "spot fucking on." Can't imagine why I'd think that was ground worth covering.

Next, we have your fascinating dismissal of the value and purpose of campaigning. Apparently, because - and I just can't type out your fucking stupid name, because it's too stupid, so- YOU - say so, the Florida people had plenty opportunity to get to know the candidates. Because YOU deem it sufficient, all campaigning in Florida would have been superfluous. Now, it can't be that the less campaigning that is done, the more it favors the candidate with name recognition, could it? And it can't be that Hillary has maintained popularity in the state by playing the "poor me, poor us" card, could it?

But let's return to the hilarious assertion that because YOU say so, we can invalidate the whole idea of campaigning. Because this twit on DU insists it is so- think on this, everyone- all the time the candidates spend traveling from end to end of a state, all the rallies they attend, the multi-millions they spend on advertising- all WORTHLESS! Hosannah!

Now how could that be? Politicians work themselves nearly to the nub with their busy campaign schedules. Experienced and sometimes brilliant campaign advisers recommend the spending of all that money on advertising. Obama spends all of our money on it. Hell, Hillary is willing to bankrupt herself to do it. But because YOU say it has no bearing, no meaning, but because YOU say that the people of Florida were sufficiently reached, I guess all of that overwhelming argument in favor of campaigning and advertising should be invalidated. Brilliant.

Apparently, people in Florida own TVs and Obama ran a SINGLE national ad. And YOU say that should have been enough.

But the last part is the choicest, because it's the part where you really can't pull off the magic you seek. No matter how many votes were cast, no matter how much you want to jump up and down until you're blue in the face and say "they count!" you still can't turn votes that were cast with the explicit knowledge that they would not count into votes that do count. You're not Jesus and you can't turn that water into the wine you need.

Votes that do not count cannot be transformed magically into votes that do count. Except that according to you, they can, because you say so. Because you've set some magical threshold whereby if we cross this imaginary line, the magic transformation can take place. I don't recall reading in the pledge or in the decree of the DNC to the people in Florida anything that said, "Ok, your votes don't count. However, if you cast enough of them, they do count." See that didn't exist.

And here's a finishing peach- "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."

Riiiight. Because, I dunno, the Obama campaign isn't known for having a certain strength in... turning out voters and registering new voters in unprecedented numbers. Nope, it's not like that's been our bread and butter in nearly every state where we've kicked Hillary's ass.

Good one.

And what, suddenly having a requisite sample size is enough to confer legitimacy on a result? What fucking planet are you living on?

Whether our version of presidential caucuses are different or not from the caucuses that exist in other countries, I invite you to share with us the great reams of international mockery they have exposed us to. We're all ears. What they are is a slightly arcane, somewhat flawed, long accepted and many times over validated part of our political process. They have been used many, many times in nominee selection without complaint. What they are not is something completely illegitimate and without precedent which is the process of saying "these votes don't count- oh, wait, you got enough of them- ok, now they count!" That has no precedent, has never been validated, and, to my memory has never even been argued for.

The idea that because you don't like a part of the system, that can suddenly justify the processing of votes that didn't count into votes that do count is just absurd.

Heck, I'm not crazy about the electoral college, but funny how no matter how long I held my breath, no one was willing to change that part of the 2000 Election fiasco.

You can call this a whipping, an exposure of the absurdity of your arguments, or whatever you would like. What remains is that "because you said so" is not a winning rationale.









:hi: