Posted on 05 May 2016 - 09:09 AM
TrendE wrote
SolrRaze wrote...
Well, let's just put it like this; she is being investigated by the FBI for a reason.
Well thats something i had no clue about.
Posted on 05 May 2016 - 09:40 AM
since cruz and kasich are gone i am going on board with hillaryLast edited on 05 May 2016 - 10:09 AM by SkellyBot
I'm on the same boat as you. I honestly am rooting for Trump. I'm not getting into it too much, but one of the main reasons I want him to win is that I want to see how it'll work out in general.People are oblivious to the truth. They just join the bandwagon and say Trump is shit etc without knowing anything. No one else running is any good either. Trump just gets more publicity as he's a more controversial character.
There's more that went into my thought process but in class rn so pce!
edit:
I don't understand why people call Trump "racist." I mean, he's literally just enforcing an existing law. Once again, people don't know what they're talking about.
Posted on 05 May 2016 - 12:11 PM
SkellyBot wrote
People are oblivious to the truth. They just join the bandwagon and say Trump is shit etc without knowing anything. No one else running is any good either. Trump just gets more publicity as he's a more controversial character.
There's more that went into my thought process but in class rn so pce!
edit:
I don't understand why people call Trump "racist." I mean, he's literally just enforcing an existing law. Once again, people don't know what they're talking about.
One of the main reasons that I support Trump is because he's going to destroy the system, and allow for free speech; which includes hate speech. This will be a real kick to SJW groups such as Feminists, which will hopefully be the end of them (This isn't talking about the 'Traditional' Feminists, which aren't even really needed that much anymore since believing in gender equality is the norm now, and doesn't need a cultural movement/sub-group to ensure progress).
It's funny because I've firmly called out my friends and family on why they don't like the idea of a Trump Whitehouse, and at first I was almost afraid to admit that I flip flopped from Sanders to Trump; but they soon gave in to the facts, and reality of it; as opposed to the blatant lies and bandwagons that they've adopted.
Posted on 05 May 2016 - 12:12 PM
Mr_Bloxley wrote
Was Cruz honestly ever an option? Also, how is Hilary the fall-back plan here?
Posted on 05 May 2016 - 12:45 PM
Donald Trump. So happy to hear here beat the GOP Establishment and is on his way to the white house. BUILD THAT WALLPosted on 05 May 2016 - 12:45 PM
TrendE wrote
Mr_Bloxley wrote...
Was Cruz honestly ever an option? Also, how is Hilary the fall-back plan here?
Hillary is the fall back because like Cruz and Kasich she is a corporate shill.
Last edited on 05 May 2016 - 01:32 PM by TrendE
Defund wrote
Erect the wall!
Last edited on 05 May 2016 - 03:13 PM by Aefunix
Mr_Bloxley wrote
Logan no dont do that
Posted on 05 May 2016 - 03:37 PM
SolrRaze wrote
TrendE wrote...
She bad or somethin??? I have no clue about this stuff lol just know that trump isnt president material lel
Posted on 05 May 2016 - 04:06 PM
I vote for GODchutiPosted on 05 May 2016 - 04:12 PM
I support Trump and believe he will win.#MAGA
Posted on 05 May 2016 - 05:35 PM
Bernie all the wayPosted on 05 May 2016 - 07:45 PM
JacobArnold wrote
Dude Bernie Sanders is economically illiterate.
I would know I've read Hayek B)
Posted on 05 May 2016 - 07:45 PM
FunkyFactions wrote
#MAGA
MAGA
HIGH ENERGY POSTER RIGHT HERE
Last edited on 06 May 2016 - 04:16 PM by ItsTene
TrendE wrote
ItsTene wrote...
I can't back the fact that you're insanely stupid with statistics, which just stands as my evidence really: the fact that you asked for statistics to prove that you're a moron, or alternatively if you didn't mean that sentence to be directed at that point, then it proves that you cannot string a sentence together. Take your pick.
Besides, have you got any statistics that back up your statements?
I can't back up that you're insanely stupid
Your random-ass triggered ad hominem attack is amusing.
…with statistics
What? What are you even talking about? I never brought up any statistics…? I'm asking you for some FACTS OR EVIDENCE to prove your points and not FEELINGS.
…which stands as my evidence really
Wait a second…
1. Gets asked for statistics
2. Claims opponent is stupid with statistics but doesn't know how opponent handles statistics
3. Claims that the made up fact that I don't know how to handle statistics therefore works as evidence to prove point
>logic
The fact that you asked for statistics to prove you're a moron
Okay if I understand what you're saying correctly there are several things erroneous with that form of reasoning.
#1) This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent (not exactly sure but it seems to follow a very similar pattern). To illustrate here is a breakdown of your reasoning.
Premise A) I asked for statistics
Conclusion) Therefore, I am a moron
This works backwards as well
Premise A) I am a moron
Conclusion) Therefore, I asked for statistics
Not everyone who is a moron asks for statistics and not everyone who asks for statistics is a moron.
#2)Calling me a moron is an ad homiem attack
#3) This is also a logical fallacy known as begging the question. Your conclusion is circular.
Premise A) I asked for statistics
Why?
Conclusion A) Because I am a moron
Why?
Premise B) I asked for statistics
These are both unfounded assertions.
If you didn't mean for that sentence to be directed at that point…proves you don't know how to string a sentence together
Oh I definitely meant it.
Posted on 06 May 2016 - 05:32 PM
ItsTene wrote
TrendE wrote...
I can't back up that you're insanely stupid
Your random-ass triggered ad hominem attack is amusing.
…with statistics
What? What are you even talking about? I never brought up any statistics…? I'm asking you for some FACTS OR EVIDENCE to prove your points and not FEELINGS.
…which stands as my evidence really
Wait a second…
1. Gets asked for statistics
2. Claims opponent is stupid with statistics but doesn't know how opponent handles statistics
3. Claims that the made up fact that I don't know how to handle statistics therefore works as evidence to prove point
>logic
The fact that you asked for statistics to prove you're a moron
Okay if I understand what you're saying correctly there are several things erroneous with that form of reasoning.
#1) This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent (not exactly sure but it seems to follow a very similar pattern). To illustrate here is a breakdown of your reasoning.
Premise A) I asked for statistics
Conclusion) Therefore, I am a moron
This works backwards as well
Premise A) I am a moron
Conclusion) Therefore, I asked for statistics
Not everyone who is a moron asks for statistics and not everyone who asks for statistics is a moron.
#2)Calling me a moron is an ad homiem attack
#3) This is also a logical fallacy known as begging the question. Your conclusion is circular.
Premise A) I asked for statistics
Why?
Conclusion A) Because I am a moron
Why?
Premise B) I asked for statistics
These are both unfounded assertions.
If you didn't mean for that sentence to be directed at that point…proves you don't know how to string a sentence together
Oh I definitely meant it.
Last edited on 06 May 2016 - 06:45 PM by TrendE
ItsTene wrote
TrendE wrote...
I can't back up that you're insanely stupid
Your random-ass triggered ad hominem attack is amusing.
…with statistics
What? What are you even talking about? I never brought up any statistics…? I'm asking you for some FACTS OR EVIDENCE to prove your points and not FEELINGS.
…which stands as my evidence really
Wait a second…
1. Gets asked for statistics
2. Claims opponent is stupid with statistics but doesn't know how opponent handles statistics
3. Claims that the made up fact that I don't know how to handle statistics therefore works as evidence to prove point
>logic
The fact that you asked for statistics to prove you're a moron
Okay if I understand what you're saying correctly there are several things erroneous with that form of reasoning.
#1) This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent (not exactly sure but it seems to follow a very similar pattern). To illustrate here is a breakdown of your reasoning.
Premise A) I asked for statistics
Conclusion) Therefore, I am a moron
This works backwards as well
Premise A) I am a moron
Conclusion) Therefore, I asked for statistics
Not everyone who is a moron asks for statistics and not everyone who asks for statistics is a moron.
#2)Calling me a moron is an ad homiem attack
#3) This is also a logical fallacy known as begging the question. Your conclusion is circular.
Premise A) I asked for statistics
Why?
Conclusion A) Because I am a moron
Why?
Premise B) I asked for statistics
These are both unfounded assertions.
If you didn't mean for that sentence to be directed at that point…proves you don't know how to string a sentence together
Oh I definitely meant it.
Finally. He's snapped. That took a while. I'd certainly respond to this if it wasn't late at night, and if I was capable of writing a proper response, or if this hadn't been dragging on for ages - maybe tomorrow if I remember.
What's funny though, just from skim reading it is that you've totally mis-interpreted what I was referring to and at least half of your argument here seems to be made redundant because of it. Like I said, I skim-read half of it, and stopped after that since I'm too tired - so I may be wrong myself.
Edit: I just skim-read the rest and it appears that your whole argument is just you misunderstanding my basic response, and completely over-analysing it. This actually looks quite funny to be honest and hopefully I remember to reply tomorrow morning.
Posted on 06 May 2016 - 07:55 PM
SmellyPenguin wrote
Ok time to get the bleach.
Posted on 06 May 2016 - 08:28 PM
Trump.