CNN Democratic Debate

I watched the debate, but I wasn't counting personally. FiveThirtyEight is a reputable website. And they're best known for their political coverage. Nate Silver has been covering elections for years, and has become something of an authority on statistical political analysis. They were tracking the debate in realtime, and would have gotten called out thousands of times by now by their readers if their stats were off. They routinely tweak their articles to be as accurate as possible. No changes have been made to the infographic.

Your claim that no questions were asked on the subject(s) is wrong.

Originally posted by Digi
I watched the debate, but I wasn't counting personally. FiveThirtyEight is a reputable website. And they're best known for their political coverage. Nate Silver has been covering elections for years, and has become something of an authority on statistical political analysis. They were tracking the debate in realtime, and would have gotten called out thousands of times by now by their readers if their stats were off.

Your claim that no questions were asked on the subject(s) is wrong.

No you didnt read what I said, I said the only person that talked about it was Sanders, try again with a working dollar.

I'm pretty sure I did read what you wrote.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Big things to note.

Almost zero questions on foreign policy.

Zero questions on how to grow the economy.

I responded to you saying that almost zero questions were asked on foreign policy or the economy. If you'd like, scroll back a page and confirm that I'm not, I dunno, editing your quote or something.

You may have ALSO said only Bernie talked about it. But that's moving the goalposts. I quoted your exact words and showed you why they were wrong.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Out of her whole debate, you tell me one thing she said that wasn't flabbergasted bullshit. To think you can even stand to hear her voice, is almost criminal.

Despite your Hillary Derangement Syndrome, she did not 'crash and burn' in that debate. She did rather well, look at the polls. This has nothing to do with loving or hating Hillary; it's just facts.

They are clinging to her because they don't think sanders did as good as they thought. She did awful. She didn't even debate, she just redirected blame for her failures or her and her party.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm pretty sure I did read what you wrote.

I responded to you saying that almost zero questions were asked on foreign policy or the economy. If you'd like, scroll back a page and confirm that I'm not, I dunno, editing your quote or something.

You may have ALSO said only Bernie talked about it. But that's moving the goalposts. I quoted your exact words and showed you why they were wrong.

Your being disingenuous, and only quoting half my post, try again with a working dollar.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
They are clinging to her because they don't think sanders did as good as they thought. She did awful. She didn't even debate, she just redirected blame for her failures or her and her party.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your being disingenuous, and only quoting half my post, try again with a working dollar.

I read your whole post. The infographic I had to share only addressed the quoted portion. It doesn't change the fact that the statements of yours I quoted were completely wrong, and I see no other way to interpret "almost no questions asked on foreign policy/economy." It's a fairly straightforward statement. And, again, wrong.

Originally posted by Digi
I read your whole post. The infographic I had to share only addressed the quoted portion. It doesn't change the fact that the statements of yours I quoted were completely wrong, and I see no other way to interpret "almost no questions asked on foreign policy/economy." It's a fairly straightforward statement. And, again, wrong.

So when someone says something, then corrects the statement later on they are still wrong.

Shame you don't treat politicians the same way.

Try again

Heh. You corrected nothing. The Sanders comments were clearly a new thought. And you never said "Oh, maybe they DID ask questions on these things. Good thing I corrected my original opinion in the face of facts." No, your first instinct was to question the source, then be confusingly vague about what you did and didn't mean. You never once corrected your stance that they asked no questions on those topics.

Originally posted by Digi
Heh. You corrected nothing. The Sanders comments were clearly a new thought. And you never said "Oh, maybe they DID ask questions on these things. Good thing I corrected my original opinion in the face of facts." No, your first instinct was to question the source, then be confusingly vague about what you did and didn't mean.

I see you are in some sort of troll mode, a new thought superceeds the last one. Which I did,

Nice try. Are you going to continue to de rail the thread about this?

Yet you never said you were wrong about the questions. That clarification would have saved us this trouble. As it is, all you said was "I said this, not this" when your words spoke otherwise. Saying "I meant this, and was wrong about that" would have made things clear. Like I said - with more patience last post - you're being stupidly defensive about something that was easily debunked.

Not the intention to derail, of course. You're just being obtuse. The link I posted is eminently on-topic, and until our pointless little diversion here, my comments were also geared toward the topic.

Originally posted by Digi
Yet you never said you were wrong about the questions. That clarification would have saved us this trouble. As it is, all you said was "I said this, not this" when your words spoke otherwise. Saying "I meant this, and was wrong about that" would have made things clear. Like I said - with more patience last post - you're being stupidly defensive about something that was easily debunked.

Not the intention to derail, of course. You're just being obtuse. The link I posted is eminently on-topic, and until our pointless little diversion here, my comments were also geared toward the topic.

Look who's stupid now? You can't let it go. Keep derailing though.

Just watched this as I had to bring my son to the Warriors preseason game last night.

While it was less entertaining than the GOP debate, it was a much more robust discussion overall. Hillary and Bernie dominated and both did very well, Webb and O'Malley were okay-ish, and the less said about Chaffee the better.

Certainly better than the GOP debate imo, maybe because there were only 4 of them plus Chaffee.

The debate was handled different, this was intentional and obvious. But it was still a good debate.

Jim Webb

"Most Of the people in this room have private security guards with guns to defend you."

Interesting, I guess everyone there considers themself mission critical.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The debate was handled different, this was intentional and obvious. But it was still a good debate.

Agreed. There was also less mudslinging which is good. Hillary dodged a missile when Bernie rescued her about the emails, the relief on her face was visible. She had good responses imo when Anderson called her out on her flip flopping as well as when O'Malley tried to attack her. Chappie was just slapped down with a no.

With that said, i do hope Bernie gets the nomination, as for the other side i'm rooting for Rubio.

Kasich is possibly the only Republican I'd consider voting for.

Since he won't get the nomination, I consider him a likelier VP candidate for Bush than any other. So, though I don't like Bush, for practical purposes he's my rooting interest for the GOP.

On the Democratic side, I think a Hillary nomination is close to inevitable, so I don't think the discussion of rooting interests has as much merit.

I would pay good money to see a Sanders vs Trump debate.

Originally posted by Facee
I would pay good money to see a Sanders vs Trump debate.