Originally posted by Silent MasterYou're clearly misinterpreting me but I'll bite.
Sure you did and the quotes are right there for everyone to see, you're just trying to back-peddle since I asked for evidence and you know that you cannot provide any.
By virtue of the fact that the majority of Americans have overwhelmingly voted democrat for the past decade but still lost elections (2000 and 2016), I can easily assume that the majority of Americans would prefer a popular vote to EC so their will can be more properly made.
Besides the majority of our population lives concentrated in cities on coasts and leans liberal. It's in their favor to have a popular vote rather than EC, because 3 ppl in Iowa have more influence than 8 million in New York
Originally posted by Firefly218
You're clearly misinterpreting me but I'll bite.By virtue of the fact that the majority of Americans have overwhelmingly voted democrat for the past decade but still lost elections (2000 and 2016), I can easily assume that the majority of Americans would prefer a popular vote to EC so their will can be more properly made.
Besides the majority of our population lives concentrated in cities on coasts and leans liberal. It's in their favor to have a popular vote rather than EC, because 3 ppl in Iowa have more influence than 8 million in New York
I'd like to see proof that the majority of Americans have overwhelmingly voted democrat for the past decade.
Originally posted by Silent Master
According to a poll with a sample size of merely 1013 people.
A sample size of 1013 people is huge.
It's not the size, is the method the sample was selected and how they polled the sample they selected.
You could have a sample size of a mere 20 and they would be more representative of the desired population statistic than a sample size of 100,000,000.
And, as we know, gallup has definitely f***ed up majorly on some things but did really well on others.
Look, here is a website where the people overwhelmingly still support the electoral college:
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/11/poll_should_we_end_electoral_c.html
Sample size? 1,539
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Do they? How do you know? Can you prove it?Do you understand how the burden of proof works?
Not a SINGLE member of the Clinton campaign has denied that the leaked emails are authentic.
I don't have to prove it, the non denials of The Clinton campaign and the verification by Google are more than enough.
I have a VERY clear understanding how the burden of proof works.
Given that "Burden of proof" YOU have to prove what the Clinton's themselves have never attempted. Namely...
That the WikiLeaks emails are fake
Originally posted by dadudemon
A sample size of 1013 people is huge.It's not the size, is the method the sample was selected and how they polled the sample they selected.
You could have a sample size of a mere 20 and they would be more representative of the desired population statistic than a sample size of 100,000,000.
And, as we know, gallup has definitely f***ed up majorly on some things but did really well on others.
Look, here is a website where the people overwhelmingly still support the electoral college:
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/11/poll_should_we_end_electoral_c.html
Sample size? 1,539
Don't really follow polls very much, so that is news to me. thank you for the info.
Originally posted by Silent Masteryou got the statistical evidence you demanded and now it doesn't count because you don't believe in the only way of getting that evidence. All the time acting superior and in the right. obnoxious posturing boy.
That isn't what I said, I just pointed out that it has an extremely small sample size and let's face it, polls are often wrong. just look at all the polls that had Clinton winning.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Well the democrats won the popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012 and now 2016. That's spanning almost 2 decades.
Your claim was that the majority of Americans overwhelmingly voted democrat for the last decade. in none of the years you listed did the majority of the VAP(voting age population) vote for the Dems.
So all you've done is prove that you lied, so thank you.
Originally posted by Silent MasterUmmmm of the ppl who voted, a majority voted democrat...
Your claim was that the majority of Americans overwhelmingly voted democrat for the last decade. in none of the years you listed did the majority of the VAP(voting age population) vote for the Dems.So all you've done is prove that you lied, so thank you.
Now you're just being butthurt
Originally posted by Firefly218
Ummmm of the ppl who voted, a majority voted democrat...Now you're just being butthurt
That wasn't your original claim. I'll re-post your claim so that everyone can see that your changing your argument.
Originally posted by Firefly218
You're clearly misinterpreting me but I'll bite.By virtue of the fact that the majority of Americans have overwhelmingly voted democrat for the past decade but still lost elections (2000 and 2016), I can easily assume that the majority of Americans would prefer a popular vote to EC so their will can be more properly made.
Besides the majority of our population lives concentrated in cities on coasts and leans liberal. It's in their favor to have a popular vote rather than EC, because 3 ppl in Iowa have more influence than 8 million in New York
Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
I have a VERY clear understanding how the burden of proof works.
No, you do not. See examples:
Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
Not a SINGLE member of the Clinton campaign has denied that the leaked emails are authentic.I don't have to prove it, the non denials of The Clinton campaign and the verification by Google are more than enough.
. . . Given that "Burden of proof" YOU have to prove what the Clinton's themselves have never attempted. Namely...
[b]That the WikiLeaks emails are fake
[/B]
For a vast majority of ppl, voting is a subjective decision and an not objective one. It is guided by the opinion of the public and it is the task of the canditate's campaign to mold their candidate's image into something palatable to the voting public at large.
While it is true that the wikileaks emails are not definitive proof, it was still the decision of the DNC campaign to ignore the emails and they are the ones asking ppl for their votes. They rolled the dice and this is the outcome.
While you may well be right in feeling that the voting public is gullible for believing the emails or not address them sufficiently even tho they were not 100% verified (or were they? Can someone correct me here?), the true fault lies in the DNC campaign in not adressing them while they had the chance.
Essentially: don't blame X for not buying Y's product over a misconception when Y had adequate opportunity (and time) to correct this misconception.
That is my opinion, anyway.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i saw your non-reply. you demanded evidence and then ignored that evidence. that's why i called you a joke.
If you had read the post I directed you to, you'd have seen that he corrected me about the poll and I thanked him for doing so. that is the way adults debate. maybe you should try it sometime, instead of just insulting everyone that disagrees with you.
Originally posted by Silent Master
If you had read the post I directed you to, you'd have seen that he corrected me about the poll and I thanked him for doing so. that is the way adults debate. maybe you should try it sometime, instead of just insulting everyone that disagrees with you.
you ignored evidence that YOU demanded, and refused to concede the point when it was given.
that's why you presently look like an empty-posturing boy who should be roundly ignored.