Jump to content

What are Democrats thinking?


InDefenseOfPOMO

Recommended Posts

The Terrible Travis
10 minutes ago, Nevyn said:

They didn't. The popular vote is an interesting metric but little else. The States elect their representatives to look after the interests of the people of their states, which means they cast their vote according to the majority winner in their state. Why should the people who live in different states get to influence that?

They objectively did, this is not debatable. 

 

And the answer to your question is because the person who wins the most votes should never lose the election. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The person with the most Electoral College votes did win. The Presidency was never intended to go to the person with the popular votes, thats why we have a Republic. The founders felt public opinion was too easily swayed and subject to mass corruption and fraud. They also understood that the US was growing rapidly and that no single voting method was going to be representative of the nation as a whole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
43 minutes ago, Nevyn said:

The person with the most Electoral College votes did win. 

I never said otherwise. 

 

45 minutes ago, Nevyn said:

The Presidency was never intended to go to the person with the popular votes, thats why we have a Republic.

No one here denies the fact that we operate under an Electoral College system rather than a popular vote system. We're simply saying that shouldn't be the case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that. I reserve the right to make a different case and to speak my mind. Saying it isn't debatable isn't how a discussion works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
3 hours ago, Nevyn said:

I understand that. I reserve the right to make a different case and to speak my mind. Saying it isn't debatable isn't how a discussion works.

I said that it's not debatable that the person who received the most votes lost the election.  Regardless of what one thinks about the Electoral College, this is an objective fact. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most of what kind of vote? The one you think mattered or the one that mattered? Its fact that Trump is our duly elected President and he did not get the most popular vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
1 hour ago, Nevyn said:

The most of what kind of vote? The one you think mattered or the one that mattered? Its fact that Trump is our duly elected President and he did not get the most popular vote.

It's pretty obvious what kind of vote I was referring to, I don't know why you have to be disingenuous. If I were referring to the electoral votes, I would've said that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Electoral College votes were entered by a specific group of people, AFTER the election.   Standard election votes were entered by everyone in the country who voted in the election.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Terrible Travis said:

It's pretty obvious what kind of vote I was referring to, I don't know why you have to be disingenuous. If I were referring to the electoral votes, I would've said that. 

I'm being disingenuous? That one word is what keeps it from being a fact. Without it what you have is an opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
11 minutes ago, Nevyn said:

I'm being disingenuous? That one word is what keeps it from being a fact. Without it what you have is an opinion. 

This is ridiculous and I think you know it. 

 

This is like if someone said "Trump won the election" and I responded with "Well you didn't specify the general election and not the Democratic primary election so what you're saying is actually not true". 

 

It's obvious what I was talking about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Terrible Travis said:

This is ridiculous and I think you know it. 

 

This is like if someone said "Trump won the election" and I responded with "Well you didn't specify the general election and not the Democratic primary election so what you're saying is actually not true". 

 

It's obvious what I was talking about. 

Any other complaints you have for me? Please direct them to someone who cares to hear them. That ain't me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
2 minutes ago, Nevyn said:

Any other complaints you have for me? Please direct them to someone who cares to hear them. That ain't me.

In other words, you know what you said was ridiculous and can't defend it. Okay then. We're done here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, The Terrible Travis said:

In other words, you know what you said was ridiculous and can't defend it. Okay then. We're done here. 

I don't mince words and that nonsense you tried to attribute to me came from your mouth not mine. So far you've tried to use two logical fallacies against me; attacking me instead of my argument and appealing to authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
6 minutes ago, Nevyn said:

I don't mince words and that nonsense you tried to attribute to me came from your mouth not mine. So far you've tried to use two logical fallacies against me; attacking me instead of my argument and appealing to authority.

I didn't use any logical fallacies, I corrected a false statement that you made numerous times. Also seems you don't know what appealing to authority is. 

 

And I didn't attribute anything to you, I made a comparison. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, The Terrible Travis said:

I didn't use any logical fallacies, I corrected a false statement that you made numerous times. Also seems you don't know what appealing to authority is. 

 

And I didn't attribute anything to you, I made a comparison. 

You said "I don't know why you have to be disingenuous".

From Merriam Webster:

"disingenuous

adjective
dis·in·gen·u·ous | \ ˌdis-in-ˈjen-yə-wəs

 

, -yü-əs\

Definition of disingenuous

: lacking in candor also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating"

 

That's a judgement of my motives, not my argument. Therefor you passed judgment on me instead of addressing my argument itself.

 

The appeal to authority came when you said " No one here denies the fact that we operate under an Electoral College system rather than a popular vote system. We're simply saying that shouldn't be the case. " The switch from using your singular views to using a plural is appealing to the authority of others here to support your argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sally said:

Electoral College votes were entered by a specific group of people, AFTER the election.   Standard election votes were entered by everyone in the country who voted in the election.  

Electoral College votes are entered by State Representatives after voting in all of their districts have finished their tally of local votes. The Federal Election is not over until all districts and counties in the US finish that tally and the Electoral College casts its vote. Even if we were to use the popular vote (see how I used the right qualifier there) it still doesn't end until that happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
7 hours ago, Nevyn said:

You said "I don't know why you have to be disingenuous".

From Merriam Webster:

"disingenuous

adjective
 dis·in·gen·u·ous | \ ˌdis-in-ˈjen-yə-wəs

  

, -yü-əs\

Definition of disingenuous

: lacking in candor also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating"

 

That's a judgement of my motives, not my argument. Therefor you passed judgment on me instead of addressing my argument itself.

It was obvious from the beginning that I was referring to the popular vote, and I even explicitly clarified this later, yet you still pretended as if there was some sort of question as to what I was referring to. So yeah, you were being disingenuous. 

 

7 hours ago, Nevyn said:

The appeal to authority came when you said " No one here denies the fact that we operate under an Electoral College system rather than a popular vote system. We're simply saying that shouldn't be the case. " The switch from using your singular views to using a plural is appealing to the authority of others here to support your argument.

Except that's not what I did (and that's not what even what an appeal to authority is anyway, other posters on the forum don't constitute an authority). 

 

You said that "The Presidency was never intended to go to the person with the popular votes". That's a common tactic of Electoral College proponents - to act as if opponents don't understand it or the Constitution (rather than just disagreeing with it) - so I simply pointed out that no one was arguing that. I wasn't saying "Well Daveb and Sally agree with me, so that must mean I'm right!" lol. 

 

In fact, if anyone here appealed to authority, it was you - when you said "The founders felt public opinion was too easily swayed and subject to mass corruption and fraud". Your statement that "The Presidency was never intended to go to the person with the popular votes" was also an example of the appeal to tradition fallacy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointing to the people who wrote the Constitution as an authority is not an Appeal to Authority fallacy because they are an authority on it. Quiet a few wrote books and letters on the subject.

 

Anyway, I'm glad you decided not to ignore me because I have one more bone to pick with you:

 

7 hours ago, The Terrible Travis said:

I didn't use any logical fallacies, I corrected a false statement that you made numerous times. Also seems you don't know what appealing to authority is

 

And I didn't attribute anything to you, I made a comparison. 

Who exactly do you think you are to pass judgement on me or what I know? You do not know me and as far as I'm concerned you can shove your opinion of me and what I know back up whichever orifice it fell from. If you need to rely on wording like "seems" then you are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
15 minutes ago, Nevyn said:

Pointing to the people who wrote the Constitution as an authority is not an Appeal to Authority fallacy because they are an authority on it. Quiet a few wrote books and letters on the subject.

 

Anyway, I'm glad you decided not to ignore me because I have one more bone to pick with you:

 

Who exactly do you think you are to pass judgement on me or what I know? You do not know me and as far as I'm concerned you can shove your opinion of me and what I know back up whichever orifice it fell from. If you need to rely on wording like "seems" then you are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.

This post proves that I was right about you not knowing about what the appeal to authority fallacy is. 

 

You say that pointing to the Founders isn't an appeal to authority because they are an authority - when in fact that's exactly what an appeal to authority is. Why do you think it's called the appeal to authority

 

From Your Logical Fallacy on appeal to authority: 

 

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My entire argument isn't based on that however. It was used as supporting evidence on why the system is the way it is. Since when does citing authorities on a subject as supporting evidence constitute a fallacy? Here let me site a source on that:

 

" Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a valid argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources

-Underwood, R.H. (1994). "Logic and the Common law Trial". American Journal of Trial Advocacy

 

Now does that mean I automatically lost the argument just for using a source to support it?

 

Does that mean you lost the argument for appealing to other posters for supporting evidence of your claims?

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, The Terrible Travis said:

You said that "The Presidency was never intended to go to the person with the popular votes". That's a common tactic of Electoral College proponents

I'm definitely not a proponent of the Electoral College -- I think it should be abolished by a constitutional amendment.  However, I certainly agree that the Presidency was not intended to go to the popular vote, since the Founders inserted the Electoral College were worried that it would  lead to a dictatorship of the majority.  Agreeing that it was intended 200+ years ago does not equate to agreeing that it is useful now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
34 minutes ago, Nevyn said:

Does that mean you lost the argument for appealing to other posters for supporting evidence of your claims?

I didn't "appeal" to anyone, I simply stated that no one here disputes that your claim that the Presidency was never intended to go to the person with the popular votes.

 

The problem with what you said is that you tried to act as if because the Founders held a certain opinion of the EC, that's automatically the correct opinion. 

 

19 minutes ago, Sally said:

I certainly agree that the Presidency was not intended to go to the popular vote

So do I. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread is icky. any1 wan talk about the spruce goose?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Terrible Travis said:

I didn't "appeal" to anyone, I simply stated that no one here disputes that your claim that the Presidency was never intended to go to the person with the popular votes.

 

The problem with what you said is that you tried to act as if because the Founders held a certain opinion of the EC, that's automatically the correct opinion. 

 

So do I. 

Where did I say that was the correct opinion? Don't put words in my mouth. You don't speak for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
Just now, Nevyn said:

Where did I say that was the correct opinion? Don't put words in my mouth. You don't speak for me.

Where did I say that because the other posters here agree with me, that must mean I'm right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea because I've made no such claim that you have. Don't deflect. Where did I say my opinion was the only correct one? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
Just now, Nevyn said:

I have no idea because I've made no such claim that you have. Don't deflect. Where did I say my opinion was the onlycorrect one? 

You did do that, when you falsely accused me of using the appeal to authority fallacy, which I did not do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically it was an appeal to a non-authority but tomato tomatoe. I mispoke when I used authority instead. I already addressed that when I presented it, I'm not repeating myself.  I made no claim that you were relying on other posters to prove yourself right, only that you appealed to them as source of support for your argument. I see you aren't going to answer me. I'm going to assume it's becase you can't point to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
4 minutes ago, Nevyn said:

Technically it was an appeal to a non-authority but tomato tomatoe. I already addressed that when I presented it, I'm not repeating myself. I see you aren't going to answer me. I'm going to assume it's becase you can't point to it.

Your presentation was wrong. I said that no one disputes that your claim that the Presidency was never intended to go to the person with the popular votes, which is not a logical fallacy. 

 

That's how I interpreted your argument, if that's not actually what you meant, then fair enough. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What was wrong with my presentation? There are two overlying systems at work when it comes to voting in the US. Clarity is better than vagueness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...