Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
You really need to stop truncating my statements mid sentence.
Do you understand what the word "or" means?
Yes, I do. Do you? It means that if either condition is true, then the resulting claim is true. I can drive to work taking route A *or* route B. If either route is available, then I can drive to work. To prove I can't drive to work, you must prove that both routes are unavailable.
Quote:
If you posit "They meant X or Y" and I ask for an example of them meaning X, throwing a pouty fit and saying "NO! Only talk about Y!!!" isn't really a valid response.
Except I'm not saying that we must only talk about Y. I'm saying we can't *only* talk about X, because X is just one of the two "or" conditions. To disprove my claim, you must prove both X and Y are false. But you cut out the one that was true, quoted just the half of the "or" statement that was false, and tried to pretend that this meant my claim was false.
It's a completely valid response for me to point out that you failed to disprove both conditions, which is required to disprove a "or" argument.
Quote:
But we're agreed then I take it that no one was actually suggesting that Clinton would have enough delegates to outright win the nomination by early March as you previously claimed and you were just making shit up that sounded good (as usual)? Good.
Sure. But that's a meaningless statement. And one I never claimed was true. No one was claiming that she would (or even could, since I'm pretty sure that sufficient delegates aren't even available by that point in time). What was being claimed was that Clinton would have a large enough lead, and enough momentum, that no one else would still be in the running by early March. The expectation was that Clinton would be so far ahead of Sanders by that point, that he'd either drop out, or, if he stayed in, would be such a non-factor that Clinton would not have to spend any effort maintaining her lead and could focus on the general election instead. In fact, that's exactly what the article I linked earlier said.
And that's what has not actually happened. It's just funny to me the lengths to which you'll go to try to spin this. Who do you think you're kidding here? I mean, I toss out a condition for sewing up a nomination involving having already obtained a majority of delegates (again, while not claiming this was the case in question), and you practically jumped at it, like a drowning man reaching for a life raft, in order to try make a pathetic case for Clinton really doing fine, no one expected her to do better, etc, etc, etc.
Again. Who do you think you're fooling? She has failed massively to meet expectations. I'm not sure how you can continue to deny this. No one thought Sanders was going to be anything more than a convenient punching bag for Clinton, so she could make a show of going through the motions of a "real" primary, and get a little practice in before the main event. If 6 months ago, you'd asked anyone what the pledged delegate count would be at this point in the race, no one would have Sanders anywhere close to his current count. If that's not under performing on Clinton's part, then I'm not sure what could possibly qualify in your eyes.
Edited, Apr 6th 2016 8:30pm by gbaji