TFW all you want is a robust, factual, data-driven debate with citations about an interesting topic, but all you get in reply are declarative statements, replies of "irrelevant!" on the *central* topic, but no data, and, of course, blocked!
ah, Twitter debates...time wasted...
ah, Twitter debates...time wasted...
Rob Reiner stated that "The vast majority of our country is progressive. " & stated a case for "pure" representative democracy (ignoring Socrates and other tragedies of mob rule), lumping gerrymandering, voter suppressions in with the Electoral College!
After citing data on Voter Reigstration (40% D), Voter Pariticpation (60% of elligible voters), the 2016 Presidential Election (48.6% D), I made the case that the Democratic Party did not hold a majority of voters, but a minority of <50%, and much less for entire US population!
Then, cited the Republican majority in State Governors (16/50 D), US House (193 D v 235 R), US Senate (47/100 D), the Executive Branch (0/1 D) where even Democrat representatives are a clear minority.
This was, of course, "irrelevant data"
?!
This was, of course, "irrelevant data"
?!
Then I cited, of course, An Extremely Detailed Map of the 2016 Election by the New York Times data visualization team! They have great data!
nytimes.com/interactive/20…
but, "voters vote for Democrats more" despite all the Red(Rep) and the incredibly detailed voting data presented.
nytimes.com/interactive/20…
but, "voters vote for Democrats more" despite all the Red(Rep) and the incredibly detailed voting data presented.
It all falls on deaf ears.
So, I'm presenting it here
because it was a decent amount of research!
following along, almost noise-free:
and pretend most deleted tweets are "irrelevant"
resolved:
Progressives are *not* the "vast majority of our country"
So, I'm presenting it here
because it was a decent amount of research!
following along, almost noise-free:
and pretend most deleted tweets are "irrelevant"
resolved:
Progressives are *not* the "vast majority of our country"
and then,
a reply to the first objection:
a reply to the first objection:
and then,
showing that only a slim majority of people even vote:
showing that only a slim majority of people even vote:
We get into real numbers.
Majorities of any party are historically temporary.
The Electoral College protects us from the rule of the mob:
Majorities of any party are historically temporary.
The Electoral College protects us from the rule of the mob:
Here the discussion branches.
The Dems had 48% of the vote in 2016
Thie is not a *majority*
Scott brings up some points
and, we can see to end of this thread:
The Dems had 48% of the vote in 2016
Thie is not a *majority*
Scott brings up some points
and, we can see to end of this thread:
In another branch,
It seems that "one" election is not enough to have valid data.
Yet, I've shown the results of more the 700 elections,
and nationwide voter data.
It seems that "one" election is not enough to have valid data.
Yet, I've shown the results of more the 700 elections,
and nationwide voter data.
It is pretty well-established that the Democrats do not have the majority...
So, gerrymandering is brought up to try to show that Democrats actually do have more votes. Perhaps the argument could have been made that they were not fairly distributed. No.
So, gerrymandering is brought up to try to show that Democrats actually do have more votes. Perhaps the argument could have been made that they were not fairly distributed. No.
It's clear that I am opposed to gerrymandering.
I brought it up before this point.
It doesn't affect overall voter registration nor party affiliation, only elections in those rudely misshapen districts. Dems and Reps both practice this.
I brought it up before this point.
It doesn't affect overall voter registration nor party affiliation, only elections in those rudely misshapen districts. Dems and Reps both practice this.
In case it's not clear,
I am sticking to the topic at hand.
"The vast majority of our country is progressive" is a false claim.
I am sticking to the topic at hand.
"The vast majority of our country is progressive" is a false claim.
Now the data is beginning to bug my opponent, who shows no data, but makes declarative statements that I've already shown to be false "more people vote for Democrats" -- somehow this does not translate into Dems having any kind of representative majority.
All the data I've shown about voters is irrelevant to the core proposition about how people will vote progressives.
I don't understand data?
I've presented data, given a reasonable interpretation of what it means to my central argument.
(Republicans 26% + Independents 28% + Other 1%) > Democrats (40%)
I've presented data, given a reasonable interpretation of what it means to my central argument.
(Republicans 26% + Independents 28% + Other 1%) > Democrats (40%)
In the middle of a reply, I am no longer permitted to respond.
There has been no data, no definitions, no clarification as to how my data is irrelevant and only declarative statements.
There has been no data, no definitions, no clarification as to how my data is irrelevant and only declarative statements.
It's like Monty Python's
Argument Clinic
"An argument isn't just contradiction."
"Yes, it is!"
"No, it isn't"
"It can be."
"No, it can't"
"Yes, it is."
Argument Clinic
"An argument isn't just contradiction."
"Yes, it is!"
"No, it isn't"
"It can be."
"No, it can't"
"Yes, it is."
(this link doesn't work on Twitter, but you can reassemble it)
montypython.
50webs.
com/scripts/Series_3/27.htm
montypython.
50webs.
com/scripts/Series_3/27.htm
My opponent lost.
basically, for failing to participate in the discussion.
I was hoping, as usual, to find something to change my mind!
I did find a bunch of data that showed me how much of a challenge the mid-terms will be for the Democrats.
Vote!!!
basically, for failing to participate in the discussion.
I was hoping, as usual, to find something to change my mind!
I did find a bunch of data that showed me how much of a challenge the mid-terms will be for the Democrats.
Vote!!!
@threadreaderapp please unroll this!
And, if you want to see the "not available" tweets:
https:// tweettunnel . com/emilyeggbert
look around
4:31 AM UTC - 9 Oct 2018
https:// tweettunnel . com/emilyeggbert
look around
4:31 AM UTC - 9 Oct 2018
