Donald Trump... Narcissist in Chief!

You're naive if you think that not a single African American voted for Obama because he would be the first black president, but I'm sure 5 minutes of searching YouTube would turn up a news report or two from 2008 with people saying just that.

As for your bonus point, being black or a woman are physical traits you're born with. Religion, policy issues, or opinions are personal choices that can change. That's the difference.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

You're naive if you think that not a single African American voted for Obama because he would be the first black president, but I'm sure 5 minutes of searching YouTube would turn up a news report or two from 2008 with people saying just that.

As for your bonus point, being black or a woman are physical traits you're born with. Religion, policy issues, or opinions are personal choices that can change. That's the difference.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I didn't say that not a single African American voted for Obama because he was black. In fact, I made no claim at all, I only asked that Shogun actual be able to back up his claim.

now that you've claimed that people voted for Obama 'just because he was black' (pretty sure he's still black btw), you need to prove, by posting verifiable data, that that happened in any significant number.

While it's true that 'searching Youtube for 5 minutes' may turn up some videos of people saying 'I voted for Obama because he was black', that doesn't mean that the ONLY reason that they voted for him was because he was black.

If those voters SOLE reason for voting for Obama was because he was black, it's reasonable to expect many of those same voters supporting Ben Carson (as the only Black man in the race from both parties). Likewise, if a voters sole reason for supporting Clinton was because she's a woman, it's reasonable to expect that many of those voters would have supported McCain/Palin in 08' solely for the reason that Sarah Palin is a woman (the only woman on the top of the Ticket for both parties) or Michelle Bachman in 2012 (the only significant female major party candidate). The reality is that candidates might have been given preference based on sex or race, but it's not the sole reason that they were being supported by those demographics or you would see crossover voting between parties. Likely the candidate were voted for because they were black AND a Democrat, or a woman AND a Democrat, which makes statements like 'people only voted for Obama because he was black' or 'people are only supporting Clinton because she's a woman' false.

Also, you didn't actually answer the bonus question. I didn't ask what the difference between single-issue voting based on race and single-issue voting based on religion was, I asked how one reason was less valid than the other. So how is voting for a Black man, because you feel that he would represent your viewpoints as a black man less valid than voting for a Catholic because you feel the he would best represent your viewpoints as a Catholic?

In the US, most white men think women are bitches and therefore will not vote for Hillary Clinton. True story.

In the US, most white men think women are bitches and therefore will not vote for Hillary Clinton. True story.

Five minutes of searching youtube showed several white men saying women are bitches. This must be true then.

The GIF in your sig. That's the way the world is headed. ;)

Just like Tungsten, now that you've claimed that people voted for Obama 'just because he was black' (pretty sure he's still black btw), you need to prove, by posting verifiable data, that that happened in any significant number.

If you can't prove your claim, you shouldn't have made it in the first place. It's called burden of proof.

For bonus points, please explain how voting for someone because they're black or a woman, is somehow less valid than voting for someone because they're Catholic or Pro-Life or any other single issue vote.

Hows about you go ahead and check the punctuation mark on the end of my sentence. I do believe that indicates it was a question and not a statement.

As for burden of proof, this isnt an essay type forum we're posting on here b/c I dont see anyone else being asked to back up their opinions via ASA style quotes and even if I did, apparently whatever source I use wouldnt be factual enough for anyone. That's just something I've learned over the years posting in NBR. If I leave breadcrumbs to follow and you cant pick up the trail b/c it goes against what Snopes says, then whatevs.

I dont owe you or any other fucker a thing so stop posting like it.

In the US, most white men think women are bitches and therefore will not vote for Hillary Clinton. True story.

So Hillary's going for the gangsta vote b/c ALL their ho's er women are considered bitches, is that right?

Or not voting for him because he was black.

According to Jbazett, it was also b/c he's either a Dem or Rep, not just b/c he was black.

I am so fatigued by this election and we haven't even seen the debates. I keep thinking that Hillary will destroy Trump and get a good polling bump but then I remember how stupid the American voter is.

Hows about you go ahead and check the punctuation mark on the end of my sentence. I do believe that indicates it was a question and not a statement.

As for burden of proof, this isnt an essay type forum we're posting on here b/c I dont see anyone else being asked to back up their opinions via ASA style quotes and even if I did, apparently whatever source I use wouldnt be factual enough for anyone. That's just something I've learned over the years posting in NBR. If I leave breadcrumbs to follow and you cant pick up the trail b/c it goes against what Snopes says, then whatevs.

I dont owe you or any other fucker a thing so stop posting like it.

Now I've got to explain basic grammar? Really?

You're making a comparison, asking if A is like B, the comparison carries the implication that B is true. So you're making a claim that B is true. English really isn't that hard.

Also, You don't see anyone else being asked to back up their opinions? That's literally what I was asking Tungsten to do in the post you replied to originally, he just doesn't get all butt-hurt about it. I can't think of many others here that take as much flak as Farmer, but he's always willing to engage in conversation and usually backs his shit up or explains his reasoning whenever I've asked. I disagree with him sometimes, but he's certainly given me plenty of food for thought.

But you're right though, you don't owe me anything. I should have known better disregarded your post. Lesson learned.

Now I've got to explain basic grammar? Really?

You're making a comparison, asking if A is like B, the comparison carries the implication that B is true. So you're making a claim that B is true. English really isn't that hard.

First, afaik, a question can not be a claim or a statement unless words are being put in my mouth, which never happens here. As for grammar, do I need to explain rhetoric to you? Not every post of mine is trying to bring truthiness to the forefront as thats way too late since how many people think HRC is still a viable Presidential candidate.

Also, You don't see anyone else being asked to back up their opinions?

I dont read every post on this forum. I pick and choose just like so many of you who pick one sentence out of a whole post of mine and go on a tirade.

That's literally what I was asking Tungsten to do in the post you replied to originally, he just doesn't get all butt-hurt about it. I can't think of many others here that take as much flak as Farmer, but he's always willing to engage in conversation and usually backs his shit up or explains his reasoning whenever I've asked. I disagree with him sometimes, but he's certainly given me plenty of food for thought.

I'll reference the Obola thread for explaining shit. I did that for how long and for what purpose? Think I'm going to do it again? Or care to? Every thread I start or reply I get just gets the usual not enough tin foil comments.

You yourself said I dont provide citations of any sort. When I used to (and I used to A LOT), they werent even read to my knowledge since people look at a url and seem to be like fuck it, never heard of that site, cant be trustworthy and continue to post for reps. Switch (I think) said I post conjecture. I try to start to dialogue believe it or not but you guys are just too smart or just above that level b/c you have no imagination. What if is a fun thing to start a thought with.

But you're right though, you don't owe me anything. I should have known better disregarded your post. Lesson learned.

Aww now who's butthurt.

I am so fatigued by this election and we haven't even seen the debates. I keep thinking that Hillary will destroy Trump and get a good polling bump but then I remember how stupid the American voter is.

It's only getting started up - how can you be tired?

I havent checked the news of the day yet but I imagine the majority of "stupid American voters" on the South East Coast are keeping an eye on the gas situation at the moment more than anything. That and if I read and remember it right, Trump is now ahead on the electoral college votes.

As a random aside, I think you and I would agree on more practical things than the what ifs of the internet world. Like emoticons over emoji's and traffic/transit work arounds.

Hows about you go ahead and check the punctuation mark on the end of my sentence. I do believe that indicates it was a question and not a statement.

the way you asked the question would seem to indicate that you were making a presumptuous or rhetorical statement and not genuinely asking a question seeking clarification on the idea of "people voting for BO just because he was black." the reason for this is that jbazzet's previous question for proof was based on tungsten's direct conclusion that

Many women are voting for HRC simply because she's a woman.

as your question follows the same logic exhibted by tungsten it is fair to be questions on the burden of proof.

As for burden of proof, this isnt an essay type forum we're posting on here b/c I dont see anyone else being asked to back up their opinions via ASA style quotes and even if I did, apparently whatever source I use wouldnt be factual enough for anyone. That's just something I've learned over the years posting in NBR. If I leave breadcrumbs to follow and you cant pick up the trail b/c it goes against what Snopes says, then whatevs.

I dont owe you or any other fucker a thing so stop posting like it.

it's true that you don't owe jbazett or any other fucker a thing (proof of your claims) but if you want to be taken seriously instead of considered someone with the IQ of a coconut then substantiating your claim(s) when asked would go a long way to people considering what you have to say instead of automatically throwing it into the circular filing bin. of course, it should also go without saying that you should be using somewhat credible sources to back up your claims instead of only one or two references from "alternative" media sites of questionable nature.

the way debate works is that someone makes a statement and then someone else questions or disputes it and the original commenter defends their position with verifiable sources. this continues back and forth until hopefully the two parties can reach some sort of conclusion with the "losing" side hopefully having enough sense of self worth to step up and acknowledge that their pov may not have been correct. if anyone is not willing to do that they're not worthy of fair debate but instead worthy of being told they have the intelligence level of a coconut.

so the only question left is, who wants to be a coconut?

That and if I read and remember it right, Trump is now ahead on the electoral college votes.
.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I'll stick with the guys that understand analytics and forecasting.