You seem to think that one can simply claim an error in someone else's math without showing how it is an error. That is a major fail for anyone claiming to have a reasonable intelligence.
Fallacy fallacy.. Claiming fallacies when one can't make a valid argument on the topic. That is your fall back response and you resort to it rather quickly in any discussion. One needs only to look at how many times you use the word "fallacy" in any response you make here.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
Already did. RQAA. Denial of mathematics.
Insult fallacy.
Denial of logic. Void argument fallacy.
Bulverism fallacy.
Bulverism fallacy. Denial of logic.
Here you are correct. The number is a random number, just like you do.
Random number. Lie. He has presented evidence.
Making an extreme argument out of other random numbers to show his random numbers are wrong is just the same fallacy he is making: the argument from randU fallacy.
Random numbers are not data, dude.
fallacy fallacy. Claiming fallacies while not explaining why it is a fallacy. You are a one trick pony and you can't even trot when it comes to presenting a factual argument. You are more of a dead pony, only able to lie there repeating the same things over and over.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
My numbers were presented based on the states he claimed were close votes. It was over 400,000 and almost 500,000. Hardly a "random number". It would be a rough estimation of the actual count.
Since you feel he presented evidence, perhaps you can give us all a link to this evidence you think exists.Random number. Lie. He has presented evidence.
Final vote counts for states are not random numbers.Making an extreme argument out of other random numbers to show his random numbers are wrong is just the same fallacy he is making: the argument from randU fallacy.
Random numbers are not data, dude.
They are collected here with links to the original sources which are the official numbers released by the Secretary of State for each state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U...ntial_election
Claiming those numbers are "random numbers" is you showing your inability to make a valid argument. Congratulations on being incapable of doing simple math.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
AProudLefty (08-03-2020)
Nope. You're just illiterately misinterpreting what's being claimed. The claim is that such a tiny margin of votes is easy to overcome, and that Democrats being proven to have cheated so egregiously brings into question whether that election was even valid.
Try to keep up.
I don't think you know the meaning of the words "tiny margin". The over 400,000 vote difference between the two candidates is almost 4% points. In an election four percentage points is hardly a "tiny margin". What you are claiming is that 4% of the vote was illegal but you can't provide us evidence of a single vote being illegal let alone 400,000. There is probably more evidence that you are an escapee from an insane asylum than there is that there was enough cheating to change 400,000 votes in 2012.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
Nope. 500,000 votes in a handful of battleground states is ONE properly placed commercial. LBJ's "Daisy" add changed far more than that...and conservative groups across the board were silenced by the IRS throughout the ENTIRE ELECTION.
Try again.
Bookmarks