If you’re an unhappy voter and want other unhappy voters to hold their noses and vote for the major candidate they least dislike, think about the Golden Rule.
It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?
Don’t switch your criticisms mid stream. Have i presented you with too much data or not? Am I actually guilty of gish gallop or was that just your excuse for ignoring 25% of the data i gave you?
E: conveniently it is the exact bit of data (the only bit provided anywhere yet) that directly addresses the question at hand: Do third partiers prefer Harris over Trump or do they not?
At no point have you made a coherent argument based on them, though.
Don’t switch your criticisms mid stream.
No, this is exactly the same criticism! It’s exactly the gish galloper’s technique - make a series of nonsense claims, firing salvo after salvo of nonsense into the argument. There’s no point me engaging with any of your other claims until you accept that you were talking nonsense with the first. We don’t have a basis for discussion unless we agree what counts as sane or rational points to make from data. I think that any points that require one non-democrat to be three republicans can’t possibly have merit, and for a fleeting moment I thought you had accepted that your argument on that specific point was erroneous, but I just now read that you don’t recant that assertion at all. Why would I engage with other data if you can’t agree that that didn’t make sense?
At no point have you made a coherent argument based on them, though.
Don’t switch your criticisms mid stream. Have i presented you with too much data or not? Am I actually guilty of gish gallop or was that just your excuse for ignoring 25% of the data i gave you?
E: conveniently it is the exact bit of data (the only bit provided anywhere yet) that directly addresses the question at hand: Do third partiers prefer Harris over Trump or do they not?
No, this is exactly the same criticism! It’s exactly the gish galloper’s technique - make a series of nonsense claims, firing salvo after salvo of nonsense into the argument. There’s no point me engaging with any of your other claims until you accept that you were talking nonsense with the first. We don’t have a basis for discussion unless we agree what counts as sane or rational points to make from data. I think that any points that require one non-democrat to be three republicans can’t possibly have merit, and for a fleeting moment I thought you had accepted that your argument on that specific point was erroneous, but I just now read that you don’t recant that assertion at all. Why would I engage with other data if you can’t agree that that didn’t make sense?