Talk about non responsive.

Post #411,025 by mmoffitt 6/11/16 4:13:04 PM 6/11/16 4:13:04 PM Reply	Talk about non responsive. I was answering a direct question as best I could. I don't know what warped brand of logic leads to a conclusion that such an effort is "triangulation." I found this to be an interesting aside. In another thread on this board, I explained that I'd written my county board of elections to see if I could "un-register" and she quickly replied that I could by just mailing in a signed letter requesting such. I thanked her in my reply and said that should I ultimately come to that decision, I'd write her in the manner she specified. I told her I didn't think it was smart for me to do that at this point; that I was still very angry about how the primaries turned out. Her reply I found interesting, given her job. She said, "I completely understand. This is a highly unusual year and likely changes are coming. [I] just hope the US can survive and prosper." One of Colbert's first guests was Donald Trump, whom he introduced as, "The last President of the United States." That was supposed to be a joke, but it might not be.
Post #411,036 by drook 6/12/16 1:31:15 AM 6/12/16 1:31:15 AM Reply	"I don't know why this demographic votes the way they do ..." "... but I know how that demographic is going to vote in a hypothetical race." To predict (or to persuade) you have to empathise. You can't or won't. -- Drew
Post #411,046 by mmoffitt 6/13/16 8:22:37 AM 6/13/16 8:22:37 AM Reply	I didn't say "I know how they'll vote." I said, "I've no reason to think that given their preference for Hillary over Bernie in the Democratic Primary, they'd change their voting pattern if Trump was added to the mix." There's a pretty big difference between those statements.
Post #411,055 by drook 6/13/16 11:25:52 AM 6/13/16 11:25:52 AM Reply	You know this is all recorded, right? ... the votes Trump will most definitely get from the Rust Belt. ... at least half of them would vote for Bernie. ... I firmly believe the Rust Belt vote would be at least split ... My point is you admit you have no idea why minorities vote the way you do, yet you base your analysis on your absolute confidence in how these other groups will vote. All you know is who you will or won't vote for, and what reasons you tell yourself for those choices. You are completely unable to see someone else's point of view long enough to understand their choices. -- Drew
Post #411,056 by mmoffitt 6/13/16 11:56:30 AM 6/13/16 11:56:30 AM Reply	I'm glad it is. An important part of reading is comprehension. Context: rcareaga: But seriously: If Clinton has some kind of leg up with minorities, why do you suppose that might be? ... But you allude in passing to her support from the "minority" populace, which has certainly worked to Sanders' disadvantage during the primaries, and it seems odd that you would not address the reasons for their apparent unresponsiveness to Sanders' message. Me: I said "built in advantage" only because there was a strong preference by minorities shown for her during the primaries and I have no reason to believe that will somehow disappear in November, two-way or three-way race notwithstanding. ... But if you won't stand for me not speculating about it, all I can say is I suppose it is familiarity. And then there's this from you: My point is you admit you have no idea why minorities vote the way you do, yet you base your analysis on your absolute confidence in how these other groups will vote. I "admit I have no idea why minorities vote the way I do"? This is pointless.
Post #411,058 by drook 6/13/16 12:46:47 PM 6/13/16 12:46:47 PM Reply	Are you disagreeing that you've admitted that? -- Drew
Post #411,069 by mmoffitt 6/13/16 4:29:22 PM 6/13/16 4:29:22 PM Reply	Congratulations. You've completely baffled me.

Welcome to IWETHEY!