That wasn't what you originally said. Continuing to try to spin a lie as truth is not going to work. Throwing a temper tantrum is not going to work. The only reliable way to get people to stop calling you out for lying is to stop lying.
Again: you obviously don't like being called out as a liar, and are just digging yourself into a deeper hole by spinning more lies to try to justify it. If you don't want to be called a liar, then stop lying. If you actually meant "He said this, which would have such-and-such a result", then say it. Don't lie about what someone says or does, and then throw a temper tantrum when someone calls you on it.
You might want to look up "euphemistic" in a dictionary, as you obviously don't know what it means -- it means almost the exact opposite of what you're trying to claim you were doing.
And no. Anyone who understands English can see that your statements aren't even remotely close to the same thing. If you don't want to be called out as a liar, then stop lying.
Mathematics is not confined to boolean logic systems.
In some contexts, yes. In this context, no. The statement "If you didn't vote for Clinton then effectively you voted for Trump" is completely, utterly, false.
If what he means is "a vote for a third party is not as effective a vote against Trump as a vote for Clinton," then maybe that's true, but that's not what he said.
As opposed to Trump, a magnificent saint of a man who truly deserved to win?
Clinton and Trump were both dreadful candidates who did not deserve to win, which is why neither one got my vote. The results of the election don't change that.
a law demanding that gay couples be jailed just for WANTING to get married
a law that would jail gay couples if they apply for a marriage license
Nor are these:
has publicly stated that he believes women should be charged with murder if they have a miscarriage
has publicly declared that all abortion should be punished with jailtime for the mother
I can't be bothered to determine if your revised claims are true, since you didn't cite a source for them either, and your first ones were so laughably untrue.
And coincidentally voted for Pence too - a man who signed a law demanding that gay couples be jailed just for WANTING to get married and has publicly stated that he believes women should be charged with murder if they have a miscarriage.
You know, you're not doing your argument any favors when you just make nonsense up.
I was actually wondering about this the other day, whether it would be permissible for a state to use a different voting method to choose their presidential electoral votes.
It might not make sense to do that, though, if no other states are making the change, and you buy into the whole "third-party vote is a wasted vote" theory (I don't, but most people do.) An IRV system is much more likely to result in a winner who is in a third party.
All businesses use it to make the call appear to come from the general office number. So if an employee calls someone they don't get the direct number to that employee, just the general business number.
The sensible thing to do would be to have a "callback" number as well as a "from" number. The "callback" number could be set to the business' general office number, but it should be impossible to change the "from" number.
But if we have a hung result, why would the GOP vote in McMullin as the president elect instead of Trump, who has been their democratically elected nominee?
Two fairly obvious reasons:
- The GOP establishment hates Trump. Sure, they're backing him now because they have to oppose the Democrats' nominee, but if they had another option they might take it.
- Trump's support among the people has slipped pretty dramatically since he won the nomination. I'd bet that if we got a do-over on the primaries, that he'd lose pretty convincingly. That could give the leadership the justification they need to switch to someone else.
It would probably still be a long shot, but I could see it happening. (Assuming for the moment that it was realistic that we could end up with neither major-party candidate getting a majority of the electoral vote.)
That was kind of my thought a few months ago, how nice it would be if Trump and Clinton both dropped out and it was Pence vs Kaine.
I've thought for a while that it would be to the benefit of the country and both parties to form a pact that, regardless of who wins the election, congress will immediately impeach them.
I usually vote 3rd party in protest (knowing it's not achieving anything) - this year I am voting for one of the two, but only because one of the candidates could very well end democracy.
Given how many people think like you, apparently it's already happened.
Do I think attacking the Hillary campaign is wrong? Not particularly. Especially if the information is being dropped right in their lap. I do expect them to release whatever damning information they receive. What I don't expect is for them to pick favorites. They can't even be bothered to make a token effort to find something on Trump.
It's not Wikileaks' responsibility to find the stuff; it's their responsibility (as far as they've taken it on) to publish what they're given. Do you have evidence that they have a bunch of dirt on Trump that they're refusing to publish? If it would just take a "token effort" to find it, then don't you think that the Democrats would have it by now?
My first thought, as an IBM employee, is that the users that moved to Mac are probably the ones smart enough to know that calling the IBM helpdesk is utterly pointless.
The new one checks to make sure you control the new address before spamming your poor victim. Yahoo sucks, but they got this one right.
While that sort of a check might be reasonable, it absolutely was not "right" to roll out a new system without having e-mail forwarding in place. To get it "right", they should have had their new system ready to go before rolling it out.
I'd guess Samsung isn't exiting the phablet market but has some serious design flaw in this particular phablet that requires an engineering overhaul greater than can be accomplished with just tweaks.
Even if it just required "tweaks", they probably wouldn't want to re-release the phone under the Note 7 name because of all the bad press. I would expect a new phone with suspiciously-similar features but a new name before too long.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, shouldn't that be "US presidents get a Nobel prize *without ever* doing anything worthy of a Nobel prize"?
That wasn't what you originally said. Continuing to try to spin a lie as truth is not going to work. Throwing a temper tantrum is not going to work. The only reliable way to get people to stop calling you out for lying is to stop lying.
Again: you obviously don't like being called out as a liar, and are just digging yourself into a deeper hole by spinning more lies to try to justify it. If you don't want to be called a liar, then stop lying. If you actually meant "He said this, which would have such-and-such a result", then say it. Don't lie about what someone says or does, and then throw a temper tantrum when someone calls you on it.
You might want to look up "euphemistic" in a dictionary, as you obviously don't know what it means -- it means almost the exact opposite of what you're trying to claim you were doing.
And no. Anyone who understands English can see that your statements aren't even remotely close to the same thing. If you don't want to be called out as a liar, then stop lying.
Proof by repeated assertion may work on Facebook, but not here.
Mathematics is not confined to boolean logic systems.
In some contexts, yes. In this context, no. The statement "If you didn't vote for Clinton then effectively you voted for Trump" is completely, utterly, false.
If what he means is "a vote for a third party is not as effective a vote against Trump as a vote for Clinton," then maybe that's true, but that's not what he said.
As opposed to Trump, a magnificent saint of a man who truly deserved to win?
Clinton and Trump were both dreadful candidates who did not deserve to win, which is why neither one got my vote. The results of the election don't change that.
Mathematically half-true.
"Half-true" is another word for "false."
If you didn't vote for Clinton then effectively you voted for Trump whether or not he actually got your vote.
Mathematically false, as voting for Johnson/Stein/McMullin/whoever else does not increase the number of votes Trump got.
If the Democrats wanted to win the presidency, they should have nominated a less dreadful candidate who deserved to win it.
These are not the same thing:
a law demanding that gay couples be jailed just for WANTING to get married
a law that would jail gay couples if they apply for a marriage license
Nor are these:
has publicly stated that he believes women should be charged with murder if they have a miscarriage
has publicly declared that all abortion should be punished with jailtime for the mother
I can't be bothered to determine if your revised claims are true, since you didn't cite a source for them either, and your first ones were so laughably untrue.
And coincidentally voted for Pence too - a man who signed a law demanding that gay couples be jailed just for WANTING to get married and has publicly stated that he believes women should be charged with murder if they have a miscarriage.
You know, you're not doing your argument any favors when you just make nonsense up.
I was actually wondering about this the other day, whether it would be permissible for a state to use a different voting method to choose their presidential electoral votes.
It might not make sense to do that, though, if no other states are making the change, and you buy into the whole "third-party vote is a wasted vote" theory (I don't, but most people do.) An IRV system is much more likely to result in a winner who is in a third party.
It's unclear to me why it matters. You're either voting against Trump, or against Hillary.
It's much more accurate to say that you're either voting for the system that gave us ClintonTrump, or you voted against both of them.
31 confirmed cases of voter fraud since 2000. 31 out of 1,000,000,000 votes cast. Voter fraud is a lie in the US.
Which means absolutely nothing, because we have no way to detect voter fraud.
All businesses use it to make the call appear to come from the general office number. So if an employee calls someone they don't get the direct number to that employee, just the general business number.
The sensible thing to do would be to have a "callback" number as well as a "from" number. The "callback" number could be set to the business' general office number, but it should be impossible to change the "from" number.
Do you have a constitutional right to be advertised to?
And if so, is it a right that I can renounce?
For the same reason we'd impeach Hillary. Because even a retarded chimpanzee could do a better job of being President than either one of them.
But if we have a hung result, why would the GOP vote in McMullin as the president elect instead of Trump, who has been their democratically elected nominee?
Two fairly obvious reasons:
- The GOP establishment hates Trump. Sure, they're backing him now because they have to oppose the Democrats' nominee, but if they had another option they might take it.
- Trump's support among the people has slipped pretty dramatically since he won the nomination. I'd bet that if we got a do-over on the primaries, that he'd lose pretty convincingly. That could give the leadership the justification they need to switch to someone else.
It would probably still be a long shot, but I could see it happening. (Assuming for the moment that it was realistic that we could end up with neither major-party candidate getting a majority of the electoral vote.)
That was kind of my thought a few months ago, how nice it would be if Trump and Clinton both dropped out and it was Pence vs Kaine.
I've thought for a while that it would be to the benefit of the country and both parties to form a pact that, regardless of who wins the election, congress will immediately impeach them.
I usually vote 3rd party in protest (knowing it's not achieving anything) - this year I am voting for one of the two, but only because one of the candidates could very well end democracy.
Given how many people think like you, apparently it's already happened.
Do I think attacking the Hillary campaign is wrong? Not particularly. Especially if the information is being dropped right in their lap. I do expect them to release whatever damning information they receive. What I don't expect is for them to pick favorites. They can't even be bothered to make a token effort to find something on Trump.
It's not Wikileaks' responsibility to find the stuff; it's their responsibility (as far as they've taken it on) to publish what they're given. Do you have evidence that they have a bunch of dirt on Trump that they're refusing to publish? If it would just take a "token effort" to find it, then don't you think that the Democrats would have it by now?
My first thought, as an IBM employee, is that the users that moved to Mac are probably the ones smart enough to know that calling the IBM helpdesk is utterly pointless.
The new one checks to make sure you control the new address before spamming your poor victim.
Yahoo sucks, but they got this one right.
While that sort of a check might be reasonable, it absolutely was not "right" to roll out a new system without having e-mail forwarding in place. To get it "right", they should have had their new system ready to go before rolling it out.
I'd guess Samsung isn't exiting the phablet market but has some serious design flaw in this particular phablet that requires an engineering overhaul greater than can be accomplished with just tweaks.
Even if it just required "tweaks", they probably wouldn't want to re-release the phone under the Note 7 name because of all the bad press. I would expect a new phone with suspiciously-similar features but a new name before too long.
Maybe you should blame your party's leadership for their own actions instead of the people who are revealing their actions.