Bernie's In

Did you read what I said? If you responded to a person, the little green letters can be clicked on and bring you to what that person said. We do not all want to see it again.

You are not mean, you just don't get how to use a2k, and that you are not getting it is annoying.

I'm glad to read you, and often agree with you. I don't want to see a dose of Reasoning Logic revisited.

Please stop the full out quoting. It is easy enough to see if anyone wants to.

When someone does what assobuco wants it is then that they have learned the a2k rules.lol

Koreans for Bernie,

If it is truly proportional it would be 6 for Hillary and 1 for Bernie. I did read a story that stated 15% was required to be viable. If that is the case then Hillary will get all 7. (I have not confirmed the viability requirement.)

The story in question also stated Puerto Rico had a 15% viability requirement and if Hillary wins there by the same amount she could clinch the nomination today if 3 more super delegates from PR or VI come out in support of her.

I don't want to prolong this conversation, I think this is a case of miscommunication. I actually was mean at that time, not perfect. I was actually quoting CI, not RL. I only copied his post because I was responding to snood's comments and was just giving an example to prove what he said might be true. If you had clicked on the username above mine, it would have took you to Snood's post.

OK folks it's question time.

Wow... another pointless youtube video from you, reasoning logic.

You certainly don't live up to your name. You have no reasoning and even less logic to your posts.

The first thing I did was go to Huff Post and look at the poll aggregator and it doesn't match the one shown in the video. The current poll aggregator shows Hillary with a 5 point lead. At no time in the last month has it shown Hillary with only a 1 point lead.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

The question of the day is - Shouldn't you change your name if you are going to continue to apply no reasoning or logic or basic fact checking to the things you post?

You must not know how to use the graph. Look at may 23.

You can drag it with your cursor. You/gov Economist poll

On August 22, it was .4 lead.

May 23 The aggregate is -

Clinton 43.4
Trump 40


There is ONE poll on May 23 that has Clinton with a one point lead but that is NOT the aggregate not does it show a trend unless you are misusing the data. It seems it is you that doesn't know how to use a graph. You don't rely on SINGLE data points when graphing averages or trends. The video clearly says "Trend" on the graph.

Let me ask you the same question -
Shouldn't you change your name if you are going to continue to apply no reasoning or logic or basic fact checking to the things you post?

Was I the one who claimed it to be a trend or are you putting words in my mouth?

Which shows another misuse of the data by the video. They cherry picked when they claimed the race is closer now in the polling than a year ago. It was actually closer in the polling aggregate 9 months ago.




So, reasoning logic, I guess I will keep asking the question of the day -

Shouldn't you change your name if you are going to continue to apply no reasoning or logic or basic fact checking to the things you post?

I seen that it was very bad last year. It speaks a lot for hitlary.

The video claims it was the trend. You didn't bother to check the video before posting it. You post unsubstantiated and false information constantly. I am merely pointing out an instance of it and turning this into question time.

The question of the day -
Shouldn't you change your name if you are going to continue to apply no reasoning or logic or basic fact checking to the things you post?

Let me help you understand what a year ago means. It means 12 months ago not 9. Got it?

I think the graph said custom trend. Custom can mean many things.

This is what an intellectual candidate sounds like.

I understand exactly what a year ago means. In this case it means they cherry picked the specific time frame of a year ago because they wanted the data to support their conclusion. If they had used 9 months ago, it would have shown their argument was specious. You didn't seem to do basic fact checking of the data and how it was used.


The question of the day remains -
Shouldn't you change your name if you are going to continue to apply no reasoning or logic or basic fact checking to the things you post?

In this case, "custom" means they didn't used a standard trend line model because they wanted the trend line to match their conclusion.


The question of the day remains -
Shouldn't you change your name if you are going to continue to apply no reasoning or logic or basic fact checking to the things you post?

I seem to have gotten under your skin, You will be OK