-->
@bmdrocks21
She like hardcore leftist. Funny thing is that she’s rich af. Has like 2 closets of clothes and a closet of shoes, and she lectures me on how she’s the entitled one and I’m a terrible person for wanting to keep my money
Trump winning Minesota
Posts
Total:
44
-->
@bmdrocks21
$13.2 million spent on chewing gum. Not emotions, facts.
What claim of mine are you refuting? Do quote me as well.
Also nice that you drop pretty much every single other point I brought up.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well, you seem to make it your goal to waste my time. I might get to some of the others when I am motivated enough.
"You found a link stating that poor people can buy chewing gum. Not a link to show how many are buying it."
I provided a link showing that poor people are buying gum at the expense of rich people.
Rich people pay most of taxes, and a lot of poor people pay none. So, I am not wrong.
-->
@ILikePie5
Tell her she can give away all of that privilege money if she wants. However, you can't be generous with other peoples' money.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well, you seem to make it your goal to waste my time.
Sorry if asking you to defend your claims is too difficult for you.
I might get to some of the others when I am motivated enough.
Safe to say you like saying things without knowing it is true.
I provided a link showing that poor people are buying gum at the expense of rich people.Rich people pay most of taxes, and a lot of poor people pay none. So, I am not wrong.
This is a far cry from "It is like giving away a pack of gum to a poor person then charging a rich person double for the same thing."
Please refer to the other comments I made which state the obvious future critiques I had. I didn't just state you to provide a link. That was a bare minimum to prove what you are saying and even that isn't met given how outrageous your initial claim was which would be less outrageous if you were able to prove it. Even accepting this moving the goalposts I still gave a critique in spite of your bothering to backup your claims. Are you going to challenge that position or do I need to copy what I said earlier because you didn't read it or didn't bother to argue against it?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I know what I say is true. I just don't have the motivation to prove everything to you and look up all of the articles and graphs again. You don't strike me as someone who is looking to have their mind changed. How about you make affirmative claims for a change?
It was an analogy that is surprisingly realistic, sir. The poor people get free gum through SNAP. The rich people paid for this through taxes, yet got nothing. So, when they buy the goods themselves, they will have had to pay the actual price and the tax price.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Clear anti-intellectual take. Instead of making claims that you can defend you instead simply say stuff in the hopes that eventually you would find something that agrees with you. It took you almost 1 day to support a claim.I know what I say is true. I just don't have the motivation to prove everything to you and look up all of the articles and graphs again.
You don't strike me as someone who is looking to have their mind changed.
I can say the exact same to you but at least I demonstrate how I am right. You don't even bother and move the goalposts to a more defensible position. You clearly have shown you are not hear to have your mind changed when instead of stating the obvious problems with your analogy you instead move the goalposts. That is a sign of someone who isn't open minded and I don't think you see that.
How about you make affirmative claims for a change?
I had questions and you didn't answer them without being fallacious or incorrect. Why would I want to present arguments to a person who does all of that while also showing no sign of changing their mind? I haven't heard of a single argument anywhere here. All I see is claims not supported by evidence. Don't expect me to show some courtesy when you can't even show the courtesy of knowing when you are wrong or fallacious.
It was an analogy that is surprisingly realistic, sir. The poor people get free gum through SNAP. The rich people paid for this through taxes, yet got nothing. So, when they buy the goods themselves, they will have had to pay the actual price and the tax price.
Avoiding and even doubling down on rich people paying double. This is clear ignorance on your part if you think that gum link supports your analogy. Saying rich people pay double the price would mean you would have to show rich people pay double the price. You simply moved from rich people paying double the price to people on food stamps buy gum. Moving the goalposts and clearly showing incompetence.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Clear anti-intellectual take. Instead of making claims that you can defend you instead simply say stuff in the hopes that eventually you would find something that agrees with you. It took you almost 1 day to support a claim.I know what I say is true. I just don't have the motivation to prove everything to you and look up all of the articles and graphs again.
You don't strike me as someone who is looking to have their mind changed.
I can say the exact same to you but at least I demonstrate how I am right. You don't even bother and move the goalposts to a more defensible position. You clearly have shown you are not hear to have your mind changed when instead of stating the obvious problems with your analogy you instead move the goalposts. That is a sign of someone who isn't open minded and I don't think you see that.
How about you make affirmative claims for a change?
I had questions and you didn't answer them without being fallacious or incorrect. Why would I want to present arguments to a person who does all of that while also showing no sign of changing their mind? I haven't heard of a single argument anywhere here. All I see is claims not supported by evidence. Don't expect me to show some courtesy when you can't even show the courtesy of knowing when you are wrong or fallacious.
It was an analogy that is surprisingly realistic, sir. The poor people get free gum through SNAP. The rich people paid for this through taxes, yet got nothing. So, when they buy the goods themselves, they will have had to pay the actual price and the tax price.
Avoiding and even doubling down on rich people paying double. This is clear ignorance on your part if you think that gum link supports your analogy. Saying rich people pay double the price would mean you would have to show rich people pay double the price. You simply moved from rich people paying double the price to people on food stamps buy gum. Moving the goalposts and clearly showing incompetence.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If you cannot understand a simple analogy, then I am afraid that I cannot help you. Your incendiary tone is getting you nowhere. I have no reason to waste my day proving everything to someone who says something as foolish about immigrants taking welfare payments means they accept our country.
If you would like an actual discussion, how about you stop playing dumb and act like a civil adult, yes?
Saying that an involuntary subsidization doesn't mean they are indeed paying for the item they subsidized makes no sense. The rich pay for almost all foodstamps. So, whatever gets bought with said foodstamps is paid for by the rich, while the poor get it for free.
I'll use another analogy that you might be able to comprehend. You believe in universal, government healthcare, I assume. That means that everyone is forced to get the same exact plan. The super poor don't pay taxes. The rich pay most of the taxes. So, the rich will pay infinitely more than the poor, for the same exact item. Is that better for you?
That is a 100% real world example of the rich paying "double"(excessively more in this case) than a poor person who pays nothing and yet they both get the same product.
-->
@bmdrocks21
This conversation is over. Your incompetent, close-minded and don't make worthwhile arguments. I asked you two simple questions at the start yet you can't even answer them without having so many holes. Maybe you should take a good long look at yourself because from my perspective your the one who can't even comprehend the most simplest ideas on how to have a coherent belief. This is a clear example of people living in two different realities. One who abides by the best form of standard on understanding on the world and the other uses a weak reality which may or may not be their fault.
You're*
Forgot the oxford comma.
Forgot a comma before "yet".
You're
Most simplest is a double superlative
Forgot a comma before "and"
I am guessing you are living in the weak reality.
Did some research on this because im a political news junkie on top of being a massive nerd with some degree of understanding of math.
If you go back to the 2016 election and average out the last 5 polls of the state that weighed Trump vs Hillary, the average poll indicated that Hillary would beat out Trump in the state by an average of about 6.2% (31 points in favor of Hillary / 5 polls total = 6.2 in Hillary's favor. Last 5 polls only one used since all other polls happened almost 6 months before the election even happened)
With the 6.2% projected win, an analysis of what Hillary actually won by (1.5%) means that national polls on average for the state of Minnesota were off by about 4.7% in favor of Hillary (6.2 - 1.5 = 4.7). https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_clinton-5591.html
So assuming the bias in polling stays about the same (its an inexact science to begin with that is aggregated among many different poll takers with different procedures), we can next argue that if Trump is within about 5% to 10% of the potential Dem nominee, it makes it at least possible for Trump to win the state..... A 5% difference between two candidates puts the state well into the 'swing state' category where it could go either way, and and if we take into account the possible poll bias that favors Dems in the state, even a 10 point deficit is not a deal-breaker for Trump.
Now we just use state polls taken for the state that specifically look at matchups between Trump and individual candidates. There are 4 that show up:
Trump vs Biden = Biden is up by 12 points https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_biden-6966.html
Trump vs Warren = Warren is up by 11 points https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_warren-6967.html
Trump vs Sanders = Sanders is up by 9 points https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_sanders-6968.html
Trump vs Klobuchar (She is a Senator of the state) = Klobuchar is up by 17 points https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_klobuchar-6969.html
Assuming that Klobuchar doesnt become the nominee, and that Biden, Warren, and Sanders will likely be the nominee, then Trump still has a pretty uphill battle to climb.
If we apply the polling bias to the leads that would swing things back in Trump's favor by 4.7%, that puts him down 8% to Biden, down 7% to Warren, and down 4% to Sanders.
The huge ass 'IF' here that hangs over the logic of this whole theory is that the current matchups between Trump and the Dem candidates will inevitably change. Only if the election were held RIGHT NOW would Biden and Warren likely win the state while Sanders has to fight for it a little, that could certainly change by election time, though in whose favor is anyones guess given how we dont even have a nominee yet and that many more scandals and policy shifts can take place between now and the election that is next year.
To reiterate: Trump faces a big uphill battle, but its not out of the question that he could win the state depending on the nominee and what happens between now and election day. The GOP winning Minnesota is certainly not out of the question compared to some other states that Trump and the GOP would try to flip. (Virginia for example was actually one of the most accurately polled states in the race, and it was a full 5 points in favor of Hillary when almost every other swing state was won by Trump. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html )
As someone who often works in and with clients in Minnesota, Trump could win the state, but it would likely depend on the turnout, and that will likely depend on the Democratic nominee. There is a lot of anti-Trump sentiment in the Twin Cities, but a lot of support in the rural areas.
Given certain laws and state-wide issues of the state, I think without Trump, the state would vote red in 2020, but the fevered pitch of anti-Trump people folks may cause Trump to lose, if they show up. The recent Trump protests show outrage, but it is difficult to tell who has the majority, and in many circles in MN, politics is best avoided.
-->
@Mage-CPA
Impeachmment polls are 50-50 there