Mac1958
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #181
Just show me the empirical evidence that one candidate is "better" than the other and we're good."No dude... the point of democracy is to pick the candidate who wins the arguments."I honestly don't know how to communicate with someone who no longer recognizes the difference between fact and opinion.Precisely.
.
No, what I said seems to have flown right past your head. You seem to have drank the post-modernist cool-aid where everything is an opinion and there are no facts.
I deal with this pretty regularly with people on both ends of the spectrum, hence my sig.
.
"Clinton was a terrible, terrible candidate, one of the worst ones ever. Trump said some stupid things. Therefore Trump is better, end of story. Not an opinion, but an argument."
Yes, there is a value judgement. I think criminality is worse than saying stupid things, the justice system and all reasonable people agree. But yeah, it's an opinion just like the preferred taste of an ice cream.
No dude... the point of democracy is to pick the candidate who wins the arguments, it's not like picking an ice cream where opinion is all that counts. If you missed this you are an idiot.
Oh, okay, great.
I didn't see the scoreboard. What were the scores? I'm sure they were tabulated in a very objective way.
Link, please.
.
Yes they were. It's not an opinion that Clinton is under 4 different FBI investigations. It's no an opinion she cheated on the debates... it's not an opinion that she lied a lot about the emails. These are all facts.
Given that people prefer people who say mean things rather than criminals... of course, there are some bigots, who would vote for a criminal if it meant they get free stuff or whatever.
Highlighting one candidate's faults while minimizing those of the other is not empirical evidence.
.