Gabbard calls on Biden, Sanders to help put her on debate stage

[Pogo]

More speculation fallacy.

Speculation is not a fallacy. It's speculation. You sound daft when you say that. And it can be thrown right back at you at any time, in the same, dumb manner. Stay focused.

Yes, I think she wants her 15 minutes not to introduce any new ideas, but rather for some publicity and to attack the frontrunners. Which is understandable. It's just not smart strategy by the DNC to let her have it.

Yeah I'm afraid it is since you're trying to use it as argument. Not gonna work. That's ass-uming 'facts' not in evidence.

As such it is dismissed.

 

[ColonelAngus]

She will not be allowed to participate because Dimms are misogynistic racist hypocrites.

No, she will not be allowed to participate because she is polling at ZERO

Wrong. Dimms just changed the rules to exclude her because they are racist and misogynistic hypocrites.

 

[Pogo]

She will not be allowed to participate because Dimms are misogynistic racist hypocrites.

No, she will not be allowed to participate because she is polling at ZERO

Wrong. Dimms just changed the rules to exclude her because they are racist and misogynistic hypocrites.

Oh I see. That's why they ran a female candidate and a black candidate the last three rounds. Against three white men.

SMH

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah I'm afraid it is since you're trying to use it as argument.

False. That still does not make it a fallacy. But, no offense, I have no desire to parse out this red herring you have introduced

I didn't "assume" she was out for revenge. That was a conclusion I argued, not a first premise. Slow down, your bias is causing you to make silly errors.

 

[DrLove]

Revenge is precisely what she will exact.

That's really all she wants, and a bit more return (via publicity) on her time and effort invested. She seems very thin skinned. She complained about lack of media coverage, then complained when the media covered her. She is going to need to grow some thicker skin to run again in the future.

Aside from the fact that she's a bit of a Putin/ Assad stooge, I honestly do like Tulsi. But you're exactly right - thicker skin is called for. She goes from zero to whine in about 3.2 seconds.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah I'm afraid it is since you're trying to use it as argument.

False. That still does not make it a fallacy. But, no offense, I have no desire to parse out this red herring you have introduced

I didn't "assume" she was out for revenge. That was a conclusion I argued, not a first premise. Slow down, your bias is causing you to make silly errors.

Uh --- I ain't the one purporting to predict how some third party will react, am I.

>> Argumentum ad Speculum is a logical fallacy committed when hypothetical or abstract evidence is used to prove a real world outcome. <<​

 

[Pogo]

Revenge is precisely what she will exact.

That's really all she wants, and a bit more return (via publicity) on her time and effort invested. She seems very thin skinned. She complained about lack of media coverage, then complained when the media covered her. She is going to need to grow some thicker skin to run again in the future.

Aside from the fact that she's a bit of a Putin/ Assad stooge, I honestly do like Tulsi. But you're exactly right - thicker skin is called for. She goes from zero to whine in about 3.2 seconds.

Got an electron microscope? Measure the skin of the current POTUS. It would not seem to be a factor.

 

[there4eyeM]

Seeing that she got near zero support from the D half of the duopoly and near zero media coverage, anything more than absolute zero polling is nearly miraculous.
"Let a woman speak" has been hammered at us (even those of us already more than willing and happy to listen to women) by the Democratic Party for so long that their ignoring the possibility now only contributes to contempt.

More desperate, overwrought need nonsense. She got proportional media coverage. And proportional support.

"Let a woman speak"

Give me a break. If ever there was an idiotic point ready made for shithole message boards, there it is.

As for the extract used that distorts what purports to be a quotation, intellectual equilibrium prevents "desperate, overwrought" response. Suffice it that such posts degrade themselves and their poster.
We don't need more reflex defense of either half of the ruling duopoly. The "Top" has spoken, "No Tulsi" and the automatic ideological defense (so omnipresent in responses from both faces of this political coin) comes spewing out. Defending Sanders and Biden and Trump is going to be historically embarrassing. None has a place as leader of such a magnificent nation. Thankfully, the country is every bit as resilient as it is wonderful. It has overcome the results of so many poor leaders that it looks as if that is normal.
What is overwrought and desperate is hanging on two candidates that have shown professional performance under par. It is defending them against the onslaught of an upstart from the provinces.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah I'm afraid it is since you're trying to use it as argument.

False. That still does not make it a fallacy. But, no offense, I have no desire to parse out this red herring you have introduced

I didn't "assume" she was out for revenge. That was a conclusion I argued, not a first premise. Slow down, your bias is causing you to make silly errors.

Uh --- I ain't the one purporting to predict how some third party will react, am I.

>> Argumentum ad Speculum is a logical fallacy committed when hypothetical or abstract evidence is used to prove a real world outcome. <<​

Sorry, that's not appropriate or relevant. If we were talking about her debate performance in retrospect, and that were an objective idea (it is not), and someone said something like, "it is a fact that she was not good because she is on heroin", then and only then would you be able to present that fallacy description.

Sorry Pogo, you're on your own. I can't spend all day preening your Tulsi bias and correcting your errors.

In reality, all you are attempting to do is whine that I am presenting my opinion as fact. That is an embarrassingly stupid tactic that I expect from people with less intellectual capability than you obviously possess. And it is caused by your bias.

Oops, there I go again, presenting my opinion as fact, haha...otherwise known to honest people as "stating my opinion".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The "Top" has spoken, "No Tulsi"

Which has nothing to do with her being female. So spare us the word salads, and admit you implied something idiotic. Or don't. It's all there in black and white for everyone to see for themselves.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah I'm afraid it is since you're trying to use it as argument.

False. That still does not make it a fallacy. But, no offense, I have no desire to parse out this red herring you have introduced

I didn't "assume" she was out for revenge. That was a conclusion I argued, not a first premise. Slow down, your bias is causing you to make silly errors.

Uh --- I ain't the one purporting to predict how some third party will react, am I.

>> Argumentum ad Speculum is a logical fallacy committed when hypothetical or abstract evidence is used to prove a real world outcome. <<​

Sorry, that's not appropriate or relevant. If we were talking about her debate performance in retrospect, and that were an objective idea (it is not), and someone said something like, "it is a fact that she was not good because she is on heroin", then and only then would you be able to present that fallacy description.

Sorry Pogo, you're on your own. I can't spend all day preening your Tulsi bias and correcting your errors.

In reality, all you are attempting to do is whine that I am presenting my opinion as fact. That is an embarrassingly stupid tactic that I expect from people with less intellectual capability than you obviously possess. And it is caused by your bias.

Oops, there I go again, presenting my opinion as fact, haha...otherwise known to honest people as "stating my opinion".

I see where you're trying to spin your way out of this but your argumentum ad speculum was (and is by definition) referring to a future tense, not a past. The fact remains your fantasy about "revenge" is not only fantasy, it has no basis even in probability.

Besides which ---- even if we accept your speculation its concern seems to be "she might criticize the other contestants". ---- AND?

 

[ColonelAngus]

She will not be allowed to participate because Dimms are misogynistic racist hypocrites.

No, she will not be allowed to participate because she is polling at ZERO

Wrong. Dimms just changed the rules to exclude her because they are racist and misogynistic hypocrites.

Yes, yes they did.

 

[there4eyeM]

The entire posts are there for all to see.

 

[DrLove]

Revenge is precisely what she will exact.

That's really all she wants, and a bit more return (via publicity) on her time and effort invested. She seems very thin skinned. She complained about lack of media coverage, then complained when the media covered her. She is going to need to grow some thicker skin to run again in the future.

Aside from the fact that she's a bit of a Putin/ Assad stooge, I honestly do like Tulsi. But you're exactly right - thicker skin is called for. She goes from zero to whine in about 3.2 seconds.

Got an electron microscope? Measure the skin of the current POTUS. It would not seem to be a factor.

Can't disagree with that!

 

[dcbl]

You were doing so well with this OP, until the last sentence.

meh, she would be the 1st PILF

 

[Pogo]

You were doing so well with this OP, until the last sentence.

meh, she would be the 1st PILF

I guess the point is ----- if that's the standards you use to vote for a POTUS, please stay away from the polling place.

 

[dcbl]

she will not be allowed to participate because she is polling at ZERO

they are frightened of her, a smart beautiful woman who does not walk lock, stock and barrel with their radical ideas is dangerous to them

 

[dcbl]

She would have at least as much chance of winning against Trump as either of the old men she would replace.

um, she would actually have a chance,which is far more than the 2 frontrunners can say...

 

[dcbl]

You were doing so well with this OP, until the last sentence.

meh, she would be the 1st PILF

I guess the point is ----- if that's the standards you use to vote for a POTUS, please stay away from the polling place.

I guess I have been gone too long, you should know better than to take that type of comment seriously from me...

I'm just having fun on a free message board

 

[ColonelAngus]

Revenge is precisely what she will exact.

That's really all she wants, and a bit more return (via publicity) on her time and effort invested. She seems very thin skinned. She complained about lack of media coverage, then complained when the media covered her. She is going to need to grow some thicker skin to run again in the future.

Aside from the fact that she's a bit of a Putin/ Assad stooge, I honestly do like Tulsi. But you're exactly right - thicker skin is called for. She goes from zero to whine in about 3.2 seconds.

Got an electron microscope? Measure the skin of the current POTUS. It would not seem to be a factor.

Can't disagree with that!

Do you even news?

The DNC made it impossible for Tulsi Gabbard to make the next debate — Business Insider

idiot