Is This a Verifiable Claim?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I didn't cherry pick Iowa. I brought up the whole comparison to voting to show no state wants to be left out of the election process. To suggest that some should not get a vote is hypocritical and wrongheaded.
I still insist parliament is the best comparison. It makes sense and that is why democrats avoid it like the plague. It is their duty to vote a ...[text shortened]... than 29% since close to 1000 emails were not successfully delivered. Get your numbers straight.

You cherry picked Iowa in order to highlight the issue of cherry picking? Good one!

Not all people vote, of course, so even a presidential election is still ignoring 40% of the population who don't vote at all. What about those left out? These questions NEED TO BE ANSWERED before we accept the legitimacy of any president, sitting or retired.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
You cherry picked Iowa in order to highlight the issue of cherry picking? Good one!

Not all people vote, of course, so even a presidential election is still ignoring 40% of the population who don't vote at all. What about those left out? These questions NEED TO BE ANSWERED before we accept the legitimacy of any president, sitting or retired.

I cherry picked parliament. They almost always vote.

You lying about me cherry picking Iowa is hurting your case. One word of truth is worth more than 1000 lies. Your avoiding parliament like the plague makes it obvious that is what I cherry picked. You know that just as well as anyone.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I cherry picked parliament. They almost always vote.

You lying about me cherry picking Iowa is hurting your case. One word of truth is worth more than 1000 lies. Your avoiding parliament like the plague makes it obvious that is what I cherry picked. You know that just as well as anyone.

Ahhh. You're referring to the landmass of 'Iowa' before European colonization. Sorry for my confusion.

You have a very strange definition of lying. It appears that others do it whenever they disagree with you. This strategy does not lend itself well to productive debate.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Ahhh. You're referring to the landmass of 'Iowa' before European colonization. Sorry for my confusion.

You have a very strange definition of lying. It appears that others do it whenever they disagree with you. This strategy does not lend itself well to productive debate.

I brought up the election comparison. I compared it to Iowa being used to determine who the president would be. This would be to save the expense of holding elections in all the states. This is a perfect example of why it is like the survey, to save expense. There is no other logical conclusion.

I have logic on my side. I don't need to lie like people who can't debate using logic. Lying is the resort of the weak who can't admit to failure. Your ridiculous comment about pre-colonization Iowa shows how uncomfortable you are debating this. It is a clear sign of you digressing away from logic. Only the weak do that.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I brought up the election comparison. I compared it to Iowa being used to determine who the president would be. This would be to save the expense of holding elections in all the states. This is a perfect example of why it is like the survey, to save expense. There is no other logical conclusion.

I have logic on my side. I don't need to lie like peop ...[text shortened]... are debating this. It is a clear sign of you digressing away from logic. Only the weak do that.

Your logic is a disaster. Just like climate scientists, the people who didn't vote in Iowa obviously all would have voted for Bernie Sanders, except they didn't read their email in time. So the entire election, and every election that ever preceded it, must be illegitimate.

Logically, I should stay away from this forum or I'll catch the plague or whatever other non sequitur you can conjure. Learn to think objectively, and all of your illogicisms will go away.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Your logic is a disaster. Just like climate scientists, the people who didn't vote in Iowa obviously all would have voted for Bernie Sanders, except they didn't read their email in time. So the entire election, and every election that ever preceded it, must be illegitimate.

Logically, I should stay away from this forum or I'll catch the plague or whate ...[text shortened]... sequitur you can conjure. Learn to think objectively, and all of your illogicisms will go away.

You don't make any sense. Now you want to digress into Bernie Sanders by making wild assertions? Whose logic is a disaster?

You are still avoiding parliament. You like digression tactics don't you?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You don't make any sense. Now you want to digress into Bernie Sanders by making wild assertions? Whose logic is a disaster?

You are still avoiding parliament. You like digression tactics don't you?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You don't make any sense. Now you want to digress into Parliament and Iowa by making wild assertions? Whose logic is a disaster?

You are still avoiding Bernie Sanders. You like digression tactics don't you?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Originally posted by @metal-brain
[b]You don't make any sense. Now you want to digress into Parliament and Iowa by making wild assertions? Whose logic is a disaster?

You are still avoiding Bernie Sanders. You like digression tactics don't you?[/b]

I'll talk about Sanders if you talk about parliament and Iowa. You need to explain what Sanders has to do with it though. What does Sanders have to do with Iowa?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I'll talk about Sanders if you talk about parliament and Iowa. You need to explain what Sanders has to do with it though. What does Sanders have to do with Iowa?

I was talking about Iowa. I think the reason you brought it up as an analogy was to point out that it does not encompass the entire population. But the people who actually vote don't either. That doesn't mean the results of elections are inconclusive. Using your logic, since less than half of Iowans actually voted, it's possible that Bernie Sanders would have won if all non-voters showed up to vote for him so we can't rely on the election results. Statistically, however, it is extremely unlikely.

If you're a climate skeptic scientist and someone asks you several times for your thoughts on anthropogenic global warming, but you don't respond, it's your fault for not setting the record straight. In the meantime, we will have to live with 65%. If you don't like the result, make sure you vote next time around.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
I was talking about Iowa. I think the reason you brought it up as an analogy was to point out that it does not encompass the entire population. But the people who actually vote don't either. That doesn't mean the results of elections are inconclusive. Using your logic, since less than half of Iowans actually voted, it's possible that Bernie Sanders ...[text shortened]... e will have to live with 65%. If you don't like the result, make sure you vote next time around.

Bernie Sanders once said that poor people don't vote. If he is right you have a point so I agree with you there. Parliament does vote though and that is the standard that must be met unless you want to argue that getting as many opinions as possible is not worth the money.
If it is not worth the money then the results in Iowa should be used to determine the POTUS. It would save money, isn't that what this is all about? You think it isn't worth spending the extra money to get a consensus bureau result, right?

Since you are dead set against every vote being cast like parliament or the consensus bureau I think you are afraid of the result.

Once again, it is NOT 65%. It is not even 29% as they try to mislead that as well. Do me a favor and find the real percentage that study failed to mention. Since you cannot be honest about the number I think it is important to state the real percentage for all here to see.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Seriously? You are going to quote a guy who cannot even be honest about the less than 29% he calls 65% even after I corrected him?

FAIL!

The post that was quoted here has been removed

So known partisan creatures like you disagreeing with me is evidence of something?

Tell me Duchess, what percentage of climate scientists were sent an email poll? Then tell us all what percentage of those received an email poll. Wildgrass seems either too cowardly to do the math or incapable. Which one are you?

Is Duchess opposed to spending the money needed for a fair poll? If not, why? What are you afraid of?