Notice how you didn’t address any points in the actual paper.
You didn’t bring up any points of the paper! You literally just posted a link saying, “the proof is in the pudding.” You clearly didn’t read it, so why would I do more work to refute your point than you did to make it? You’re not only going to ignore every point I bring up, but you expect me to read and refute any hyperlink you share, even though you can’t even articulate what you’re linking to?
The closest thing you’ve done to commenting on the content of the paper was saying it, “looks at many different angles, and actually quantifies things.” You’re like the kid that didn’t read the assignment but is desperately trying to give his book report based on the synopsis on the back. Oh, you think this paper has, “actual analysis,” from, “many different angles,” and, “quantifies things?” How specific! Clearly you’ve read the entire thing and have a commanding grasp of its contents.
I mean, FFS, I typed, “was the Democratic primary rigged,” and this paper was the second result, and the first one that did nothing to challenge your world view. This is just embarrassing.
OK, I know I’ve said this twice already, but I’m really done now. I’ve wasted enough of my life dunking on you. This is starting to be embarrassing for me as well. You can go ahead and have the last word. I’m out.
Wait, you think I need to reiterate all the points in the paper rather than just have you read the primary source? What sense does this make?
You clearly didn’t read it,
What, exactly, made this clear?
but you expect me to read and refute any hyperlink you share
No, I “expect” (I suspect you’re too far into this now to ever admit you may have been wrong, so I don’t actually expect it) you to read the link (or at least skim over it) and realize that the facts don’t support your conclusion that the election was rigged against Sanders. The paper provides some pretty compelling evidence. The most damning that the DNC controls the caucuses, while the states run their individual primaries. . .and Sanders did better in the ones run by the DNC. It’s funny that you put more effort “refuting” the paper by scouring the web to give you some kind of out, rather than actually addressing anything in the papers themselves.
You’re like the kid that didn’t read the assignment but is desperately trying to give his book report based on the synopsis on the back.
And if that’s me, you’re the kid who just read the title and concluded you know everything about the book, then when showed the synopsis you deny that’s what it’s about. You probably would say something genius like “If I search for ‘synopsis of book’ this synopsis is one of the first results!” lol literally anything to avoid the actual point.
You can go ahead and have the last word. I’m out.
Without addressing a single thing in the paper too. Well done. But sure, Harry Reid said he wasn’t give a fair shake. That’s it, it was obviously rigged against him. Damn, super convincing.
You didn’t bring up any points of the paper! You literally just posted a link saying, “the proof is in the pudding.” You clearly didn’t read it, so why would I do more work to refute your point than you did to make it? You’re not only going to ignore every point I bring up, but you expect me to read and refute any hyperlink you share, even though you can’t even articulate what you’re linking to?
The closest thing you’ve done to commenting on the content of the paper was saying it, “looks at many different angles, and actually quantifies things.” You’re like the kid that didn’t read the assignment but is desperately trying to give his book report based on the synopsis on the back. Oh, you think this paper has, “actual analysis,” from, “many different angles,” and, “quantifies things?” How specific! Clearly you’ve read the entire thing and have a commanding grasp of its contents.
I mean, FFS, I typed, “was the Democratic primary rigged,” and this paper was the second result, and the first one that did nothing to challenge your world view. This is just embarrassing.
OK, I know I’ve said this twice already, but I’m really done now. I’ve wasted enough of my life dunking on you. This is starting to be embarrassing for me as well. You can go ahead and have the last word. I’m out.
Wait, you think I need to reiterate all the points in the paper rather than just have you read the primary source? What sense does this make?
What, exactly, made this clear?
No, I “expect” (I suspect you’re too far into this now to ever admit you may have been wrong, so I don’t actually expect it) you to read the link (or at least skim over it) and realize that the facts don’t support your conclusion that the election was rigged against Sanders. The paper provides some pretty compelling evidence. The most damning that the DNC controls the caucuses, while the states run their individual primaries. . .and Sanders did better in the ones run by the DNC. It’s funny that you put more effort “refuting” the paper by scouring the web to give you some kind of out, rather than actually addressing anything in the papers themselves.
And if that’s me, you’re the kid who just read the title and concluded you know everything about the book, then when showed the synopsis you deny that’s what it’s about. You probably would say something genius like “If I search for ‘synopsis of book’ this synopsis is one of the first results!” lol literally anything to avoid the actual point.
Without addressing a single thing in the paper too. Well done. But sure, Harry Reid said he wasn’t give a fair shake. That’s it, it was obviously rigged against him. Damn, super convincing.