50,000 Democratic voter registrations in Georgia mysteriously dissapear

a reply to: nenothtu

Which is why you included Marx in a list of dictators?

Sure, makes perfect sense.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Yeah you're obviously the intellectual heavywight around here. While you're making stuff up that is...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

Which is why you included Marx in a list of dictators?

Sure, makes perfect sense.

Well he is known in some circles as "the father of communism". And what communist revolutions in the past 100 years plus have not had a dictator to go with it?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Yeah you're obviously the intellectual heavywight around here. While you're making stuff up that is...

Throwing spaghetti on the ceiling again to see if it sticks? Perhaps your left-leaning buds will give you the emotional support you need.
But y'all dont' be too surprised when the spaghetti falls back down on your Kollective heads.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Again, what country was Karl Marx a dictator for?

What is so bad about simply admitting a mistake, even though I know you're just a) still trying argue with me and b) defending your righter-than-right associate?

Marx was a philosopher. He was not a dictator or political leader. There is no way you can spin reality so that the comment makes sense, and it's about the silliest thing I've seen yet that you're trying to.

Let it go. Who cares?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Marx was a paid writer/agent.

He was related to a banking family.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Not at all. In fact, I was just acknowledging your self-announced culture and deep intellectual thought.

I mean, I'm sure that your "spaghetti analogy" is deeply significant ... somehow ... right? Some depth that I'm just not seeing, or perhaps I'm projecting onto the spaghetti?

Just out of curiosity, what did you think of the judge's decision in the case of the 40,000 voter registrations that the Republican machine in Georgia is refusing to process? I posted a link a while back, but I'm sure you missed it, or you would have said something insightful and on-topic before now.

EDIT: Saw your response.

So, 27 registration forms out of 40,000, justifies disenfranchising 39,976 voters?

Yep, there's that wingnut consistency of thought and action. Every vote counts, except the ones the Republican Machine doesn't want to count.

After all, there's no law that forces SOS to do his job, right?

a reply to: xuenchen

WAS HE A DICTATOR? WHAT COUNTRY DID HE DICTATE TO? WHAT WERE THE YEARS OF HIS REIGN?

a reply to: nenothtu

Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of diminishing returns?

You're a negative loss-value ratio.

a reply to: nenothtu

Do the poll results demonstrate that there are, typically over the course of the measured period, more people who identify as Democrats than Republicans? Yes.

Do the poll results demonstrate that people who identify as Independent have grown and now outnumber Dems and Repubs? Yes.

Do the poll results demonstrate that the Republican party has lost members over time and that it is now ranked the lowest of the three noted groups? Yes.

Spin it however you want. You know those were the claims, and the claims are backed up by the evidence provided.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

Which is why you included Marx in a list of dictators?

Sure, makes perfect sense.

Ah.

So in your view, my list of communist icons is a "list of dictators".

Very good! This is progress, a very good thing for a self professed "leftist/communist/fascist/Kenyan/devil-worshippin' Democrat" and a self professed " Leftist/liberal/progressive/Democrat all the way" is it not?

I think you're showing growth!

Now, since the phrase "set the stage for all those other flamin' authoritarian "right wingers" " seems to elude your grasp, and since you misunderstood my original statement which labelled Marx a "totalitarian" (you supplied the "dictator" part), we can just leave Marx out of the list to avoid confusing you any further.

Whose next on that list you'd like to take issue with having been a "dictator"?

Is Marx the only hook you can attempt to hang your hat on out of that rather lengthy list?

So clarify for me, please, how those fellas were either "right wing" per your own definition or "left wing" per the rest of the world's estimation...

OR -

You could just go back to hammerin' on poor old Karl, sweep the rest under the rug again, and hope no one else notices that your "definition" may leave something to be desired...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

Do the poll results demonstrate that there are, typically over the course of the measured period, more people who identify as Democrats than Republicans? Yes.

Do the poll results demonstrate that people who identify as Independent have grown and now outnumber Dems and Repubs? Yes.

Do the poll results demonstrate that the Republican party has lost members over time and that it is now ranked the lowest of the three noted groups? Yes.

Spin it however you want. You know those were the claims, and the claims are backed up by the evidence provided.

Ah. I see. We are changing the goalposts now, are we?

Those were NOT your original claims - need I go back, dredge them up, and re-post them as well, to keep the narrative straight?

I can do that, if you need me to, in order to refresh your memory.

"Spin" indeed! How do you avoid throwing up from the centripedal forces at play over there?

a reply to: nenothtu

So now, totalitarian leader and dictator don't effectively mean the same thing?

Okay, I'll rephrase: what country was Karl Marx the totalitarian leader of?

How much more mud are you going to stir into the water? It was your list, why can't you stand behind it or explain it?

a reply to: nenothtu


Good lord, yes, please go back and find additional claims in the post where I cited two polls as evidence. Knock yourself out.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

So now, totalitarian leader and dictator don't effectively mean the same thing?

Okay, I'll rephrase: what country was Karl Marx the totalitarian leader of?

How much more mud are you going to stir into the water? It was your list, why can't you stand behind it or explain it?

No problem - just as soon as you quote and link to the post where I called Marx a "totalitarian leader of a country", I'll answer that straightaway for you.

Hint: you're putting words at the end of my fingers that were never typed, and you are doing it because that's the ONLY hook you think you can hang your hat on there... but knock yourself out looking for them and trying to spin them up!

BTW - I kinda like the way you took option 3, continue to hammer on Marx and hope no one notices the deficiencies in your definition!

a reply to: nenothtu

Yeah, I pretty much thought you were crackin' on blanks there, cowboy.

Asking you to either admit your mistake or back up your claim is "hammering on Marx?"

You get funnier every minute. Literally.

Okay, let's try a few more equivalent statements ...

Was Marx the leader of a country?

Was Marx a despot? a fuhrer? a kaiser? a president?

Was Marx in anyway in charge of any level of any government of any country at any time?

What do you think totalitarian means? I'd give you a dictionary definition, but that doesn't mean anything to you.

So, define totalitarian. Start there. With the basics.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu


Good lord, yes, please go back and find additional claims in the post where I cited two polls as evidence. Knock yourself out.

OK.

You requested it.

Here is the post

And here is the claim from it:

In every poll for the last 15 years or so, Americans identifying as Democrats outnumber those identifying as Republican.

It appears that you made the "additional claims" later, so that I never had to.

There seems to be no mention at all of the later-added spin-modifiers of "typically over the course of the measured period, more people who identify as Democrats than Republicans" - what was it you called that sort of thing earlier? "Weasel-words" or something like that?

It says, rather plainly (and boldly I might add - I guess you didn't expect to get called on it) "every poll for the last 15 years or so", which your graphs do not bear out, much less the weekly data that you so kindly provided later, but which of course was not the subject of the original post.

But hey - you're nothing if not bold! Gotta give ya props for that!

Oh, and ThirdEyeBlind ...

How typical that you cherry-picked the Newsweek article.

Care to explain these?

At the the State Elections Board meeting, Kemp’s office stated that there were 25 forms that are not valid and another 26 that are suspect. Kemp’s chief investigator, Chris Harvey, acknowledged that the New Georgia Project has been helpful in identifying the problematic forms.

“Essentially, there could be 51 out of 85,000 forms that were turned in by law that could be invalid. That’s the story,” Abrams said. “Our reaction has been fairly aggressive because to suggest as he did in that letter that we were engaged in something that was nefarious was not only wrong on its face, it had the very real effect of trying to stymie registration through our organization.”

“The irregularities that they have found have actually been a fraction of a percent of the overall number of voter registration forms that the New Georgia Project put in,” said Andra Gillespie, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta. “It would seem as though the tenor of the investigation so far doesn’t necessarily match the scope of the problem.”

How typical.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: nenothtu

Yeah, I pretty much thought you were crackin' on blanks there, cowboy.

How cute! Do you always go on the attack when being evasive?

Asking you to either admit your mistake or back up your claim is "hammering on Marx?"

No, ignoring the body of the post to go on the attack against a claim that I never made is - especially when you are doing it to evade answering what you know you're gonna lose when you do. They call that a "straw man" argument - look it up.

You get funnier every minute. Literally.

Sounds like nervous laughter of desperation to me...

Okay, let's try a few more equivalent statements ...

Was Marx the leader of a country?

Was Marx a despot? a fuhrer? a kaiser? a president?

Was Marx in anyway in charge of any level of any government of any country at any time?

Why would he need to be in order to be a "totalitarian"? Are you a "progressive"? Does that make you a leader of anything?

What do you think totalitarian means? I'd give you a dictionary definition, but that doesn't mean anything to you.

So, define totalitarian. Start there. With the basics.

Can't we just work with YOUR definition?

Fascist: fas·cist
ˈfaSHəst/
noun
noun: fascist; plural noun: fascists
1.
an advocate or follower of fascism.
synonyms: authoritarian, totalitarian, autocrat, extreme right-winger, rightist;

Do you know what "synonym" means? Do you see "totalitarian" listed there as a synonym? that makes a "totalitarian" an "advocate or follower of".

I missed the part in your definition that says "leader of a country" - I guess that came later when you discovered that you're floundering, and had no life preserver to hang on to other than "Marx" - which is a pretty poor life preserver, all things considered.

And STILL you evade! You go, dude! Keep runnin'!

a reply to: nenothtu

In every poll you looked at that I linked, do self-identifying Democrats outnumber self-identifying Republicans over the course of time?

Yes or no?

That's the basic concept, the core claim, the fundamental statement.

So, yes or no?