But, Warren said "I'm the only one on this stage who did this thing". Bernie said "I did that too though". And he was correct. Are you saying this is problematic?
In the last 30 years. He missed that part and apparently you did, too. Unless you are seriously claiming that 29 and some change is substantively different than 30 years.
She said in the last 30 years. 29 years, 2 months, 8 days ago is in the last 30 years. There's not any wiggle room on this.
In the last 30 years. He missed that part and apparently you did, too. Unless you are seriously claiming that 29 and some change is substantively different than 30 years.
She said in the last 30 years. 29 years, 2 months, 8 days ago is in the last 30 years. There's not any wiggle room on this.
This is why no one likes the Bernie Sanders people. This is completely unreasonable.
In the last 30 years. He missed that part and apparently you did, too. Unless you are seriously claiming that 29 and some change is substantively different than 30 years.
She said in the last 30 years. 29 years, 2 months, 8 days ago is in the last 30 years. There's not any wiggle room on this.
Why is stating a fact unreasonable? Do you see why Bernie supporters get their hackles raised?
Because it is completely customary to refer to “year” as calendar year, especially when talking in the span of decades. Acting like this is self-evidently wrong or that someone is lying if they do so rather than counting months and days is really, really silly. And it’s a deflection from the actual point.
Not to mention the Vietnam war was not in the lifetime of most voters. Not smooth.
I’m not watching the debate, but didn’t the Vietnam War end in the 70s? I thought historically older voters are more likely to vote than the 18-35 crowd.
It ended in 75. But he was talking about the lies that got us into Vietnam and Iraq and how those were the worst wars in "our lifetimes." It started in 55. So he's talking to people over 65.
In the last 30 years. He missed that part and apparently you did, too. Unless you are seriously claiming that 29 and some change is substantively different than 30 years.
She said in the last 30 years. 29 years, 2 months, 8 days ago is in the last 30 years. There's not any wiggle room on this.
You forgot to start your post with “well actually”
Post by One Girl In All The World on Jan 14, 2020 23:27:39 GMT -5
Someone who last beat a republican 29 fucking years ago is no more relevant than someone who did it 30 years ago. Come the fuck on. That was the point.
Why is stating a fact unreasonable? Do you see why Bernie supporters get their hackles raised?
Because it is completely customary to refer to “year” as calendar year, especially when talking in the span of decades. Acting like this is self-evidently wrong or that someone is lying if they do so rather than counting months and days is really, really silly. And it’s a deflection from the actual point.
There is nothing hazy about saying "in the last 30 years" and then something being in the last 30 years. Why would it come off badly to correct a wrong statement? I think it comes off badly to lie about that.
Because it is completely customary to refer to “year” as calendar year, especially when talking in the span of decades. Acting like this is self-evidently wrong or that someone is lying if they do so rather than counting months and days is really, really silly. And it’s a deflection from the actual point.
There is nothing hazy about saying "in the last 30 years" and then something being in the last 30 years. Why would it come off badly to correct a wrong statement? I think it comes off badly to lie about that.
It is objectively not a lie. Do you want to address the substantive point here or just argue a pointless distinction? Does it ever get boring being so one note? This is the second thread you’ve derailed today by honing in on one tiny detail, claiming others are lying, and deflecting from actual points being made.
There is nothing hazy about saying "in the last 30 years" and then something being in the last 30 years. Why would it come off badly to correct a wrong statement? I think it comes off badly to lie about that.
It is objectively not a lie. Do you want to address the substantive point here or just argue a pointless distinction? Does it ever get boring being so one note? This is the second thread you’ve derailed today by honing in on one tiny detail, claiming others are lying, and deflecting from actual points being made.
It is a lie. If you want me to go away, I'll go away.
It is objectively not a lie. Do you want to address the substantive point here or just argue a pointless distinction? Does it ever get boring being so one note? This is the second thread you’ve derailed today by honing in on one tiny detail, claiming others are lying, and deflecting from actual points being made.
It is a lie. If you want me to go away, I'll go away.
I don’t own the board and am certainly not in charge of banishing people, but I will say that coming here only to post combatively, make claims that you can’t back up, and argue about tangential topics is quite annoying. Everyone here doesn’t always agree but we actually post thoughtfully and contribute to the community. It doesn’t seem like you’re interested in that and are just here to make waves and get a rise out of people.
It is a lie. If you want me to go away, I'll go away.
I don’t own the board and am certainly not in charge of banishing people, but I will say that coming here only to post combatively, make claims that you can’t back up, and argue about tangential topics is quite annoying. Everyone here doesn’t always agree but we actually post thoughtfully and contribute to the community. It doesn’t seem like you’re interested in that and are just here to make waves and get a rise out of people.
So, I'm a longtime lurker. Going back to my days on theknot and then thenest. I came here today because I was curious what people here were saying about the Bernie/Elizabeth thing. And I was honestly upset at some of what was being said and admittedly didn't resist the urge to comment. From there, I continued to respond to the posts directed to me because it feels rude to just ignore comments directed to me. I have really, truly, tried to be polite. I don't think I've insulted anyone. I didn't specifically come to get a rise out of people which is why I just offered to leave.
Because it is completely customary to refer to “year” as calendar year, especially when talking in the span of decades. Acting like this is self-evidently wrong or that someone is lying if they do so rather than counting months and days is really, really silly. And it’s a deflection from the actual point.
There is nothing hazy about saying "in the last 30 years" and then something being in the last 30 years. Why would it come off badly to correct a wrong statement? I think it comes off badly to lie about that.
I feel like we have different definitions of the word "lie."
Rounding 29 years + a couple of months to 30 years may not be accurate to 2 significant digits, but that doesn't make it a lie. It's still accurate to 1 significant digit.
There is nothing hazy about saying "in the last 30 years" and then something being in the last 30 years. Why would it come off badly to correct a wrong statement? I think it comes off badly to lie about that.
I feel like we have different definitions of the word "lie."
Rounding 29 years + a couple of months to 30 years may not be accurate to 2 significant digits, but that doesn't make it a lie. It's still accurate to 1 significant digit.
ETA I forgot to add "well, actually!"
It’s not even a misrepresentation in any meaningful sense because the distinction of a few months doesn’t alter the point of the statement in the least.
I think one thing we can probably agree on(?) is that Warren didn't come up with that off-the-cuff. It was prepared. That is why I'm characterizing it as a lie. Because it omits the 1990 election which is objectively within the last 30 years.
I think one thing we can probably agree on(?) is that Warren didn't come up with that off-the-cuff. It was prepared. That is why I'm characterizing it as a lie. Because it omits the 1990 election which is objectively within the last 30 years.
So you wanted her to say 29 years 2 months how ever the fuck many days to make sure it was 100% accurate down to the hour?
Do you hold Bernie Sanders to the same level of accuracy?
I think one thing we can probably agree on(?) is that Warren didn't come up with that off-the-cuff. It was prepared. That is why I'm characterizing it as a lie. Because it omits the 1990 election which is objectively within the last 30 years.
And surely Warren is the only one with rehearsed zingers up her sleeve. /sarcasm.
And it's still not a lie. Because as noted above, 20+months or 30 years to the second is irrelevant - it doesn't change the point of the statement. It's been literal decades since Bernie unseated the Republican he was so anxious to note that he beat.
So you wanted her to say 29 years 2 months how ever the fuck many days to make sure it was 100% accurate down to the hour?
Do you hold Bernie Sanders to the same level of accuracy?
This is an INSANE thing to be stuck on.
But here's what I don't get. Why didn't she say 25 years, or 20 years? Those are "striking" numbers to cite and then she would have been factually correct.
Yes, I hold Bernie Sanders to account when he fucks up.
I don't see why it's more insane for me to be stuck on this than any of you to be stuck on this?
So you wanted her to say 29 years 2 months how ever the fuck many days to make sure it was 100% accurate down to the hour?
Do you hold Bernie Sanders to the same level of accuracy?
This is an INSANE thing to be stuck on.
But here's what I don't get. Why didn't she say 25 years, or 20 years? Those are "striking" numbers to cite and then she would have been factually correct.
Yes, I hold Bernie Sanders to account when he fucks up.
I don't see why it's more insane for me to be stuck on this than any of you to be stuck on this?
And surely Warren is the only one with rehearsed zingers up her sleeve. /sarcasm.
Of course she's not. That's why I suggested that might be something we can agree on. Because all of the candidates have rehearsed lines.
Because she’s rounding to the very nearest number?
Omg. I don’t have seeyalater52’s patience or class, so I’m gonna throw it out there that if you’re looking for someone to tell you to gtfo please put a tally mark down for me in that column. You’ve successfully derailed another conversation while adding zero substance.
But why is anyone rounding when the word "within" has a very specific meaning? I'm really not trying to be an asshole here. I think that facts matter. Warren could have made her (salient) point by saying 20 or 25 years. In which case I would say, point Warren.
But why is anyone rounding when the word "within" has a very specific meaning? I'm really not trying to be an asshole here. I think that facts matter. Warren could have made her (salient) point by saying 20 or 25 years. In which case I would say, point Warren.
Just because I’m a glutton for punishment, what do you think Warren gained by “lying” and saying “within 30 years” instead of “in nearly 30 years,” which would not be a lie?
But why is anyone rounding when the word "within" has a very specific meaning? I'm really not trying to be an asshole here. I think that facts matter. Warren could have made her (salient) point by saying 20 or 25 years. In which case I would say, point Warren.
Enough. This is insane. If you would "concede" the point had she said 20 or 25 years, clearly nuance is not beyond your understanding. Stop playing like you don't understand the point she was making.
But why is anyone rounding when the word "within" has a very specific meaning? I'm really not trying to be an asshole here. I think that facts matter. Warren could have made her (salient) point by saying 20 or 25 years. In which case I would say, point Warren.
Just because I’m a glutton for punishment, what do you think Warren gained by “lying” and saying “within 30 years” instead of “in nearly 30 years,” which would not be a lie?
I really don't know. This is my point. I don't know why she went that route.
But why is anyone rounding when the word "within" has a very specific meaning? I'm really not trying to be an asshole here. I think that facts matter. Warren could have made her (salient) point by saying 20 or 25 years. In which case I would say, point Warren.
Enough. This is insane. If you would "concede" the point had she said 20 or 25 years, clearly nuance is not beyond your understanding. Stop playing like you don't understand the point she was making.
No, the nuance is not lost, I said in a previous post that she had a salient point had she not fudged her numbers. I'm not playing at anything.