Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has a New Rule

B

Budman231

Member
The problem. With the socialist left is they act like children..they want everything free..without having to work for it..the entitled little morons
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Budman231 said:
The problem. With the socialist left is they act like children..they want everything free..without having to work for it..the entitled little morons
Click to expand...
There are a lot more rednecks on welfare than anybody else. Just saying. The liberal east and west coast with their strong economies are putting food on the tables of white rednecks who for some reason want to starve and do without medical care.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I do believe he is

Trump is going to drive this country into Occasio Perez's arms where she will create the right winger's socialism of their dreams. Serves them right for being so obstreperous.
Click to expand...
yep

the backlash against trump is gonna be so extreme that we won't settle back to a mildly liberal pragmatist like obama, we're gonna go full blown ocasio-cortez and rub their noses in it as we go
 
Sour Wreck

Sour Wreck

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
yep

the backlash against trump is gonna be so extreme that we won't settle back to a mildly liberal pragmatist like obama, we're gonna go full blown ocasio-cortez and rub their noses in it as we go
Click to expand...

nothing would make me happier then to piss off white evangelicals.

i hope the county goes hard left, fuck them....
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
It won't because the majority of Democrats accept corporate/PAC money
Click to expand...
Causal Fallacy
The Causal Fallacy is any logical breakdown when identifying a cause. You can think of the Causal Fallacy as a parent category for several different fallacies about unproven causes.

One causal fallacy is the False Cause or non causa pro causa (“not the-cause for a cause”) fallacy, which is when you conclude about a cause without enough evidence to do so. Consider, for example, “Since your parents named you ‘Harvest,’ they must be farmers.” It’s possible that the parents are farmers, but that name alone is not enough evidence to draw that conclusion. That name doesn’t tell us much of anything about the parents. This claim commits the False Cause Fallacy.

 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Causal Fallacy
The Causal Fallacy is any logical breakdown when identifying a cause. You can think of the Causal Fallacy as a parent category for several different fallacies about unproven causes.

One causal fallacy is the False Cause or non causa pro causa (“not the-cause for a cause”) fallacy, which is when you conclude about a cause without enough evidence to do so. Consider, for example, “Since your parents named you ‘Harvest,’ they must be farmers.” It’s possible that the parents are farmers, but that name alone is not enough evidence to draw that conclusion. That name doesn’t tell us much of anything about the parents. This claim commits the False Cause Fallacy.

Click to expand...
Your logic is flawed and your conclusions incorrect due to a terminal case of confirmation bias.

You insist that millions of dollars in (legalised!) bribery somehow don't affect our political system.

That's just laughably silly.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Your logic is flawed and your conclusions incorrect due to a terminal case of confirmation bias.

You insist that millions of dollars in (legalised!) bribery somehow don't affect our political system.

That's just laughably silly.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are responding to. I simply am pointing out that what @Padawanbater2 said is a fallacy. Progressive(TM) Democrats aren't going to populate a majority of the seats of congress because too few of them ran for Congressional office. One must run for an office before they can win it in an election.

To remind you of what Pad said:

Padawanbater2 said:
It won't because the majority of Democrats accept corporate/PAC money
Click to expand...
Nothing. Absolutely nothing kept Progressives(TM) from running. Yet only a few did and fewer won. What is hypocritical about the above statement and your inane defense of it, is the hue and cry made by you and Pad when a PAC told Tillemann, a self described Progressive(TM) who was running for a congressional seat in the CO 6th district, they wouldn't give him money.

The converse of Pads statement is true: There were plenty of progressives such as Lamb in the PA 13th district who won and also refused corporate PAC money.

So I'm just using Pad's false statement as a teaching moment to help you and others understand and hopefully correct your faulty thinking. Pad made a conclusion of causality that was not the cause for the cause.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top