Badnarik: I will debate or be arrested

[CFLarsen]

Just to yank back: We have a statewide channel here doing the gubernatorial debates and they are deliberately keeping our candidate out. We're having a bit of a lawsuit about that, too...

That's not "yanking", shanek. That's admitting that your system is worse than our "socialist" one. At least when it comes to this.

 

[shanek]

Evidence?

Evidence for what?

Explain what it means to be from the "national electorate".

People who are registered to vote, duh.

Were the 68% in the Rasmussen poll from the "national electorate"? Yes or no?

Yes. It just wasn't limited to LIKELY voters.

 

[CFLarsen]

That WHAT was polled?

Try to keep up. This is your debate.

 

[shanek]

Try to keep up. This is your debate.

Which you are deliberately obfuscating.

Answer the questions directly: WHAT are you asking is being polled, and WHAT is it you are asking for evidence of?

 

[CFLarsen]

Evidence for what?

That it has to be the polled. (Don't feign confusion, OK? It won't work)

People who are registered to vote, duh.

Not "duh", shanek. Not everyone know what you know. Please show some respect for other people.

Yes. It just wasn't limited to LIKELY voters.

How do you know it was registered voters? If you cannot prove that they were, then your argument falls flat.

Let's have some clear, unambiguous evidence this time, hm?

 

[Furious]

It doesn't matter. He's not polling at 15% of either, and you know it Shane. Color me surprised if you can prove that 15% of any representative group of the American electorate supports Badnarik.

The CPD stipulates that a candidate is going to get 15% of the voting pie, not whether 15% of the nation wants him at the debate.

I'd be willing to bet at least 15% of the nation would poll wanting Jessica Simpson wrestling Britney spears in a jello tub at the debates, but it doesn't mean the CPD has to take it seriously.

 

[shanek]

Well, I did find these:

http://www.debates.org/pages/news_040924.html
http://www.debates.org/pages/news_041002.html
http://www.debates.org/pages/news_041006.html

But it still says nothing about WHICH polls were used, or even which polling organizations. To the CPD: Could you PLEASE show your work?

 

[shanek]

That it has to be the polled.

Claus, "the polled" refers to the people you call up and poll. It doesn't say anything about how you select WHICH people to call up and poll, which is what I'm referring to.

Not "duh", shanek. Not everyone know what you know. Please show some respect for other people.

Well, what else could it possibly be? Besides, things might be a little different if I got something other than complete disrespect and derision from you at every turn.

How do you know it was registered voters?

How do I know WHAT was "registered voters"? The national electorate? You're arguing in circles here...

Let's have some clear, unambiguous evidence this time, hm?

OF WHAT????

 

[shanek]

It doesn't matter. He's not polling at 15% of either, and you know it Shane.

I never said he was, so please do not take that attitude with me.

The CPD stipulates that a candidate is going to get 15% of the voting pie, not whether 15% of the nation wants him at the debate.

Again, I never said otherwise; in fact, I'm acknowledging that. I'm just challenging this as an unreasonable criterion.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think, Claus, the point is--and my own subjective observations lead me to the same conclusion--that people want more than just Donkey Vs. Elephant in the debates.

With Badnarik they would get a Clown!!!

 

[Larspeart]

obfuscating.

Crap! That's a big word!

Hey, at least we are getting away from 'lair' and (my personal fav) 'strawman'.

 

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

You are cornered, and you know it. I smell a rat, and you are definitely emitting rodent pheromones. All of a sudden, you ask "What?", "Where?", "Why?", "How?". OMG, shanek suddenly doesn't know what the heck is going on!!!

How do you know the Rasmussen poll consisted of registered voters?

This is the crux of the matter. If you cannot prove that the Rasmussen poll consisted of registered voters, then your claim falls flat.

Do you understand, shanek? The onus is on you. You need to show this. No delays, no FUD, no diversions, no mucking about.

I don't need to spell it out for you. Nobody does. Don't feign ignorance, because nobody is buying.

You can either back up your claim with evidence, or continue this agenda of obfuscation.

Your choice.

 

[Rob Lister]

I never said he was, so please do not take that attitude with me.



Again, I never said otherwise; in fact, I'm acknowledging that. I'm just challenging this as an unreasonable criterion.

I think it's reasonable.

If I were heading the CDP, I'd probably settle for 15%. That seems like a nice number. Even 10% seems fine with me.

Below 10 is getting fuzzy.

Is your candidate polling 10%?

5%?

2%?

1%?

Hey! I watched your man on C-SPAN last night. He was debating a socialist, a Green, and a Constitutionalist.

My wife walked in and asked; "What is this, some kind of joke?"







That's from an ond joke...lighten up.

He did pretty well but the problem was that they were all debating Bush and Kerry...but Bush and Kerry were not there. It honestly looked like each of the candidates pretty much agreeed with the other members of the debate, and only disagreed with Bush and Kerry.

That might be fine for a political ad by one candidate but when four are debating and don't overtly disagree with others in the debate, it makes them look as if they are on the same said -- part and parcle, so to speak.

That's BAD politics.

 

[shanek]

You are cornered, and you know it.

No, you simply won't explain what you want evidence for. All you have to do is say something like, "Please submit evidence that 43% of all banana eaters use Dells" or something like that.

How do you know the Rasmussen poll consisted of registered voters?[/b]

The Rasmussen poll was of American adults. They didn't limit it in any way to likely voters or anything else; just adults, meaning over the age of 18.

This is the crux of the matter. If you cannot prove that the Rasmussen poll consisted of registered voters, then your claim falls flat.

Which claim?

 

[shanek]

I think it's reasonable.

If I were heading the CDP, I'd probably settle for 15%. That seems like a nice number. Even 10% seems fine with me.

Below 10 is getting fuzzy.

Why go with a poll at all? Especially given the problems with them that I've mentioned?

Hey! I watched your man on C-SPAN last night. He was debating a socialist, a Green, and a Constitutionalist.

He did pretty well but the problem was that they were all debating Bush and Kerry...but Bush and Kerry were not there. It honestly looked like each of the candidates pretty much agreeed with the other members of the debate, and only disagreed with Bush and Kerry.

That might be fine for a political ad by one candidate but when four are debating and don't overtly disagree with others in the debate, it makes them look as if they are on the same said -- part and parcle, so to speak.

That's BAD politics.

Well, you could say the same thing about the Bush/Kerry debates. All four of them have ideas and positions that resonate with the people that aren't being discussed in the "debates." And they did dissent quite a bit; in fact, there's a much greater difference between these candidates than there is between Bush and Kerry.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, you simply won't explain what you want evidence for. All you have to do is say something like, "Please submit evidence that 43% of all banana eaters use Dells" or something like that.

I did, shanek. Lucidly. Facing defeat, you "chose" to act the part of the untold. Whattamaroon...

The Rasmussen poll was of American adults. They didn't limit it in any way to likely voters or anything else; just adults, meaning over the age of 18.

Ah. So, your claim falls flat. Whattamaroon...

Which claim?

Don't play this game, at least not around these parts. You f*cked up, you realized it, and you refused to acknowledge it.

Whattamaroon...

 

[shanek]

Don't play this game, at least not around these parts. You f*cked up, you realized it, and you refused to acknowledge it.

Claus, if you can't even tell me WHICH CLAIM YOU'RE REFERRING TO, then you have NO CALL to launch such an accusation against me. I'm asking you a direct question, WHICH YOU ARE REFUSING TO ANSWER.

1) What does the poll showing that 68% want Badnarik to participate in the debates have anything to do with the point I was making about registered voters? (By the way, if you read the Rasmussen link I provided, then you know as much about that poll as I do.)

2) Which claim of mine are you wanting me to support, or are saying that the Badnarik poll somehow invalidates?

3) Are you ever going to respond to my logic showing that the 15% polling requirement of the CPD is unreasonable?

 

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

Go ahead, feign more ignorance. Wave your hands, scream all you like.

This is really pathetic. I wonder how far you will take this self-destruction of yours.

 

[DanishDynamite]

shanek,

Go ahead, feign more ignorance. Wave your hands, scream all you like.

This is really pathetic. I wonder how far you will take this self-destruction of yours.

Actually, I'm a bit in the dark as well. What exactly are you asking for?

 

[CFLarsen]

Actually, I'm a bit in the dark as well. What exactly are you asking for?

I want to know how shanek knows that the Rasmussen poll consisted of registered voters.

If he can't show that, then he can only show that those who wanted Badnarik to be part of the debates consist of polled people - that is, someone who does not (necessarily) vote.

If the CPD demands that those polled also vote, then his claim that Badnarik should attend the debates falls flat.

He needs to show that the CPD demands just that. Because if he doesn't, then he is arguing that the polls of non-voters decide who should attend the debates.

Shanek seems to be begging the CPD to reveal this. This tells us that shanek did not know.

And that is why I say about shanek: "Whattamarron..."