The Mess

[Smitty-48]

He didn't tack to the centre though, he was up there against Hillary, pandering to the hard left wing of the Democrat party, that boxed him out against Hillary, if Sanders was going to ride some Lefty Weft Bernie Bros wave all the way to the WH, then the Superdelegates wouldn't have been able to stop him.

I don't see why that means he wouldn't be able to moderate hisself and move more center in the general, if he had won the primary somehow.

It's obviously just my opinion. Are you saying you want proof? See; the primary, he didn't win it. Pretty simple equation; if you run for President and you don't become President, you wouldn't have become President, because you didn't.

He ran for President, he didn't win, what other proof do you want, jackwagon?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It's obviously just my opinion. Are you saying you want proof? See; the primary, he didn't win it.

Well, if that ain't a clear argument...

You are saying Trump wouldn't need to beat Sanders on energy, because there was no way Sanders could ever win.

Sorry, it took me so long to catch up.

(edited because I realize I spelled beat as beet, and it pissed me off.)

[Smitty-48]

It's obviously just my opinion. Are you saying you want proof? See; the primary, he didn't win it.

Well, if that ain't a clear argument...

You are saying Trump wouldn't need to beet Sanders on energy, because there was no way Sanders could ever win.

Sorry, it took me so long to catch up.

Are you saying your fallacious fantasy scenarios about how Sanders coulda woulda shoulda is an "argument" which overturns the manifest proof that he couldn't have won because he didn't win?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Are you saying your fallacious fantasy scenarios about how Sanders coulda woulda shoulda is an "argument" which over turns the manifest proof that he couldn't have won because he didn't win?

I was just imagining a scenario where Sanders made it to the general, and then wondering if Trumps superior energy would be the deciding factor.

Why must you hate imagination Smitty... it is fun to dream.

[Smitty-48]

Are you saying your fallacious fantasy scenarios about how Sanders coulda woulda shoulda is an "argument" which over turns the manifest proof that he couldn't have won because he didn't win?

I was just imagining a scenario where Sanders made it to the general, and then wondering if Trumps superior energy would be the deciding factor.

Why must you hate imagination Smitty... it is fun to dream.

It's not a question of imagination, don't invoke "argument!" if you're not prepared to make one, and concede to one when proof is rendered, arguments are not about imagination, arguments are logic, logic clearly states that Sanders couldn't have won the election, why? Because he didn't win the election, end of argument.

The argument about who could have won the election was decided by the election, your fantasy suppositions cannot be proved, thus they cannot overturn the argument. to wit, if you can't prove it; it's not an argument, by definition.

Since, logically, one cannot prove a negative, I am not bound to prove that Sanders couldn't have won, and since he didn't win, the proof is in the pudding therein. You are bound by logic to prove that Sanders could have won, and since you can't do that, you can't make an argument therein.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It's not a question of imagination, don't invoke "argument!" if you're not prepared to make one, and concede to one when proof is rendered, arguments are not about imagination, arguments are logic, logic clearly states that Sanders couldn't have won the election, why? Because he didn't win the election, end of argument.

Hold up now.

I was not under the impression that I was arguing that Sanders could have one.

You must very difficult to have an 'alternative history' debate with if you believe 'what didn't happen couldn't happen. End of Story!'

[Smitty-48]

It's not a question of imagination, don't invoke "argument!" if you're not prepared to make one, and concede to one when proof is rendered, arguments are not about imagination, arguments are logic, logic clearly states that Sanders couldn't have won the election, why? Because he didn't win the election, end of argument.

Hold up now.

I was not under the impression that I was arguing that Sanders could have one.

You must very difficult to have an 'alternative history' debate with if you believe 'what didn't happen couldn't happen. End of Story!'

You invoked "argument", I made the argument, I articulated the proof logically deduced, now it is time for you to concede; "You're right, Smitty, Sanders couldn't have won, because he ran, and he didn't win, I concede"

I already gave you my opinion, then I gave you proof, I don't like Bernie Sanders, I would have Bernie Sanders shot if I had my druthers, I don't want to talk about Bernie Sanders, I don't give a rats ass about Bernie Sanders, so take the opinion, or concede to the argument, or move on.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You invoked "argument", I made the argument, I articulated the proof logically deduced, now it is time for you to concede; "You're right, Smitty, Sanders couldn't have won, because he ran, and he didn't win, I concede"

I can not concede a point I never made.

Are you cranky that I accused you of liking something about Sanders?

Edit: your edit cleared up that question.

[Smitty-48]

You invoked "argument", I made the argument, I articulated the proof logically deduced, now it is time for you to concede; "You're right, Smitty, Sanders couldn't have won, because he ran, and he didn't win, I concede"

I can not concede a point I never made.

Are you cranky that I accused you of liking something about Sanders?

Edit: your edit cleared up that question.

I'm not cranky, I'm just trying to get you off Bernie Sanders, because I'm not interested in Bernie Sanders, unless it is to see him shot by a firing squad. I'm not cranky about it, I would have Bernie Sanders shot, in cold blood, I assure you.

Maybe he's a nice guy; don't know, don't care, I'd sign the order of execution, go golfing, and sleep like a baby after.

[Hwen Hoshino]

You invoked "argument", I made the argument, I articulated the proof logically deduced, now it is time for you to concede; "You're right, Smitty, Sanders couldn't have won, because he ran, and he didn't win, I concede"

I can not concede a point I never made.

Are you cranky that I accused you of liking something about Sanders?

Edit: your edit cleared up that question.

I'm not cranky, I'm just trying to get you off Bernie Sanders, because I'm not interested in Bernie Sanders, unless it is to see him shot by a firing squad. I'm not cranky about it, I would have Bernie Sanders shot, in cold blood, I assure you.

For what? Existing while socialist.