New study: single payer would cost 34 trillion for first decade

londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
The problem I'm having is I like London and don't want to do it. Same thing happened to tty. tty was a like-able guy until Bernie fever got him (or seemed that way before I learned about his true nature).
Click to expand...
Do me a favor and list the delegate count. Whos at the top
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
The problem I'm having is I like London and don't want to do it. Same thing happened to tty. tty was a like-able guy until Bernie fever got him (or seemed that way before I learned about his true nature).
Click to expand...
Yeah it blows, I tried and just got trolled when he was all in on Warren a bit back too. But he was pushing Epoch times level conspiracy on banks at that point. I think he was all in on Warren at that point and switched to Bernie right afterwards.

It get's hard to tell who is or isn't for real online.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
An equation is math you fool. In mathematics, an equation is a statement that asserts the equality of two expressions. You freakin dumb as shit if you grown and do not know this. Math be hard for ya I suppose.
Click to expand...
Doesn't change the facts

28% < 50%

It's a fact that 28% is less than 50%. Doesn't matter who says it. I am referring to this remark, not your deflection about my math skills.

londonfog said:
Election results support your conclusion?? Bernie is winning and I dont do well with stupid people. Facts are Bernie has 45 delegates. Who has the next most. Please stop with the stupid
Click to expand...
In addition to that, I can also factually state that 45 < 1991

I can also factually state that 28% of 1991 = 557 (this is arithmetic, I wouldn't call it math, but whatever).

Also, 557 < 1991

So, yeah, current elections results support my conclusion that Bernie isn't close to a large plurality, much less the majority needed to win the nomination outright. Do you want to argue with that?

Now then, for a non-math question regarding logic. You say you won't vote for Biden, Bloomer, or Buddgig because they are all racist. Sanders has made many racist statements and has been criticized by black rights activists in Vermont for treating them as if they were invisible (yeah, ok so there are like three black people in the state but still, bear with me). What makes Bernie's history of being racist acceptable to you yet you reject the others?
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Doesn't change the facts

28% < 50%

It's a fact that 28% is less than 50%. Doesn't matter who says it. I am referring to this remark, not your deflection about my math skills.



In addition to that, I can also factually state that 45 < 1991

I can also factually state that 28% of 1991 = 557 (this is arithmetic, I wouldn't call it math, but whatever).

Also, 557 < 1991

So, yeah, current elections results support my conclusion that Bernie isn't close to a large plurality, much less the majority needed to win the nomination outright. Do you want to argue with that?

Now then, for a non-math question regarding logic. You say you won't vote for Biden, Bloomer, or Buddgig because they are all racist. Sanders has made many racist statements and has been criticized by black rights activists in Vermont for treating them as if they were invisible (yeah, ok so there are like three black people in the state but still, bear with me). What makes Bernie's history of being racist acceptable to you yet you reject the others?
Click to expand...
Why do you support someone who is a racist and a race baiter?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
hanimmal said:
Yeah it blows, I tried and just got trolled when he was all in on Warren a bit back too. But he was pushing Epoch times level conspiracy on banks at that point. I think he was all in on Warren at that point and switched to Bernie right afterwards.

It get's hard to tell who is or isn't for real online.
Click to expand...
He quoted or paraphrased Muhammad Ali in that exchange. "I have no problem with Russians. My black brothers and sisters in the US are blah blah". This is why I'm questioning him why Sanders past history isn't an issue. It's a contradiction he's desperate to avoid dealing with (apparently).
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Very UB like. Can't find your own material groupie. Why do you support a racist and a race baiter
Click to expand...
Seriously, that's a false debate question. I don't. Never have and there are no statements that I've made that demonstrate otherwise. It's a false debate question because it is not possible to prove a negative or "have not" statement. The onus is on you to prove that I have. If you were earnest and honest.

What is fact is that Sanders has made many odious racially charged remarks in the past. Why do you give him a free pass on that and yet denounce the others as not fit due to their "racist actions". Do I have to pull up proof positive that Bernie has a bad history of supporting the black civil rights movement? It's not hard but I'm guessing its tldr.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Telling that you dont put up the delegate. Counting is math. You may call it looking at pictures
Click to expand...
Counting is not math. Counting is counting. But that isn't really important. I'm not doubting your ability to add, subtract or do the hard stuff like division. On the other hand, Bernie sows division like no other in this contest.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Counting is not math. Counting is counting. But that isn't really important. I'm not doubting your ability to add, subtract or do the hard stuff like division. On the other hand, Bernie sows division like no other in this contest.
Click to expand...
You really are a dumb one. You sure you not Sky???
There's a branch of mathematics called Combinatorics, which is really all about counting. Please tell me you dont have any children.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
You really are a dumb one. You sure you not Sky???
There's a branch of mathematics called Combinatorics, which is really all about counting. Please tell me you dont have any children.
Click to expand...
OK, so, I'm stupid. Doesn't change the fact that 45 < 1991 and that 28% < 50%. I admit that I feel dumb for even saying that but you asked.

Now then, about logic. Bernie has made many ignorant racist remarks over the years and black rights activists in his state of Vermont have complained that Bernie treats civil rights issues as if they don't exist. You have said you can't vote for most of the other candidates because they have made policy decision or other racist actions. What makes Bernie different to you?
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
OK, so, I'm stupid. Doesn't change the fact that 45 < 1991 and that 28% < 50%. I admit that I feel dumb for even saying that but you asked.

Now then, about logic. Bernie has made many ignorant racist remarks over the years and black rights activists in his state of Vermont have complained that Bernie treats civil rights issues as if they don't exist. You have said you can't vote for most of the other candidates because they have made policy decision or other racist actions. What makes Bernie different to you?
Click to expand...
List the candidates and the total delegates they have Mr.Counting is not math...lol..I'm sorry but that shit still has me LMAO I have to tell someone in the real world this shit said on here. You made Dumbo of the year. Yeah you Sky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top