That's mockery, not a strawman. Also happens to be an accurate restatement of your statement.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @JimDMiller
Given that my position is “Presidents should not tell their supporters to vote twice”, not “voter fraud will be possible if they do so”, Trump isn’t demonstrating the absurdity of the position you’ve invented for me — a strawman, in other words.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
You seem to think I believe that widespread voter fraud perpetrated by Trump supporters would be possible, and that “I” am somehow participating it. Again, pure fantasy. Get out of your bubble, dimwit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UtilityMonster2 @JimDMiller
No, I think you believe that vote by mail enables widespread (D) election fraud and you're in favor of it and the most effective way of being in favor of it is by pretending to misunderstand arguments against vote by mail as arguments in favor of fraud.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @JimDMiller
Oh, you think that, do you? Too bad it’s a strawman argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You should become a “mind-reader” — I’m sure you could convince other low-IQ Trump supporters of your remarkable powers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UtilityMonster2 @JimDMiller
The nice thing about using economic thinking and game theory is that when actions don't match up with words - like in your case - you can reliably detect deception. Has little to do with intelligence other than that I'm smart enough to understand game theory and you aren't
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @JimDMiller
“Muh game theory” lol The only action I’ve taken here is to consistently say that Presidents shouldn’t undermine democratic norms by making light of them. Classic Type 1 error.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UtilityMonster2 @JimDMiller
You really do like throwing out terms you don't understand, don't you? False rejection of a true hypothesis - doesn't apply here at all. This is a very strong mark of a midwit in over his head.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @JimDMiller
Hahaha. You didn’t even know what a Type I error is, did you? It’s the false rejection of a true *null* hypothesis. In other words, you’re finding false positives. You’re seeing ghosts where there are none. Even midwits know what Type I errors are.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, midwits can know what lots of things are - they just can't apply concepts in ways that make sense.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @JimDMiller
My claim is that your “reliable detections” are false positives. The concepts make perfect sense, to people who aren’t dimwits. Pro tip: while your IQ will never be as high as mine, getting off reactionary Twitter and reading books would do your brain some good.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.