If you didn't screenshoot my tweet and had just asked me (as I think an intellectually honest person would have), I could have provided you with evidence right away. See here for a list:https://fpif.org/hillary-clinton-neocons/ …
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
There is no data at that link, only anecdote. And even then it claims only “a small but not insignificant number” of neocons supported Clinton in 1992.
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @jamisonfoser
The article provides names, which is the "data" one needs when talking about a small, elite faction, which is what neo-conservatism is. You don't need a sophisticated polling operation when dealing with several thousand policy people.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
Of course you know that a small handful of people from Faction X supporting the party with which it is not associated is a completely routine thing that happens every election, so pointing to a small handful to claim the faction itself switched support is intellectually dishonest
2 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @jamisonfoser
It's not completely routine. Most elite factions are fairly partisan. If it was something completely routine, people wouldn't write about the political shifts of the neo-cons. But there are in fact many articles and even books about it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
You said “neocons shifted parties” in 1992 and 2016. You based that on like six people. That is obvious nonsense. Go away.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @jamisonfoser
I said a faction within the faction shifted in 1992. Please be honest! For 2016, there were even more, including prominent columnists like David Brooks. Again, this is a matter of historical record.https://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/another_neocon_endorses_clinton_calling_her_2016s_real_conservative_and_the_candidate_of_the_status_quo/ …
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
You said “neocons have shifted parties six times” and listed 1992 as one of the six. It’s right there in the damn screenshot that started this conversation. If by “neocons have shifted parties” you meant “a small number of neocons have shifted parties” you should have said that.pic.twitter.com/hgII8F58R7
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @jamisonfoser
"a faction went for Clinton 1992" -- I don't know how that means anything other than a faction of neo-cons (themselves, as I specified, an elite faction) went for Clinton in 1992; in other words, not a majority for a faction of a faction.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
So you’re saying that your point (“neocons have shifted parties 6 times”) was false but not dishonest because in your list of the six times you included a caveat meaning “not really.” Got it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm saying the qualification I made about 1992 was in the original tweet. It's normal in writing to qualify claims when the evidence warrants. It was not something hidden but in the tweet itself.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
So you retract the parent claim, that “neocons shifted parties six times,” including 1992, because as you acknowledge, only a small faction of them did so. Great. Glad to hear it.
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.