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 -
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
Yes, this is tedious, and it is playing out precisely as I knew it would, which — again — is why I didn’t @ you in the first place. Your style of making claims you can’t support, then dishonestly attacking people who point it out, is neither unique nor skillful. Just boring.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jamisonfoser
The "claims you can't support" is misstatement of my first tweet since you ignored the qualification in the very tweet.When I provided evidence for the claim you simply dismissed it saying it wasn't "data" - as if we're talking about a mass electoral bloc & not an elite faction
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
If someone said “Black women have switched parties three times” and one of the examples they gave was “In 2020, a faction of black women — Diamond and Silk and Candace Owens — support Trump,” then the “three times” claim would obviously be false. That’s what you’re doing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jamisonfoser
Okay, I think I see the difference between us. I think there's a distinction between how one writes about a demographic group that includes millions (black women) and how one write about an elite faction of policy makers & journalists of a few thousand
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
No the difference between us is that while we both agree neocons did not switch parties 6 times, only one of us thinks you shouldn’t have written that.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jamisonfoser
I think there was enough neo-cons shifting in 1992 that it belongs to the argument of how this is an opportunistic faction with little partisan loyalty. Thank you for your editorial input but "stet."
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
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.