This is totally specious reasoning based on no cited evidence & it unfairly diminishes Corbyn's popular *ideas* and *platform* as a factor.https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/872975088752017408 …
-
-
Replying to @reedfrich
It doesn't diminish anything. His platform was obviously a component. It's "specious" to suggest one tweet is supposed to be comprehensive.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mtracey
Either stand by what you say or don't say it. This shtick where your make claims then back away when challenged is intellectually dishonest.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @reedfrich
Ok, here you go: I 100% stand behind the tweet, which was obviously not a comprehensive analysis, and your objection was fallacious. Thanks.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
Got any proof to support the specific claim in the not-comprehensive tweet you 100% stand behind?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @reedfrich
It's a deductive surmise just like your (likely correct) claim about the platform.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mtracey
Maybe it's just the somewhat-grizzled, skeptical journalist in me, but a "deductive surmise" with no proof seems a lot like a "wild guess."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
By that standard your claim about the platform is also a "wild guess," notwithstanding one irrelevant 2004 paper you very cleverly excerpted
-
-
Replying to @mtracey
Appreciate the compliment. But, of course, I can't judge or criticize your evidence because you've cleverly chosen not to cite any at all.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.