(February 8, 2017 at 8:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(February 7, 2017 at 9:33 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'd like to see your polls for "white trash", the average reading level of Trump's voter base, and the the Greens being "scientific". That'll do for now.
White trash voters:
http://nypost.com/2016/07/30/why-white-t...ald-trump/
Wait, you said you could support it with polling data, and now you're presenting anecdotal support -- culled from the New York Post, no less.
So you've got one family's take on it, coupled with an expansive application of anecdote-as-evidence.
(February 8, 2017 at 8:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Trump's reading level:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...a8f46884b5
That is discussing the grammatical sense of his speeches, not his reading level. You realize that extemporaneous speeches are often very disjointed, and that such may not be reflective of reading ability, which is what your claim was?
(February 8, 2017 at 8:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Green's scientific bent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party#Alliances
No poll, there, no hard numbers at all. One sentence addressing how they are "often" formed with "scientific ecologists, community environmentalists, and local (or national) leftist groups or groups concerned with peace or citizens rights" does not in any way support your claim that Green Party activists are more scientific.
