(February 9, 2017 at 11:29 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:(February 8, 2017 at 8:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote: 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.
None of the "evidences" I offered are, I admit, hard evidences. You can and should feel free to reject everything that I said, and I would never attach any level of scientific certainty to any of my claims. I should qualify my statements as being probable (i.e., "greater than a 51% likelihood"), and I admit that they are all certainly subjective statements, opinions, really.
