Trump

[MoValley John]

I'm not arguing, I'm continuing to make fun you for claiming that Trump didn't have 40%.

That's not lying, that's just being a dick.

Superb post!

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The argument is about your assertion that Trump won't get to 40%.

I'm not arguing, I'm continuing to make fun you for claiming that Trump didn't have 40%. That's not lying, that's just being a dick.

"Won't get to 40%" and "didn't have 40%" are two different things. Of course you know that, but you are playing dumb.

I never said the former, but you continually claimed I did. You lied.

I did say the latter. I guess I'm a bit intrigued why you think "ha, ha, you posted election results that were accurate at the time you posted them" is in any way making fun of me. I find this especially strange because I posted results accurately, while I have caught you posting erroneous numbers on multiple occasions.

Yes, I realize you are just playing games now. Your interest in a fair conversation was clearly disingenuous. You seem to have a habbit of simply becoming a joker when your initial apparently serious arguments are refuted. I find that extremely spineless, which is probably why you fit in so perfectly as a Trump supporter.

[ShockTalk]

"Won't get to 40%" and "didn't have 40%" are two different things. Of course you know that, but you are playing dumb.

I never said the former, but you continually claimed I did. You lied.

I did say the latter. I guess I'm a bit intrigued why you think "ha, ha, you posted election results that were accurate at the time you posted them" is in any way making fun of me. I find this especially strange because I posted results accurately, while I have caught you posting erroneous numbers on multiple occasions.

Yes, I realize you are just playing games now. Your interest in a fair conversation was clearly disingenuous. You seem to have a habbit of simply becoming a joker when your initial apparently serious arguments are refuted. I find that extremely spineless, which is probably why you fit in so perfectly as a Trump supporter.

I believe you've caught on. Don't think @Kung Wu: ever really lied, just pulled your chain over and over as you continued to try and get him to see the light, each time a little more fervently. Probably something I would easily fall into.

It was clear to me what you said, so your first sentence above was all that was needed and let it go after that.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Don't think @Kung Wu ever really lied

How is the following not a straight out lie?

The argument is about your assertion that Trump won't get to 40%.

I don't care that I'm beating a dead horse. I hate liars. I hate weasels that play "ha, ha, I was just joking" games after lying about me.

@Kung Wu directly claimed I said something that I didn't. That's not a game. That's a lie. The fact that he supports a despicable liar like Trump leaves me with even less tolerance for this type of scummy behavior.

[tropicalshox]

Moving on, Trump up 45 to 42 in latest national poll.

And the Rasmussen poll which also came out today has him up by 5.

[Kung Wu]

"Won't get to 40%" and "didn't have 40%" are two different things. Of course you know that, but you are playing dumb.

I never said the former, but you continually claimed I did.

You implied it originally then agreed later that he would. I'm making fun of you for posting it the first time. Unless you are saying you never meant to imply that the first time. Is that the case?

[im4wsu]

we need a "he said he said - he said he said I said" thread.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

You implied it originally then agreed later that he would. I'm making fun of you for posting it the first time. Unless you are saying you never meant to imply that the first time. Is that the case?

No, I never implied Trump couldn't reach 40%. I simply presented the data at the time which said he wasn't there yet. You misunderstood my original post and I clarified for you that very same day, yet for some reason you show back up today, 2 weeks later, lying about the whole thing.

Here's what I actually said at the end of the original post that started this all.

Trump may get a record number of votes in this year's primary, but he is going to have a smaller percentage of the total primary vote than Romney and McCain did.

All you've done is lie about what I said and make stupid irrelevant Hitler/Nazis "what if 10 people turned into 15 people" comments. You pretend to have real interest in this topic, but then I show that you throwing out inaccurate data, and you turn into "I was just joking and being dumb all this time". Excuse me for not finding your type humorous. I'm known enough people who deflect with "I was just playing around" to know that I can't stand most of them. I can't stand Trump and I can't stand your flippant support for him.

[Kung Wu]

Here's a quick rundown of the top 5 finishers by % of votes received each of the last 3 cycles:
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
2016 39.7% 27.1% 14.4% 13.7% 2.8%
2012 52.1% 20.4% 14.2% 10.9% 0.4%
2008 47.3% 21.7% 20.1% 5.6% 1.3%

2016 looks much like the others, other than 1st place being sub 40%, while the immediate challengers have been a bit stronger than normal.

Blah, blah, blah ....

My point was never about +/-40%.

My point was, and will continue to be, EXACTLY about your "sub 40%" comment.

You never admitted to making a mistake. You only agreed, after I called it out, that the data point would change and then went on some "clarification" about some other point that I really don't care about. So either you posted that to misinform, or you made a mistake in implying you could compare the 2012 and 2008 numbers to an incomplete data point in order to make your larger point.

Was it a mistake to compare those, or were you trying to intentionally mislead? Was agreeing that the data point would change your way of saying, oh yeah, I see I screwed that up?

Again, I actually don't give a rats ass about your "clarification" or larger point. Well I was interested in it for a fleeting moment, but only about how the percents you keep throwing out are really irrelevant. But I definitely intend to keep poking you with a stick until the primaries are over for trying to mislead, since you won't come out and actually admit it was a mistake to imply that you can compare the table of numbers as they sat at the time you posted them.

[MoValley John]

I'm voting for Monty Brewster.

[Kung Wu]

No, I never implied Trump couldn't reach 40%.

Then why did you compare complete statistics with a number that you knew would change? That would be a form of lying. Which is ironic since you keep call me a liar ad nauseum, when in fact it is you who are lying.

[QUOTE=Jamar Howard 4 President;658536]I simply presented the data at the time which said he wasn't there yet. You misunderstood my original post and I clarified for you that very same day, yet for some reason you show back up today, 2 weeks later, lying about the whole thing.[/.quote]

I didn't misunderstand anything. I didn't care about your clarification, and don't to this day. I'm still trying to find out if you were misinforming or made a mistake, liar.

So far, all I can see is that you, in fact are the liar. My opinion of you changes, only if you admit you made a mistake in implying that you could compare the sub 40% number (an incomplete data point) with other numbers you posted. Until that, you're the lying liar.

[Kung Wu]

Here's what I actually said at the end of the original post that started this all.

No it's not, you are lying or wrong again. This is the portion of the quote that started it all:

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
2016 39.7% 27.1% 14.4% 13.7% 2.8%
2012 52.1% 20.4% 14.2% 10.9% 0.4%
2008 47.3% 21.7% 20.1% 5.6% 1.3%

2016 looks much like the others, other than 1st place being sub 40%, while the immediate challengers have been a bit stronger than normal.

Now stop lying, and tell me, was it a mistake to misinform people that you could compare that number, or did you intend to mislead?

[Play Angry]

KW is so excited to live in a police state he can't remember whether he's trolling or engaging in a super serious debate.

[ShockTalk]

My point was, and will continue to be, EXACTLY about your "sub 40%" comment.

You never admitted to making a mistake. You only agreed, after I called it out, that the data point would change and then went on some "clarification" about some other point that I really don't care about. So either you posted that to misinform, or you made a mistake in implying you could compare the 2012 and 2008 numbers to an incomplete data point in order to make your larger point.

Was it a mistake to compare those, or were you trying to intentionally mislead? Was agreeing that the data point would change your way of saying, oh yeah, I see I screwed that up?

Again, I actually don't give a rats ass about your "clarification" or larger point. Well I was interested in it for a fleeting moment, but only about how the percents you keep throwing out are really irrelevant. But I definitely intend to keep poking you with a stick until the primaries are over for trying to mislead, since you won't come out and actually admit it was a mistake to imply that you can compare the table of numbers as they sat at the time you posted them.

OK @Kung Wu:. I sincerely thought you were pulling his chain. I see nothing in JH4P's post that predicted the future, just a statement of fact regarding the numbers presented at that time. To me, you're reading more into it than was there or even implied.

[Kung Wu]

OK @Kung Wu. I sincerely thought you were pulling his chain. I see nothing in JH4P's post that predicted the future, just a statement of fact regarding the numbers presented at that time. To me, you're reading more into it than was there or even implied.

I was pulling his chain, because he never really admitted the mistake -- he just agreed it would change and then went off about his larger point that I don't really care about. Maybe that was his way of admitting it was a mistake? But if he says it wasn't a mistake, I will continue pulling his chain after each new vote.