Lopen posted...
Why I'm saying I don't think you're actually thinking is because you're taking historical accounts as though "it happened that way just because people said it happened that way" but if you look at why the system is as it is you'll see there is a lot of robustness to it to accomplish exactly the "whitewashed things" I'm saying it should accomplish.
So we're just going to ignore that I looked into and mentioned how the first Electoral Colleges ended up apportioning votes in a manner that is the very opposite of what you claim it was meant to do?
Or that I keep framing these in the context of history beyond "stuff politicians said" and instead stuff they
did.
You're simply sitting at the top of an ivory tower and asserting your opinion as the objective truth of the matter and dismiss any refutation of it as "oh politicians could be lying" or "oh you can't think for yourself you're just parroting historical accounts" or "i'm simply objective. i don't have an axe to grind like
you
"
That's
why I said "how convenient" all the way back then. Contrary to what you may believe, I'm entirely willing to accept reconsideration if presented with evidence or compelling argument that refutes my stance. But that's not what I'm getting here. Instead, from the very beginning, you snidely say I'm not capable of independent thought and "craving validation" (...why the fuck would i even care? i already hate myself. if anything, i'm looking for confirmation of my worst fears that everyone else does too. But I guess I don't have your enlightenment-like ability to just analyze people over the internet based on like three sentences in a debate over history) then pidgeonhole me as some "rando" and recurring character you bring up in arguing with other people like you're some lord overseeing a play. I haven't been given a
reason
to consider your view of this beyond "well if you
actually
could think for yourself you'd see that it's obvious" which doubles as somehow an ironclad defense against contravening evidence or arguments because it's apparently so self-evidently true that anything that undermines it must be wrong or faulty in some regard.
This isn't an exchange or talk about ideas, it's just a sanctimonious sermon.