Coalition talks fail in Germany

[Walter]

They are valid to him which was your position on judging far right arguments.

I haven't judged any far right arguments

[Nearly Sane]

I haven't judged any far right arguments

You said they had valid concerns. I.e having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent. What concerns do they have that are valid?

[Robbie]

Here's the latest:-
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/20/europe/germany-coalition-talks-collapse/index.html

[Walter]

You said they had valid concerns. I.e having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent. What concerns do they have that are valid?

er, think I've already answered this but if you ask them I'm pretty sure they'll tell you, otherwise their existence would be pointless

[Nearly Sane]

er, think I've already answered this but if you ask them I'm pretty sure they'll tell you, otherwise their existence would be pointless

No you said their concerms were valid and that they were valud because they were their concerns. This doesn't answer why you think their concerns "are having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent' bit since you don't seem to want to answer that....

[Walter]

No you said their concerms were calud and that they were valud becauae they were their concerns. This doesn't answer why you think their concerns "are having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent' bit since you don't seem to want to answer that....

yes , because you are deliberately misunderstanding me and I'm rather tired of it now .

[Nearly Sane]

yes , because you are deliberately misunderstanding me and I'm rather tired of it now .

So when I ask you what concerns tgey gace tgat you have stated you think ard valid i.e. having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent, I am delibrately misrepresenting you, How does that work then?

[Robbie]

Walter, I don't blame you, it could go on and on forever with endless little questions, by which time the point of the thread will be lost.

The 'Right' parties in Germany, AfD is one, are anti-euro, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim and no doubt many other things which they believe are pulling Germany down.  They will appeal to some voters in the same way as UKIP does here and Trump does in America so they have to be considered. These are huge subjects that need to be debated in detail and I don't believe the concerns raised should be dismissed as invalid just because I don't agree with them.

If arguments are presented clearly and logically with appropriate data, they are valid.  Doesn't make them 'right*' but that's opinion.

*correct

[Nearly Sane]

Walter, I don't blame you, it could go on and on forever by which time the point of the thread will be lost.

The 'Right' parties in Germany, AfD is one, are anti-euro, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim and no doubt many other things which they believe are pulling Germany down.  They will appeal to some voters in the same way as UKIP does here and Trump does in America so they have to be considered. These are huge subjects that need to be debated in detail and I don't believe the concerns raised should be dismissed as invalid just because I don't agree with them.

If arguments are presented clearly and logically with appropriate data, they are valid.  Doesn't make them 'right' but that's opinion.

I haven't dismissed arguments as invalid becayse I disagree with  them. Simply asked Walter which concerns of the far right he thinks are valid i.e. having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent. So far he hasn't answered.

[Walter]

Walter, I don't blame you, it could go on and on forever by which time the point of the thread will be lost.

The 'Right' parties in Germany, AfD is one, are anti-euro, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim and no doubt many other things which they believe are pulling Germany down.  They will appeal to some voters in the same way as UKIP does here and Trump does in America so they have to be considered. These are huge subjects that need to be debated in detail and I don't believe the concerns raised should be dismissed as invalid just because I don't agree with them.

If arguments are presented clearly and logically with appropriate data, they are valid.  Doesn't make them 'right' but that's opinion.

thank you

[Walter]

So when I ask you what concerns tgey gace tgat you have stated you think ard valid i.e. having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent, I am delibrately misrepresenting you, How does that work then?

I said 'misunderstanding' . You've changed it to 'misrepresenting'.  that's it , I'm out.

[Nearly Sane]

I said 'misunderstanding' . You've changed it to 'misrepresenting'.  that's it , I'm out.

Aren't deliberately misunderstanding/ misrepresenting you equivalent here? How does asking you a question deliberately misunderstanding you then?