2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

MightyMandarin

DeadHand wrote: »

You just made a fundamental, common error that I pointed out.

You brought Islam into it (incorrectly).

Don't get vexed.

How can you simultaneously maintain it's a nonsense argument while conceding I'm right?

Nope, I didn't. I pointed out the type of people Trump is attracting to his campaign, and that his lack of response to silly questions like that is horrible imo.

I can simultaneously maintain it's a nonsense argument while conceding that you're right, like this: You're right. By the strict definition of the word I used, what was said wasn't racist. Well done, you won the nonsense argument which is totally irrelevant to everything in this thread. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Black Swan

MightyMandarin wrote: »

To be honest, I don't think he truly believes half the sh*t he says. Then again, I don't think the GOP candidates believe half the stuff they say.

Are you suggesting that we can use the half-empty, half-full water glass metaphor; i.e., all the candidates are either half honest or half dishonest in terms of what they say? If so, none of them should be elected.

DeadHand

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Nope, I didn't. I pointed out the type of people Trump is attracting to his campaign, and that his lack of response to silly questions like that is horrible imo.

I can simultaneously maintain it's a nonsense argument while conceding that you're right, like this: You're right. By the strict definition of the word I used, what was said wasn't racist. Well done, you won the nonsense argument which is totally irrelevant to everything in this thread. Give yourself a pat on the back.

You're flapping about now, the original point remains: Trump can hardly be expected to point out the racism in a question that was not in anyway racist.

I'm sorry if I'm getting in the way of you displaying how wonderfully tolerant you are and superior you are to American conservatives.

Brian?

DeadHand wrote: »

You're flapping about now, the original point remains: Trump can hardly be expected to point out the racism in a question that was not in anyway racist.

I'm sorry if I'm getting in the way of you displaying how wonderfully tolerant you are and superior you are to American conservatives.

He could have pointed out it bigotry and islamaphobia though. Who cares if the word racist was used inaccurately, it doesn't change the fact that Trump was faced with bigotry and said nothing.

Overheal

Well Carly is already proving to be a remarkable bullsh!tter...

Carly Fiorina on Planned Parenthood comments

Fiorina appeared on Fox News Sunday, where moderator Chris Wallace asked her about her debate performance, including comments Fiorina had made about Planned Parenthood.

During the debate, Fioria said this: "I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, 'We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.' "

Wallace challenged her description. "Do you acknowledge what every fact-checker has found, that as horrific as that scene is, it was only described on the video by someone who claimed to have seen it? There is no actual footage of the incident that you just mentioned," Wallace said.

"No, I don't accept that at all. I've seen the footage," Fiorina said. "And I find it amazing, actually, that all these supposed fact-checker in the mainstream media claim this doesn't exist. They're trying to attack the authenticity of the videotape," adding "Anyone who wants to challenge me, first, is going to have to prove to me that they watched it."

But Fiorina is mischaracterizing what fact-checkers, including PolitiFact, found. Fact-checkers have watched the videotape, even linking to it in their reports.

PolitiFact found that Fiorina’s description of the video was exaggerated, rating it Mostly False. It did not show "a fully formed fetus on the table" moving while someone says "we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain."

What the Center for Medical Progress’ videos attacking Planned Parenthood actually shows is an interview with a woman identified as a former tissue procurement technician, who tells about an experience in a Planned Parenthood pathology lab where she sees a fetus outside the womb with its heart still beating.

According to the woman, her supervisor said they would procure the fetus’ brain. The video’s creators added footage of an aborted fetus on what appears to be an examination table, and its legs are moving. The stock footage was added to the video to dramatize its content.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/20/fact-checking-post-debate-analysis-sept-20-sunday-/

Thought she was a bit off when she made that comment, having been following this PP thing for the last 6 weeks. Further exemplifying that lawmakers in all likelihood aren't even viewing the 'evidence' or waiting on investigations, they're just defunding the organization because it looks good in the headlines.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Well Carly is already proving to be a remarkable bullsh!tter...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/20/fact-checking-post-debate-analysis-sept-20-sunday-/

Thought she was a bit off when she made that comment, having been following this PP thing for the last 6 weeks. Further exemplifying that lawmakers in all likelihood aren't even viewing the 'evidence' or waiting on investigations, they're just defunding the organization because it looks good in the headlines.

Is it your contention that Planned Parenthood ISN’T harvesting body parts from some abortions in a manner that is conducive to maximize the greatest potential sale to vendors?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Is it your contention that Planned Parenthood ISN’T harvesting body parts from some abortions in a manner that is conducive to maximize the greatest potential sale to vendors?

Don't. Move. The. Goalposts. Carly hasn't even seen the vids and is doubling down about it.


Ask that question again in this thread I'm already an active participant of. I've already answered though.

Amerika

Walker is out! Campaign money woes and no path to victory.

The Black Oil

Yeah, seems that he's gone.

Hande hoche!

Not surprised after how the support seemed to evaporate http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/21/scott-walker-said-to-be-quitting-presidential-race/

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Walker is out! Campaign money woes and no path to victory.

Either you get money from the billionaire class or you get money from the people. Clearly, he failed at both.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Walker is out! Campaign money woes and no path to victory.

Wasn't he the Koch's favourite son? Maybe they wised up to some of his bs.

Black Swan

Who will buy the next US president, and what will be their ROI (return on investment)? Very little is free in US America, and donors will expect a return, especially the boards of directors of large donating corporations. The Atlantic suggests that the Clinton Machine is already well funded for 2016, but the GOP has yet to land the mega-donors this early in their race. Of course there are campaign finance reform laws to circumvent, which has been easily done by donating not directly to a presidential candidate, rather to a PAC or Super PAC.

Billionaire entertainer and real property investor Trump may claim that he will not need money from billionaires and corporations, but after the election progresses, if he gets closer to November 2016, I feel certain that there will be Trump favoured PACs and Super PACs that will buy him just like past presidential candidates. He claims to be a big deal maker, which would suggest that there will be big deals with PACs and Super PACs to ensure their ROI.

hatrickpatrick

I don't know if it's the media getting more pessimistic or the weather, but I have this odd feeling that Sanders' chances of securing the democratic nomination are slowly ebbing away. Is this accurate, or have I simply been got at by bloggers who never wanted someone like him to get it in the first place and will jump on any chance to declare him an outlier?

Wompa1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't know if it's the media getting more pessimistic or the weather, but I have this odd feeling that Sanders' chances of securing the democratic nomination are slowly ebbing away. Is this accurate, or have I simply been got at by bloggers who never wanted someone like him to get it in the first place and will jump on any chance to declare him an outlier?

I was out of the US for a week. Prior to that week the media were not making much mention of Sanders at all. He was getting the Ron Paul treatment.

They have started to acknowledge him but it seems to be in a disparaging way. Check out Late Night with Stephen Colbert when Sanders was on. During the opening, they show a montage of the media finally acknowledging him and the tone "What is going on!?"..."What is happening!?"..."Can this be true?"

They are doing their best to diminish his popularity as fringe.

The big companies that own and run the supposed 'liberal' media are deathly afraid of the guy. Sanders and Warren seem to really get under the skin of other politicians and companies. It's interesting to see what's going on but the chances of Bernie getting past Clinton without a super PAC and without even more than 50% of his own parties support seems impossible.

The US does not have a Democracy...well, it may have a form of Democracy that can be bought.

MightyMandarin

Wompa1 wrote: »

I was out of the US for a week. Prior to that week the media were not making much mention of Sanders at all. He was getting the Ron Paul treatment.

They have started to acknowledge him but it seems to be in a disparaging way. Check out Late Night with Stephen Colbert when Sanders was on. During the opening, they show a montage of the media finally acknowledging him and the tone "What is going on!?"..."What is happening!?"..."Can this be true?"

They are doing their best to diminish his popularity as fringe.

The big companies that own and run the supposed 'liberal' media are deathly afraid of the guy. Sanders and Warren seem to really get under the skin of other politicians and companies. It's interesting to see what's going on but the chances of Bernie getting past Clinton without a super PAC and without even more than 50% of his own parties support seems impossible.

The US does not have a Democracy...well, it may have a form of Democracy that can be bought.

Maybe it's something to do with them exposing their dirtiness :pac:

But every democracy can be bought, America is just the most valuable one.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Don't. Move. The. Goalposts. Carly hasn't even seen the vids and is doubling down about it.


Ask that question again in this thread I'm already an active participant of. I've already answered though.

Gotta love those wacky fallacious factcheckers. :rolleyes:

“As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape, I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.”

Did she say the aborted babies videos were from Planned Parenthood? NO! She was accurately describing what she saw in the video.

Caution: Graphic nature of abortion on display.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzMAycMMXp8

A recap if you do not wish to view the video… A former Planned Parenthood technician talks about harvesting the brain of an alive and fully formed fetus. While she tells her story, there is footage of another baby of roughly the same gestational age as the one whose brain she harvested. This baby is seen still kicking and its heart still beating.

Using similar illustrations and appropriate images added to news stories in order to give the viewer a more accurate picture is a common journalistic technique used by all the media outlets. How come I don’t hear y'all yelling at CNN... Liar, liar, pants on fire! (It’s a rhetorical question... we all know the biased answer. )

Fiornia should have used the story she told at a Susan B. Anthony List dinner this year when arguing that it is the Democrats, not Republicans, who are “extreme” when it comes to abortion. Fiorina described how women come up to her and say, ‘I agree with Republicans on so many things, but I just can’t support this extreme pro-life platform of the Republican Party.' She said the way she answers that always is to say, ‘Well, I can respect that. Have you ever read the Democratic Party platform? Well, here’s what it says: Any abortion, at any time, at any point in a woman’s pregnancy, for any reason, to be paid for by taxpayers... Do you agree with that?’

Does anybody here agree with that?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Gotta love those wacky fallacious factcheckers. :rolleyes:



Did she say the aborted babies videos were from Planned Parenthood? NO! She was accurately describing what she saw in the video.

Caution: Graphic nature of abortion on display.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzMAycMMXp8

A recap if you do not wish to view the video… A former Planned Parenthood technician talks about harvesting the brain of an alive and fully formed fetus. While she tells her story, there is footage of another baby of roughly the same gestational age as the one whose brain she harvested. This baby is seen still kicking and its heart still beating.

Using similar illustrations and appropriate images added to news stories in order to give the viewer a more accurate picture is a common journalistic technique used by all the media outlets. How come I don’t hear y'all yelling at CNN... Liar, liar, pants on fire! (It’s a rhetorical question... we all know the biased answer. )

Fiornia should have used the story she told at a Susan B. Anthony List dinner this year when arguing that it is the Democrats, not Republicans, who are “extreme” when it comes to abortion. Fiorina described how women come up to her and say, ‘I agree with Republicans on so many things, but I just can’t support this extreme pro-life platform of the Republican Party.' She said the way she answers that always is to say, ‘Well, I can respect that. Have you ever read the Democratic Party platform? Well, here’s what it says: Any abortion, at any time, at any point in a woman’s pregnancy, for any reason, to be paid for by taxpayers... Do you agree with that?’

Does anybody here agree with that?

The bolded part is a strawman. This is not the "Democratic Platform" on abortion. It's complete scaremongering and another reason Fiorina is a effing joke of a candidate. She's creating a narrative for her own benefit. A disgrace.

Find me one source connected with the Dems that states this as policy.

Wompa1

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Maybe it's something to do with them exposing their dirtiness :pac:

But every democracy can be bought, America is just the most valuable one.

True enough. Though, if you look at the world index for corruption. The least corrupt countries are also those damn, dirty socialist and wealthy Scandanavian countries.

Norway is paying to save the Brazillian rainforest!! Why is that on them?...what nation of people would actually not have a problem with their money being used for something that betters the entire world but with it all on them. They are remarkable, in fairness

MightyMandarin

Wompa1 wrote: »

Norway is paying to save the Brazillian rainforest!! Why is that on them?...what nation of people would actually not have a problem with their money being used for something that betters the entire world but with it all on them. They are remarkable, in fairness

Maybe they feel guilty for drilling the oil reserves they have?

Wompa1

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Maybe they feel guilty for drilling the oil reserves they have?

And what about others doing the same? What is it that they are giving back?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

The bolded part is a strawman. This is not the "Democratic Platform" on abortion. It's complete scaremongering and another reason Fiorina is a effing joke of a candidate. She's creating a narrative for her own benefit. A disgrace.

Find me one source connected with the Dems that states this as policy.

Here you go. Although there was no need for me to do it as I only stated it was something she should have brought up at the debate. Took me 5 seconds through google.

http://liveactionnews.org/rand-paul-asks-one-democrat-life-begins-response-shocking/

MightyMandarin

Wompa1 wrote: »

And what about others doing the same? What is it that they are giving back?

Yeah, but these are evil Norwegian socialists we're talking about. :pac:

PopePalpatine

Amerika wrote: »

Here you go. Although there was no need for me to do it as I only stated it was something she should have brought up at the debate. Took me 5 seconds through google.

http://liveactionnews.org/rand-paul-asks-one-democrat-life-begins-response-shocking/

I did a bit of Googling...surprise, surprise, Live Action News is a media wing for a pro-life (ugh, that term just reeks of sanctimony) group called Live Action.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Here you go. Although there was no need for me to do it as I only stated it was something she should have brought up at the debate. Took me 5 seconds through google.

http://liveactionnews.org/rand-paul-asks-one-democrat-life-begins-response-shocking/

Is this a joke? One line in a biased article that doesn't actually support your point.

I'll wait for an actual source.

Brian?

The Democratic Party, by and large, is pro choice.

This sums it up:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm

This doesn't mean they support unlimited abortion without restriction.

Amerika

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I did a bit of Googling...surprise, surprise, Live Action News is a media wing for a pro-life (ugh, that term just reeks of sanctimony) group called Live Action.

Brian? wrote: »

The Democratic Party, by and large, is pro choice.

This sums it up:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm

This doesn't mean they support unlimited abortion without restriction.

Instead of attacking the messenger, which seems to be the Modus Operandi of most here, instead of dealing with the issues (and a rather intellectually dishonest tactic if you ask me), how about answering me one simple question... Did Debbie Wasserman Shultz, the Chairperson for the Democratic National Committee, actually say what was reported from the organization I provided? Easy peasy, nothing more, nothing less.

And when you come back with your tail between your legs, because she did, it only confirms the Democratic position, which is...

Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Instead of attacking the messenger, which seems to be the Modus Operandi of most here, instead of dealing with the issues (and a rather intellectually dishonest tactic if you ask me), how about answering me one simple question... Did Debbie Wasserman Shultz, the Chairperson for the Democratic National Committee, actually say what was reported from the organization I provided? Easy peasy, nothing more, nothing less.

And when you come back with your tail between your legs, because she did, it only confirms the Democratic position, which is...

Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

She said what she said. She did not say she supported unlimited abortion payed for by the tax payer. That was your origin assertion which is clearly false.

Brian?

What she said was:

“Here’s an answer. I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. ”

The article chooses to spin that as her supporting unlimited abortion. I can't see how that's the case. As usual you're burning a straw man. When it's exposed as a strawman, you shout louder and pour some petrol on the fire.

Overheal

‘Well, I can respect that. Have you ever read the Democratic Party platform? Well, here’s what it says: Any abortion, at any time, at any point in a woman’s pregnancy, for any reason, to be paid for by taxpayers... Do you agree with that?’

I think that has been proven to be false now.