Support NeoGAF

[Macho Madness]

He'll be out of the race before policy starts mattering.

He's also a saltine candidate with little charisma and nothing that stands out besides his bald spot and "I beat the unions 4 years ago."

He also appears to have lost ground in what was considered a great debate by his supporters.

 

[Diablos]

Walker's voice is like a creepy variant of George W. Bush.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D6HLDnYu64

Keep underestimating him. This electorate is perfect for his brand of white resentment.

There's no way in hell.

Walker was set up as the dark horse for a race that we anticipated to be dominated by Bush, Rubio and some Cruz and Christie on the side. Trump (and to a lesser extent Carson and Fiorina) completely changed the game.

 

[PantherLotus]

Very true, but their ability to dismiss a politician for false reasons while supporting another one who actually would fall under what they say about Obama (i.e. no experience; Palin, Trump, et. al.) is just mind blowing and infuriating.

People still think he wasn't born in America and is Muslim. For fuck's sake.

no i'm saying it's so consistent with their lack of character that it can hardly be surprising or even upsetting at this point. this is not new.

 

[Gotchaye]

I think Walker remains a great VP pick for an establishment candidate like Bush. He's definitely the best choice from among the other candidates. You want to pick someone the base can live with and the establishment hates all the others.

 

[Diablos]

no i'm saying it's so consistent with their lack of character that it can hardly be surprising or even upsetting at this point. this is not new.

Of course it isn't new but their willingness to back candidates with zero experience further exposes the sheer ignorance and stupidity of the Republican electorate. They keep getting worse. It's concerning.

 

[User1608]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D6HLDnYu64

Keep underestimating him. This electorate is perfect for his brand of white resentment.

Blegh, coded language. Whatever, he won't go the distance sooo... But if he does I'll use a Walker avatar! *edit* Actually, make that a dopey faced avatar.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I have been completely wrong about Trump declining before. What does it look like after tomorrow's debate?

 

[PantherLotus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D6HLDnYu64

Keep underestimating him. This electorate is perfect for his brand of white resentment.

there are only two kinds of people:

1. those who focus on division, like this administration (and his followers)

2. those who focus on unity ...

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

 

[PantherLotus]

Of course it isn't new but their willingness to back candidates with zero experience further exposes the sheer ignorance and stupidity of the Republican electorate. They keep getting worse. It's concerning.

Sarah Palin was on the Republican ticket just 7 years ago.

 

[PhoenixDark]

there are only two kinds of people:

1. those who focus on division, like this administration (and his followers)

2. those who focus on unity ...

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

Only sith deal in absolutes.

 

[Coriolanus]

I love how Republicans harped on Obama so bad about having no experience, acting as though the only thing he did with his life as of 2008 was being a community organizer.

And now they flock to Trump who propelled his campaign with xenophobia and some masturbatory story about how great he is for rejecting millions of dollars for another go at The Apprentice.

People that trust capitalism far more than the opposition find that people that theoretically excelled at capitalism would be a good fit to lead The Capitalist Nation.

I mean, there is the semblance of a logic to it. I'd say that makes more sense than electing businessmen for the legislative branch, at least.

Of course it isn't new but their willingness to back candidates with zero experience further exposes the sheer ignorance and stupidity of the Republican electorate. They keep getting worse. It's concerning.

Legit question: is there a body of evidence to support the notion that previous legislative/executive experience makes one a better prez?

 

[Diablos]

Sarah Palin was on the Republican ticket just 7 years ago.

As VP. Not to mention she had more experience than even Trump has now politically speaking.

Insane.

 

[Gotchaye]

there are only two kinds of people:

1. those who focus on division, like this administration (and his followers)

2. those who focus on unity ...

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

Carson basically did this too when it was his turn. He's a little more explicit. He wants unity among everyone who doesn't more-or-less hate America, and he optimistically believes that it's only a few people, like Obama, who are actually "the enemy". There are hints of the liberal plantation here - you want unity between Republicans and the people the Democrats have hoodwinked into supporting socialism.

Wow this woman is something else: https://youtu.be/Mu1pPx7w4MU?t=96 She basically says it's amazing to see a candidate dedicated to racism and throwing poor people in jail. She sounds like a 7 year old on Christmas Day.

I think you got trolled.

 

[Diablos]

Legit question: is there a body of evidence to support the notion that previous legislative/executive experience makes one a better prez?

I don't know.

I'm talking about the Republican voter base and their motives/attitudes; how out of control their double standards have become.

Wow this woman is something else: https://youtu.be/Mu1pPx7w4MU?t=96 She basically says it's amazing to see a candidate dedicated to racism and throwing poor people in jail. She sounds like a 7 year old on Christmas Day.

I think you got trolled.

On my birthday too

Trump supporters are so crazy though, you never know.

 

[brainchild]

I don't know.

I'm talking about the Republican voter base and their motives/attitudes; how out of control their double standards have become.

Wow this woman is something else: https://youtu.be/Mu1pPx7w4MU?t=96 She basically says it's amazing to see a candidate dedicated to racism and throwing poor people in jail. She sounds like a 7 year old on Christmas Day.

They're like in a whole different dimension of reality. It's the fucking Twilight Zone... I can't believe what I'm seeing. And that lady should be ashamed of herself. Delusional.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Again, she lied. It's completely wrong to say "true but misleading." There is almost nothing true. Even if she's referencing the video you say, it's not from PP. She was wrong.

There's no reason for us to outsource considering whether what Fiorina said was true. The videos are publicly available for our review. Kliff's claim that "the things Fiorina describes — the legs kicking, the intact 'fully formed fetus,' the heart beating, the remarks about having to 'harvest its brain' — are pure fiction" is wrong. The video shows an "intact[,] 'fully formed fetus'" (here's a NSFW screencap from the video I linked to earlier) with "its legs kicking" (here's a NSFW GIF). That clip immediately follows O'Donnell's description of another 19-week-old intact fetus with a beating heart, and immediately precedes her description of how she "procured" the brain. Kliff's article, calling Fiorina's description a "fiction," is the curtain behind which you're not supposed to look. You're dutifully obliging.

Your such a shill for these groups.

Its not planned parenthood!

*You're

Assume the clip of the dead or dying baby in a stainless steel bowl wasn't taken at a Planned Parenthood facility. In what way would that contradict Fiorina's statement?

 

[The Gaming Gamer]

there are only two kinds of people:

1. those who focus on division, like this administration (and his followers)

2. those who focus on unity ...

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

Nothing says unity like suppressing groups of people from voting and creating policies that disproportionately affect minorities. I'm so glad to see him fail on the national stage.

 

[Diablos]

Assume the clip of the dead or dying baby in a stainless steel bowl wasn't taken at a Planned Parenthood facility. In what way would that contradict Fiorina's statement?

Authenticity. Your word of the day, Meta, is AUTHENTICITY. If this video is designed to prevent PP from getting further funding, and if it's doctored in any way then you as a candidate for the Presidency need to take a step back and make sure you aren't checking your head at the door.

I.e. Kind of like how I apparently just got duped in the youtube video I linked to above.

*You're

It's a shame he misspells words or uses bad grammar sometimes; imagine if he tried to argue with you about the Supreme Court! I bet he'd end up being so wrong!!

 

[Y2Kev]

My biggest "fear" as a TRUMP 2016 FAN is that his fanbase would think he was bombing based on the negative reaction of the audience in the library. But it seems like they don't give a shit and aren't fooled.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

America became great again after the first minute of coverage. Saw it first hand on my telly.

 

[Diablos]

I am going to take this bottle of beer and knock it over.

Then I'm going to stand it back up, and after that I will take a rag and clean up the beer on the table.

And when I do that, I will be doing other things with great people at that table to clean it up, and let me tell you, we are going to make America great again. We are going to make it so great, your head is going to fall off and reattach itself like the past 7 years never happened.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Authenticity. Your word of the day, Meta, is AUTHENTICITY. If this video is designed to prevent PP from getting further funding, and if it's doctored in any way then you as a candidate for the Presidency need to take a step back and make sure you aren't checking your head at the door.

This is not the complaint the others are making. They're not saying, "Well, she got snookered by a false video." They're saying, "THERE IS NO SUCH VIDEO CARLY FIORINA IS A LIAR!!!!1!!"

If you want to complain that she should have double checked the validity of the video, and more carefully described its contents, fine. I agree on both points.

It's a shame he misspells words or uses bad grammar sometimes; imagine if he tried to argue with you about the Supreme Court! I bet he'd end up being so wrong!!

He calls me a shill and your concern is that I corrected his grammar?

Plus we already know he's always wrong about the Supreme Court!

 

[brainchild]

OK, I understand the argument not holding water if it's being framed in the context of PP, but as for abortion in general, as a device for appeals to emotion, I think it's quite powerful. The only respectable counter-argument would be one of concession; to acknowledge the powerful imagery as one that incites pain and suffering in making that decision.

I can see this going pretty far in the debates.

 

[Gotchaye]

Santorum is just incoherent here.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Santorum is just incoherent.

Fixed.

 

[Plinko]

You say that like he performed terribly or something. He was the center of attention most of the night and other than the one hit Florina gave him, he did fine. He actually won most of his exchanges, especially with Bush. None of Trump's supporters are doing so because they expect detailed foreign policy statements from him. He'll have much worse moments than that debate.

I didn't think he had a bad debate in the least. I know others did based on Fiorina's response, but I didn't.

My biggest "fear" as a TRUMP 2016 FAN is that his fanbase would think he was bombing based on the negative reaction of the audience in the library. But it seems like they don't give a shit and aren't fooled.

I'm stunned he hasn't called out the RNC for handpicking the crowd.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I'm stunned he hasn't called out the RNC for handpicking the crowd.

It's stuff like that which makes me wonder how smart he really is. Everyone is telling him the RNC is after him but because Reince Priebus shows up to his office and kisses his ass for 5 minutes he says the RNC is treating him well.

Megyn Kelly wasn't the one who was trying to take him down, she was just acting on the whims of her corporate masters and he doesn't seem to realize that.

Now we got this ridiculous crowd. With the way he acts like a man of the people, he should be calling out how the crowd wasn't open to the public.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

This is not the complaint the others are making. They're not saying, "Well, she got snookered by a false video." They're saying, "THERE IS NO SUCH VIDEO CARLY FIORINA IS A LIAR!!!!1!!"

If you want to complain that she should have double checked the validity of the video, and more carefully described its contents, fine. I agree on both points.



He calls me a shill and your concern is that I corrected his grammar?

Plus we already know he's always wrong about the Supreme Court!

Is it impossible for you to look beyond the plain text that people give when they are making their arguments? The point is that she is being purposefully deceptive. That is what people are saying. Arguing with the letter of the word is pointless.

 

[benjipwns]

Pretty cool to know about your political beliefs changing over time, guys. I'll share my mini-timeline;

i once believed the state was legitimate

Spoiler

then a black person got elected

 

[brainchild]

Now that the bottom got shaken up, I had to remove individual polls because you couldn't see shit.

Trump rises, Carson plummets, Bush and Fiorina get ready to cross streams, and everyone else nearly flat-lines.

EDIT:

I take that back, not everyone else flat-lined. Christie crossed streams with Paul and Walker.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

After all that unadulterated swooning by the media hacks, Fiorina still barely moving in the new poll.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

It's stuff like that which makes me wonder how smart he really is. Everyone is telling him the RNC is after him but because Reince Priebus shows up to his office and kisses his ass for 5 minutes he says the RNC is treating him well.

After all that unadulterated swooning by the media hacks, Fiorina still barely moving in the new poll.

I think one quote here answers the other. Trump knows that no one put him in any real danger last night so he's not going nuclear. As long as he feels confident he will act like a reasonable figure. Its when he gets threatened like on the first debate that things get crazy.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Is it impossible for you to look beyond the plain text that people give when they are making their arguments? The point is that she is being purposefully deceptive. That is what people are saying. Arguing with the letter of the word is pointless.

That's not what people are saying, but your criticism applies just as well to Vox, PolitiFact, BM, and everyone else who refuses to acknowledge the video that obviously inspired Fiorina's somewhat-erroneous statement. (I'm not sure "while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain" is all that much worse than "while someone says we have to cut through its face to procure its brain.")

You're pretending that their complaints are the same as CNN's, but they aren't. CNN said Fiorina's comments were "true but misleading"--i.e., "deceptive." Vox says no such video exists. There's no hidden meaning behind that but a pedant's unwillingness to recognize the largely true nature of Fiorina's statement.

 

[brainchild]

After all that unadulterated swooning by the media hacks, Fiorina still barely moving in the new poll.

Yeah, this is why I like aggregate polls. Whereas in individual polls I'm sure she's surged, on average, she barely made a blip on the radar. Really puts things into perspective.

 

[Black Mamba]

There's no reason for us to outsource considering whether what Fiorina said was true. The videos are publicly available for our review. Kliff's claim that "the things Fiorina describes — the legs kicking, the intact 'fully formed fetus,' the heart beating, the remarks about having to 'harvest its brain' — are pure fiction" is wrong. The video shows an "intact[,] 'fully formed fetus'" (here's a NSFW screencap from the video I linked to earlier) with "its legs kicking" (here's a NSFW GIF). That clip immediately follows O'Donnell's description of another 19-week-old intact fetus with a beating heart, and immediately precedes her description of how she "procured" the brain. Kliff's article, calling Fiorina's description a "fiction," is the curtain behind which you're not supposed to look. You're dutifully obliging.



*You're

Assume the clip of the dead or dying baby in a stainless steel bowl wasn't taken at a Planned Parenthood facility. In what way would that contradict Fiorina's statement?

Because Fiorina implied that it was!

"As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape – I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes," the GOP candidate said. "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."

This DOES NOT EXIST in the tapes. The claim she makes is about somewhere else.

In fact, Kliff finally got her follow up. Let me post it:

But when asked for a citation, her campaign replied with a video that isn't from the Planned Parenthood sting tapes at all — and that still doesn't show what Fiorina said it did.

Over email, campaign spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores pointed to a one-minute clip from a YouTube account called "Save Babies." That's different from the Center for Medical Progress, the group behind the sting videos. At the time, the video had accrued just over 800 views.

The "Save Babies" video includes clips of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi talking about women's health. It includes some footage from the Planned Parenthood sting videos where technicians identify fetal body parts in petri dishes. There is additional stock footage of full fetuses — again, not shot in Planned Parenthood clinics, and also not used in the original Human Capital videos. There is audio from a former StemExpress employee (a company Planned Parenthood contracted with to procure fetal tissue) describing her own experience with another technician: "She gave me the scissors and told me to cut down the middle of the face."

It ends with the words "This is Planned Parenthood" over a late-stage fetus who, according to the identifying information next to it, was "killed by saline abortion" at "University of Wisconsin Hospital in the 1980s."

What the video does not show is the scene Fiorina described. While there is discussion from the former StemExpress employer of procuring fetal brain tissue — a practice Planned Parenthood openly admits happens in its clinics — there is no discussion of keeping a fetus alive for that purpose. There are videos of fetuses moving and kicking, but those were not shot at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

Her campaign responded by sending them to a video that isn't the video you claim and is not part of the so called PP videos. And it wasn't filmed in PP!

But it continues!

I sent Fiorina's spokeswoman a second email outlining my questions, and asking her again to point me to the video that Fiorina meant to reference in her remarks. She replied with a link to the Federalist's Mollie Hemingway's recent piece, "Watch the video that Planned Parenthood and its media allies deny exists."

Most of Hemingway's piece focuses on Episode 3 of Human Capital, a mini-documentary series from the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress, which conducted the Planned Parenthood sting. The Human Capital series includes footage of fetuses from a separate source (The Center for Bioethical Reform) and an interview with a former employee of StemExpress, a company that procures human tissue for researchers.

"It does, in fact, show a fully formed fetus, heart beating and legs kicking," Hemingway writes. "And it shows this while Holly O’Donnell, a former organ harvester who worked for StemExpress at a Planned Parenthood affiliate, graphically discuss the harvesting of a brain from a baby whose heart was beating."

Hemingway is right; these things are in the Human Capital video. But they still are not the scene that Fiorina describes. There's no footage of the moment O'Donnell describes, nor is there proof offered that it occurred — there's no moment to "watch," as Fiorina urged debate viewers.

Moreover, the footage of the fetus in that video isn't from the Planned Parenthood videos. One image is of a stillborn baby, initially included in the video without the mother's permission. Other footage appears to come from a collection of stock footage of fetuses. "The stock footage was added to the video to dramatize its content," fact-checking website Politifact concluded. "We don’t know the circumstances behind this video: where it came from, under what conditions it was obtained, or even if this fetus was actually aborted (as opposed to a premature birth or miscarriage)."

The most generous reading of Fiorina's remarks are that she mistook what she saw in the videos. It is possible to watch the Human Capital video and think the footage of fetuses was shot in a clinic; this is, after all, a documentary about Planned Parenthood. And when she discussed "someone saying we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain," she may have mistook something the former StemExpress technician says in the same video, where she describes the fetus as being "intact."

But this isn't the defense that Fiorina has offered. "Rest assured, I have seen the images I talked about last night," she told Good Morning America Thursday morning. If these images Fiorina says she's seen do exist, she still has not shared them.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9351657/fiorina-planned-parenthood-response


So when will you admit you were wrong. The Fiorina team linked Kliff to a video unrelated to the PP videos and even that video does not describe everything she claimed.

You're pretending that their complaints are the same as CNN's, but they aren't. CNN said Fiorina's comments were "true but misleading"--i.e., "deceptive." Vox says no such video exists. There's no hidden meaning behind that but a pedant's unwillingness to recognize the largely true nature of Fiorina's statement.

The issue isn't so much that statement, which she could have conflated easily. The issue is this scene does not exist in the PP videos released in any way. Admittedly by her own campaign, it is from a completely different set of videos and is not PP footage.

It would be like complaining about specific racism in American and qualify that by showing a video of racism in France of which plays out differently!

 

[Dominican Power]

Holy shit at this dumb ass woman shilling for Trump on Chris Hayes.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Because Fiorina implied that it was!

"As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape – I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes," the GOP candidate said. "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."

This DOES NOT EXIST in the tapes. The claim she makes is about somewhere else.

In fact, Kliff finally got her follow up. Let me post it:

Her campaign responded by sending them to a video that isn't the video you claim and is not part of the so called PP videos. And it wasn't filmed in PP!

But it continues!

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9351657/fiorina-planned-parenthood-response

So when will you admit you were wrong. The Fiorina team linked Kliff to a video unrelated to the PP videos and even that video does not describe everything she claimed.

The issue isn't so much that statement, which she could have conflated easily. The issue is this scene does not exist in the PP videos released in any way. Admittedly by her own campaign, it is from a completely different set of videos and is not PP footage.

It would be like complaining about specific racism in American and qualify that by showing a video of racism in France of which plays out differently!

The video linked to by Hemingway is the video I linked to earlier. It was released by the Center for Medical Progress on August 19th as the 7th video in its ongoing series about Planned Parenthood. When Vox misleadingly states that "the footage of the fetus . . . isn't from the Planned Parenthood videos," what they mean is what CNN noted in its fact check: "But the clip Fiorina references is not part of the CMP sting video but was instead taken by another anti-abortion group and was added to the sting video." In other words, the clip is from the CMP's released videos, but that specific footage did not originate with CMP. Fiorina never made any claim about the original source of the clip.

The complaint you're left with--now that you've come around to recognize that Fiorina was describing a video that actually exists--is merely that the clip was not from a Planned Parenthood facility. We don't know whether that's true or false, but let's assume it's true. Did Fiorina say, "The clip of the intact fetus kicking its legs was from a Planned Parenthood facility"? No. She said, "Watch the video, and you'll see A, B, C, D, and E." Your argument now is that she lied because A, B, C, D, and E didn't take place at Location X. Who cares? She never said it did!

Again, here's what was described by Fiorina and [what was really shown or described in the video]: (1) a fully formed fetus [a fully formed fetus] (2) on a table [in a bowl on a table], (3) its heart beating [following a description of another intact fetus at a similar stage of development with a beating heart], (4) its legs kicking [the fetus-in-a-bowl was kicking its legs], (5) while someone says [immediately before someone said] (a) we have to keep it alive [they had to cut through its face] (b) to harvest its brain [to procure its brain].

Note what's missing: she didn't say the film originated with CMP rather than someone else; and she didn't say the clip of the baby-in-a-bowl was taken at a Planned Parenthood facility. She did refer to "these tapes"--a clear reference to the CMP videos--and the scene she described appears in the 7th such video.

You can complain that the CMP videos were deceptive--perhaps they were. But it's long past time for you to admit that, aside from a couple (albeit significant) details, Fiorina was right about what the video showed. Vox and the rest of the partisan fact-checkers have gotten this one mostly wrong.

EDIT:

Now that the bottom got shaken up, I had to remove individual polls because you couldn't see shit.

Trump rises, Carson plummets, Bush and Fiorina get ready to cross streams, and everyone else nearly flat-lines.

EDIT:

I take that back, not everyone else flat-lined. Christie crossed streams with Paul and Walker.

Where is this from? I thought the only legit post-debate poll right now was the One America News poll, which shows Trump and Fiorina tied at 22%. HuffPo lists an Ipsos/Reuter poll that was taken from 9/12-9/16, but would that include any post-debate responses? Everything else on HuffPo is from before the debate.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Holy shit at this dumb ass woman shilling for Trump on Chris Hayes.

You know, Elle, there really is a defense force for everything.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The video linked to by Hemingway is the video I linked to earlier. It was released by the Center for Medical Progress on August 19th as the 7th video in its ongoing series about Planned Parenthood. When Vox misleadingly states that "the footage of the fetus . . . isn't from the Planned Parenthood videos," what they mean is what CNN noted in its fact check: "But the clip Fiorina references is not part of the CMP sting video but was instead taken by another anti-abortion group and was added to the sting video." In other words, the clip is from the CMP's released videos, but that specific footage did not originate with CMP. Fiorina never made any claim about the original source of the clip.

The complaint you're left with--now that you've come around to recognize that Fiorina was describing a video that actually exists--is merely that the clip was not from a Planned Parenthood facility. We don't know whether that's true or false, but let's assume it's true. Did Fiorina say, "The clip of the intact fetus kicking its legs was from a Planned Parenthood facility"? No. She said, "Watch the video, and you'll see A, B, C, D, and E." Your argument now is that she lied because A, B, C, D, and E didn't take place at Location X. Who cares? She never said it did!

Again, here's what was described by Fiorina and [what was really shown or described in the video]: (1) a fully formed fetus [a fully formed fetus] (2) on a table [in a bowl on a table], (3) its heart beating [following a description of another intact fetus at a similar stage of development with a beating heart], (4) its legs kicking [the fetus-in-a-bowl was kicking its legs], (5) while someone says [immediately before someone said] (a) we have to keep it alive [they had to cut through its face] (b) to harvest its brain [to procure its brain].

Note what's missing: she didn't say the film originated with CMP rather than someone else; and she didn't say the clip of the baby-in-a-bowl was taken at a Planned Parenthood facility. She did refer to "these tapes"--a clear reference to the CMP videos--and the scene she described appears in the 7th such video.

You can complain that the CMP videos were deceptive--perhaps they were. But it's long past time for you to admit that, aside from a couple (albeit significant) details, Fiorina was right about what the video showed. Vox and the rest of the partisan fact-checkers have gotten this one mostly wrong.

You're pedantry knows no bounds even your wrong.

Lol " its not actually from the videos but since they spliced it in then technically it is from said videos"

You know, Elle, there really is a defense force for everything.

Really poor use of the meme neo...

 

[Wilsongt]

Kim Davis might becoming acquainted with a jail cell once more.

http://news.yahoo.com/attorney-kentucky-clerk-interfered-judges-order-202819766.html#

OWENSBORO, Ky. (AP) — A Kentucky county clerk may have again defied a federal judge's order regarding gay-marriage licenses by altering license forms to remove her name, an attorney who represents one of the clerk's employees told the judge Friday in a court filing.

In a separate filing Friday, attorneys for the gay couples who sued Davis appear to agree.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis spent five days in jail for refusing to obey a federal judge's ruling that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized gay marriage nationwide. Davis, an Apostolic Christian, believes same-sex marriage is a sin and cited "God's authority" in refusing to obey the ruling.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning released Davis from jail on the condition that she not interfere with her employees as they issue marriage licenses. When she returned to work, Davis altered the marriage forms by removing her name, making deputy clerk Brian Mason initial the form instead of sign it, and then requiring the form to be notarized.

"A notary has nothing to do with it," Mason's attorney, Richard Hughes, told The Associated Press on Friday after filing a status report with the judge. Hughes said it was "really bizarre" that Davis would alter the forms.

"Unless she's got a really good reason, and I'll certainly be patient and wait to hear it, the only inference I personally can draw from it is she is trying to circumvent the court's order," he said.

Bunning appointed attorneys for each of Davis' deputy clerks and asked them to file status reports every two weeks. The reports are not due until Tuesday, but Hughes filed his on Friday saying Davis' "changes were made in some attempt to circumvent the court's orders and may have raised to the level of interference against the court's orders."

"We'll see what Judge Bunning is going to do with it," Hughes said.

Also Friday, the attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union said in a court filing that the changes on the form require Mason to issue the licenses "in his capacity as a 'notary public' rather than a deputy clerk of the Rowan County Clerk's Office," changes that "do not comply" with the court's order to not interfere with her employees who issue the licenses.

"These alterations call into question the validity of the marriage licenses issued," the attorneys wrote in a footnote to a motion asking the judge to certify the case as a class-action lawsuit. "Plaintiffs are exploring legal options to address these material alterations."

 

[Roland_Gunner]

The complaint you're left with--now that you've come around to recognize that Fiorina was describing a video that actually exists--is merely that the clip was not from a Planned Parenthood facility. We don't know whether that's true or false, but let's assume it's true. Did Fiorina say, "The clip of the intact fetus kicking its legs was from a Planned Parenthood facility"? No. She said, "Watch the video, and you'll see A, B, C, D, and E." Your argument now is that she lied because A, B, C, D, and E didn't take place at Location X. Who cares? She never said it did!

But we absolutely do know this. The original videos make it clear that the material Fiorina is referencing do not come from the 'leaked' Planned Parenthood tape, and in fact they aren't even from an abortion. Here is a lengthy article explaining where it comes from:

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/09/424...anned-parenthood-got-important-details-wrong/

What Sarah Kliff is accurately saying is that the tape leaked from Planned Parenthood do not contain the images Fiorina is refering to and that is absolutely correct.

 

[sc0la]

He'll be out of the race before policy starts mattering.

He's also a saltine candidate with little charisma and nothing that stands out besides his bald spot and "I beat the unions 4 years ago."

He also appears to have lost ground in what was considered a great debate by his supporters.

But think about all the shit you can put on top of a saltine. Cheese, salami, right to work, peanut butter, job creation

 

[Metaphoreus]

You're pedantry knows no bounds even your wrong.

Lol " its not actually from the videos but since they spliced it in then technically it is from said videos"

Really poor use of the meme neo...

Fiorina said the clip appeared in the CMP videos. It did.

She didn't say CMP created the clip. They didn't.

Which fact is giving you trouble?

EDIT:

But we absolutely do know this. The original videos make it clear that the material Fiorina is referencing do not come from the 'leaked' Planned Parenthood tape, and in fact they aren't even from an abortion. Here is a lengthy article explaining where it comes from:

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/09/424...anned-parenthood-got-important-details-wrong/

What Sarah Kliff is accurately saying is that the tape leaked from Planned Parenthood do not contain the images Fiorina is refering to and that is absolutely correct.

Fiorina is describing what viewers encounter in the CMP videos. She did not claim that the baby-in-a-bowl footage originated with CMP or from Planned Parenthood, though it's possible she thought they did. The IJ Review article you link to includes this: "The executive director of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Gregg Cunningham, confirmed to Independent Journal that the footage of this infant is indeed from their collection and 'depicts and intact delivery abortion.'" Elsewhere, Cunningham confirmed to The Federalist:

The video clip we provided to CMP depicted an intact delivery abortion. It was filmed at an abortion clinic. It was not a miscarriage. Mothers don’t go to abortion clinics to miscarry. Had this case been a miscarriage, the mother would have presented at a hospital and her baby would have been rushed to an Isolette for appropriate neonatal care — not abandoned to writhe and eventually expire in a cold, stainless steel specimen vessel. As regards the organizational affiliation of the abortion facility in which this termination was performed, our access agreements forbid the disclosure of any information which might tend to identify the relevant clinics or personnel with whom we work. Preserving confidentiality is vital to future clinic access.

The Federalist article also explains the source of the "miscarriage" claim, which originally related only to another 19-week old baby shown in the CMP video, not the one shown kicking its legs in a steel bowl:

Others assert that the baby was stillborn, a falsehood that goes back to The Hill, which made this claim in a story in August:

The anti-abortion-rights group targeting Planned Parenthood is acknowledging that its most recent video used an image of a stillborn baby that was made to look like an aborted fetus. The Center for Medical Progress posted a new link on its video late Thursday, adding that one of the images was actually a baby named Walter Fretz, born prematurely at 19 weeks.

This is inaccurate on multiple counts. The video shows two different babies, neither of whom are stillborn. One was an image of Fretz, who was not a stillborn baby, but was born born prematurely at 19 weeks and died in his parents arms. This image of Fretz appeared during the 8:59 minute mark of the video, where he appears to be wrapped in a blanket and have a clip on his umbilical chord to keep it from getting infected.

Kliff is wrong about the footage described by Fiorina being "pure fiction." If she is making that claim by secretly adding on the unspoken claim that the baby-in-a-bowl footage originated with CMP at a Planned Parenthood facility, then she's simply being dishonest. Fiorina claimed neither of those things.

 

[Black Mamba]

The video linked to by Hemingway is the video I linked to earlier. It was released by the Center for Medical Progress on August 19th as the 7th video in its ongoing series about Planned Parenthood. When Vox misleadingly states that "the footage of the fetus . . . isn't from the Planned Parenthood videos," what they mean is what CNN noted in its fact check: "But the clip Fiorina references is not part of the CMP sting video but was instead taken by another anti-abortion group and was added to the sting video." In other words, the clip is from the CMP's released videos, but that specific footage did not originate with CMP. Fiorina never made any claim about the original source of the clip.

The complaint you're left with--now that you've come around to recognize that Fiorina was describing a video that actually exists--is merely that the clip was not from a Planned Parenthood facility. We don't know whether that's true or false, but let's assume it's true. Did Fiorina say, "The clip of the intact fetus kicking its legs was from a Planned Parenthood facility"? No. She said, "Watch the video, and you'll see A, B, C, D, and E." Your argument now is that she lied because A, B, C, D, and E didn't take place at Location X. Who cares? She never said it did!

Again, here's what was described by Fiorina and [what was really shown or described in the video]: (1) a fully formed fetus [a fully formed fetus] (2) on a table [in a bowl on a table], (3) its heart beating [following a description of another intact fetus at a similar stage of development with a beating heart], (4) its legs kicking [the fetus-in-a-bowl was kicking its legs], (5) while someone says [immediately before someone said] (a) we have to keep it alive [they had to cut through its face] (b) to harvest its brain [to procure its brain].

Note what's missing: she didn't say the film originated with CMP rather than someone else; and she didn't say the clip of the baby-in-a-bowl was taken at a Planned Parenthood facility. She did refer to "these tapes"--a clear reference to the CMP videos--and the scene she described appears in the 7th such video.

You can complain that the CMP videos were deceptive--perhaps they were. But it's long past time for you to admit that, aside from a couple (albeit significant) details, Fiorina was right about what the video showed. Vox and the rest of the partisan fact-checkers have gotten this one mostly wrong.

She said "as for planned parenthood." But we know it's not Planned Parenthood.

And again, Carly Fiorina's spokeswoman contradicts you.

I sent Fiorina's spokeswoman a second email outlining my questions, and asking her again to point me to the video that Fiorina meant to reference in her remarks. She replied with a link to the Federalist's Mollie Hemingway's recent piece, "Watch the video that Planned Parenthood and its media allies deny exists."

The video is from Human Capital. Let re-quote:

Moreover, the footage of the fetus in that videos isn't from the Planned Parenthood video.

Again, this is straight from Fiorina's spokeswoman. You're arguing she's wrong?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I don't want a president who is going to fall for propaganda videos.

I'm more than happy to call her out as deceptive if she fronts for something she hasn't critically evaluated. She's culpable in that case.

 

[User1608]

i once believed the state was legitimate

Spoiler

then a black person got elected

lol, oh you. Now I understand why you're so beloved here.

 

[Metaphoreus]

She said "as for planned parenthood." But we know it's not Planned Parenthood.

And again, Carly Fiorina's spokeswoman contradicts you.

The video is from Human Capital. Let re-quote:

Again, this is straight from Fiorina's spokeswoman. You're arguing she's wrong?

No, BM. I'm arguing that she's saying what I'm saying.

The CMP videos are "the Planned Parenthood videos." They are the "tapes" Fiorina was referring to. You're inferring an additional claim that was not made--that every bit of film included in the CMP/Planned Parenthood videos was leaked from a Planned Parenthood facility--to render what claims were made false. And that's dishonest.

Moreover, we don't know it's not Planned Parenthood! We don't know the "organizational affiliation" of the abortion clinic where that specific footage originated. We know it didn't originate with CMP, but Fiorina never said it did.

You're playing word games at this point, not thinking critically about what your favorite voxsplainers tell you.

 

[brainchild]

Where is this from? I thought the only legit post-debate poll right now was the One America News poll, which shows Trump and Fiorina tied at 22%. HuffPo lists an Ipsos/Reuter poll that was taken from 9/12-9/16, but would that include any post-debate responses? Everything else on HuffPo is from before the debate.

It's HuffPost

The chart gets updated every time a new poll comes out, so you're right, that's probably only one post-debate poll factored into the averages right now. Obviously, compared to the older results, it brings the numbers down.

I wonder if I should wait to post aggregate updates until there's a threshold met. I'll ask you guys, what should the number be? How many polls should I wait to be updated before posting the aggregate? 5? 8? I'll go with whatever you guys decide.

 

[Retromelon]

It doesnt matter what number you choose. It will only serve to reinforce the consensus opinion that randall ran away with the debate due to his thoughtful explanations, flawless logic, and sardonic skewering of the perfume selling escalateur leading the polls.
Not to mention that luscious hair i want to run my fingers through. Oh sempai, take me

 

[Poodlestrike]

It doesnt matter what number you choose. It will only serve to reinforce the consensus opinion that randall ran away with the debate due to his thoughtful explanations, flawless logic, and sardonic skewering of the perfume selling escalateur leading the polls.
Not to mention that luscious hair i want to run my fingers through. Oh sempai, take me

Real talk: Rand Paul's hair is terrible. Totally unsuited to his face.