• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
benjipwns said:
zu9CgwT.jpg
Click to expand...

Save us, Joebi-Wan. You're our only hope.
 
M

Makai

Member
Selling computers to Iran during an embargo sounds like game over to me, especially when everyone else thinks current sanctions aren't tough enough.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
I think Rubio could be very competitive, but he's still green enough to give us soundbites like the Hillary resume thing. That's an easy commercial.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Makai said:
Selling computers to Iran during an embargo sounds like game over to me, especially when everyone else thinks current sanctions aren't tough enough.
Click to expand...

Covertly selling things to Iran doesn't seem to bother Republicans for some reason.

But easing sanctions in exchange for robust nuclear inspections? OH HELL NAW.
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
benjipwns said:
It's not even her daughter, she's never had kids. The two girls were her now husbands (she was then having an affair with while both were married) and his ex-wife was awarded custody of them. (They were 9 and 13 at the divorce.)

Her "daughter" that died (in 2009 at 35) was also bulimic, so it was a shitty combination all around. Drugs weren't the root of her problems.
Click to expand...

Okay. it for sure does not get worse than this.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
RCP National Average

July 24, 2013 (earliest average)
R: Christie 16%, Rubio 13%, Paul 12%, Bush 11%, Cruz 6%, Santorum 3%, Perry 3%, Jindal 2%, Walker 2%
D: Clinton 58%, Biden 13%, O'Malley 1%

January 1, 2014
R: Christie 19%, Huckabee 13%, Paul 13%, Cruz 12%, Bush 10%, Rubio 8%, Santorum 5%, Perry 5%, Walker 5%, Jindal 3%
D: Clinton 66%, Biden 11%, O'Malley 1%

July 1, 2014
R: Paul 14%, Bush 13%, Huckabee 13%, Christie 11%, Rubio 7%, Cruz 7%, Walker 5%, Perry 5%, Santorum 4%, Jindal 3%, Kasich 1%
D: Clinton 66%, Biden 12%, O'Malley 2%

December 1, 2014
R: Bush 13%, Paul 12%, Christie 12%, Huckabee 10%, Carson 8%, Perry 8%, Walker 7%, Rubio 6%, Cruz 6%, Jindal 3%, Santorum 3%, Kasich 2%
D: Clinton 63%, Biden 11%, Sanders 3%, O'Malley 2%, Webb 2%

April 1, 2015
R: Walker 17%, Bush 17%, Paul 9%, Carson 9%, Huckabee 9%, Cruz 8%, Christie 6%, Rubio 6%, Perry 3%, Santorum 2%, Jindal 2%, Kasich 2%, Graham 1%, Fiorina 1%
D: Clinton 58%, Biden 13%, Sanders 4%, Webb 2%, O'Malley 1%

September 20, 2015
R: Trump 29%, Carson 19%, Jeb! 8%, Rubio 7%, Cruz 7%, Fiorina 6%, Huckabee 5%, Paul 4%, Kasich 3%, Christie 2%, Walker 2%, Perry 1%, Santorum 1%, Jindal 0.3%, Graham 0.0%
D: Clinton 45%, Sanders 23%, Biden 19%, O'Malley 2%, Webb 2%, Chafee 1%

Politics!
 
R

RustyNails

Member
benjipwns said:
It's not even her daughter, she's never had kids. The two girls were her now husbands (she was then having an affair with while both were married) and his ex-wife was awarded custody of them. (They were 9 and 13 at the divorce.)

Her "daughter" that died (in 2009 at 35) was also bulimic, so it was a shitty combination all around. Drugs weren't the root of her problems.
Click to expand...
Its brilliant if you ask me. Say whatever wild shit about it, and there's literally no way anyone could fire back with "not ur real daughter tho". Carly will just play the victim card.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
National Polling Peaks to Date:
Trump - 30.5% - Sept 19, 2015
Carson - 20.0% - Sept 19, 2015
Christie - 20.0% - Dec 21, 2013
Jeb! - 17.8% - Jul 13, 2015
Walker - 17.3% - April 1, 2015
Paul - 17.0% - Dec 5, 2013
Huckabee - 16.0% - Feb 6, 2014
Rubio - 14.3% - May 11, 2015
Cruz - 12.3% - Nov 3, 2013

No other candidate to date has cracked 10%. Perry was closest at 8.7% on Aug 13, 2014.

Clinton - 67.6% - March 9, 2014
Sanders - 26.3% - August 28, 2015
Biden - 19.2% - Sept 15, 2015
O'Malley - 3.0% - April 15, 2014
Webb - 2.6% - May 31, 2015
Chafee - LOL% - Always
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
RustyNails said:
Its brilliant if you ask me. Say whatever wild shit about it, and there's literally no way anyone could fire back with "not ur real daughter tho". Carly will just play the victim card.
Click to expand...

It doesn't strike me as all that weird for someone to refer to a step-daughter they've been around since the girl was 9 years old as just "daughter". Sure, if the custody arrangement was such that Fiorina saw the girl every other Christmas, it's hard to believe she got that attached, but it's not like she had kids of her own and I can easily buy that she felt like a mother. She'd be totally justified in getting mad at "not ur real daughter tho".
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Take exes accounts with a mountain of salt obviously:
When approached by Daily Mail Online, Patricia would only say: 'There are two sides to every story. That's not how I remember it. Lori was my daughter and I grieve her every day.'

According to Todd Bartlem, there is nothing surprising in Carly's tendency to place herself at the front and center of every narrative.

'She is pathologically narcissistic and all she cares about is her,' he said. 'Nothing holds together with her.

'I got kind of suspicious of her towards the end of the marriage because she had no old friends. She had nobody that she knew in the past, and I thought, "God that's kind of weird."'

Today Bartlem believes the reason lies in Carly's 'modus operandi' of 'dropping people' as soon as they have fulfilled their useful purpose in her life. Certainly it's what he believes happened to him.

'I had no utility and that's what the judgment was,' he said. 'If you aren't useful to her, your time is over. She learned that in business school. I was heartbroken. It was brutal.'

Bartlem claims that when Carly walked out on him she did so without leaving so much as a forwarding address or phone number. A year after the divorce, he claims, she pulled up in the driveway of their former home and calmly said, 'I will never see you again.'

True to her word, all contact ceased.
Click to expand...

From her book:
In the book, the former H-P CEO described the moment she and her husband discovered that Lori had passed away.

“They asked us to sit down,” Fiorina wrote. “Frank collapsed in a chair. I sat on the carpet next to him, my arms wrapped around his knees. The police officers said our daughter was dead, three thousand miles away.”
...
“Lori’s potential was never fulfilled but death is not the only thing that crushes potential,” Fiorina wrote. “What I also know is that Americans are failing to achieve their potential today.”
Click to expand...

Last Friday:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/254283-emotional-fiorina-opens-up-about-step-daughters-death
An emotional Carly Fiorina opened up Friday about the death of her step-daughter, Lori Ann, who passed away in 2009 after battling drug and alcohol addiction.

Responding to a question about drug abuse from South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley at a conservative forum in Greenville, S.C., Fiorina choked up at one point and appeared to blink back tears as she recounted the “long and painful journey” of her step-daughter’s death.

“When someone is addicted, you watch them disappear before your eyes,” the Republican presidential candidate said. “You watch the — I call them the demons of addiction, because that’s what it looks like — they’re overcome by the demons of addiction. In our daughter’s case, she simply did not have the physical strength to go on. We must invest more in the treatment of all mental illness, including addictions.”

Fiorina said she has been approached by countless supporters on the campaign trail who have shared similar stories of heartbreak.

“I realized as we went through the long painful journey with Lori Ann, I met so many other family’s going through this, but I did not realize honestly what an epidemic this has become,” Fiorina said.

She said the experience in part spurred her to run for president.

“The reason I’m running for president is because I don’t want to see hope fading from anyone’s eyes," Fiorina said. "And while there’s nothing as devastating as drug addiction, it is also true that I see too many people now in this nation that lack hope. … I know the look people get when they achieve their God-given potential. For me, that look is fuel.”

...

At the forum Friday, Fiorina also returned to another strong moment from Wednesday’s debate, demanding that Congress defund Planned Parenthood in the wake of the string of undercover videos that have surfaced showing officials negotiating the price of fetal tissue to be used for research purposes.

“If we will not fight for this, faced with proof positive of the butchery going on at Planned Parenthood, faced with an assault on the character of this nation - it is not actually about whether you’re pro choice or pro life - we cannot be a nation that funds this kind of barbarity, and that’s what it is,” Fiorina said.
Click to expand...
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Gingrich's affairs hurt him a bit last cycle when people started focusing on those.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Melkr_ said:
If Biden runs, Sanders wins. So pls run, Biden.
Click to expand...

It's more likely he knocks Bernie to the wayside. Most polling has them within a few points of each other, often in a statistical tie. Biden would get a bump from entering the race, somewhere between 5-10 points, and would instantly be in second place. All of a sudden there is someone within real striking distance of Hillary, who has a shot at stealing the Obama coalition. The anyone but Hillary vote is going to jump ship to Biden and Bernie will lose some support, maybe not a lot be he can't even afford to lose 1 or 2% at this point.

All I'm saying is be careful what you wish for.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Biden running does nothing to help Sanders. He is taking support from Hillary. Bernie is stuck at 24-25% in every poll with or without Biden. Unless he fixes his minority vote problem he will be stuck there.

Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University, noted there are "historic rifts" between white progressives and civil rights activists on the importance of front-loading race-related issues, as Sanders has been pushed to do. She suggested African-American voters may be hesitant to support him even if they are attracted to some elements of his platform.

"Clinton hopes to capitalize on her greater name recognition, greater familiarity and being more moderate," Gillespie added. "She's hoping to appeal to a demographic that’s probably ideologically more conservative than Sanders is. Southerners who may have heard that Bernie Sanders is a socialist may be turned off by that on the merits, or they may oppose him for strategic purposes, thinking he wouldn’t win in a general election."

Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, echoed Gillespie's suggestion that electability is a problem for Sanders, while adding that minorities look likely to stick with Clinton unless the controversy over her use of a private email server while at the State Department takes a more serious turn. He agreed that Sanders wins in Iowa and/or New Hampshire would help the senator with minority voters, though to what degree "is anyone's guess."

"Minorities were actually pretty loyal to Hillary in 2007," he noted. "They only began to break away when they saw Obama start winning -- and realized that he might actually have a good chance to become the first African-American president. This time, it's more difficult to see a full-scale defection, unless of course Clinton were indicted or something on that scale. The Clinton name is still a revered one among minorities."

Two other factors, according to Sabato, make a firmer prediction about Sanders' chances with minorities more difficult: Whether Vice President Joe Biden decides to join the primary and how well Sanders ultimately performs in Iowa and New Hampshire.

All of those as-yet-unknown factors, Sabato said, lead back to the stand-by for political analysts: "We'll have to wait and see."
Click to expand...
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
Those tweets from CNN about the SHOCKING poll that turned out to be not so SHOCKING reminds me of the video game media and their EXCLUSIVE MEGATONS that turn into some DLC news or something.

Looks like the two aren't so different after all.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
It's so Salon it hurts
Click to expand...
B-Dubs said:
Oh Salon, what you won't do for clicks.
Click to expand...
The comments are amazing.

johncp 15 minutes ago
Biden will give Sanders a run for his money. He has more credibility than Sanders. If Biden runs, my bet is, Sanders will fade.

It's almost amusing, that Sanders was essentially unknown before he announced for the presidency, yet republicans are enamored of him. I just heard him say, in an interview, that, "when people get to know me," I'll get more voters behind me. Strange, where is his support coming from. If he needs to get better known, how has he risen so rapidly? If Hillary is such an unpleasant choice for voters, why was she far ahead earlier on? It can't be because she wasn't known. What was it?

I'm voting for Hillary, with more intensity than ever. I vote for that person, that has received the most ferocious opposition from corporate media. Anyone that can't see what's going on, will put another destructive republican clown in power. Sanders is said to be more "authentic," a claim which is the ultimate absurdity. If Sanders is more authentic, why does he deliver almost the exact same pitch, to his followers. That doesn't sound like authenticity, that sounds like, telling people what they want to hear.

Corporate media are running this show, and a lot of people are falling for it.
Click to expand...

Leslie 6 hours ago
“And let me echo that today. If the Koch brothers and the billionaire class hate my guts, then I welcome their hatred, because I am going to stand with working families.”

— Sanders, during a Q&A session in Boone, Iowa

Echoes of the great FDR. That's the stuff Mr Sanders! That's the attitude and leadership we need at this time.


You'll never hear anything like this out of that disgusting who*re who is competing against him for the nomination. She is a who*re too! She is terrified of the disapproval of billionaires and eagerly takes millions from them. She would much rather incur the wrath of ordinary people (who I believe she has a contempt for), than to incur the disapproval of those who are raping this country and robbing it's people blind. If this country will be dumb enough to elect her, it's over for the Democratic party and game over for this once great country.
Click to expand...
Top Taciturn 5 hours ago
Ever since listening to Bernie on his regular Thom Hartman show call-ins, Bernie made sense. Why? Simple. The truth always makes sense. Truth's logic almost never goes unchallenged by some selfish prone person(s).

Just think. God admonished the first couple that they would die if they were to disobey Him. Satan comes along and using specious logic (untruths) tells the couple the exact opposite!

Satan falsely reasoned with Eve. She swallowed the whole load- hook, line and sinker and later, Eve (using the same logic as Satan) told Adam that God lied to them. That they would not die but would live and be able to decide issues on their very own. Who needs God she surmised from Satan's talking points.

Well as you can see. Adam and Eve died. They are not here, not anywhere and all on account of a liar- Satan. see John 8:44

We, Adam & Eve's offspring, inherited their doubtful and rebellious nature.

Bernie is saying it like it is (regarding Rich vs Poor) but the audience, ... well .... you can figure the rest out. I hope!
Click to expand...
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Let the backtracking begin!

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...w&hootPostID=611686720628e52020e444e196050064
The campaign official said Carson's interview on "Meet the Press," in which the Republican said he would not support a Muslim as president, should be "watched or read carefully."

"He did not say that a Muslim should be prevented from running, or barred from running in any way," Carson campaign spokesman Doug Watts said.

Watts said the people would ultimately decide. "He [Carson] just doesn't believe the American people are ready for that," Watts said.

Responding to a question in the interview that aired Sunday, Carson said, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."
Click to expand...

Sure thing, campaign manager.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Also the question wasn't "do you think America is ready" it was would you support. His answer was no. He also described them as a problem, not "something we just aren't ready for."
Poodlestrike said:
In all fairness, that is the exact same reasoning behind the "I don't support censorship I just think that [INSERT WORK] shouldn't be allowed to exist" argument that crops up sometimes in left-leaning circles. So who knows, maybe it's true. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
Click to expand...
Do you have an example of this?
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
sc0la said:
Also the question wasn't "do you think America is ready" it was would you support. His answer was no. He also described them as a problem, not "something we just aren't ready for."

Do you have an example of this?
Click to expand...

There's this comic that came out a few months ago, Strange Fruits. It's about a black Superman expy who lands on Earth during the Civil War. It attempts to address racial themes and does so very, very poorly (apparently), in no small part due to being by 2 well-established white authors. After the first issue was released there was a hubbub because, again, it did a shit job, and part of that took the form of thinkpieces talking about why it should never have been made in the first place, and why similar things shouldn't be allowed to be made going forward. This led to an argument over whether or not that cry was for censorship.

Example, given.
 
K

kess

Member
Interesting Fiorina information. It sounds like it was a profoundly dysfunctional situation for the step-daughters.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
NSQuote said:
I don't think the video clip she cited supports the argument you say she meant, however: "She meant that the videos reveal information about Planned Parenthood that make it morally incumbent on members of Congress to fight to defund it" - yet we have no proof that this anecdote took place in a Planned Parenthood afiliated clinic. So that anecdote does not reveal any information about Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...

The disembrainment of the dead baby described by O'Donnell took place at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Only if by "this anecdote," you mean "the baby-in-a-bowl footage" (which was footage, not an anecdote) would your statement that "we have no proof [it] took place in a Planned Parenthood affiliated clinic" be accurate. But even in that case, the most we could say would be that we don't know whether the footage reveals any information about Planned Parenthood. We could not say, as you do, that the footage "does not reveal any information about Planned Parenthood."

I already covered in what way(s) the video clip cited by Fiorina supported what Fiorina meant:

Metaphoreus said:
[Fiorina] meant that the videos reveal information about Planned Parenthood that make it morally incumbent on members of Congress to fight to defund it. Her example was the clip from the 7th CMP video. I assume she could cite more than just that example to make her point. In fact, I think some of her misstatements suggest some other revelations she considers sufficiently outrageous to demand congressional action: the "We have to keep it alive" part sounds inspired by the revelation that Planned Parenthood sometimes modifies its abortion procedures to make it more likely certain organs survive the procedure intact (which is illegal, btw); her use of the verb "to harvest" seems inspired by the bartering over body parts that was at least implied in some of the earliest videos released by CMP (which could show that PP is illegally profiting, but doesn't do so necessarily). However, even if we focus exclusively on the parts of the video she described that she got right, there's still an arguable basis for her outrage: Holly O'Donnell described an intact fetus whose brain was removed by cutting through his face moments after his heart was observed to be beating. For these reasons, I think the accusation she was lying or being misleading is at its weakest at this level of abstraction.
Click to expand...

NSQuote said:
Her argument based on her evidence is for Congress to defund abortion services... but federal money already cannot be spent on abortion services. She wants to defund something that is already defunded, that doesn't make sense...

Of course, it makes sense if she ultimately desires an abortion ban, and her purpose of defunding the entirety of Planned Parenthood is to make abortions more difficult to obtain by trying to force a collapse of the organization. Her evidence is in support of an effective abortion ban, but she pretends it is a reason to defund Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...

The argument we're discussing is that Fiorina is lying, not that she's wrong. Even if we were discussing the latter, however, she isn't wrong. She's arguing that taxpayer money shouldn't go to an organization that engages in what she considers morally reprehensible behavior. There's nothing unusual about punishing an organization for its immoral behavior. When the "punishment" in question is loss of government benefits, that immoral behavior needn't even be strictly illegal to support the punishment proposed. (For instance, the IRS was allowed to deny tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University in the 1980s because BJU excluded students who were in an interracial marriage or who advocated for interracial marriage.)

Because the clip supports the argument made by Fiorina, I see no need to entertain your fanciful theory about her secret plan to rid the world of abortion by defunding the parts of Planned Parenthood that are not related to abortion. (But if I did entertain it, I would quickly reject it since the abortion part of Planned Parenthood's business is apparently self-sustaining even in the absence of federal funding, as you noted.)

NSQuote said:
I will also postulate that the reason for the other "revelations" you bring up is exactly because of the ban on federal funding for abortions. Are you surprised that a privately funded sector of an organization is acting unethically to maximize profit? If Fiorina truly only wants the morally ambiguous actions of Planned Parenthood to stop, but is not for an abortion ban, she would remove the profit incentive and ensure federal funding regulation for abortion services so they have no incentive and opportunity to act immorally to maximize profit.
Click to expand...

Postulate away. That's not the topic of conversation. But according to Planned Parenthood, they do not profit from their sales of baby parts. Even assuming they are illegally profiting, I don't follow your argument that the government should reward a (in-that-case) criminal organization with federal monies. We don't reward criminals; we punish them.
 
S

Sianos

Member
Metaphoreus said:
The disembrainment of the dead baby described by O'Donnell took place at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Only if by "this anecdote," you mean "the baby-in-a-bowl footage" (which was footage, not an anecdote) would your statement that "we have no proof [it] took place in a Planned Parenthood affiliated clinic" be accurate. But even in that case, the most we could say would be that we don't know whether the footage reveals any information about Planned Parenthood. We could not say, as you do, that the footage "does not reveal any information about Planned Parenthood."

I already covered in what way(s) the video clip cited by Fiorina supported what Fiorina meant:

The argument we're discussing is that Fiorina is lying, not that she's wrong. Even if we were discussing the latter, however, she isn't wrong. She's arguing that taxpayer money shouldn't go to an organization that engages in what she considers morally reprehensible behavior. There's nothing unusual about punishing an organization for its immoral behavior. When the "punishment" in question is loss of government benefits, that immoral behavior needn't even be strictly illegal to support the punishment proposed. (For instance, the IRS was allowed to deny tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University in the 1980s because BJU excluded students who were in an interracial marriage or who advocated for interracial marriage.)

Because the clip supports the argument made by Fiorina, I see no need to entertain your fanciful theory about her secret plan to rid the world of abortion by defunding the parts of Planned Parenthood that are not related to abortion. (But if I did entertain it, I would quickly reject it since the abortion part of Planned Parenthood's business is apparently self-sustaining even in the absence of federal funding, as you noted.)

Postulate away. That's not the topic of conversation. But according to Planned Parenthood, they do not profit from their sales of baby parts. Even assuming they are illegally profiting, I don't follow your argument that the government should reward a (in-that-case) criminal organization with federal monies. We don't reward criminals; we punish them.
Click to expand...

First off, "not knowing whether the footage reveals any information about Planned Parenthood" still means that we can't use to indict Planned Parenthood, because we indeed don't know if it reveals any information about Planned Parenthood.

I've agreed with you on her not lying, and it is indeed difficult to confidently make the moral judgement that she is being intentionally disingenuous. I concede to those points, and alter my position to be that she is simply incorrect and misinformed, and is misleading not by intent but by ignorance.

"I see no need to entertain your fanciful theory about her secret plan to rid the world of abortion by defunding the parts of Planned Parenthood that are not related to abortion. I would quickly reject it since the abortion part of Planned Parenthood's business is apparently self-sustaining even in the absence of federal funding, as you noted." - Taxpayer money already doesn't go to funding abortion services... but then why is she calling for a funding cut to the parts of Planned Parenthood unrelated to abortion services? What exactly would that accomplish? You yourself admit that defunding the rest of Planned Parenthood would not have a noticeable impact on the independently privately funded abortion wing.

Additionally, I am not saying that we should "reward" the abortion services wing of Planned Parenthood for playing fast and loose with morality for the sake of maximizing profit. I am saying that the reason why Planned Parenthood commits these morally reprehensible actions of altering protocol to harvest more tissue is to ensure enough money is made to break even - even if they are not profiting, they must make enough money to continue operating as an organization. This is the theory cited by the Republican party as the reason to defund Planned Parenthood in the first place. And yet, the lack of federal funding is exactly the reason why the abortion wing of Planned Parenthood is breaching ethical conduct - to make enough money to sustain the independently privately funded wing of the organization, and if allegations are true to further pocket some profit as well. The issue is that we have created a profit motive and opportunity for the abortion services wing of Planned Parenthood, the same issue that plagues for-profit health services in general. If they received federal funding for abortion services, there would be no need for Planned Parenthood to act to raise money to secure private funding. Additional regulators could further be installed to ensure no illegal profiteering occurs, and there is no way for them to deflect the allegations because the organization is already funded. If you truly worry about behaviorally conditioning Planned Parenthood executives by "rewarding" them with federal funding after these scandals, an investigation can (and in my opinion should) be launched to purge those involved with the illegal transactions.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Metaphoreus said:
The disembrainment of the dead baby described by O'Donnell took place at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Only if by "this anecdote," you mean "the baby-in-a-bowl footage" (which was footage, not an anecdote) would your statement that "we have no proof [it] took place in a Planned Parenthood affiliated clinic" be accurate. But even in that case, the most we could say would be that we don't know whether the footage reveals any information about Planned Parenthood. We could not say, as you do, that the footage "does not reveal any information about Planned Parenthood."

I already covered in what way(s) the video clip cited by Fiorina supported what Fiorina meant:





The argument we're discussing is that Fiorina is lying, not that she's wrong. Even if we were discussing the latter, however, she isn't wrong. She's arguing that taxpayer money shouldn't go to an organization that engages in what she considers morally reprehensible behavior. There's nothing unusual about punishing an organization for its immoral behavior. When the "punishment" in question is loss of government benefits, that immoral behavior needn't even be strictly illegal to support the punishment proposed. (For instance, the IRS was allowed to deny tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University in the 1980s because BJU excluded students who were in an interracial marriage or who advocated for interracial marriage.)

Because the clip supports the argument made by Fiorina, I see no need to entertain your fanciful theory about her secret plan to rid the world of abortion by defunding the parts of Planned Parenthood that are not related to abortion. (But if I did entertain it, I would quickly reject it since the abortion part of Planned Parenthood's business is apparently self-sustaining even in the absence of federal funding, as you noted.)



Postulate away. That's not the topic of conversation. But according to Planned Parenthood, they do not profit from their sales of baby parts. Even assuming they are illegally profiting, I don't follow your argument that the government should reward a (in-that-case) criminal organization with federal monies. We don't reward criminals; we punish them.
Click to expand...

At this point, Fiorina just added more fuel to the fucked up fire against PP. It doesn't matter if what she said was true or not, people are going to believe her red meat and run with it and believe it, anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom