• 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.

pigeon

Banned
"I normally hate when people are passive-aggressive jackasses, but it's so fun when I feel like I'm right!"

I mean, it's not so much that I feel like I'm right as that I'm terrified by the effectiveness of the neoconservative campaign to force America into terrible and destructive wars.

We literally just got out of Iraq. We're still stuck in Afghanistan. It's frankly worrying to me how many people have apparently learned nothing.

I generally feel like I'm right most of the time, so you can safely assume this time is distinct.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Sahil Kapur ‏@sahilkapur 1h1 hour ago
USA Today/Suffolk poll:

Trump 23%
Carson 13%
Fiorina 13%
Rubio 9%
Bush 8%
Cruz 6%
Kasich/Huck/Paul 2%



MULawPoll ‏@MULawPoll 7m7 minutes ago
With Walker out of the presidential race, Trump leads among WI Republican voters, with 20% support. #mulawpoll
MULawPoll ‏@MULawPoll 5m5 minutes ago
Following Trump, it is Carson 16%, Rubio 14%, Fiorina 11%, Bush 7%, Cruz 5%, Huckabee, Christie, and Kasich each at 3%. #mulawpoll

MULawPoll ‏@MULawPoll 5m5 minutes ago
Among Republicans and Repub-leaners who supported Walker for prez, Trump gets 22%, Rubio 14%, Carson 11%, Cruz 10%. #mulawpoll
MULawPoll ‏@MULawPoll 4m4 minutes ago
Combining 1st and 2nd choices, Rubio has highest total, 31%. Carson 2nd at 28%, followed by Fiorina 26%, Trump 25%, Bush 17%. #mulawpoll

MULawPoll ‏@MULawPoll 2m2 minutes ago
President Obama job approval: 51% approve, 45% disapprove.

.
 
Well its not like Bobby has been any different from every other leader your state has elected down there. Or will elect. Probably.
Pd's old new avatar is making me lol
 
The fact that a majority of Americans want to send ground troops to Syria should scare the shit out of sane people. It's a stunning development given that Iraq isn't some faint memory for people.

It reveals the effectiveness of US media (the nonstop "the world is a disaster and only the US can fix it, or else..." slant) and how inept the Obama administration is.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
MULawPoll ‏@MULawPoll
US Senate race in Wisconsin: New poll results find Democrat Russ Feingold at 50%, Republican Ron Johnson at 36%. #mulawpoll

Also, eeesh:

MULawPoll ‏@MULawPoll
New Marquette Law School Poll finds Gov. Scott Walker’s approval rating among WI voters is 37%, w/ 59% disapproval. #mulawpoll

MULawPoll ‏@MULawPoll
Walker approval rating was 38% in August, with 57% disapproval. During 2012-14, his approval was steady around 50%. #mulawpoll

Also!:

MULawPoll ‏@MULawPoll
Match-ups in possible presidential races show Clinton 50%, Bush 38%; Clinton 48%, Rubio 40%; Clinton 50%, Trump 36%. #mulawpoll

MULawPoll ‏@MULawPoll
Match-ups in possible presidential races show Sanders 49%, Bush 39%; Sanders 49%, Rubio 36%; Sanders 53%, Trump 34%. #mulawpoll
 
The fact that a majority of Americans want to send ground troops to Syria should scare the shit out of sane people. It's a stunning development given that Iraq isn't some faint memory for people.

It reveals the effectiveness of US media (the nonstop "the world is a disaster and only the US can fix it, or else..." slant) and how inept the Obama administration is.

How successfully Republicans have portrayed the administration as inept is far more accurate.
 
MULawPoll ‏@MULawPoll
Match-ups in possible presidential races show Sanders 49%, Bush 39%; Sanders 49%, Rubio 36%; Sanders 53%, Trump 34%. #mulawpoll

But he's totally un-electable guys!!!

Hillary stans needs to stop with the fear-mongering. Bernie isn't winning, but it's not because he's un-electable or a bad candidate, its because the only way to beat the Clinton political machine is for them to beat themselves. Obama ran the greatest campaign of all time in 2008, yet still lost the popular vote, and only won because Clinton's campaign was a disorganized mess that didn't pay any attention to how delegates worked.
 
But he's totally un-electable guys!!!

He is. Voters don't know much about him now outside of that he's a democrat, which is good enough right now. Once they learn about him wanting to increases tax rates to 70-80%...good fucking luck.

The "socialist" word alone renders him unelectable.
 

Bronx-Man

Banned
I like Sanders a lot, but he would get torn to shreds by the GOP establishment. Fox alone would make him public enemy #1, not to mention Drudge Report & Limbaugh.

He's forcing Hillary to move a little bit more to the left, so I do appreciate that.
 

samn

Member
I like Sanders a lot, but he would get torn to shreds by the GOP establishment. Fox alone would make him public enemy #1, not to mention Drudge Report & Limbaugh.

He's forcing Hillary to move a little bit more to the left, so I do appreciate that.

What's stopping her from nudging back over right once she's won the primary?
 

HylianTom

Banned
"Socialist" aside, the willingness to unilaterally disarm while the GOP continues along its merry way with crazy amounts of SuperPAC money also gives me pause.
 

Cheebo

Banned
"Socialist" aside, the willingness to unilaterally disarm while the GOP continues along its merry way with crazy amounts of SuperPAC money also gives me pause.

Yep. It would a blood bath of unimaginable proportions. The party would never allow Sanders to come even close to the nomination so it's not like its a scenario we need to worry about.
 
Sanders would get outspend so badly that it would probably cause a landslide type of loss. He's polling about as well as a generic dem, or worse since everybody loves generic dem or generic rep. But when he's being outspend by hundreds of millions that 5% of people in Florida and Ohio who decide every election will be swayed.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Sanders would get outspend so badly that it would probably cause a landslide type of loss. He's polling about as well as a generic dem, or worse since everybody loves generic dem or generic rep. But when he's being outspend by hundreds of millions that 5% of people in Florida and Ohio who decide every election will be swayed.

Sanders would have demographics in his favor.....oh wait. PoliGAF you amaze me with your contradictions. A Sanders Vs Rubio or Sanders Vs Bush or Sanders Vs Kasich or any combination of the GOP "clowns" would be a blood bath? I hear this all the time: "The Republicans are so screwed the Democrats could run insert x variable and still beat the GOP clown car." /s
 
The thing about superpacs is that they don't need a candidate's permission to run ads for him, yes? Just a question (in this very unlikely scenario) of whether the democratic machine would work for him even without his direct consent. Or "how much would the democrats want to lose just to spite sanders?"

Sanders would have demographics in his favor.....oh wait. PoliGAF you amaze me with your contradictions. A Sanders Vs Rubio or Sanders Vs Bush or Sanders Vs Kasich or any combination of the GOP "clowns" would be a blood bath? I hear this all the time: "The Republicans are so screwed the Democrats could run insert x variable and still beat the GOP clown car."

That one's pretty standard. Sanders would beat hills without getting minorities on board, somehow. Same deal as "sanders will never get his agenda passed. he's delusional". No shit. No one will.

I like Sanders a lot, but he would get torn to shreds by the GOP establishment. Fox alone would make him public enemy #1, not to mention Drudge Report & Limbaugh.

He's forcing Hillary to move a little bit more to the left, so I do appreciate that.

Have you somehow missed the last six years of political developments? Whoever becomes the democratic nominee will become Fox's Public Enemy #1.
 
Remember metas campaign to say the media is being to hard on Carly's lies


http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015...utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&m=1

Not only was the video Carly discribed non existent the video meta used to defender likely isn't even an abortion.

I've not seen the video, but if it's as described, it can't be anything other than a premature birth. It's also weird as I would imagine that most abortion procedures are D&C type procedures where you would not have an intact fetal body (my wife had two of these as well with one fetus that did not have a heartbeat at week 10 and another that stopped developing).

Viability is generally agreed upon at 22-23 weeks; before that, it is generally medically agreed that we don't have the technology to keep a fetus alive out of the womb.

Unfortunately, I speak from experience as my wife delivered twins early at 20 weeks they did not try to save them. (One died in the womb, they tried to keep the second one in, but once the we lost the first, the second came a day later).
 
The fact that a majority of Americans want to send ground troops to Syria should scare the shit out of sane people. It's a stunning development given that Iraq isn't some faint memory for people.

It reveals the effectiveness of US media (the nonstop "the world is a disaster and only the US can fix it, or else..." slant) and how inept the Obama administration is.

No people want ground troops because they belive we aren't getting anywhere (we aren't) currently, and that a ground troop strike, consequences aside, would quickly destroy ISIS.
 
He is. Voters don't know much about him now outside of that he's a democrat, which is good enough right now. Once they learn about him wanting to increases tax rates to 70-80%...good fucking luck.

The "socialist" word alone renders him unelectable.

Another issue with Sanders and his political ideology, is that Hilary (debatably) holding off the debates from starting until late will hurt him severely. Some people know who he is, and he did an ok job putting himself out there but not enough, and in the debates, it's his only chance to shine, and considering how few debates they get, and the easy easy attacks hillary or anyone else can attack him with, it's not looking good.

I actually think when the dust settles, Bernie qill fall out and O'malley or whatever his name is will be squaring off with Hilary at the end of the primaries.
 

noshten

Member
Sanders kicking ass all over the place

With hours to go before the third quarter campaign finance filing deadline, the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said it reached its goal of one million individual online contributions.

He is the first candidate of the 2016 campaign to announce it had reached this number – and he reached it faster than President Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012.

The Sanders campaign has touted its goal of hitting one million online donations by tonight’s deadline to spur more individuals to donate.

The Sanders campaign has been fueled on small donations. In an email sent on Wednesday morning to supporters, Mr. Sanders asked supporters to contribute $24.86 – the average donation received last week. The campaign boasts that Mr. Sanders isn’t backed by a big-money super PAC.

“This deadline is an opportunity to send a powerful message to the political media and the super PACs attacking us about the strength of our campaign,” the campaign posted in a fundraising message on Facebook. “Let’s make sure they hear us loud and clear.”

In the second quarter, Mr. Sanders raised $15 million in the two months after he launched his campaign – one third of the $45 million that opponent Hillary Clinton announced she had raised. In that quarter, the Sanders campaign said that 99% of the donations amounted to $250 or less, with the average donation about $34.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/30/sanders-campaign-claims-one-million-online-contributions/
 

pigeon

Banned
No people want ground troops because they belive we aren't getting anywhere (we aren't) currently, and that a ground troop strike, consequences aside, would quickly destroy ISIS.

That is a good example of being completely looney tunes when it comes to perceiving and understanding reality.
 

dramatis

Member
I've not seen the video, but if it's as described, it can't be anything other than a premature birth. It's also weird as I would imagine that most abortion procedures are D&C type procedures where you would not have an intact fetal body (my wife had two of these as well with one fetus that did not have a heartbeat at week 10 and another that stopped developing).

Viability is generally agreed upon at 22-23 weeks; before that, it is generally medically agreed that we don't have the technology to keep a fetus alive out of the womb.

Unfortunately, I speak from experience as my wife delivered twins early at 20 weeks they did not try to save them. (One died in the womb, they tried to keep the second one in, but once the we lost the first, the second came a day later).
I read about it this morning, and Dr. Jen Gunter (an obstetrician?) says the video likely shows a premature delivery.
Greg Cunningham, the curator of the illegally obtained video and the founder of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, told Time magazine that it had to be an abortion “owing to the lack of medical treatment offered to the fetus.” The statement underscores the fact that Cunningham has no idea what he is talking about as the fetus is 17-18 weeks and hence pre viable so no one would render care. It is highly atypical to offer neonatal care before 23 weeks. A neonatologist who attempt to resuscitate a 17 week delivery would be considered unethical.
She makes several other clear points as to why the video is not what Fiorina claims it is.
 
That is a good example of being completely looney tunes when it comes to perceiving and understanding reality.

Well what else are the people being shown though? You can't blame them, they hear about ISIS, recruiting, getting away, failed airstrikes, resurgent taliban, capturing Iraq, that's all they hear.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Remember metas campaign to say the media is being to hard on Carly's lies


http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015...utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&m=1

Not only was the video Carly discribed non existent the video meta used to defender likely isn't even an abortion.

Not being a medical expert myself, I'll assume for now that the experts quoted in the blog you link to are correct. That doesn't change anything. Fiorina's description is no more nor less accurate given this new information. It suffers from the same flaws I've already identified, and still does not suffer from the flaw that no such video exists. This is a red herring.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Fox and Friends has decided to pull out the "troubled past" line about Ahmed, the kid that made the clock.

Something about him getting in trouble in sixth grade and bringing in other gadgets to school.
An old teacher called him a weird kind who could be a ceo or head of a gang.

Fox gonna Fox.
 

dramatis

Member
Not being a medical expert myself, I'll assume for now that the experts quoted in the blog you link to are correct. That doesn't change anything. Fiorina's description is no more nor less accurate given this new information. It suffers from the same flaws I've already identified, and still does not suffer from the flaw that no such video exists. This is a red herring.
No, her description is wrong. There was nobody standing around talking about harvesting the organs.
 
Fox and Friends has decided to pull out the "troubled past" line about Ahmed, the kid that made the clock.

Something about him getting in trouble in sixth grade and bringing in other gadgets to school.
An old teacher called him a weird kind who could be a ceo or head of a gang.

Fox gonna Fox.

In all fairness to Fox: this is actually true of all successful (and even some not so successful) CEOs. The type of personality that does a great job running a company and the type of personality that does a good job running a mafia family are basically identical.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
No, her description is wrong. There was nobody standing around talking about harvesting the organs.

"No more nor less accurate" is a comparative statement meaning that it is no more accurate, nor less accurate, than it was before we had this new information. It remains as accurate or inaccurate as before. I believe I'm the only one in this thread who has pointed out in what specific ways Fiorina's description was inaccurate:

Here's what CNN said about it:

CNN said:
Fact check: Carly Fiorina says a Planned Parenthood video shows a "fully formed fetus on the table, with its heart beating, its legs kicking."

Carly Fiorina said, "Anyone who has watched this video tape -- 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."

Fiorina was referring to a video released by the anti-abortion group The Center for Medical Progress last month, in which a former worker for StemExpress, a biomedical research company, said she saw a fully formed fetus's heart beating.

"This is the most gestated fetus and closest thing to a baby I've ever seen," Holly O'Donnell, a former procurement technician for StemExpress, said in the video. "I'm sitting here looking at this fetus and its heart is beating and I don't know what to do."

The clip does show what appears to be a fully formed fetus on an operating table with its legs twitching. 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. The Center for Medical Progress, however, doesn't explain where the fetus video was shot, so it's not clear whether it was taken at a Planned Parenthood clinic. For its part, the women's health organization has flatly denied the accusations.

VERDICT: True, but misleading

There are, in fact, a few mistakes with what Fiorina described. First, the "fully formed fetus" shown kicking his legs was not on a table, but in a stainless steel bowl of some kind. Second, while that clip is shown, only the following statements are heard:

Holly O'Donnell said:
And its nose was very pronounced. It had eyelids. And its mouth was pronounced. And then, since the fetus was so still-intact

And that's it. CNN is right to note that the clip shown is not the fetus O'Donnell procured organs from. But, before the clip, O'Donnell says her supervisor tapped on the chest of the fetus O'Donnell saw, causing his heart to beat. ("I don't know if that constitutes it's technically dead, or it's alive," O'Donnell explained.) After the clip ends, O'Donnell finishes her sentence, continuing as follows:

Holly O'Donnell said:
she said, "OK, well this is a really good fetus and it looks like we can procure a lot from it. We're gonna procure a brain."

So, the moment I hear [that], I'm like, "That means we're going to have to cut the head open. We're going to have to cut the head open."

So, she's like, "OK, so what you do is you go through the face."

And I'm thinking, "No, don't make me do this."

And she takes the scissors and she makes a small incision right here [gesturing at her chin], and goes, I would say, to maybe a little bit through the mouth. And she's like, "OK, can you go through the rest of the way."

And I'm like, [sighs], "Yes." And I didn't want to do this. So she gave me the scissors, and then told me that I have to cut down the middle of the face, and, I can't even like describe what that feels like.

I remember picking it up, and finishing going through the rest of the face, and Jessica picking up the brain and putting it in the container with the media[.]

So, Fiorina got some details wrong, particularly the most inflammatory part of her summary ("we have to keep it alive" and the use of the word "harvest"). On the other hand, her description is close enough that it's clear what part of the videos she's talking about.

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].
 

dramatis

Member
"No more nor less accurate" is a comparative statement meaning that it is no more accurate, nor less accurate, than it was before we had this new information. It remains as accurate or inaccurate as before. I believe I'm the only one in this thread who has pointed out in what specific ways Fiorina's description was inaccurate:
It's not accurate. She said that someone said, "We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain." Those words were not uttered. It is not "more or less" accurate, it's just plain inaccurate. Moreover, it's voiceover. It's not even sound from the original video recording.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Ha.

https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/status/649317191972732928

CQLWg3-WcAE_OAq.jpg


HOLY SHIT, MICHAEL BENNET IS THE LUCKIEST SENATOR IN THE COUNTRY

https://twitter.com/jeremyjojola/status/649319693971509248

@jeremyjojola
JUST IN: @GeorgeBrauchler not to run for U.S. Senate. Will seek re-election as DA in the 18th Judicial Dist. #9NEWS
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
It's not accurate. She said that someone said, "We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain." Those words were not uttered. It is not "more or less" accurate, it's just plain inaccurate. Moreover, it's voiceover. It's not even sound from the original video recording.

"No more nor less accurate" != "more or less accurate"

Fiorina's description of the video she was describing is inaccurate in the ways that I've already noted. APK's new information doesn't make her description of the video she described any less accurate.
 
It's not accurate. She said that someone said, "We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain." Those words were not uttered. It is not "more or less" accurate, it's just plain inaccurate. Moreover, it's voiceover. It's not even sound from the original video recording.

There's a difference between "more or less accurate" and "no more accurate and no more inaccurate than it already was". The former accounting for small margins of error, the latter asserting that there had been no new information about the accuracy of her statements since the last time this was discussed.

This is a case where delineating semantics are absolutely essential to understanding the argument.
 

dramatis

Member
"No more nor less accurate" != "more or less accurate"

Fiorina's description of the video she was describing is inaccurate in the ways that I've already noted. APK's new information doesn't make her description of the video she described any less accurate.
What she said is not accurate, regardless of how semantic you want to get. New information makes what she said even more inaccurate. The video she talks of does not exist.

Moreover, "No more nor less accurate" is an incorrect usage. You need to say, "Neither more nor less accurate".
 
"They cut open a fetus and harvested organs! ABORTION IS WRONG"

"Well, yeah, they cut open an unviable fetus that was likely a miscarriage, but it wasn't an abortion and the narrative around the video is factually wrong."

"But it's not wrong because they cut open a fetus! I stand factually correct because the video shows 'some people' cutting open a fetus!"
 

Wilsongt

Member
"They cut open a fetus and harvested organs! ABORTION IS WRONG"

"Well, yeah, they cut open an unviable fetus that was likely a miscarriage, but it wasn't an abortion and the narrative around the video is factually wrong."

"But it's not wrong because they cut open a fetus! I stand factually correct because the video shows 'some people' cutting open a fetus!"

A fetus is the most valuable thing in the world, until it's finally born. Then fuck it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom