Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

Washington (CNN)Ben Carson suggested on Wednesday that a Nazi-like force could come to power in the United States.

At a campaign event in New Hampshire, Carson noted that many people believe a situation like what took place in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's could never happen in America.

"I beg to differ," Carson said. "If you go back and look at the history of the world, tyranny and despotism and how it starts, it has a lot to do with control of thought and control of speech."

At a press conference after the speech, reporters asked Carson who he thinks is like Adolf Hitler in the U.S.

"I'm not going to go into that that. I think that example is pretty clear," he responded, without elaborating.

When another reporter asked if he was comparing President Barack Obama to Hitler, Carson said, "No. I am saying in a situation where people do not express themselves, bad things can happen."

Earlier, Carson had said, "If people don't speak up for what they believe, then other people will change things without them having a voice. Hitler changed things there and nobody protested. Nobody provided any opposition to him."

Meanwhile, as he was leaving the event, a reporter asked Carson how he would respond to Hurricane Joaquin if he were in the White House.

"I don't know," he replied.

Complete dingbat

 

[PhoenixDark]

I definitely don't think it would be hard for a fascist leader to take over in the US. All you need is a charismatic leader and the right tragedy to take advantage of. Trump's rise, Obama's popularity, "freedom fries" and other Bushisms, Reagan/JFK/etc...we've seen what popular leaders can do, we simply haven't seen one take over with a truly fascist platform.

 

[Wilsongt]

Party of family values.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...lin-resigns-after-sex-video-emerges/73070300/

INDIANAPOLIS — Rep. Jud McMillin, a rising star in the state's Republican Party, abruptly resigned Tuesday.

The Indianapolis Star has learned that the surprise resignation came after a sexually explicit video was sent via text message from McMillin’s cellphone. It’s unclear who sent the text or how broadly it was distributed.

The Brookville Republican sent a separate text message apologizing to his contacts for "anything offensive" they may have received after he said he lost control of his cellphone.

McMillin, whose Facebook page says he is married, did not respond to messages from The Star seeking comment. He said in an emailed statement only that he has "decided the time is right for me to pass the torch and spend more time with my family."

"Now I want to focus all of my attention on making my family's world a better place," he said.

McMillin said in a text message last week, "My phone was stolen in Canada and out of my control for about 24 hours. I have just been able to reactivate it under my control. Please disregard any messages you received recently. I am truly sorry for anything offensive you may have received."

If it is a video of he and his wife, what a shitty thing to do.

If it is a video of someone not his wife... Still a shitty thing to do, but wow.

 

[Jack Remington]

I definitely don't think it would be hard for a fascist leader to take over in the US. All you need is a charismatic leader and the right tragedy to take advantage of. Trump's rise, Obama's popularity, "freedom fries" and other Bushisms, Reagan/JFK/etc...we've seen what popular leaders can do, we simply haven't seen one take over with a truly fascist platform.

But would our liberty die with thunderous applause?

 

[Roland_Gunner]

No, that standard of proof isn't necessary for rational argument. Rational argument generally turns on probabilities--if A is more likely true than not-A, then one should rationally believe A. And a basis for a belief is evidence, or proof (which often are interchangeable). Your attempts to distinguish the concepts makes me wonder if you're not a robot having difficulty parsing the language.

Don't the repeated subsequent statements by the Fiorina campaign that she was referring to the leaked Planned Parenthood videos and not ones produced by a third party show what we should believe? You may think that she was alluding to a video from the Center for Medical Progress but her own campaign doesn't agree. What else matters?

 

[dramatis]

That is my proof. It is more than sufficient.

Lol something that has more words in your filled in conjecture than Fiorina's own words is not sufficient proof that what she said is accurate and/or honest.

You can argue your Empire Strikes Back all you want. But according to your own usual standard of literal interpretation, then yes, if the words "Luke, I am your father" was never uttered as such, then someone claiming he heard "Luke, I am your father" is inaccurate. Isn't this how you usually like to interpret what politicians/candidates say? You want to argue context now?

 

[brainchild]

No, that standard of proof isn't necessary for rational argument. Rational argument generally turns on probabilities--if A is more likely true than not-A, then one should rationally believe A. And a basis for a belief is evidence, or proof (which often are interchangeable). Your attempts to distinguish the concepts makes me wonder if you're not a robot having difficulty parsing the language.

Consider this in light of my Empire Strikes Back analogy. Imagine someone says, "Do you remember that movie where Darth Vader says, 'Luke, I am your father'?" Imagine someone else replying, "Yes, you're thinking of Empire Strikes Back, but that's not exactly what he says." Would you honestly contest that conclusion? Would you honestly say it hasn't been proven after being shown a clip of the pertinent scene? Of course you wouldn't! The main features described are all there: Darth Vader, his son Luke, the revelation of their familial relationship.

Likewise, the main features described by Fiorina are (mostly) there: an intact fetus (shown and described), its heart beating (described), its legs kicking (shown), while someone says they'll be harvesting its brain (described, but as "procuring"). While the "we have to keep it alive" bit is missing, there's enough here to demonstrate that she's merely misdescribing this particular clip, not inventing a scene whole cloth.

My point is, if an argument consists of asserting that a person has provided an accurate and identifiable source for their claims, but in actuality, the person's alleged source is too nebulous and ambiguous to accurately identify, then the argument needs proof of reference to distinguish it from all of the other potential sources that coincide with the person's statements. If said proof cannot be provided, then it cannot be rationally argued that the person has provided an accurate and identifiable source for their claims. It's really that simple.

As for your analogy, it's a false equivalency. There aren't tons of other movies that would likely apply to the reference, but more importantly, the person making the reference isn't making an allegation, so they wouldn't be held up to the same level of scrutiny. But for the sake of being pedantic, if we held this person to the same standard of accountability, then yes, we'd need proof before we could rationally argue that they accurately referenced the movie.

Anyway, I'm not about to get drawn into this black web of circular logic any more than I already have. You can find someone else to argue with.

 

[Jack Remington]

Metaphoreus is arguing with himself.

Good way to throw off Modbot's alt detection algorithms.

Edit: actually, being able to argue at such length from opposite sides of the argument is fairly impressive.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Don't the repeated subsequent statements by the Fiorina campaign that she was referring to the leaked Planned Parenthood videos and not ones produced by a third party show what we should believe? You may think that she was alluding to a video from the Center for Medical Progress but her own campaign doesn't agree. What else matters?

Link?

Lol something that has more words in your filled in conjecture than Fiorina's own words is not sufficient proof that what she said is accurate and/or honest.

You can argue your Empire Strikes Back all you want. But according to your own usual standard of literal interpretation, then yes, if the words "Luke, I am your father" was never uttered as such, then someone claiming he heard "Luke, I am your father" is inaccurate. Isn't this how you usually like to interpret what politicians/candidates say? You want to argue context now?

You misunderstand the argument and the analogy, dramatis. I agree that what Fiorina said is inaccurate. The point of contention here is whether Fiorina was misdescribing the video I've linked to, or not; it is not whether what she said is inaccurate. (Also, I agree that context must always be considered in interpreting what someone says, and have never said otherwise. Apparently, this isn't the first of my arguments that you've misunderstood.)

My point is, if an argument consists of asserting that a person has provided an accurate and identifiable source for their claims, but in actuality, the person's alleged source is too nebulous and ambiguous to accurately identify, then the argument needs proof of reference to distinguish it from all of the other potential sources that coincide with the person's statements. If said proof cannot be provided, then it cannot be rationally argued that the person has provided an accurate and identifiable source for their claims. It's really that simple.

As for your analogy, it's a false equivalency. There aren't tons of other movies that would likely apply to the reference, but more importantly, the person making the reference isn't making an allegation, so they wouldn't be held up to the same level of scrutiny. But for the sake of being pedantic, if we held this person to the same standard of accountability, then yes, we'd need proof before we could rationally argue that they accurately referenced the movie.

Point to a single other video--just one--that matches what Fiorina said as closely as the one I've linked to. Her reference was unambiguous despite containing errors.

To be clear, your video must, at a minimum:

• Be one of the videos released by the Center for Medical Progress;
• Include an intact fetus on a table with (a) kicking legs and (b) beating heart; and
• Someone has to say they're going to "harvest," "procure," or "obtain" (or pick any other synonym) the fetus' brain.

 

[brainchild]

Good way to throw off Modbot's alt detection algorithms.

Edit: actually, being able to argue at such length from opposite sides of the argument is fairly impressive.

You guys are hilarious. I'm done with the argument anyway. He will continue to believe that he has a valid basis for his conclusions despite any reasoning that would dismantle such a fallacious argument . It's a waste of time.

I still like him though.

Point to a single other video--just one--that matches what Fiorina said as closely as the one I've linked to. Her reference was unambiguous despite containing errors.

To be clear, your video must, at a minimum:

• Be one of the videos released by the Center for Medical Progress;
• Include an intact fetus on a table with (a) kicking legs and (b) beating heart; and
• Someone has to say they're going to "harvest," "procure," or "obtain" (or pick any other synonym) the fetus' brain.

Considering that there isn't any known video that meets all of the minimum requirements of your criteria, I'm going to emphatically say "NO" to your request.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Considering that there isn't any known video that meets all of the minimum requirements of your criteria, I'm going to emphatically say "NO" to your request.

The video I linked to meets those criteria, as I've explained before. (No, it's not a single baby whose heart is described as beating and is shown kicking its legs, but both elements are included in one fashion or another.)

But if you reject those criteria, then just show me a single other video that better fits Fiorina's description than the one I've linked to, according to whatever reasonable criteria you choose.

 

[brainchild]

The video I linked to meets those criteria, as I've explained before. (No, it's not a single baby whose heart is described as beating while another is shown kicking its legs, but both elements are included in one fashion or another.)

But if you reject those criteria, then just show me a single other video that better fits Fiorina's description than the one I've linked to, according to whatever reasonable criteria you choose.

There isn't any known video that fits Fiorina's description at all, aside from videos of live fetuses with limbs moving outside of the womb. That's what we have to go on. Any video showing that could qualify.

Anything else is conjecture, and certainly not proof that she was truthful in referencing her source.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Isn't the larger point that the anecdote was used by Fiorina to condemn Planned Parenthood for something that's not actually true? She was essentially saying "This video shows Planned Parenthood is using abortions to harvest baby parts! We must defund them to stop these atrocities!" But if the video's a hoax, it doesn't really matter if her description of it is accurate precisely because it's a hoax; you don't get off the hook for using falsified evidence just because you accurately described what the falsified evidence purported to be.

I guess if the point is she got snookered instead of outright intentionally lying, then I guess I can understand that, but she still has culpability for not correcting herself and/or doubling down. I agree with Meta regarding standards of proof in this case, I don't know whether she lied or got fooled, but she certainly hasn't made an effort to correct her position or acknowledge her mistake.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Another powerful moment last night was when you talked about those Planned Parenthood tapes. But analysts who have watched all 12 plus hours say the scene you describe - that harrowing scene you describe -- actually isn't in those tapes. Did you misspeak?

FIORINA: No, I didn't misspeak and I don't know who you're speaking about in terms of watching the tapes but I have seen those images. I don't know whether you've watched the tapes, George, most people haven't. Certainly none of the Democrats who are still defending Planned Parenthood have watched those tapes. Planned Parenthood needs to be defended. This kind of butchery erodes at the character of our nation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sure, well Sarah Kliff, actually, writing in Vox watched all 12 hours, and she concluded, 'Either Fiorina hasn't watched the Planned Parenthood videos or she is knowingly misrepresenting the footage. Because what she says happens in the Planned Parenthood videos simply does not exist.'

FIORINA: Well, you know, there's a lot of commentary about these tapes being doctored. In fact, that's what the mainstream media keeps talking about, is the tapes and their origin. Rest assured I have seen the images that I talked about last night. Rest assured that human lives are being aborted fully formed in order to harvest body parts. Rest assured that this erodes at the character of our nation, and once again I will say, I dare Mrs. Clinton and President Obama, two defenders of Planned Parenthood, to watch these videotapes.

 

[Plinko]

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-carson-raises-20m-16-bid-past-3-224850361--election.html

Carson raises $20 million in 3 months--$31 million total. Romney only made $14 million over the same period and more than the entire GOP field did over that period in 2012.

Recordbreaking. The guy is in it until the end.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

Quote the part of what Fiorina said that is rendered less accurate by the new information.

And I agree with you. What she said is not accurate. I've pointed to the precise points on which it is inaccurate. None of those points is that the video doesn't exist.

If I said, "Remember that movie where Darth Vader says, 'Luke, I am your father'?", would your response be, "No such movie exists you're a liar move along now!" Or would you say, "You mean Empire Strikes Back? That's not what he says, though, by the way."



To be clear, I'm Schwarzenegger.



I've been clear on this: Fiorina misdescribed a video that exists. I've described the respects in which Fiorina's description is literally inaccurate. What more could you possibly want?

So new Republican ad says:

"There is a problem with this country and I am going to solve it! There is a leader who has created concentration camps and declared war on our European allies!"

Keep in mind that this is a leader (Hitler) who did these things, so what I'm saying isn't entirely inaccurate, because there exists a leader who did those things. You're defending statements that have been designed to be purposefully deceptive. It's like talking about a watermelon and describing it as small orange and round and then saying that description isn't entirely inaccurate because there are fruits that are small orange and round, just not that one. Moreover, I don't understand how defending her blatantly false statements at all does anything to improve the political discourse in this country.

 

[brainchild]

Isn't the larger point that the anecdote was used by Fiorina to condemn Planned Parenthood for something that's not actually true? She was essentially saying "This video shows Planned Parenthood is using abortions to harvest baby parts! We must defund them to stop these atrocities!" But if the video's a hoax, it doesn't really matter if her description of it is accurate precisely because it's a hoax; you don't get off the hook for using falsified evidence just because you accurately described what the falsified evidence purported to be.

I guess if the point is she got snookered instead of outright intentionally lying, then I guess I can understand that, but she still has culpability for not correcting herself and/or doubling down. I agree with Meta regarding standards of proof in this case, I don't know whether she lied or got fooled, but she certainly hasn't made an effort to correct her position or acknowledge her mistake.

Meta's position is that she accurately referenced the video that she's basing these claims on (despite the claims being inaccurate). I disagreed because she never provided the source, only a description of the content of the source, and based on the content (which does not match her claims), the source that she was referring to is inconclusive beyond conjecture.

If Fiorina would cite the source, or give an accurate description (either would do), then the standard of proof for this allegation would not be necessary.

 

[RastaMentality]

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-carson-raises-20m-16-bid-past-3-224850361--election.html

Carson raises $20 million in 3 months--$31 million total.

Also from AP:

MORE: Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign says it raised $28M; Bernie Sanders raises $24M: http://t.co/aQQGkbXlp1

 

[Plinko]

Also from AP:

Nice--didn't see that one. Good news.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Nice--didn't see that one. Good news.

Shows Bernie shouldn't have much of a problem fundraising if he ends up being the nominee.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Bernie has 25 mil cash on hand as well. Go Bernie!

 

[RustyNails]

Bernie has 25 mil cash on hand as well. Go Bernie!

Nice. I hope he keeps raking in millions

Spoiler

so he can hand it all over to Hillary after super tuesday

 

[Diablos]

Uh so like guys

Did you hear McCarthy throw up all over himself when he was running his mouth today?

I'm scared.

HE IS SUCH AN IDIOT ARE YOU KIDDING ME

HUNGRIA

 

[Wilsongt]

Uh so like guys

Did you hear McCarthy throw up all over himself when he was running his mouth today?

I'm scared.

HE IS SUCH AN IDIOT ARE YOU KIDDING ME

HUNGRIA

Let him take teh speakership. Let the country grind to a halt. All the more reason the GOP needs to be destroyed.

You don't need to be smart to be a Republican.

 

[brainchild]

Uh so like guys

Did you hear McCarthy throw up all over himself when he was running his mouth today?

I'm scared.

HE IS SUCH AN IDIOT ARE YOU KIDDING ME

HUNGRIA

OMG he's worse than Bush. HOLY SHIT! LMAO

 

[B-Dubs]

Uh so like guys

Did you hear McCarthy throw up all over himself when he was running his mouth today?

I'm scared.

HE IS SUCH AN IDIOT ARE YOU KIDDING ME

HUNGRIA

John Boehner please don't go.

 

[Diablos]

With Boehner gone is there really any guarantee that there will not be a Government shutdown?

McCarthy is a complete moron. Boehner is an asshole but he's not a complete moron.

 

[B-Dubs]

With Boehner gone is there really any guarantee that there will not be a Government shutdown?

McCarthy is a complete moron. Boehner is an asshole but he's not a complete moron.

I've heard rumors that part of the reason he's leaving is so he can make a deal that would last through the election, but who knows.

 

[Diablos]

I've heard rumors that part of the reason he's leaving is so he can make a deal that would last through the election, but who knows.

Hahaha.

Sure.

 

[And_Gignac]

Also from AP:

Great numbers for Sanders, even if he wont have theb big help of Super PACs, passion-driven politics can give him enough cash to continue his challenge to Clinton well beyond Super Tuesday.

 

[curlyfriski]

Example #3,512 of Hillary's political cravenness:

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton was furious about a 2011 State Department decision to replace the words "mother" and "father" with gender-neutral terms on U.S. passport applications, warning of the wrath of Sarah Palin, according to newly released emails.

"Who made the decision that State will not use the terms 'mother and father' and instead substitute 'parent one and two'?” Clinton wrote in an email to staff on Jan. 8, 2011. The email was released Wednesday by the State Department as part of an ongoing dump of emails that Clinton sent from a personal account during her time as secretary of state.

"I’m not defending that decision, which I disagree w and knew nothing about, in front of this Congress. I could live w letting people in nontraditional families choose another descriptor so long as we retained the presumption of mother and father," she wrote. "We need to address this today or we will be facing a huge Fox-generated media storm led by [Sarah] Palin et al."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-same-sex-passports_560c68e6e4b076812700bf06

 

[B-Dubs]

Hahaha.

Sure.

Yea, I'm not buying it either but I can hope beyond hope.

Great numbers for Sanders, even if he wont have theb big help of Super PACs, passion-driven politics can give him enough cash to continue his challenge to Clinton well beyond Super Tuesday.

After Super Tuesday it's a matter of momentum and not money. If Hillary runs the table who is even going to think he still has a chance besides the true believers?

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Link?

In addition to the quotes provided above you can look at this exchange with Chris Wallace where Fiorina is asked about a specific video that everyone, aside from you, thinks she is referring to and the candidate declines to clarify that. Basically your position is that when given two clear opportunities on national tv to specify which video she was referring to Fiorina chose not to for unknown reasons and instead let a false assumption stand. How is that in any way a probable interpretation?

WALLACE: First of all, do you acknowledge what every fact checker has found, that as horrific as that scene is, it was only described on the video by someone who claimed to have seen it?

There is not -- no actual footage of the incident that you just mentioned?

FIORINA: No, I don't accept that at all. I've seen the footage. And I find it amazing, actually, that all these supposed fact checker in the mainstream media claim this doesn't exist. They're trying to attack the authenticity of the videotape.

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2...on-breakout-debate-performance-plus-catholic/

 

[Metaphoreus]

There isn't any known video that fits Fiorina's description at all, aside from videos of live fetuses with limbs moving outside of the womb. That's what we have to go on. Any video showing that could qualify.

This is clearly not true. A video showing a fetus outside of the womb moving its legs would match two of the features described by Fiorina ((1) intact fetus (2) kicking its legs). The video I've linked to matches five ((1) intact fetus (shown and described), (2) on a table (shown) (3) heart beating (described), (4) legs kicking (shown) (5) with someone saying they're going to procure its brain). It also comes from the CMP videos, which are the ones Fiorina was referring to.

Isn't the larger point that the anecdote was used by Fiorina to condemn Planned Parenthood for something that's not actually true? She was essentially saying "This video shows Planned Parenthood is using abortions to harvest baby parts! We must defund them to stop these atrocities!" But if the video's a hoax, it doesn't really matter if her description of it is accurate precisely because it's a hoax; you don't get off the hook for using falsified evidence just because you accurately described what the falsified evidence purported to be.

I guess if the point is she got snookered instead of outright intentionally lying, then I guess I can understand that, but she still has culpability for not correcting herself and/or doubling down. I agree with Meta regarding standards of proof in this case, I don't know whether she lied or got fooled, but she certainly hasn't made an effort to correct her position or acknowledge her mistake.

I agree Fiorina is making a mistake by not owning up to the fact that her comments at the debate were mistaken, and I'm not sure why. What the video actually includes is shocking enough.

However, I don't think Fiorina's misdescriptions are enough to discredit the claim that Planned Parenthood is harvesting baby parts from abortions. In fact, I think that point is incontrovertible (except you might complain about the word "harvesting").

I also don't think we can write off the entire video--or even the portion of it described by Fiorina--as a hoax, even assuming the baby-in-a-bowl footage was from a miscarriage. There's still the account of Holly O'Donnell (about procuring a brain from an intact fetus moments after observing his heart beating) to consider.

So new Republican ad says:

"There is a problem with this country and I am going to solve it! There is a leader who has created concentration camps and declared war on our European allies!"

Keep in mind that this is a leader (Hitler) who did these things, so what I'm saying isn't entirely inaccurate, because there exists a leader who did those things. You're defending statements that have been designed to be purposefully deceptive. It's like talking about a watermelon and describing it as small orange and round and then saying that description isn't entirely inaccurate because there are fruits that are small orange and round, just not that one. Moreover, I don't understand how defending her blatantly false statements at all does anything to improve the political discourse in this country.

You argue that what Fiorina purports to be describing is not what she is, in fact, describing. Implicitly, one would understand the Republican ad to be describing in the second sentence the leader identified as a current problem in the first sentence. And, one would expect someone who claims to be describing a watermelon to describe a watermelon, not an orange.

But the similarities between Fiorina's description and the video she was describing are greater than the similarities between Hitler and Obama or a watermelon and an orange (as you've described them). I've already listed the similarities concerning the video above. There is no American leader who has created concentration camps and declared war on our European allies. So, of the three features alleged ((1) leader, (2) concentration camps, (3) declared war with allies), only one (namely, (1)) is satisfied. We do, indeed, have a leader--more than one, in fact! Likewise, a watermelon usually would only meet one of the features ascribed to it: though it is (1) round-ish, it is usually not (2) small, and it is never (so far as I know) (3) orange.

As for improving political discourse, I think it's better to give a fair and open-minded consideration to what politicians claim than to shut them out on the basis of an obvious falsehood. Do you disagree?

Meta's position is that she accurately referenced the video that she's basing these claims on (despite the claims being inaccurate).

No, my position is that Fiorina inaccurately described a video she nevertheless clearly referenced.

In addition to the quotes provided above you can look at this exchange with Chris Wallace where Fiorina is asked about a specific video that everyone, aside from you, thinks she is referring to and the candidate declines to clarify that.

You've got this backwards. I think she's referring to the video that Wallace is also referring to. The fact checkers cited by Wallace are also referring to that video. People in this thread are denying that Fiorina's comments corresponded to any video.

 

[Oblivion]

So what's the good word on this Trevor Noah guy? Yay or nay?

 

[B-Dubs]

So what's the good word on this Trevor Noah guy? Yay or nay?

He's doing fine. All the writers behind him are exactly the same, it's just a matter of giving him a fair shot. He's not building a show from the ground up so much as he's just taking over something that's already there.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I've heard rumors that part of the reason he's leaving is so he can make a deal that would last through the election, but who knows.

The grand bargain rides again

Just gave $10 to Bernie, also. Can't really spare much at the moment.

 

[Diablos]

The grand bargain rides again

Just gave $10 to Bernie, also. Can't really spare much at the moment.

Are you bailing on Hillary

 

[HylianTom]

Louisiana presidential race polling!
(We don't get as many polls as the swing states, so I figured I'd share.)

General Election Matchups:
Clinton - 45%
Jindal - 42%

Bush - 56%
Clinton - 38%

Trump - 47%
Clinton - 39%

~~~

Democratic Primary:
Clinton - 57%
Biden - 22%
Bernie - 7%
O'Malley - 2%
Webb - 1%

~~~~

GOP Primary:
Carson - 23%
Trump - 19%
Bush - 10%
Rubio - 9%
Fiorina - 7%
Cruz - 6%
Huckabee - 4%
Jindal - 3%
Kasich - 3%
Christie - 2%

===

My initial hunch was to skip the Democratic primary and vote Trump in the GOP primary. There's still plenty of time, but given the closeness of each respective race, it's looking like a pretty sound decision.

(Ouch, Jindal!)

(no crosstabs yet, as far as I can see)

 

[Oblivion]

He's doing fine. All the writers behind him are exactly the same, it's just a matter of giving him a fair shot. He's not building a show from the ground up so much as he's just taking over something that's already there.

Interesting. Will have to check out the show then.

 

[brainchild]

This is clearly not true. A video showing a fetus outside of the womb moving its legs would match two of the features described by Fiorina ((1) intact fetus (2) kicking its legs). The video I've linked to matches five ((1) intact fetus (shown and described), (2) on a table (shown) (3) heart beating (described), (4) legs kicking (shown) (5) with someone saying they're going to procure its brain). It also comes from the CMP videos, which are the ones Fiorina was referring to.



I agree Fiorina is making a mistake by not owning up to the fact that her comments at the debate were mistaken, and I'm not sure why. What the video actually includes is shocking enough.

However, I don't think Fiorina's misdescriptions are enough to discredit the claim that Planned Parenthood is harvesting baby parts from abortions. In fact, I think that point is incontrovertible (except you might complain about the word "harvesting").

I also don't think we can write off the entire video--or even the portion of it described by Fiorina--as a hoax, even assuming the baby-in-a-bowl footage was from a miscarriage. There's still the account of Holly O'Donnell (about procuring a brain from an intact fetus moments after observing his heart beating) to consider.



You argue that what Fiorina purports to be describing is not what she is, in fact, describing. Implicitly, one would understand the Republican ad to be describing in the second sentence the leader identified as a current problem in the first sentence. And, one would expect someone who claims to be describing a watermelon to describe a watermelon, not an orange.

But the similarities between Fiorina's description and the video she was describing are greater than the similarities between Hitler and Obama or a watermelon and an orange (as you've described them). I've already listed the similarities concerning the video above. There is no American leader who has created concentration camps and declared war on our European allies. So, of the three features alleged ((1) leader, (2) concentration camps, (3) declared war with allies), only one (namely, (1)) is satisfied. We do, indeed, have a leader--more than one, in fact! Likewise, a watermelon usually would only meet one of the features ascribed to it: though it is (1) round-ish, it is usually not (2) small, and it is never (so far as I know) (3) orange.

As for improving political discourse, I think it's better to give a fair and open-minded consideration to what politicians claim than to shut them out on the basis of an obvious falsehood. Do you disagree?



No, my position is that Fiorina inaccurately described a video she nevertheless clearly referenced.



You've got this backwards. I think she's referring to the video that Wallace is also referring to. The fact checkers cited by Wallace are also referring to that video. People in this thread are denying that Fiorina's comments corresponded to any video.

What's this I smell? Circular logic?! Oh no! This won't do. This won't do at all!!

Sorry Meta but I'm going to have to withdraw from this argument. It's not going anywhere. Have fun!!

 

[B-Dubs]

Interesting. Will have to check out the show then.

The interviews aren't amazing, but that's a learned skill a comedian likely wouldn't have in advance.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Are you bailing on Hillary

No? When he got into the race I was undecided, shortly thereafter I became a Bernie supporter because of the candidates he lines up best with my beliefs.

What I'm not is a blind optimist fanboy - I still think Hillary will win the nomination and I will still have no problem voting for her when she is. I think the only thing that could really shake things up significantly is if Joe got in.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Louisiana presidential race polling!
(We don't get as many polls as the swing states, so I figured I'd share.)

Democratic Primary:
Clinton - 57%
Biden - 22%
Bernie - 7%
O'Malley - 2%
Webb - 1%

(no crosstabs yet, as far as I can see)

The Southern Firewall is building nicely.

Tom you still on that Trump plan?

 

[Metaphoreus]

What's this I smell? Circular logic?! Oh no! This won't do. This won't do at all!!

Sorry Meta but I'm going to have to withdraw from this argument. It's not going anywhere. Have fun!!

Do what you want, but that's not circular logic. I'm not even sure what you must believe circular logic is for you to think it describes my position.

 

[And_Gignac]

Yea, I'm not buying it either but I can hope beyond hope.



After Super Tuesday it's a matter of momentum and not money. If Hillary runs the table who is even going to think he still has a chance besides the true believers?

I am not that sure she will.

Example #3,512 of Hillary's political cravenness:

"...I could live w letting people in nontraditional families choose another descriptor so long as we retained the presumption of mother and father,"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-same-sex-passports_560c68e6e4b076812700bf06

lol, that deep rooted bigotry. "Dont call it marriage, call it something else!!!"

I am sure she has "evolved" on that too.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

The Southern Firewall is building nicely.

Tom you still on that Trump plan?

Sanders seems to only register on the radar in states that are 90% white democratic voters. Unfortunately there's few of those that still exist.

 

[brainchild]

Do what you want, but that's not circular logic. I'm not even sure what you must believe circular logic is for you to think it describes my position.

I would elucidate, but I have a feeling that it would just propagate another argument based on circular logic. No thanks!

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Eh I find verbal mistakes like that of McCarthy to be complete non-issues. Politicians talk so much in general it would be more surprising if they never made a mistake in pronunciation. This community has a tiring tendency to trumpet trivial errors like that into overblown catastrophes which leads to parade of insults. It's not a good look for us, though in our defense even media types like Maddow clearly fall victim to it as well. As an excuse to name-call, sure I get it, but we've got plenty of policy related soundbites for that. I would like to think we wouldn't see Obama mispronouncing Corpsman and take that as a legitimate base to call him an idiot.

 

[HylianTom]

The Southern Firewall is building nicely.

Tom you still on that Trump plan?

Yup, I guess I'm staying.

Looking forward to seeing what the other candidates have raised..
(And I'm still hoping against the odds for a brokered convention)

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

Do what you want, but that's not circular logic. I'm not even sure what you must believe circular logic is for you to think it describes my position.

Is it often that you drown those you're arguing with in an ocean of pedantry?

This thread moves at a decent clip most of the time, but you've coated the last few pages with a thick molasses of meaningless analogy and intellectual dishonesty.