carlfense

YouGOv, if you prefer (and yes, they ask about the videos):

 

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/08/05/after-video-releases-opinion-planned-parenthood-li/

Umm...try post 71 where you suggested i was providing inaccurate info about PP and was cherry picking the data. I was actually reading into the data more than just a headline, and providing a source that showed the methodology behind the data. It takes much more than reading a quick headline to obtain meaningful analysis. So again, you implied that PP is still popular and not struggling because of these videos and I asked the question of how many respondents in the numbers you are citing actually know about these videos.

Yes. I'm quite sure that it was based on methodology and not the fact that you found a lower number.

 

Also, as a general question, do you find these videos disturbing, why or why not?

Not particularly. They seem like more hype than substance. The claim that you (and many others) are making is that they're selling or trying to profit from the sale of body parts. That claim has not been substantiated. Unless and until that evidence is provided there's really no "there" there.

 

But then again, I don't doubt that my ties to the medical community have made it hard for me to be too surprised by the comments from people who deal with this every day.

 

 

 

 

Wait, so you endorse Planned Parenthood?

Of course. Along with 45% of the country. If you'll note the conversation above that qualifies Planned Parenthood as wildly popular.

 

Are you implying that 45% indicates that it's "wildly popular"?

 

Most certainly not.

 

ok

 

It's a joke . . . bnilhome was trying for several posts to pretend that 41% approval indicates wild popularity.

Again, Walker's numbers may have fallen a bit now, but he has been doing very well in Wisconsin which is a very progressive state, and you continue to want to dismiss the fact that I said other candidates are also popular in their states.

You said wildly popular. You're walking that back now to just "popular." I don't blame you for that . . . it's probably your best option at this point.

 

Also, you failed to answer my question about the poll you cited. Did it include any data on whether the respondents included in the survey knew about the PP videos. That is a telling part of the debate, and ignoring that fact is foolish.

Please refer back to post #53 and review where I did or did not put limitations on my approval number.

 

If you don't see any limitations please don't try to act like your own preferences are relevant.

 

 

It's so funny to hear you and HuskerX attack Fox News as the only source anyone arguing against your points is getting their news, and then suggest that the the NY Times, Huff Post, MSNBC, and many other media outlets are not biased. There is bias all around. I frankly can't stand Rush Limbaugh and never have listened to more than 5 minutes of his program. I also don't agree with many extremists on the right, just as I don't on the left. You tend to walk in stride with any of the standard DNC/leftists talking points, and have yet to show any manner in which you are moderate or willing to take a stand against Hillary or Obama, and thus, any posts you make on here will show your bias.

What?

 

 

Wait, so you endorse Planned Parenthood?

Of course. Along with 45% of the country. If you'll note the conversation above that qualifies Planned Parenthood as wildly popular.

 

Are you implying that 45% indicates that it's "wildly popular"?

 

Most certainly not.

So for Walker, he's been up and down as I stated, and you can continue to harp on that. . .

That's not what you stated. You said that he was wildly popular. Now you're walking that back.

 

 

Also, the poll i just cited was within 3 days of the poll you cited, so it's a stretch to claim that there is no credibility there.

It's not a stretch at all. You definitely stated that my 45% number was wrong and that the correct number was 37%.

 

That was not correct.

This happens in a lot of elections. Someone comes in flapping their mouth in a manner that someone from one side says....Ah....that's refreshing having someone actually just speak their mind. It's happened on both sides.

What's the DNC equivalent of Trumpmentum?

 

I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. My guess is Clinton never once told Trump to run. He's too smart for that.

 

What he probably did do was indirectly encourage him by feeding his narcissism. "You know, Donald, they just don't respect your ideas like they should." Kind of like pointing a Frankenstein Monster in the direction of your enemies and letting him shamble on over there by himself. It doesn't matter if he implodes in a week or wins the nomination; either way it ends up working for Hillary.

 

And pretending Bill did intend this––which we can't prove, but say he did. What does it say about the Republican Party that it worked? You have to tip your hat. If Bill poured honey in Citizen Trump's ear, it was a masterful strategy.

Wait...I missed this. It worked???

 

I didn't know the election was over.

 

If it DOES work, it doesn't say anything about the party other than they have a hard time all getting behind just one candidate.

 

I think he meant "it worked" as in it got Trump into the race and the GOP base embraced his rhetoric.

 

 

Wait, so you endorse Planned Parenthood?

Of course. Along with 45% of the country. If you'll note the conversation above that qualifies Planned Parenthood as wildly popular.

 

Well for started, only 37% have a favorable opinion of PP, and in this recent poll, 53% of respondents had yet to see the disgusting videos, which would raise that unfavorable rating significantly.

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

 

Here's the poll I was looking at. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/how-public-views-planned-parenthood-nra-n403451

 

It's more recent than your link. Feel free to cherry pick however you want . . . but you're not going to have much credibility if you keep providing inaccurate information like you did about Walker and now PP.

 

........but most polls I've seen lately it's a 50/50 split, ......

And, that's right where politicians want it.

 

Yep.

Wait, so you endorse Planned Parenthood?

Of course. Along with 45% of the country. If you'll note the conversation above that qualifies Planned Parenthood as wildly popular.

. . . reality of what PP is doing trying to profit from body parts of the unborn.

You keep saying that.

No, I don't think Bush lied or misled the country. He is a stand-up guy and under no circumstance do I believe he would make up intelligence, or know that intelligence was made up, to support going to war. I know there are plenty of conspiracy theorists out there who suggest otherwise.

Oh. Conspiracy theorists like the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence? ". . . the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent."

 

If that's too much reading I can give highlights. Heck, there are even videos of W. claiming that an IAEA report said that Iraq was six months from a nuke. No such report existed. But hey . . . that's just an extremely well documented and factually supported conspiracy theory.

 

As for Walker, his poll numbers have hovered above and below 50%, and given he's taken a hard stand against unions, he's had the entire DNC attacking him on multiple occasions. I live near the Wisconsin border, have friends (who aren't political) and co-workers that are not GOP-bots who continue to praise what he has done for their state. Again, Wisconsin is one of the homes of the Progressive movement, and the fact alone he's been able to win 3 elections statewide is telling.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you weren't trying to deceive when you posted dated numbers . . . but you might want to give up on your attempt to define "wildly popular" to include 41% of people thinking you're doing an acceptable job.

 

1. Do you see any wrongdoing on Hillary's part with Benghazi, and what other criticisms do you have of her. I have called out many GOP politicians throughout this dialogue.

No wrongdoing whatsoever on Benghazi. Don't take my word for it . . . take a stroll through the 9 (NINE!) investigations since the attack. Frankly, it doesn't sound like you are in on the joke that the conservative entertainment complex and GOP pols are playing.

 

Criticisms of Hillary? She's mediocre on the campaign trail. She's hostile to the press (often with good reason, admittedly). She's overly secretive.

 

2. Which candidate are you currently supporting and why?

Currently supporting? None of them. In the general when there's a high probability that we'll get to decide between Jeb(!) and Hillary I'll vote for Hillary.

 

3. Do you have any concerns that none of the Democratic candidates have criticized Planned Parenthood?

No. None. In fact, we should probably increase funding for womens health programs.

These videos and the refusal of any Democrat to speak out against Planned Parenthood will be a major election issue in 2016.

I hope that you're right. It'll play right into the playbook.

Also, as I said in the last response, if you truly are a conspiracy theorist believing that Bush knew the intelligence was not accurate and/or asked someone to create faulty intelligence, then that really negates anything else you have to say on here.

Oh. Do you deny that Bush lied about the existence of intelligence supporting his claims about Iraq's WMD program?

 

That should be a "yes" or "no" question.

So were you intentionally providing dated and incorrect information to falsely support your claims or were you uninformed as to Walker's "wild popularity"?

 

 

Yes. I believe it is a living being at the time of contraception.

Must have failed.

 

Sorry, lol. I'm having a lazy, tired Sunday afternoon. I meant conception.

 

Haha. No worries.

Yes. I believe it is a living being at the time of contraception.

Must have failed.

Finally, FWIW, I have very low expectations for President Clinton.

 

1. Nominate justices,

2. Hold the line against attempts to dismantle the ACA and Dodd-Frank, and

3. Don't start any idiotic wars.

 

Fortunately Obama is leaving the country in much better shape for President Clinton than his predecessor did for him.

You can't definitively answer when you feel comfortable referring to it as a living being? That's odd.

It's not odd and I tried to explain why above. I'm not sure I can make it any more clear.

 

And yes I can definitively answer that question.

Would you do so?

 

Wow, you show no ability to have an independent perspective even if you are a leftie. For starters, the 4 governors I mentioned all still have very favorable ratings in the states they led. Jeb is still wildly popular in Florida many years after he left, and that is now a very purple state. Kasich is very popular in Ohio too after turning that state around, and the same is true of Walker and Perry.

Show me. (You have a few options here. You can admit that you're wrong. You can re-define "wildly popular" to mean roughly every other person. Or you can ignore this after actually looking up the numbers.)

First, here are some poll numbers showing the popularity factor.

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/02/10/poll-kasich-approval-rating.html

 

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/rick-perrys-approval-ratings-unchanged-in-texas-following-indictment-but-voters-split-over-whether-hes-innocent-or-guilty.html/ (This despite the allegations against Perry that were politically motivated)

 

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_25002454/wisconsin-gov-scott-walkers-approval-rating-remains-about (this in a very progressive state)

 

For any politician to have an approval in the 50s is very notable in this day and age of so much partisanship.

 

So you're going with option two, redefining "wildly popular" to mean roughly every other person.

 

Nice.

 

(Also, were you being dishonest when you cited a Walker poll from more than a year and a half ago when his approval rating was ten points higher? Looks like he's down around 41% now.)

 

As for lack of resume, you still haven't explained how you feel Hillary or any other Dems running are qualified based upon a resume of results. Do you defend her lack of trustworthiness (destroying servers, making false claims about Benghazi, turning on a southern accent in the South, etc...)?

You just invoked Benghazi? Oof.

 

Also, did you vote for Romney? Be honest.

 

 

I am not hearing any GOP candidate outside of Lindsey Graham who nobody really likes calling for another Iraq war. Did you hear any candidates pushing for this in the debate. Please provide your sources of any candidate stating they want another war in Iraq or elsewhere. And you are dodging the fact that Hillary supported the Iraq war.

Listen, if you're honestly suggesting that the eventual DNC candidate, whether Hillary or anyone else, is as or more likely to start another war in the Middle East this isn't worth either of our time.

 

Hillary definitely supported the Iraq War. She acknowledges her mistake and I'll freely admit that it was erroneous. What do you think? Was it a mistake for W. and company to lie us into Iraq?

 

As for Carly, I wouldn't speak to soon. The way Hillary's campaign is in a free for all, I sometimes wonder if the only female to be on the top of either ticket would be Fiorina. Hillary is a lousy candidate, worse than John McCain was, and on top of that has tons of baggage with no record of accomplishments.

Let's talk in mid-November 2016, eh? Some people need to beat their chest with predictions before the contest because they're never quite convinced that they'll be able to do it after. I'd lay odds at about 70% that we're both going to have to get used to saying President Clinton again. And that's even with me agreeing with you that Hillary isn't impressive on campaign stops. She's average at best at campaigning. Fortunately for the DNC (and the country) she's running against a party who is currently infatuated with Donald Trump. Haha.

I guess then that it is also just an opinion that the fetus is not a living being.

That's correct.

 

Out of curiosity, at what developmental point do you feel comfortable referring to it as a living being?

I can't definitively answer that and neither can you.

 

My own opinion is that it's not a "living being" until it could live outside of the human body. That puts it sometime after 22 weeks.

 

That said, even after 22 weeks there is no guarantee that it's a "living being." For example, a fetus with anencephaly is not a "living being" and I think it'd be barbaric (and needlessly risky) to force a woman to give birth to a fetus that didn't develop a brain.

 

Frankly, as a rapidly-approaching-middle-aged male, I'm more than comfortable leaving that decision up to the mother, father, and their doctor. Some might even call it relying on personal responsibility. And while our opinions differ on this issue only one of us is trying to force everyone to adopt their definition.

Wow, you show no ability to have an independent perspective even if you are a leftie. For starters, the 4 governors I mentioned all still have very favorable ratings in the states they led. Jeb is still wildly popular in Florida many years after he left, and that is now a very purple state. Kasich is very popular in Ohio too after turning that state around, and the same is true of Walker and Perry.

Show me. (You have a few options here. You can admit that you're wrong. You can re-define "wildly popular" to mean roughly every other person. Or you can ignore this after actually looking up the numbers.)

 

As for Rubio, no Democrat can come close to criticizing his legislative accomplishments when Obama had ZERO accomplishments before being elected . . .

Wouldn't have imagined that you were an Obama supporter.

 

. . . and in Hillary's tenure as a Senator, she also did not sponsor a single major piece of legislation. The single biggest vote she had was voting in favor of the Iraq war. When you factor in her dismal record as SOS, she has nothing to run on.

Who gave us that war again? Who wants to return to Iraq and start more wars?

 

 

 

I think Carly will outshine Hillary in any debate.

You'll never get the chance to see that.

 

Best case for Carly you'll get to watch her in the VP debate. That's possible.

What "opinion" are you having trouble with? That I feel it is wrong to kill a living being?

Not so much that you feel that it's wrong but rather that you don't seem to understand that it's an opinion and not a fact that a fetus is a "living being."

 

That's the "fact" that you're building your outrage on. It's certainly your right to believe that . . . but it does not make it a fact.

I've never understood some people's desire to kill innocent unborn babies without even having to justify it.

That's because you don't understand that the basis for your entire premise is an opinion and not a fact.