The Repub Debate

[BigRedBuster]

 

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"?

[HuskerNation1]

 

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.

 

 

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. I'll take your silence on those as admission it's true.

 

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.

 

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.

[carlfense]

 

 

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.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

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

[carlfense]

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?

[carlfense]

 

 

 

 

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.

[HuskerNation1]

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

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

[carlfense]

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.

[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/

[Husker_x]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Well, first of all, I posed this as a hypothetical in response to what really is just a minor conspiracy theory. Clinton allegedly had phone contact with Trump shortly before he announced his run. Now this could mean one of a million things, but I base my hypothetical on the fact that Clinton is smart, certainly smart enough to know Trump's presence in the GOP race is a boon for his wife, and Trump is easy to manipulate once you understand his underlying motive (himself).

 

The only thing Clinton would need to do to be successful is get Donald Trump into the race and to say ~1-2 stupid things you could put in attack ads (or have your super PACs put into attack ads). It damages the GOP win, lose or draw, because it turns their primary into a circus where all the candidates are caught in Trump's maddening orbit for as long as he can maintain it. If he wins the nomination, it's good for Clinton. If he loses but brings down a few of the big-money contenders with him, it's good for Clinton. If he runs third-party, it's good for Clinton. Basically there are a lot of ways this can work out for Hillary Clinton, and very few ways it can work out for the GOP.

 

So in that sense, it already has worked. The GOP base may not see it this way, but every minute Donald Trump stays in this race is terrible for them and particularly for the establishment who already has enough trouble keeping its members in line.

[Husker_x]

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.

 

Friend, I say this out of respect, because I think you're a smart guy and I don't want to see you taken in by people who are basically carnies going after rubes.

 

You need to do your homework on Fox News. I mean really dig into it. There isn't a 1-1 comparison to be had with any other media organization when you combine their influence, their message, and their control over the Republican party and platform. MSNBC has a liberal slant, there's no question. I don't watch it, but I'm savvy enough to realize they are basically running a lefty version of Fox but without anywhere close to the same suction in the DNC. And Fox can be conservative––that's fine. But their pretense of "Fair and Balanced" is not only absurd, it's downright sinister. When they have "experts" on to debate "both sides" of the climate change "debate," for one example, what is happening before your eyes is a kind of game––a play at moderation. It's not real. There is ample evidence out there that lays out in excruciating detail how Roger Ailes runs that organization.

 

If you want me to lay out my problems with Obama, I'm happy to. Hillary I have less to say about because 1) she has only started to unveil her platform (and this isn't some dark ploy; she realizes that there is a long-term advantage in staying away from media early in the race), and 2) she's not the candidate I intend to support. But if someone says she hasn't accomplished anything––which is a Limbaugh talking point, by the way––it comes across as disingenuous.

 

I get my hackles up about something like the Iran Deal because this affects me and my country in a very profound and dangerous way. The crap that's coming out of GOP headquarters is motivated wholly by politics, not reason. They say they want a "better deal," but not one of these bozos bothers to say what that even means, just that it needs to be better. Better than us getting exactly what we want (Iran to not build a nuke and subject themselves to constant surveillance for fifteen years) while giving away nothing except sanction relief . . . on sanctions that we imposed and ultimately control, and whose sole purpose was to make Iran have these negotiations against their will (and they did). It's frustrating. And when you consider what the implications are if we fail to live up to the deal we agreed to, it's alarming. This is about our country, not a political party.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 thiswhich 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.

Well, first of all, I posed this as a hypothetical in response to what really is just a minor conspiracy theory. Clinton allegedly had phone contact with Trump shortly before he announced his run. Now this could mean one of a million things, but I base my hypothetical on the fact that Clinton is smart, certainly smart enough to know Trump's presence in the GOP race is a boon for his wife, and Trump is easy to manipulate once you understand his underlying motive (himself).

 

The only thing Clinton would need to do to be successful is get Donald Trump into the race and to say ~1-2 stupid things you could put in attack ads (or have your super PACs put into attack ads). It damages the GOP win, lose or draw, because it turns their primary into a circus where all the candidates are caught in Trump's maddening orbit for as long as he can maintain it. If he wins the nomination, it's good for Clinton. If he loses but brings down a few of the big-money contenders with him, it's good for Clinton. If he runs third-party, it's good for Clinton. Basically there are a lot of ways this can work out for Hillary Clinton, and very few ways it can work out for the GOP.

 

So in that sense, it already has worked. The GOP base may not see it this way, but every minute Donald Trump stays in this race is terrible for them and particularly for the establishment who already has enough trouble keeping its members in line.

Is that what the Dems have? A party of drones they can "keep in line"?

[Husker_x]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 thiswhich 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.

Well, first of all, I posed this as a hypothetical in response to what really is just a minor conspiracy theory. Clinton allegedly had phone contact with Trump shortly before he announced his run. Now this could mean one of a million things, but I base my hypothetical on the fact that Clinton is smart, certainly smart enough to know Trump's presence in the GOP race is a boon for his wife, and Trump is easy to manipulate once you understand his underlying motive (himself).

 

The only thing Clinton would need to do to be successful is get Donald Trump into the race and to say ~1-2 stupid things you could put in attack ads (or have your super PACs put into attack ads). It damages the GOP win, lose or draw, because it turns their primary into a circus where all the candidates are caught in Trump's maddening orbit for as long as he can maintain it. If he wins the nomination, it's good for Clinton. If he loses but brings down a few of the big-money contenders with him, it's good for Clinton. If he runs third-party, it's good for Clinton. Basically there are a lot of ways this can work out for Hillary Clinton, and very few ways it can work out for the GOP.

 

So in that sense, it already has worked. The GOP base may not see it this way, but every minute Donald Trump stays in this race is terrible for them and particularly for the establishment who already has enough trouble keeping its members in line.

Is that what the Dems have? A party of drones they can "keep in line"?

 

 

I'm not following you.

[AR Husker Fan]

***SNIP***

I get my hackles up about something like the Iran Deal because this affects me and my country in a very profound and dangerous way. The crap that's coming out of GOP headquarters is motivated wholly by politics, not reason. They say they want a "better deal," but not one of these bozos bothers to say what that even means, just that it needs to be better. Better than us getting exactly what we want (Iran to not build a nuke and subject themselves to constant surveillance for fifteen years) while giving away nothing except sanction relief . . . on sanctions that we imposed and ultimately control, and whose sole purpose was to make Iran have these negotiations against their will (and they did). It's frustrating. And when you consider what the implications are if we fail to live up to the deal we agreed to, it's alarming. This is about our country, not a political party.

Oddly enough, the same tact taken on the Affordable Care Act. What a coincidence...

[HuskerNation1]

 

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.

 

Friend, I say this out of respect, because I think you're a smart guy and I don't want to see you taken in by people who are basically carnies going after rubes.

 

You need to do your homework on Fox News. I mean really dig into it. There isn't a 1-1 comparison to be had with any other media organization when you combine their influence, their message, and their control over the Republican party and platform. MSNBC has a liberal slant, there's no question. I don't watch it, but I'm savvy enough to realize they are basically running a lefty version of Fox but without anywhere close to the same suction in the DNC. And Fox can be conservative––that's fine. But their pretense of "Fair and Balanced" is not only absurd, it's downright sinister. When they have "experts" on to debate "both sides" of the climate change "debate," for one example, what is happening before your eyes is a kind of game––a play at moderation. It's not real. There is ample evidence out there that lays out in excruciating detail how Roger Ailes runs that organization.

 

If you want me to lay out my problems with Obama, I'm happy to. Hillary I have less to say about because 1) she has only started to unveil her platform (and this isn't some dark ploy; she realizes that there is a long-term advantage in staying away from media early in the race), and 2) she's not the candidate I intend to support. But if someone says she hasn't accomplished anything––which is a Limbaugh talking point, by the way––it comes across as disingenuous.

 

I get my hackles up about something like the Iran Deal because this affects me and my country in a very profound and dangerous way. The crap that's coming out of GOP headquarters is motivated wholly by politics, not reason. They say they want a "better deal," but not one of these bozos bothers to say what that even means, just that it needs to be better. Better than us getting exactly what we want (Iran to not build a nuke and subject themselves to constant surveillance for fifteen years) while giving away nothing except sanction relief . . . on sanctions that we imposed and ultimately control, and whose sole purpose was to make Iran have these negotiations against their will (and they did). It's frustrating. And when you consider what the implications are if we fail to live up to the deal we agreed to, it's alarming. This is about our country, not a political party.

 

 

Wow, I thought you were in left field, but claiming that there is no other media bias like you feel there is at Fox is probably the dumbest thing I've heard you say so far. I'm not disputing there is bias on Fox, but the bias is just bad on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN. There are countless studies that have been done about the number of positive and negative stories about Presidential candidates both in 2008 and 2012, and when you looked at the evening news for ABC, CBS, and NBC, Obama had far more positive stories and minutes spent on him, while the GOP candidate had more negative and less positive coverage. I don't have time to provide all the links now but will tomorrow evening when I have more time. I do work in the day in order to provide plenty of tax dollars to pay for all the social redistribution programs that you and the Bern are seeking.