Well I do hope what this official says about the Iran deal is wrong:
Well I do hope what this official says about the Iran deal is wrong:
Originally posted by Surtur
Well I do hope what this official says about the Iran deal is wrong:
This is kinda odd- they haven't actually gotten anything from the deal yet, so what's the point?
And they begun the process.
It may be they just want to make us sweat some, but it really can't be a 'gotcha' this early in the process, it'd be the same as not making the deal in the first place.
Time-Immemorial
Whatever executive orders he tries can be blocked by the court as we seen as well as the house and senate. The SC cannot overrule congress. It's great!
The Supreme Court can overrule congress, it's part of their mandate, to judge whether or not laws are unconstitutional.
I was giving Q99 some grief for his constant birther claims.
Birthers is still a ridiculous conspiracy theory that makes those who embrace it, like Trump, look like lying idiots.
Ah so you you turn the lies into "well he lied, but what happened ended up better then the lie."
Here you're just going with an absolute "All lies are equally bad," approach, which doesn't particularly work when you're willingly brushing off other lies done with without positive results.
Obama said something that turned out to not be true. He overstated, he said something actively mislead. And the answer is: It just doesn't matter as much as you want it to, because the end result is the policy saves lives. It's a white lie, as these things go.
You're the one trying to push an absolute 'no lies' line here, I care more about policy and results. I do care if someone lies about something significant and/or bad, but considering how no candidate has a 100% honest rating, Obama's honesty rating is pretty darn good on the whole, judging by third-party fact checkers, and even the falsehoods are often on stuff like this... I don't see why I should suddenly turn against him or such. It's not a plus, it's a sign he's not perfect, but he still performs a much better job than his opponents and is general honest, and people like Trump who you support have held on to much bigger lies for longer, so why are you acting like this is the worst thing ever?
If you wanna blame republicans for something like immigration, which you have in the past, it was the dems who had, house, senate, executive and SC and still could not get immigration reform passed.
Depends on what you mean by 'blame Republicans for immigration.' Blame them for not passing reform? I do, because they actively opposite it and have for a long time, while more Democrats support reform. It's actually one of their major policy stances which you support, no less. Denying that major opposition to a stance doesn't have something to do with it not-happening seems odd to me.
And yea, you can have the House and Senate and not get things passed if you don't have a comfortable majority, some of the people are blue-dogs who not too rarely vote with the other side, and a fillibuster can stop it, plus not all that long to work.
A majority doesn't mean you can do whatever you want- as the Republican show when they have a majority and are surprised that stuff still doesn't happen because the system is literally designed to encourage compromise.
Yet its the republicans fault.
It's the Republican's- and everyone else opposed to it's- fault for using their political power to stop something, yes. If they had been willing to make a deal on it, it'd happen.
I don't quite get this, "It's not the fault of the people who opposed something, it's the fault of the people who didn't success it getting it past!" line of logic.
A party does something, of course it's their fault. A party fails to do something, and their opponents stopped them, and... it's still supposed to be the first party's fault? C'mon, that doesn't make sense.
You blamed Benghazi on the rino's yet, but they had nothing to do with it.
I do blame the admitted-to-be-partisan Benghazi investigation on the Republicans. Even though it was there to attack Hillary, and even though a Republican Major quit the investigation on that ground, you still are perfectly willing to act as if Hillary is guilty of a crime over Benghazi, which is a lie. And again, it's not just that I think it's the case, major figures admitted it to being there for the purpose of attacking Hillary, and even so it failed to find any proof of a smoking gun like you and many Republicans are so blithly willing to assume exists.
Benghazi is a good example when it comes to honesty- Even though investigation, you're still willing to support liars who claim other things, and willing to lie about it.
What happened to the "It doesn't matter if it had good results, a lie is a lie" of higher in your post? Suddenly, "Lies are ok, even if they don't result in any benefit, because it's against someone we don't like."
It's a total double standard when it comes to lying. You are completely down with people lying that serves your purposes.
And as long as you continue to support known-falsehoods used purely for attack, your attempts to demonize the other side for falsehoods-that-result-in-lives-saved comes across as shallow and one-sided.
Missed the first debate tonight because I was sleeping but not about to miss the Prime time debate which happens just about 10 minutes from now. Looking forward to watching a debate where the candidates can actually get to talk about the issues instead of getting inflammatory questions from biased liberal mods like what they got last time.
Originally posted by Star428
Missed the first debate tonight because I was sleeping but not about to miss the Prime time debate which happens just about 10 minutes from now. Looking forward to watching a debate where the candidates can actually get to talk about the issues instead of getting inflammatory questions from biased liberal mods like what they got last time.
But I was really looking forward to getting that answer to the Fantasy Football question!!!!
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Can you shorten all that into 2-3 sentences?
You're fine with lying when it's used to attack people you don't like, but act like it's the worst thing ever when Obama exaggerated something that had good results. Double-standard.
---
Anyway, new topic:
Ben Carson has claimed he's gotten more scrutiny than any candidate in recent memory, and anyone else is 'not even close.'
Which is.... yeaah, need some perspective there. Just on the Republican side, Trump and Christie have had way more. It's kinda interesting to see someone not expecting the kind of attention and studying a frontrunner gets, and how the people more used to it basically roll their eyes.
"So I’ve got to tell you, a couple of days of being asked about something that you put in your books? I gotta tell you, I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy," the New Jersey governor went on to say. "---
Huckabee warned, "This is part of the process. This ain’t beanbag, as we say. It is a brutal process, I’ve been through it for 26 years, and life ain’t fair," he added. "I’m telling you."
I do wonder if Carson is up for the campaign, if he's finding this a bit much, another year of this kind of pressure is going to be trouble.
The moderators are using some surprising faces. Citing Obama's superior job growth, the economic benefits of immigrants... this is Fox? Kudos to them for that.
Though they don't seem to be controlling the candidates well in terms of time limits and such.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You have the largest double standard here. Do you dare call the kettle black, pathetic.
Also in the prior post, I had something in there about you insisting on lies being this horrible thing which we must demonize Obama over, then note you support liars and repeat known lies that have been well proven to be made up in the same post, so you even change stances on lying in the same post where you're demonizing small lies.
It's like the pitch-black pot calling the slightly grey kettle black, while it's the pot who's yelling loudly about how we should care how dark they are.
It's your standard you're breaking. Mine is honesty is nice- and Hillary and Barack are much more honest than you give them credit- but policy matters mores because it really affects people's lives. You yelling about how I should totally hate Obama because he said something wrong while selling a policy that got healthcare for millions of people is your standards, I don't see why I shouldn't weigh the 'helped millions of people' side more since it's so much bigger.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
"Hilary and Barack are honest"😂
Itemized Factcheck sheets for:
Oooh, I know who I'd be most worried about the truthfulness of ^^
You know, I note how whenever the subject of honesty and actual fact-checking truthfulness comes up and using third party sources rather than just yelling, "No, your candidate is lying!", you never respond to that part, you just ignore it.
Plus when you get presented with arguments you *really* don't like that have citations and evidence, you claim to have not read them/skip the posts.
Plus there's stuff that's pointed out to you often as lies with evidence proving so, and then you just kinda clam up for a bit then a week or so later you bring it up as if you hadn't been called on it... then you get called on it again and you clam up again.
Sounds like someone is dodging uncomfortable truths...
Did Ben Carson just recommend invading Iraq again??
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Nopehttp://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/
Oh look, all True statements by Barack, it's a longer list
Indeed, if you compare by percentages, Donald Trump is 25% half-or-more True, and Barack Obama... is 75%.
The site does have a lower rating than false, by the way. Pants-on-fire, for clear, outright lies, not just being incorrect (which can happen by mistake).
Barack Obama's statements are roughly three times as likely to be accurate as Donald Trump's. Donald also has five times as many outright lies as Hilary.
And thank you for finally engaging on statement fact-checking, I appreciate it.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So Obama is a liar and he's the president. If you want to say some of trumps statements are false ok, but he has not made any policy then lied about to the world to get it enacted.
Ok, so your stance is that it's ok for Trump and other Republicans to lie, until he becomes elected, then they gotta be totally honest.
Got it. Not my policy, and it seems rather fantastic to assume that Trump'll just suddenly become more truthful, but there you go, now your standard is clearer.
Hm, I am curious what your policy on other elected officials like senators and congresspeople lying is... because a number of the ones on stage fall into that category.
LordofBrooklyn
These guys are terrified to shut Fiarina up.She goes on for 2 -3 minutes beyond the time and they just accept it.
Not *just* her.
I'm kinda wondering if the debaters may develop bad habits with the soft moderation of the last few debates (I mean, this one is clearly better than last one, but still). They could have trouble if they're unused to strict time limits like the actual presidential debates will have.