Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I read today that Biden has the highest favorability rating of all the plausible candidates from both sides, and currently beats the GOP by a wider margin than Clinton.

If he decides to run, my thinking is he could beat a beleaguered Clinton in the primaries, and win the election with basically the same map as Obama has been doing. He could even do better than Obama because I think conservatives have some level of respect for Biden, because he is a working class kind of dude. And Trump has delivered the conservative Hispanic vote to the Democrats with his shennanigans.

I'd vote for Biden as pres for entertainment value alone.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

And you're trying to insinuate... what exactly?

I am stating that you seem like a "low information voter", and insinuating that if "low information voters" are part of the "Clinton magical force field" you are contributing to it.

Me, a political junkie... a "low information voter".

M'kay.

Considering you just spout off whatever gets put out there that seemingly validates your held beliefs?

Yeah...you're a "low information voter". That doesn't mean you can't be a "political junkie"(whatever that's supposed to really mean--someone who is actually knowledgeable about politics and follows it like sportsball maybe? I dunno) as well. I like to call myself a "sportsball junkie"---despite it being a made-up thing that I occasionally use when discussing sports with friends who are big into it. It lets them talk about it to their heart's content while I just pretend to be interested.

I disagree... but, whatever floats your boat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
In a surprise to everyone it turns out that the "unedited" PP videos were in fact edited.

An independent analysis commissioned by Planned Parenthood...

...you don't say!

That's like letting Iran conduct it's own nuclear inspections.

So what does letting Fox News run the Republican debate resemble?

Wasn't it obvious?

I get that you're anti-abortion. That's fine. That's your held beliefs.

Cool.

But you really need to understand that maybe, just maybe, in this case the smoke? It's not because there's a fire coming from inside of Planned Parenthood. It's because some nutbag anti-abortion advocate threw a Molotov at the brick facade outside.

Maybe... but my BS meter ping'ed at that, as I hope everyone elses.

In regards to this report... I'm standing by when they publish this "analysis".

Not like Fox is doing ALL the R debates. Seems silly to bitch that they did this one when CNN and CNBC and even Telemundo also get turns.

Monday, August 3, 2015
C-SPAN "Voters First" Republican Forum
Watch Full Video
Location: St. Anselm College in Manchester, NH
Moderator(s): Jack Heath
Rules: Candidates appear separately answering questions
Candidates: Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Graham, Paul, Perry, Christie, Fiorina, Kasich, Walker, Santorum, Pataki, Jindal, Carson (Trump, Huckabee declined invitation)

Thursday, August 6, 2015
Fox News Republican Debate
5pm ET - Watch Full 5pm Video
9pm ET - Watch Full 9pm Video
Aired On: Fox News Channel
Location: Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, OH
Sponsors: Fox News, facebook
Moderators: Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace
Candidates 5pm: Perry, Santorum, Jindal, Fiorina, Graham, Pataki, Gilmore
Candidates 9pm: Trump, Bush, Walker, Huckabee, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Christie, Kasich

Wednesday, September 16, 2015
CNN Republican Primary Debate
Aired On: CNN and Salem Radio
Location: Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA
Sponsors: Reagan Library Foundation, CNN, Salem Media Group
Moderator(s): Jake Tapper, Dana Bash and Hugh Hewitt
Rules: Split field into Segment B (top 10 candidates) and Segment A (remaining candidates getting at least 1% in polls) (Details)
Candidates Prime-time: Trump, Bush, Walker, Huckabee, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Christie, Kasich
Candidates Outside Top 10: Perry, Santorum, Fiorina, Jindal, Pataki, Graham (finalized Sept. 10)

Wednesday, October 28, 2015
CNBC Republican Debate
Aired On: CNBC
Location: University of Colorado in Boulder
Sponsors: CNBC
Candidates: To be determined

November, 2015*
Fox Business/WSJ Republican Debate
Aired On: Fox Business Network
Location: Wisconsin
Sponsors: Fox Business Network, Wall Street Journal
Candidates: To be determined

December 15, 2015
CNN/Salem Republican Debate
Aired On: CNN
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Sponsors: CNN, Salem Media Group
Candidates: To be determined

2016
January, 2016*
Fox News Republican Debate
Aired On: Fox News Channel
Location: Iowa
Sponsors: Fox News
Candidates: To be determined

February 6, 2016
ABC/IJReview Republican Debate
Aired On: ABC
Location: St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire
Sponsors: ABC News, IJReview.com
Candidates: To be determined

February 13, 2016
CBS News Republican Debate
Aired On: CBS
Location: The Peace Center in Greenville, South Carolina
Sponsors: CBS News
Moderator: John Dickerson
Candidates: TBD

February 26, 2016
NBC/Telemundo Republican Debate
Aired On: NBC and Telemundo
Location: Texas
Sponsors: NBC/Telemundo, National Review
Candidates: To be determined

March, 2016*
Fox News Republican Debate
Aired On: Fox News Channel
Location: TBD
Sponsors: Fox News
Candidates: To be determined

March 10, 2016
CNN/Salem Republican Debate
Aired On: CNN
Location: Florida
Sponsors: CNN, Salem Media Group
Candidates: To be determined


So far the Ds have:

Oct. 13 in Nevada (hosted by CNN);
Nov. 14 in Des Moines, Iowa (CBS/KCCI and The Des Moines Register);
Dec. 19 in Manchester, New Hampshire (ABC/WMUR);
Jan. 17 in Charleston, South Carolina (NBC/Congressional Black Caucus Institute);
and two scheduled for either February or March in Miami, Florida, and Wisconsin, hosted by Univision/The Washington Post and PBS, respectively. The DNC said it would release additional details about debate dates, locations and partnerships soon.

I would be more interested in the final debates if they would open them to the independent candidates instead of a two-party show.

They should let trump into the democratic debates too, people might watch them.

 d-usa wrote:
I would be more interested in the final debates if they would open them to the independent candidates instead of a two-party show.

I would too...

But both the RNC and DNC championed election law changes in the last few elections that would make it almost impossible to run a 3rd term

Which is sickening.

'Tis why Trump won't ever run a 3rd party... but, he doesn't have to advertise that.

Inexplicable double post.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

In regards to this report... I'm standing by when they publish this "analysis".

So you're dismissing the results of the report's analysis out of hand? That's a pretty clear hallmark of a "low information voter".

No... low information voters would accept it out of hand.

Besides, Politico & NYT Fail to Mention Report Exonerating Planned Parenthood Produced By Democratic Opposition Research Firm.

If you want a good idea of how much water the media is willing to carry for Planned Parenthood, go ahead and check out this Politico story. It seems Planned Parenthood commissioned a "forensic report" to analyze the undercover videos that have got the organization in trouble for harvesting and selling fetal organs, and leaked it to Politico. This is an obvious PR move and should be a non-story but naturally, headline at Politico is "Report for Planned Parenthood finds sting videos manipulated." But despite that favorable headline, the results of the study -- which given the circumstances that brought it about -- seem somewhat mixed [emphasis added]:

A report commissioned by Planned Parenthood has found that the sting videos targeting its tissue donation practices contain intentionally deceptive edits, missing footage and inaccurately transcribed conversations. But there is no evidence that the anti-abortion group behind the attack made up dialogue. ...

But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no “widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.”

But one other detail caught my eye that bears mentioning: "The report by research firm Fusion GPS, which was obtained by POLITICO, attempts to undermine the videos’ political, legal, and journalistic value."

Just who, exactly, is behind Fusion GPS? Turns out it's an opposition research firm with ties to the Democratic party and has a history of harassing socially conservative Republican donors, possibly on behalf of the Obama campaign:

As Ms. Strassel has reported in recent columns, Idaho businessman Frank VanderSloot has become the target of a smear campaign since it was disclosed earlier this year that he had donated $1 million to a super PAC supporting Mr. Romney. President Obama's campaign website teed him up in April as one of eight "less than reputable" Romney donors and a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement." One sin: His wife donated to an anti-gay-marriage campaign, of the kind that have passed in 30 or so states.

Now we learn that little more than a week after that Presidential posting, a former Democratic Senate staffer called the courthouse in Mr. VanderSloot's home town of Idaho Falls seeking his divorce records. Ms. Strassel traced the operative, Michael Wolf, to a Washington, D.C. outfit called Fusion GPS that says it is "a commercial research firm."

Fusion GPS is run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Glenn Simpson, who wouldn't say who is paying him for this high-minded slumming but said in an email that Mr. VanderSloot was a "legitimate" target because of "his record on gay issues."

Politico should have mentioned this. But the pro-life movement has never gotten a fair shake from the media, and it seems that's not about to change.

UPDATE -- A fellow journalist alerts me to the New York Times's favorable write-up of the same report. The Times only identifies Fusion GPS in the following way, and doesn't mention any details that might undermine the report's credibility:

The analysis was by Fusion GPS, a Washington-based research and corporate intelligence company, and its co-founder Glenn Simpson, a former investigative reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

Nah... they're total legits, right? So... c'mon PP, go ahead sue CMP... the discovery sessions would be something else.

 whembly wrote:

No... low information voters would accept it out of hand.

Is that why you are willing to accept, out of hand, something posted by a Weekly Standard reporter?

They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.

 d-usa wrote:
They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.

Cool... then PP has a solid defamation case then.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.

Cool... then PP has a solid defamation case then.

Hehe... every time I see that abbreviation, I keep thinking... What the heck does Privateer Press have to do with aborted fetal tissue? Or, how would an edited video be harmful to Warmachine?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.

Cool... then PP has a solid defamation case then.

For someone who consistently hitched his wagon to the "they hid nothing, they posted the unedited video online" train it is amazing how little you care that they admitted to lying. Especially considering how much you care about the truth and how quick you are to post a 500 word thesis whenever you catch someone in a perceived lie.

Ouze wrote:
Yes, I posted something about this on the last page and I am 99% sure Whembly missed it because it was a edit and then we flipped pages, so I'll repost:

Ouze wrote:
Did you know that one of the "aborted fetuses" they showed was actually a stillborn baby, and that the lady who had given birth to said baby was shocked and horrified to find her baby in that video?

When called out on it, the video guys did exactly what you describe above.

"We never claimed that was an image of an aborted baby. It's just an illustration of what a baby looks like at the end of the 2nd trimester," he wrote in a statement. "It's interesting that Planned Parenthood and their allies assumed so quickly that's what was happening – are they just grasping at straws, or are their consciences also starting to get to them?"

It's pretty clear that the presentation was dishonest on a few levels.

Ah, I missed that too. It's a perfect illustration of not outright lying, but manipulating heavily enough that everyone who watches walks away with a wrong impression of what happened. And it's a much beloved tactic of the anti-abortion movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No... I didn't miss it. It's just that I'm hesitant to really engage on this subject matter as everyone's mind is made up and there's nothing really to "debate" because i've realized that this topic (as well as topics like religion)... no one is ever changing minds on dakka's OT forums.

We just normally talk at each other and it's almost a self-fullfilling prophesy that things will eventually get out of hand and the MODS will have no recourse then to shut down the current thread.

*shrugs*

You aren't being asked to comment on your own personal view on abortion, but about the tactics used to push the anti-abortion cause.

I am okay with abortion, but I can certainly understand opposition to abortion - if you believe life begins at conception then you should seek to preserve life from that point onwards. Not my POV but an entirely legitimate one, I believe. But then whatever your POV, you should argue it on its merits, you shouldn't lie to trick people in to following your cause. And that, unfortunately, is what so much of the anti-abortion movement does as a matter of course.

If you're interested I can send you a bunch of links from Fred Clarke showing how fundamentally awful the day to day tactics of many anti-abortion groups are.

And once you've realised how these groups operate on lies as a daily matter of course, then you should start to think about the politicians, mostly but not entirely Republicans, who ally themselves directly with these groups. And if that doesn't finally give you the insight in to how the modern Republican party operates... well then we'll have to find something else that will

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.

Cool... then PP has a solid defamation case then.

For someone who consistently hitched his wagon to the "they hid nothing, they posted the unedited video online" train it is amazing how little you care that they admitted to lying. Especially considering how much you care about the truth and how quick you are to post a 500 word thesis whenever you catch someone in a perceived lie.

Uh huh... those "analysis" are in dispute.

My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.

 dogma wrote:
The people who engage with the abortion issue are universally aware of the harsh realities surrounding it. This is one of the problems the pro-life movement has, its members assume that pro-choice people don't believe abortion is bad because they are ignorant of what happens as a result of the procedure. As a result they produce videos like the one we're discussing, stand in public places with placards bearing the image of aborted fetuses, and hand out fliers with the same. This pushes people away from the pro-life movement because it either grosses them out, causing them to ignore the abortion issue, or annoys them, leading to new members of the pro-choice movement.

Simplistic, shock based tactics have their place in politics, but at the end of the day the impact of any such tactic going to be very short lived. It produces is an immediate emotional reaction, it doesn't change people's understanding of the issue. So one brief campaign of flashing about aborted foetuses might work for a month or two, but longer than that and you start getting serious diminishing returns.

So if the anti-abortion campaign was about results, it's a tactic that would have been surrendered years ago. But most people in the anti-abortion movement are far more interested in fighting a noble fight than in actually winning their cause.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
They should let trump into the democratic debates too, people might watch them.

End result would be the Donald punching Rachel Maddow in the face after calling her a fat dog. Would pay to watch.

 sebster wrote:

So if the anti-abortion campaign was about results, it's a tactic that would have been surrendered years ago. But most people in the anti-abortion movement are far more interested in fighting a noble fight than in actually winning their cause.

IMO, a fair number of them are fairly hypocritical....There's a political cartoon floating around that very well illustrates what I'm talking about...

On the one hand, they decry abortion as being evil and fight against it till they are blue in the face... On the other hand, they ALSO fight tooth and nail to get rid of, or severely diminish programs that would actually help the women who don't get abortions.

If life is so precious, why are they fighting against society's best interests so much?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

So if the anti-abortion campaign was about results, it's a tactic that would have been surrendered years ago. But most people in the anti-abortion movement are far more interested in fighting a noble fight than in actually winning their cause.

IMO, a fair number of them are fairly hypocritical....There's a political cartoon floating around that very well illustrates what I'm talking about...

On the one hand, they decry abortion as being evil and fight against it till they are blue in the face... On the other hand, they ALSO fight tooth and nail to get rid of, or severely diminish programs that would actually help the women who don't get abortions.

If life is so precious, why are they fighting against society's best interests so much?

Hey... I don't want to get rid of those programs.

I even don't believe in the Death Penalty anymore.

 whembly wrote:

Hey... I don't want to get rid of those programs.

I even don't believe in the Death Penalty anymore.

I wasn't referring to you, but I'd bet money you know the kind of people I'm talking about.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.

Cool... then PP has a solid defamation case then.

For someone who consistently hitched his wagon to the "they hid nothing, they posted the unedited video online" train it is amazing how little you care that they admitted to lying. Especially considering how much you care about the truth and how quick you are to post a 500 word thesis whenever you catch someone in a perceived lie.

Uh huh... those "analysis" are in dispute.

My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.

Let's try this one more time in simple language because I can explain it to you, but I can't help you understand it:

The group has admitted that the videos that they claimed were unedited were in fact edited. That's independent of the three firms that analyzed the videos confirming the edits. It's the people that filmed and posted it admitting it.

After claiming over and over that the unedited videos were posted, they are now switching their story to "yes they were edited, but only because we took bathroom breaks and stuff, we promise that nothing important was cut out".

That's not PP claiming that, that's not the three companies that analyzed the video claiming that, that's the group admitting that they lied about providing the unedited videos.

And you parroted that lie, and now you are just "meh, whatever".

 whembly wrote:

This 29-person focus group, conducted by Luntz and observed by a group of national press reporters from behind a pane of one-way glass, had gathered to explain the phenomenon of Trump. Why is a billionaire real estate mogul, TV celebrity and oft-accused demagogue who has never held office leading the Republican field with some 22% support in the polls?

Why do evangelicals support a guy who's been divorced three times, and owns casinos? Why does the party that is meant worship at the altar of the free market now fall in love with a guy who sees economics through a mercantilist lens that would have seemed bizarrely outdated in 1850?

I think, basically, it's because we've been thinking about the Republican party all wrong. Maybe the 'big tent' thing that split people up in to religious evangelicals, free marketeers etc wasn't so much wrong as too simplistic, as it left out a central theme - people who see change to the status quo as a direct threat.

And once that's understood, I think it becomes possible to understand why Trump is polling so well. He just hammers away again and again on that one basic theme, while throwing away a lot of the Republican sacred cows like free trade and restricting one's racism to dog whistles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... that's true.

Hence one of the reason why I keep banging that drum that HRC will skate.

Or as I've been saying for months now, any scandal needs to be described in a single sentence so that people feel outraged, don't need follow up questions, and don't suspect bs. If you can't do that, then the scandal won't get traction.

Note that the sentence doesn't have to actually be true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Not really... Sanders hasn't permeated the culture like Trump has... (active twittah, Apprentice, bombastic New Yawker).

I really don't think twitter posts and a reality show are the difference. And Sanders certainly doesn't lack bombasticness. Which should be a word.



Nah, the difference between Trump and Sanders is that, amazingly, when people say they're pissed it's not the whole of it. They're actually pissed about specific things, even if they lack the ability, time or patience to articulate exactly what they're pissed about. Sanders appeals to people who are pissed about shortages in essential services, about growing wealth discrepancy, stuff like that. Trump appeals to people who are pissed that the old order is going away, that the social structure that gave so much certainty and power to certain classes isn't disappearing.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.

Cool... then PP has a solid defamation case then.

For someone who consistently hitched his wagon to the "they hid nothing, they posted the unedited video online" train it is amazing how little you care that they admitted to lying. Especially considering how much you care about the truth and how quick you are to post a 500 word thesis whenever you catch someone in a perceived lie.

Uh huh... those "analysis" are in dispute.

My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.

Let's try this one more time in simple language because I can explain it to you, but I can't help you understand it:

The group has admitted that the videos that they claimed were unedited were in fact edited. That's independent of the three firms that analyzed the videos confirming the edits. It's the people that filmed and posted it admitting it.

After claiming over and over that the unedited videos were posted, they are now switching their story to "yes they were edited, but only because we took bathroom breaks and stuff, we promise that nothing important was cut out".

That's not PP claiming that, that's not the three companies that analyzed the video claiming that, that's the group admitting that they lied about providing the unedited videos.

And you parroted that lie, and now you are just "meh, whatever".

Again... what was the deliberate "edit" that skewed the viewer's perception of the video?

 whembly wrote:
Indeed.

It's just that Trump is all bedazzle, but no substenance. Folks will get tired if his shtick soon.

There's just as much substance in Trump as anyone else. Ron Paul was a darling of the primaries for multiple cycles, and he's spent every year since about 1980 claiming hyperinflation was just around the corner. When you can be 100% wrong for 35 on your key issue and carry on just fine, then it's unlikely the electorate is clamouring for substance. Jeb Bush has built his campaign around a claim that he can deliver 4% growth, which is probably the silliest piece of economics since Ron Paul's return to the gold standard, and it's done him no harm at all. Huckabee one-upped that with a claim of 6%, and while he's presidential roadkill, it isn't because of nonsense like that.

No, Trump doesn't have an issue with a lack of substance. The ability to brazenly state all manner of insane bs and be accept is a key strength among his demographic.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:

This 29-person focus group, conducted by Luntz and observed by a group of national press reporters from behind a pane of one-way glass, had gathered to explain the phenomenon of Trump. Why is a billionaire real estate mogul, TV celebrity and oft-accused demagogue who has never held office leading the Republican field with some 22% support in the polls?

Why do evangelicals support a guy who's been divorced three times, and owns casinos? Why does the party that is meant worship at the altar of the free market now fall in love with a guy who sees economics through a mercantilist lens that would have seemed bizarrely outdated in 1850?

I think, basically, it's because we've been thinking about the Republican party all wrong. Maybe the 'big tent' thing that split people up in to religious evangelicals, free marketeers etc wasn't so much wrong as too simplistic, as it left out a central theme - people who see change to the status quo as a direct threat.

And once that's understood, I think it becomes possible to understand why Trump is polling so well. He just hammers away again and again on that one basic theme, while throwing away a lot of the Republican sacred cows like free trade and restricting one's racism to dog whistles.

I think you're over analyzing this.

There are LARGE segments of the population that are simply pissed at the established political class and donor class... and they don't really know how to express it. Hence why Trump/Carson/Sanders are enjoying high poll activites.

I firmly believe had Trump not jump in... it would be Cruz or Fiorina leading the pack now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... that's true.

Hence one of the reason why I keep banging that drum that HRC will skate.

Or as I've been saying for months now, any scandal needs to be described in a single sentence so that people feel outraged, don't need follow up questions, and don't suspect bs. If you can't do that, then the scandal won't get traction.

Note that the sentence doesn't have to actually be true.

There's a recent poll that I think is devestating for Hillary.
Quinnipiac: 'Liar, Dishonest' Most Used to Describe Hillary

But it's primary season and things get ugly. It's all forgotten during the general election and folks will vote for her to, if nothing else, keep the Republicans out of the office.

The only way she doesn't get elected, is if this email scandal truly come to head... and it's possible as it's the Intelligence Community themselves pushing for accountability.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Not really... Sanders hasn't permeated the culture like Trump has... (active twittah, Apprentice, bombastic New Yawker).

I really don't think twitter posts and a reality show are the difference. And Sanders certainly doesn't lack bombasticness. Which should be a word.

Heh... bombasticness™ ought to be a word.

Nah, the difference between Trump and Sanders is that, amazingly, when people say they're pissed it's not the whole of it. They're actually pissed about specific things, even if they lack the ability, time or patience to articulate exactly what they're pissed about. Sanders appeals to people who are pissed about shortages in essential services, about growing wealth discrepancy, stuff like that. Trump appeals to people who are pissed that the old order is going away, that the social structure that gave so much certainty and power to certain classes isn't disappearing.

That's a good way to put it.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They lied about the fetus being aborted, and they lied about the video being unedited. Two pretty simple facts really.

Cool... then PP has a solid defamation case then.

For someone who consistently hitched his wagon to the "they hid nothing, they posted the unedited video online" train it is amazing how little you care that they admitted to lying. Especially considering how much you care about the truth and how quick you are to post a 500 word thesis whenever you catch someone in a perceived lie.

Uh huh... those "analysis" are in dispute.

My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.

Let's try this one more time in simple language because I can explain it to you, but I can't help you understand it:

The group has admitted that the videos that they claimed were unedited were in fact edited. That's independent of the three firms that analyzed the videos confirming the edits. It's the people that filmed and posted it admitting it.

After claiming over and over that the unedited videos were posted, they are now switching their story to "yes they were edited, but only because we took bathroom breaks and stuff, we promise that nothing important was cut out".

That's not PP claiming that, that's not the three companies that analyzed the video claiming that, that's the group admitting that they lied about providing the unedited videos.

And you parroted that lie, and now you are just "meh, whatever".

Again... what was the deliberate "edit" that skewed the viewer's perception of the video?

They lied, and it's clear that you don't care.

It's bad enough that you parroted their lie, it's worse that you don't care.

You are still defending a group that has been caught lying twice in a week about their actions. One wonders why people might consider you a low information voter.

 whembly wrote:

Uh huh... those "analysis" are in dispute.

Even if the results of those analyses are being disputed the analyses would remain analyses.

 whembly wrote:

My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.

CMP, very carefully, made certain that it did not engage in any form of defamation; as did supportive politicians and their associates. The only people Planned Parenthood could sue are those who stated they did something illegal.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Uh huh... those "analysis" are in dispute.

Even if the results of those analyses are being disputed the analyses would remain analyses.

Okay... not sure where you're going with this...

 whembly wrote:

My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.

CMP, very carefully, made certain that it did not engage in any form of defamation; as did supportive politicians and their associates. The only people Planned Parenthood could sue are those who stated they did something illegal.

Actually, CMP could get in trouble from their StemExpress sting in California for wiretap... (I think).

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Uh huh... those "analysis" are in dispute.

Even if the results of those analyses are being disputed the analyses would remain analyses.

 whembly wrote:

My quip about PP suing CMP is for real... if PP believes all of this is libel/slander, then they should sue.

CMP, very carefully, made certain that it did not engage in any form of defamation; as did supportive politicians and their associates. The only people Planned Parenthood could sue are those who stated they did something illegal.

It's hard to fight false narratives as long as people fall for them: