Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Nova, Nov 7, 2018.
Karl Rove also didn’t buy how the ‘06 elections were turning out, IIRC.
not specifying a detail doesn't prove the detail wasn't true. I'm sure she didn't give her address in that interview but that doesn't prove she was homeless.
Of course, no woman has ever felt pressured to soft-pedal a case of discrimination to avoid looking like a troublemaker. And that societal pressure that she feels has never extended into the future.
Nope. So says the young white dude who, of course, knows what it's like to be a woman born in 1949 better than a woman who was born in 1949 does.
Warren did not get a Medicare-for-all question in Indianola, but she's closing her remarks by defending it.
"I plan over the next few weeks, to put out a plan that talks, specifically, about the costs of Medicare for all - and how we pay for it."
Warren says she's been working on these cost layouts for a while, and is just finishing them up.
Seriously, when in doubt let's just ask a conservative white dude - what could possibly go wrong?
I mean, it's not like there could be anyone in the world whose lived experiences are different from theirs. Right?
So basically, no amount of evidence will convince you that she's lied about this, despite on the record statements that completely contradict each other. And here I thought Trumpers had the best Kool-Aid.
So far, the "evidence" that y'all have presented has been severely lacking.
Unlike the mountains of evidence of your guy being a pathological liar, I might add.
Except the don't contradict.
A non-relevant detail omitted from the original discussion doesn't invalidate a subsequent account which includes said detail. This isn't remotely complicated and if this were genuinely your standard for "liar" you literally would have to conclude every human you have ever encountered - and yourself - is a chronic liar.
Warren's own words are lacking?
She gave that interview in 2007. She didn't mention being fired because she didn't want to talk about it. She was already a person with a big mouth serving in government. And if she had really been fired in 1972 for being pregnant we would have heard it during her Senate campaign run in 2012.
She's lying that she was fired.
Your insistence that Warren's words constitute a contradiction -- when they actually don't -- is what's lacking.
So you believe that she is capable of lying, but when it is shown she might have lied because she was trying to not put a black mark on her resume for getting pregnant you believe that she cannot tell a lie?
That is a logic fuck up. You cannot say her claims of resigning by her own free will are truthful when you also claim she can tell a lie. It does not work that way you monumental fuckwit.
Fox News doesn’t buy it either.
Since @Federal Farmer wants to make silly reps let us ask him a question.
Why is it that FF thinks Mark Sanford is a good candidate despite his own admittance to going AWOL and claiming he was hiking in the mountains of the US while he was actually in south america picking up his latin mistress, something he lied about? Warren says she resigned from a job under duress because she did not want to have a black mark on her resume for being fired for being pregnant. Which means she was pressured with negative lifelong consequences to lie to pretend her employers were not discriminating against her. On the other hand we have Mark Sanford who left his office while at work lying and saying he was hiking in the applachians and lying to his wife claiming he was being faithful. So while on the clock he flew down to south america to have a love affair with some latin woman and took vacation pay, did not resign or take leave, to do all of this.
Mark Sanford is someone who federal farmer thinks is a good candidate. So federal fuckup (Can I call you Mr. Fuckup?), how can you reconcile your hatred of warren for lying for someone else under pressure of being fired when you support a man who lied so he could go on a paid trip to see his latin mistress without anyone knowing> I am waiting in anticipation of your dumb rep because you have no excuse for your hypocrisy.
Now you're just making excuses and being intellectually dishonest.
Do you understand the words you are using, or are you being sarcastic?
I'm stating a fact that you can't seem to accept because it doesn't fall within your own personal experience.
You are not stating facts, you're stating conjecture because you don't want to believe that Warren is a liar.
And a President who has lied some 13,000 times since taking office is better?
You are being intellectually dishonest in this situation mr @Federal Farmer if that is your real name.
Can't I be against both?
Have you been eating Dayton flakes? Really. are you ok?
Surprise, surprise, The NY Times is fake news. Tulsi Gabbard Russian asset debunked.
If you think I'm being intellectually dishonest, surely you can show how.
1. Nobody called Tulsi Gabbard a "Russian asset." Hillary Clinton used that term in reference to Jill Stein.
2. Max Blumenthal pushes a far-left anti-America agenda in all his work.
3. The Alliance for Securing Democracy is a valuable and trustworthy resource, regardless of from where it receives funding.
Oh no, not the US Government!
One of the sources the NY Times uses when pushing this story is run by a former Clinton aide, how does that sit with you?
if this were a verbatim quote then he should be the DNC front-runner and go up against Trump. For our entertainment value alone can you envision
(I sure can!) how epic it would be having two cranky old men with no filters, no restraint, and no shits left to give verbally duking it out, pushing their frail, aging hearts & bodies to eleven on the knob? That would truly be the most exciting election in the history of our great nation.
It would be the political version of this kind of guilty pleasure/pathetic train wreck:
Separate names with a comma.