2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[discostu]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

LOL, two of the questioners in the Biden Town Hall were a former Obama speechwriter and the wife of a Democratic candidate running for Senate in Pennsylvania.

I don't understand why they bother. Why not just say "I'm a democrat and I have a question" vs. George saying "Let's go to the undecided voters and get their questions for you Joe". Like CNN, pretending to be something your not discredits any good you can possibly do ... STOP!

You're smart enough, I think.

To categorize Nathan Osburn as "a former Obama speechwriter" is incorrect. He worked for the SBA and the Commerce Department...during the Obama Administration. Hardly a "former Obama speechwriter," but you know that.

To call Mieke Haeck "the wife of a Democratic candidate running for Senate in Pennsylvania" implies that her husband is currently running. He is not, but you know that.

So, either your information is incorrect or you're being purposefully misleading.

As you said, pretending to be something your not discredits any good you can possibly do ... STOP!

[packman80]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

"Every time we talk about climate change and...uh...the environment, the president thinks it's...it's a joke. I think it's jobs."

- Joe Biden

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Yes lots of lost jobs as he tries to kill industry off with the stupid Green Bill. These enviromentally friendly jobs won't ever work. Look at wind power was talked about big like 15-20 years ago they built all these wind towers and many are now being taken down because they are not making money but losing them. In my area many have been taken down after like 10 years in a expected 20 year lifespan. Solar power won't be any different.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by discostu

You're smart enough, I think.

To categorize Nathan Osburn as "a former Obama speechwriter" is incorrect. He worked for the SBA and the Commerce Department...during the Obama Administration. Hardly a "former Obama speechwriter," but you know that.

To call Mieke Haeck "the wife of a Democratic candidate running for Senate in Pennsylvania" implies that her husband is currently running. He is not, but you know that.

So, either your information is incorrect or you're being purposefully misleading.

As you said, pretending to be something your not discredits any good you can possibly do ... STOP!

"Osburn was quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer earlier this year as "a former Obama administration speechwriter" who had created a "Philly for Pete group" aimed at boosting former Democratic presidential primary candidate Pete Buttigieg. And the LGBTQ Victory Institute listed Osburn as a senior speechwriter for the Small Business Administration in an article praising the Obama-Biden administration for its LGBTQ hiring practices. "

A for effort. Just an undecided voter I suppose. Moderated by Clinton's former comms director.

[packman80]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

Yes Biden is Catholic.

So if Joe is Catholic no issue from the left on him being president and his faith effecting how he does his job but the left has a issue with a Supreme Court Justice nomine's faith that it would effect her doing her job.

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by discostu

You're smart enough, I think.

To categorize Nathan Osburn as "a former Obama speechwriter" is incorrect. He worked for the SBA and the Commerce Department...during the Obama Administration. Hardly a "former Obama speechwriter," but you know that.

To call Mieke Haeck "the wife of a Democratic candidate running for Senate in Pennsylvania" implies that her husband is currently running. He is not, but you know that.

So, either your information is incorrect or you're being purposefully misleading.

As you said, pretending to be something your not discredits any good you can possibly do ... STOP!

Maybe you're right ... I don't know, don't care enough to research it. Suppose you're perfectly correct. These are the independent, undecided voters?

[discostu]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

LOL, two of the questioners in the Biden Town Hall were a former Obama speechwriter and the wife of a Democratic candidate running for Senate in Pennsylvania.

I don't understand why they bother. Why not just say "I'm a democrat and I have a question" vs. George saying "Let's go to the undecided voters and get their questions for you Joe". Like CNN, pretending to be something your not discredits any good you can possibly do ... STOP!

Originally Posted by discostu

You're smart enough, I think.

To categorize Nathan Osburn as "a former Obama speechwriter" is incorrect. He worked for the SBA and the Commerce Department...during the Obama Administration. Hardly a "former Obama speechwriter," but you know that.

To call Mieke Haeck "the wife of a Democratic candidate running for Senate in Pennsylvania" implies that her husband is currently running. He is not, but you know that.

So, either your information is incorrect or you're being purposefully misleading.

As you said, pretending to be something your not discredits any good you can possibly do ... STOP!

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

"Osburn was quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer earlier this year as "a former Obama administration speechwriter" who had created a "Philly for Pete group" aimed at boosting former Democratic presidential primary candidate Pete Buttigieg. And the LGBTQ Victory Institute listed Osburn as a senior speechwriter for the Small Business Administration in an article praising the Obama-Biden administration for its LGBTQ hiring practices. "

A for effort. Just an undecided voter I suppose. Moderated by Clinton's former comms director.

There's no doubt that neither person appears to be "undecided," what type is person is actually "undecided" in this environment?

The fact remains, neither person was "the wife of a Democratic candidate running for Senate in Pennsylvania" nor "a former Obama speechwriter" as you wrote.

Your word selection makes it more salacious and misleading.

For all of the former Trump administration officials who actually worked directly with the president who get brushed aside as merely "disgruntled," I do appreciate the reaches we're making.

We get that.

Be best.

[preakness]

Originally Posted by lietuvalabas

i did watch all of trumps, and just a bit of Bidens. im glad trump went into the lions den and i think he did a terrific job with the obvious bias of the moderator as opposed to how Biden was treated. Also just got the warm fuzzy feeling of the hollywood left absolutely losing their minds that one of their networks would even entertain the idea of allowing his townhall to be on their network . I will say Biden from what i did see, conducted himself pretty well, but im also quite sure he was given the questions ahead of time to be practiced. My favorite thing in the trump one was what im pretty sure was an african american woman behind him constantly shaking her head yes in approval of things he was saying, it was great.

Noticed her too

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by discostu

There's no doubt that neither person appears to be "undecided," what type is person is actually "undecided" in this environment?

The fact remains, neither person was "the wife of a Democratic candidate running for Senate in Pennsylvania" nor "a former Obama speechwriter" as you wrote.

Your word selection makes it more salacious and misleading.

For all of the former Trump administration officials who actually worked directly with the president who get brushed aside as merely "disgruntled," I do appreciate the reaches we're making.

We get that.

Be best.

Not my word selection. Philadelphia Inquirer word selection. Blame them for calling him an Obama speechwriter, not me.

"Haeck is also the wife of Ezra Nanes, a high-profile Democrat in Pennsylvania who in 2018 ran a campaign challenging Republican state Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman. Nanes is currently an at-large member of the Centre County Democratic Committee. Centre County is the county in which State College resides. "

Listen, you can call it whatever you want, these are democrats. And they're not just democrats; they're active, practicing, very political democrats who were always voting for Joe. We all know this. If you want to come at me for describing them as news outlets have described them ... OK I guess. But that doesn't change the farce.

[lietuvalabas]

Originally Posted by preakness

Noticed her too

wait you're the one that knew czimers right? i knew you were a good egg. are you originally from the area?

[discostu]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Not my word selection. Philadelphia Inquirer word selection. Blame them for calling him an Obama speechwriter, not me.

"Haeck is also the wife of Ezra Nanes, a high-profile Democrat in Pennsylvania who in 2018 ran a campaign challenging Republican state Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman. Nanes is currently an at-large member of the Centre County Democratic Committee. Centre County is the county in which State College resides. "

Listen, you can call it whatever you want, these are democrats. And they're not just democrats; they're active, practicing, very political democrats who were always voting for Joe. We all know this. If you want to come at me for describing them as news outlets have described them ... OK I guess. But that doesn't change the farce.

You write for a living, correct?

Surely you're aware of the difference between these two statements (one you quote to validate your misleading statement and then what you wrote):

"Haeck is also the wife of Ezra Nanes, a high-profile Democrat in Pennsylvania who in 2018 ran a campaign challenging Republican state Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman."

"The wife of a Democratic candidate running for Senate in Pennsylvania."

These are not the same. Younodis.

Regarding the Philadelphia Inquirer quote, not sure the exact quote, but most quotes have shown "Obama Administration speechwriter," which is very different than "speechwriter for Obama."

So again, it's either a comprehension problem or with intent. You're smart enough, so it leans towards intent.

As the good doctor says, "wenodis."

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by discostu

You write for a living, correct?

Surely you're aware of the difference between these two statements (one you quotes to validate yours) and then what you wrote:
"Haeck is also the wife of Ezra Nanes, a high-profile Democrat in Pennsylvania who in 2018 ran a campaign challenging Republican state Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman."
"The wife of a Democratic candidate running for Senate in Pennsylvania."
These are not the same. Younodis.
Regarding the Philadelphia Inquirer quote, not sure the exact quote, but most quotes have shown "Obama Administration speechwriter," which is very different than "speechwriter for Obama."
So again, it's either a comprehension problem or with intent. You're smart enough, so it leans towards intent.
As the good doctor says, "wenodis."

Again, I take no qualms if you want to come at me for "speechwriter for Obama" vs. "Obama administration speechwriter" You have me dead to rights. Ultimately, you have been successful in arguing something completely irrelevant which distracts from the main point entirely. Need to tighten up!

[discostu]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Again, I take no qualms if you want to come at me for "speechwriter for Obama" vs. "Obama administration speechwriter" You have me dead to rights. Ultimately, you have been successful in arguing something completely irrelevant which distracts from the main point entirely. Need to tighten up!

The main point is what, Democratic shills? That's a given. No matter the side. This is obvious.

I can't fathom anyone really being "undecided" regarding Biden or Trump. I can see far more logic behind an "unmotivated" voter, but not undecided.

Regardless, these details are certainly not irrelevant or you would have not skewed them with intent.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by discostu

The main point is what, Democratic shills? That's a given. No matter the side. This is obvious.

I can't fathom anyone really being "undecided" regarding Biden or Trump. I can see far more logic behind an "unmotivated" voter, but not undecided.

Regardless, these details are certainly not irrelevant or you would have not skewed them with intent.

Why would he need to "skew them with intent" when you freely admit that his point (Democratic shills) is correct?

[jarrodsalas]

Originally Posted by packman80

So if Joe is Catholic no issue from the left on him being president and his faith effecting how he does his job but the left has a issue with a Supreme Court Justice nomine's faith that it would effect her doing her job.

Typical left double standard.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by discostu

The main point is what, Democratic shills? That's a given. No matter the side. This is obvious.

I can't fathom anyone really being "undecided" regarding Biden or Trump. I can see far more logic behind an "unmotivated" voter, but not undecided.

Regardless, these details are certainly not irrelevant or you would have not skewed them with intent.

You're attempting to find intent in something that has none. As you have done time and time again in this thread. A signature move of sorts for people who always want to be offended and are always looking for the worst in everyone and everything. Rather than offering the most obvious reason for my post, which was to highlight the absurdity of democratic voters continuously being posed as independent, undecided voters, you target a specific distinction without a difference. You do you.

And to concluded, your prose about there being no such thing about an undecided voter... it's absurd. In the online ecosystem, there are few, but there are millions of voters who truly haven't thought about who they will vote for until election day because they don't live in the same ecosystem and aren't pummeled with political chatter 24/7. It's why pundits and polls and projections are fairly meaningless these days; accounting for the unknown has become extremely difficult.

[discostu]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Why would he need to "skew them with intent" when you freely admit that his point (Democratic shills) is correct?

Great question, and one I do not have the answer for.

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

You're attempting to find intent in something that has none. As you have done time and time again in this thread. A signature move of sorts for people who always want to be offended and are always looking for the worst in everyone and everything. Rather than offering the most obvious reason for my post, which was to highlight the absurdity of democratic voters continuously being posed as independent, undecided voters, you target a specific distinction without a difference. You do you.

And to concluded, your prose about there being no such thing about an undecided voter... it's absurd. In the online ecosystem, there are few, but there are millions of voters who truly haven't thought about who they will vote for until election day because they don't live in the same ecosystem and aren't pummeled with political chatter 24/7. It's why pundits and polls and projections are fairly meaningless these days; accounting for the unknown has become extremely difficult.

Clearly I touched a nerve.

Had you simply stated facts or posted the actual quotes regarding the identities of the two "undecided" shills, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, you painted a clear problem with a dumber brush. For no reason other than to further an already clear point. Why?

Credibility still means something. Don't give garbage facts to back up a legitimate problem. The actual facts showed a problem...stick with them.

And remember, be best.

[gopherfan]

Originally Posted by calculusdork

Maybe you're right ... I don't know, don't care enough to research it. Suppose you're perfectly correct. These are the independent, undecided voters?

Mieke Haeck, State College resident and "proud mother" of two daughters, used her time during presidential candidate Joe Biden's ABC News Town Hall to question his stance on LGBTQ issues.

Haeck, who is a physical therapist and mother of a transgender daughter, mentioned policies which had been enacted during Donald Trump's term as president which she said set a "dangerous and discriminatory agenda."

Haeck is the wife of Ezra Nanes, a Democratic politician who ran for Pennsylvania Senate in 2018. Nanes lost to Republican Jake Corman.

"The Trump administration has attacked the right of transgender people," Haeck said.

I'm sure she is independent. Probably leaning towards voting Trump depending on Joe's answer to this question.

[DegaBama]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

How do we keep the at risk safe?
We can't put them in a bubble?
I agree we need to get back to work - however, how do we propose we protect the at risk?

Spend the money on rapid testing for the employees of nursing homes, assisted living homes, hospitals. Start there.

[calculusdork]

Originally Posted by gopherfan

I'm sure she is independent. Probably leaning towards voting Trump depending on Joe's answer to this question.

[Astros19]

Lots of tomato/tomahto going on here today.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by discostu

Great question, and one I do not have the answer for.

Clearly I touched a nerve.

Had you simply stated facts or posted the actual quotes regarding the identities of the two "undecided" shills, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, you painted a clear problem with a dumber brush. For no reason other than to further an already clear point. Why?

Credibility still means something. Don't give garbage facts to back up a legitimate problem. The actual facts showed a problem...stick with them.

And remember, be best.

Youre argument is in bad faith.

I said Obama speech writer instead of Obama Administration speech writer and wife of Dem running for Senate in PA instead of wife of Dem who ran for Senate in PA in 2018.

If u believe that my point is invalidated or any less reasonable as a result of these two differences, I have no retort. My point remains valid and unchanged as a result of your highlights.

Almost every poll that has been conducted thru today has undecided voters. Millions of Americans remain undecided and to find 30 in a big city for a town hall is childs play. Start w/ unaffiliated voters and use Google. Done.

That MSNBC and NBC continue to pass off obvious democratic partisans as undecided voters is an intent to deceive the viewer into believing Trump is worse and more hostile than reality shows.

And to u specifically Stu, you continue to add imflamitory posts and remarks about Trump and what his supporters will defend but ignore repeated requests to provide examples. U have no intrest in a real debate or trying to find common ground ... u just want to divide. Even when u agree as in this example, u cant help but to criticize the smallest of details.

Constructive. Not destructive.

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Youre argument is in bad faith.

I said Obama speech writer instead of Obama Administration speech writer and wife of Dem running for Senate in PA instead of wife of Dem who ran for Senate in PA in 2018.

If u believe that my point is invalidated or any less reasonable as a result of these two differences, I have no retort. My point remains valid and unchanged as a result of your highlights.

Almost every poll that has been conducted thru today has undecided voters. Millions of Americans remain undecided and to find 30 in a big city for a town hall is childs play. Start w/ unaffiliated voters and use Google. Done.

That MSNBC and NBC continue to pass off obvious democratic partisans as undecided voters is an intent to deceive the viewer into believing Trump is worse and more hostile than reality shows.

And to u specifically Stu, you continue to add imflamitory posts and remarks about Trump and what his supporters will defend but ignore repeated requests to provide examples. U have no intrest in a real debate or trying to find common ground ... u just want to divide. Even when u agree as in this example, u cant help but to criticize the smallest of details.

Constructive. Not destructive.

I'd say this is "being best".

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by discostu

I can see far more logic behind an "unmotivated" voter, but not undecided.

This is an important distinction.

Can voter A be compelled enough by Trumps town hall to cast a ballot.
Can voter B be compelled enough by Bidens town hall to cast a ballot.

[katester44]

In todays mail - my wife received her absentee ballot. The only problem, she never requested one. She is a registered democrat.

Mine has not been delivered yet. I never requested one. I am not a registered democrat.

Curious how many other households in PA have the same type of story to tell. On the plus side, our polling place is within walking distance of our domicile - we will be voting in person on November 3rd.

[discostu]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Youre argument is in bad faith.

I said Obama speech writer instead of Obama Administration speech writer and wife of Dem running for Senate in PA instead of wife of Dem who ran for Senate in PA in 2018.

If u believe that my point is invalidated or any less reasonable as a result of these two differences, I have no retort. My point remains valid and unchanged as a result of your highlights.

Almost every poll that has been conducted thru today has undecided voters. Millions of Americans remain undecided and to find 30 in a big city for a town hall is childs play. Start w/ unaffiliated voters and use Google. Done.

That MSNBC and NBC continue to pass off obvious democratic partisans as undecided voters is an intent to deceive the viewer into believing Trump is worse and more hostile than reality shows.

And to u specifically Stu, you continue to add imflamitory posts and remarks about Trump and what his supporters will defend but ignore repeated requests to provide examples. U have no intrest in a real debate or trying to find common ground ... u just want to divide. Even when u agree as in this example, u cant help but to criticize the smallest of details.

Constructive. Not destructive.

I'm not saying that your point is invalidated, it's just weaker than it should be. Why? Because you chose to slant the minutia. The fact that two clearly liberal leaning shills were thrown up there in some sort of forum for undecideds is a problem. We know this.

We pass around garbage without paying attention to facts. We need to stop. Especially when the real facts are troubling enough.

I have no issue debating, not in the slightest, I just can't fathom the need to lie about the minutia unless it's a generally weak argument. That's not the case here, so I'm not sure why you choose to make it appear worse. It's bad as it is...stick with that.

As for "you continue to add imflamitory posts and remarks about Trump and what his supporters will defend but ignore repeated requests to provide examples," I'm not about to go back and hunt these down, so if you know any off-hand...let's have at it.

Serious.