this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
14 points (66.7% liked)
Progressive Politics, Gun Control, Single Payer Healthcare and Free Abortions for All!
589 readers
4 users here now
We like leftists and liberals.
We want to ban all guns.
We want free healthcare.
We want UBI.
We don't mind being taxed.
We want to give everyone a free abortion!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Kinda weird how sometimes he was debating the moderators instead of Harris. Of course, only fact checking Trump was expected.
But all in all, both are shit choices.
It seems like a compromise could have been that he not lie claiming immigrants are eating dogs and doctors are killing babies after birth.
*Doctors are letting babies who survived abortions die after birth.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/08/06/under-gov-tim-walz-babies-born-alive-in-botched-abortions-were-left-to-die-then-he-removed-reporting-requirements/
You guys are really slamming back the Kool-Aid.
Providing proof that an incident happened, multiple times, is drinking kool-aid? Sounds more like someone had their head in the sand and would rather ignore these disturbing acts.
Reading a Heritage Foundation propaganda outlet and uncritically believing everything in it is drinking Kool-Aid, yes. "Disturbing acts" like proving an unviable fetus with the same terminal care a human would receive, oh no.
It is unconscionable that regressives want to use unwilling women for medical equipment or prevent willing women with unviable fetuses from receiving lifesaving medical care. Those are the disturbing acts.
Are you disputing the Minnesota Department of Health report?
Strange you seemed to miss the reports that showed some babies were left to die with no care.
I'm disputing Daily Signal, no point in reading it. If you have MDH reports you could link that directly.
"Babies," "left to die," with "no care." Kool-Aid.
Meanwhile you want policies to force unwilling people into slavery carrying a fetus. That's pretty rape-y, but your leader is a rapist, so no surprise there.
What is surprising is you are whining about being left to die with no care but fully supporting people who want to give birth instead bleeding out because they are refused medical care.
You're disputing it but provide no evidence that there are falsehoods.
Just because it's troubling for you doesn't make it less true.
Keeping working those straw man arguments. I have said nothing on my opnion of abortion or what I want. Leaving a baby to die is a horrible act, do you find it acceptable?
Nice try at another straw man. Where in the US are abortions illegal if the life of the mother is threatened?
It's a Heritage Foundation propaganda outlet. We don't need additional evidence. You need evidence from a credible source. There is no worthwhile discussion to have if you are drinking Kool-Aid from a propaganda outlet.
I thought you were going to link to the government's actual records as a source? What happened there? Oh, does it not support whatever fictitious claims your propaganda outlet is making?
Talk about strawman. You keep writing "babies." Disingenuous. Do these fetuses even have brain activity? Link to the official records, let's discuss things that actually happened instead of your propaganda outlet's fever dreams.
Where is it illegal to save someone's life? Texas, for one.
You are supporting a rapist and supporting the rape-y behavior of forcing women into medical slavery. You also enjoy helping child rapists abuse children by forcing them to continue victimization, like in Ohio. This is very disgusting and disturbing.
This logical falicacy is called ad hominem. You don't have any evidence that the claims are untrue or have even disputed the claims.
Now I have to provide additional evidence because you think there might be a possibility that the claims in the article may be false. How about you provide evidence that they are false.
You're just as bad with your logical fallacies as you are with science. Per the article, whose claims you have not refuted, the babies were out of the womb, do you think babies can be fetuses after they have been born?
Did you RTFA her life was not in danger. She had the risk of developing gestational diabetes, that's it. Her own doctor never claimed there was a risk to her life.
More crazy rantings from a person who is in favor of infiantcide.
You don't understand what an ad hominem is. It absolutely is relevant to the argument whether or not the source is trustworthy. You cannot use a propaganda outlet as a source and then pretend people need to address that as if it is real. If it were an ad hominem you would be able to link to real evidence.
As expected from a Kool-Aid chugger who supports medical slavery and bleeding out for women and children, supports pedophiles with raping and continued victimizing of children, and supports a rapist as a presidential candidate. You will grasp as whatever tenuous logic might support your whining.
Post-birth abortions are fictional. Donald is a liar. Donald was caught in an obvious and large lie, one of hundreds he has told. Kamala simply did not lie as blatantly. It was not "three on one," and it is pathetic to pretend that it was.
Why don't you go generate some AI images of A-list celebrities pretending they like Donald to self-soothe instead of trying to insist that everyone else believe the propaganda which fuels your fear addiction.
That's what an ad hominem fallacy is, you are dismissing the article based on the creators not the content.
More ad hominem falicies, I provided a source that shows abortionists letting babies die on a table after birth.
The unhinged ranting of a lunatic who can't provide a source for his claim.
It would be hilarious to see you as a lawyer working with a witness that has previously lied on the stand. "Your witness is not credible, they have accepted money to lie in the past." "That's an ad hominem, you cannot do that."
You are above the level of comprehension like "ad hominem is when my feelings hurt," but you still do not understand what it means. You should try to learn more about it before continuing to use it as a claim.
You did not provide a source for letting "babies" "die" on a table after "birth." You provided delusional propaganda where a liar was willing to write that based on weird definitions that nobody but you regressives agree with.
You additionally are confirmed to support child molesters harming children, rapists harming their victims, and want a rapist in the White House. Disgusting and repugnant.
At least you learned what an ad hominem fallacy is, you're a little less ignorant now. If you want to treat it like a court case you would need to provide evidence that the author has made up articles in the past, you have not.
The only source you've provided was one which ended up discrediting your claim that abortions are denied when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. You haven't provided others and instead rely on logical falicies to prove your point.
Crazy rantings of a person who enjoys babies being left to die on a cold hard table.
I did provide evidence. You know full well the Heritage Foundation is not credible.
You guys have nothing but lies on top of delusions. No babies are dying on a table. You are just a rape fan inventing fake shit to support control over women.
That's not evidence it's an accusation. Where's the proof that the article is false? Where's the proof the author made up the quotes from the Minnesota Department of health? You know full well the article is accurate.
If there are lies you should be able to find proof of those lies but you're too busy fantasizing about killing babies to provide proof.
we can fact check Harris, i mean if Harris made any bold lies we could then say it was unfair?
and considering the stupidity of that lie about eating pets and how he got it from tv should we leave it up there to be perpetuated. anyway i will leave you with something from our conservative hero, facts dont care about your feelings :P
can you list a few lies in the debate from Harris? not that i don't believe you. just haven't followed her enough to scrutinize.
Well if we allow for "Donald Trump" to also include his businesses, which he proudly indicates he has direct leadership in...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/
The statement is true, per the specifications I allowed. I never indicated any value assessment as you focused on. That's not the point
Edit, to address the goalpost move: as a DA she certainly would have been in charge of staffing an office and had many humans in jobs. More than zero. So that's not true
Her office would have designated the need for positions and filled them. They would have had a budget and worked within it to staff.
Another goalpost move on p/l.
My original involvement was to fact check the bankruptcy claim, not discuss the value or issues with bankruptcy. The goal posts were moved to bring up Harris being a long time government employee. I spent replies discussing how.the differences are largely semantic, but that's literally besides my original point, and you are free to have your opinion on government work, because it's not what I'm here for anyway.
Trump, as leader of his businesses, DID file bankruptcies, as the article describes.
Facts indeed. I provided a source of the bankruptcies for companies that he was the leader of, as I specified.
Edit Any discussion of the consequences of those bankruptcies or the validity of candidates based on their business background is outside of the scope, and a goalpost move.
As I stated in my comment, he takes direct leadership in his businesses and his businesses filed. Contesting this point is not goalpost moving and would have been meaningful discussion, yesterday. Arguing about her business background has nothing to do with my original comment. I'd recommend to read the article, which is not from this year, and discusses the situation about his bankruptcy situation.
Bankruptcies are not "common" for successful business folks, but they do happen.
She has worked as a public servant in a legal capacity, which we can certainly agree is important for a modern society. A president should also be well versed in such things, which trump is not. So, on that basis they break even. Weather you agree with her policy or approach, you have to accept that she has worked for the government, and therefore the furtherance of the nation. You may believe her approach was not to your liking, but I'm thankful people work in governmental, public roles too. I think such people are completely valid candidates for higher office.
it came off to me that her opinion had changed on fracking, being a politician in America is not won through honesty. inverters must see you as profitable, money is in oil. i have heard Donaald has filed bankruptcy i had to make sure and looked it up i'd like to see your source on this.
For a politician to take the stance of anti fracking would be political suicide. Thanks to Republicans money is speech , its become an incestuous game.
Would you say Harris's lie is as bold as trumps? One is splitting hairs the other is a fairy tail that is made to create division.
I think your missing the point, we're talking about Harris being a liar. And I am asking even though I don't see her flip as a lie. But for the sake of of it we'll say she's lying. Is her lie as bold as trumps?
Anyway CNN did a great job combing through the debate and fact checking here's an article/video about it
I don't know too much about the troops in America, maybe they are all out or none or a few, statically incorrect I can forgive with margins of error.
Putting out facebook hit pieces strongly tide to polarisation I expect to hear from my boomer parents is ridiculous. This man is running to be the most powerful man in america and he can't disseminate truth from fiction from such an incredibly flawed source. I wonder what kind of sourcing does he do in his day to day for the rest of his information.
really,so you believe his claim that migrants are eating pets? yes or no. and i am not asking in nuance. this is a strait and very serious question as the idea was put forward in a presidential debate.
but trump knows truth from fiction. this must be true?