(10-14-2019, 08:53 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: She has since shifted the message to this, but when the original post had been made, she was openly suggesting that Zuckerberg was tacitly endorsing Trump because of his actions. That point will not be as publicly dispersed as the ad was, though, which is an issue. 

(10-14-2019, 10:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Did Warren use Facebook to say she was Native American and fired for being pregnant?

(10-14-2019, 09:42 AM)GMDino Wrote: Again, I'm all for it.  She is using the rules to talk about Facebook changing the rules to highlight the rules.  FB "news" even went at her for "lying" when they have never said a word about DJT's ads.

Good strategy in my book because she admits what she is doing.  If it was just a Trump-like lie with no follow up I'd agree with you.

(10-14-2019, 10:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Did Warren use Facebook to say she was Native American and fired for being pregnant?

(10-14-2019, 11:03 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I am actually going to agree with bfine here because she has a history of dishonesty which includes something I pointed out in the last debate: her repeated lies that Bernie's healthcare plan (I can't say hers since she doesn't have her own as of last month, she's just endorsing his) wouldn't end private insurance. It absolutely does and being dishonest instead of explaining why is a bad move.

Again, she came out after the fact to rationalize it. Facebook is taking the same exact stance that a lot of other media companies do and not trying to play politics by fact checking ads. The reason they WOULD address hers is because she's making a claim about them. Facebook has no obligation to defend Joe Biden nor should they if no other media outlet like them does. 

(10-14-2019, 11:03 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I am actually going to agree with bfine here because she has a history of dishonesty which includes something I pointed out in the last debate: her repeated lies that Bernie's healthcare plan (I can't say hers since she doesn't have her own as of last month, she's just endorsing his) wouldn't end private insurance. It absolutely does and being dishonest instead of explaining why is a bad move.

Again, she came out after the fact to rationalize it. Facebook is taking the same exact stance that a lot of other media companies do and not trying to play politics by fact checking ads. The reason they WOULD address hers is because she's making a claim about them. Facebook has no obligation to defend Joe Biden nor should they if no other media outlet like them does. 

(10-14-2019, 11:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: If Facebook has an actual policy saying they have no obligation to fact check and they fact check one because it is about THEM then her ad works.

However bfine throwing out Warren's "dishonesty" gets no traction with me because of his defenses of Trump's lies.  He can address this ad and whether it is effective (or even a good idea) like you did if he chooses to.

(10-14-2019, 12:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've said it before, I'll reiterate; if Warren is the nominee then Trump wins again in 2020.  Not only due to the above but her policy positions are rather extreme.  Consider this as you choose, but it appears that even major Dem donors will sit this one out, or even assist Trump, if Warren gets the nod.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/wall-street-democratic-donors-may-back-trump-if-warren-is-nominated.html


An odd position.  You should either be against dishonesty or not.  Dismissing bfine's accurate assessment of Warren because you find his Trump assessment equally inaccurate strikes one as rather contradictory.

(10-14-2019, 12:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: An odd reading of me saying that pointing out Facebook's policy of accepting dishonesty by showing how it can be used against Facebook is me not being against dishonesty.

That's not it chief.

(10-14-2019, 11:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: If Facebook has an actual policy saying they have no obligation to fact check and they fact check one because it is about THEM then her ad works.

However bfine throwing out Warren's "dishonesty" gets no traction with me because of his defenses of Trump's lies.  He can address this ad and whether it is effective (or even a good idea) like you did if he chooses to.

(10-14-2019, 01:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They allowed the ad to remain up just as they did with Trump's ad. Her ad hinges on the fact that it remained up, despite being false. But, again, she "made" a point after the fact and that point isn't being as rigorously disseminated as her ad, so I question how genuine the point initially was. I take issue with this. It's just like when she refused

Your position on Bfine's post is fine, I just think his position on Trump doesn't change the reality of Warren's own issues with the truth and I am ok with using them as examples of throwing stones in a glass house.

Is she AS bad as Trump? God no. 

Should every Democrat seek to be as honest as possible? Yes.

(10-14-2019, 01:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know when she said why the post was made...I just know it works.

She is showing how easy it is to be dishonest and in the same breath being honest about it.

(10-15-2019, 06:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: RD 4 kicks off tonight

https://heavy.com/news/2019/10/democratic-debate-time-channel-fourth/

What do we think will be the biggest talking points (Other than Trump)?

Biden's son?

Warren's pregnancy?

Bernie's stint?

Oh, there's an outside chance a couple will bring up issues that actually effect our well-being.

(10-15-2019, 09:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: EW was asked again would she raise taxes on the Middle Class for medicare for all, her answer was: Kids get cancer.

(10-15-2019, 09:33 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That's what gofundme is for, Squanto!

(10-16-2019, 12:35 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure what the appeal of Warren is suppose to be. She parrots Bernie's plans but doesn't have the courage to be truthful about them as he does. Last debate she refused to admit that you lose your private insurance. Now she refused to admit that it'll raise taxes. I understand the nuance that it's overall a reduction in cost, but she won't even explain it.

Buttigieg sounded good on foreign policy. Klobuchar sounded good in a well rounded way. Gabbard needs to stop demanding every candidate answer a question of her choosing or declare something every time she gets on stage.