democrat Debates

[DC Tom]

 

He was asked if he felt Israel's response in 2014 was disproportionate. He said it was. That's it.

 

He never said Israel doesn't have a right to exist or to defend itself -- in fact he said the opposite -- he was making the point that just because they are our allies doesn't mean they're above reproach. Taking the position that they are above reproach will never, ever, ever, bring peace. It only furthers the divide and the violence.

 

Given that they're the stronger party in an asymmetric war, the Israeli response to anything not only is disproportionate, but is disproportionate as part of the Palestinian strategy.

[GG]

 

He was asked if he felt Israel's response in 2014 was disproportionate. He said it was. That's it.

 

He never said Israel doesn't have a right to exist or to defend itself -- in fact he said the opposite -- he was making the point that just because they are our allies doesn't mean they're above reproach. Taking the position that they are above reproach will never, ever, ever, bring peace. It only furthers the divide and the violence.

 

Not quite. He was asked to explain his past statements about 2014. He wasn't asked on the spot if he felt the response was disproportionate.

 

He's clearly in the camp that holds Israel to an impossible standard, because any response, other than indiscriminately lobbing thousands of itty bitty rockets, will be deemed disproportionate.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Not quite. He was asked to explain his past statements about 2014. He wasn't asked on the spot if he felt the response was disproportionate.

 

He's clearly in the camp that holds Israel to an impossible standard, because any response, other than indiscriminately lobbing thousands of itty bitty rockets, will be deemed disproportionate.

 

Yes, he was.

 

[B-Man]

How Democrats Win Debates by Corrupting English

Human beings have been using euphemisms ever since Adam first “knew” Eve. In politics especially, obfuscating and twisting the meaning of words has been going on forever. But today’s debates aren’t just littered with rhetorical distortions; in some ways, many of Democrats’ most potent arguments are built on corrupt language.

One word that’s really getting a workout this cycle is “loophole.” Basically, all of life is a giant loophole until Democrats come up with a way to regulate or tax it. In its economic usage, “loophole” — probably more of a dysphemism — creates the false impression that people are getting away with breaking the law. It’s a way to skip the entire debate portion of the conversation and get right to the accusation.

So when Hillary Clinton promises to close the loophole of corporate inversion, what she means to say is that Democrats disapprove of this completely legal thing that corporations do to shield their money from the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. Loopholes are like giveaways, money that D.C. has yet to double and triple tax.

It’s one thing for Democrats to try and set the parameters of a debate before the debate is even begun, but it’s quite another to watch the press participate.

Here’s CNN: “Clinton to push closing corporate tax loopholes.” Here’s The Hill: “Obama calls for Congress to close corporate tax loopholes.” Here’s how Halimah Abdullah and the Associated Press reported the issue on NBC: “President Obama on Tuesday criticized loopholes that help protect offshore tax havens and U.S. companies that move abroad for lower tax rates.”

But Bernie Sanders, bless him, just skips the entire game and just comes out with it by Tweeting: “The offshore tax haven network isn’t something that we need to reform or refine. It’s a form of legalized tax fraud that must end.”

“Legalized tax fraud” is a revealing statement about the progressive belief system. For progressives, taxation is moral. So when you fail to pay an imaginary tax that doesn’t exist but Democrats think should, you are by default engaged in fraud. The law has just to catch up with sin.

Take “access,” formerly meaning having the ability to approach, enter, or use. In today’s liberal parlance, when the state doesn’t give you something for free, it’s taking something from you. It’s denying you access. When there’s a lack of access to birth control, it doesn’t, as the dictionary might lead you to believe, mean that Walgreens and CVS have been dissuaded from selling condoms, or that someone is bolting the door when women attempt to purchase birth control at the local pharmacy. It means that government has not made condoms free for anyone who desires them.

To oppose the latter — whatever you make of the position — is not tantamount to a ban or outlawing. Yet Clinton has accused Cruz of attempting to “ban” contraception. Neither Cruz nor any Republican in office today has ever tried to ban — prohibit, forbid, proscribe, disallow — contraception altogether. This is a fairy tale with a thriving political fan-fiction community.

“Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,” Clinton recently lamented as she spoke about the persistence of the anti-abortion movement’s activism. Women won’t have a true right on this issue, she says, “as long as we have laws on the book like the Hyde Amendment, making it harder for low-income women to exercise their full rights.”

By “extraordinary measures,” Clinton means walking past anti-abortion protesters who might say something that makes a woman uncomfortable. Any genuine attempt to hinder a person from walking into a Planned Parenthood clinic is already illegal, after all. Some of us, you see, are imbued with special rights, or full rights. Women who support the right to an abortion, for instance, have full rights — not women who want to express themselves in opposition.

There are plenty of other distortions. “Disenfranchisement” once meant revoking the rights gained through suffrage, but has been corroded to mean asking a person to provide a picture ID or to wait in a line before voting.

Today, a country that deports hundreds of thousands of people every year has open borders, while millions of illegal immigrants are called everything but “illegal.”

Today, tax cuts “cost” Americans something, but state spending is an “investment.” And so on.

This is just a small taste of the war on meaning, of course. And to allow them this falsification language is to surrender a debate before it even begins.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434416/democrats-language-corrupt

[Nanker]

I point a finger at Professor George Lakoff of Berkley. Twisting word meanings is what he does.

[B-Man]

Feel the Hillary-momentum...........

 

 

 

Democrat Turnout Collapses Down More Than 4.5 Million, Nearly 20 Percent In 2016 Versus 2008

 

The data also show that the about 4.5 million fewer people have voted in the Democratic presidential contest this year versus 2008.

 

This year’s contest is a two-person race between Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

of Vermont and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton is also a former U.S. Senator from New York, a position she held after eight years as first lady.

 

Hillary Clinton also ran for president in 2008, which makes this data all the more interesting: It’s essentially a comparison up against her previous failed race, when she was the frontrunning Democratic presidential candidate until then Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois blew past her late in the game taking the lead before winning the nomination and then eventually the presidency.

 

Only a handful of states have seen increases in participation on the Democratic side, including Arizona, Michigan, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas and Maine. With the exception of Arizona, Sanders won—and Clinton lost—each of those contests. That means the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, has only increased Democratic primary votes in one of the states she won this cycle as compared with 2008’s primary turnout. Every other state she has won this year has seen less turnout from last go-around.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/26/exclusive-data-analysis-democrat-turnout-collapses-4-5-million-nearly-20-percent-2016-versus-2008/

Edited April 26, 2016 by B-Man

[B-Man]

Pop the popcorn: Liberal pundits eating their own

 

It hasn’t been a good week for the Democrats. And despite the ongoing effort by the mainstream media to paint the Republican Party as divided and irreparably damaged by their primary process, the signs continue to emerge that Democrats are facing a much tougher task in uniting behind their incredibly unlikable and untrustworthy front-runner.

 

The week started with a remarkable brawl convention in Nevada with blood spilled, names called and a venerable senator booed off the stage.

 

The divisive nature of the Democrats reached a ridiculous point Tuesday afternoon with the spectacle of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (S-VT) campaign manager promising CNN’s Wolf Blitzer “there’s not going to be any violence in Philadelphia” at the Democrats’ national convention. It’s always a great sign when a leading candidate’s campaign manager has to assure the public that a riot won’t break out at the party’s convention.

 

Fast-forward to last night’s divisive Kentucky primary which had Hillary Clinton “winning” with a quarter million fewer votes than she got in 2008 when she won the state outright against then-Senator Barack Obama. After that pathetic showing coupled with a thorough clock-cleaning in Oregon at the hands of septuagenarian, socialist Sanders, it’s hard for the media to call Hillary a “winner,” even though they are trying their darnedest.

 

Which brings us to this morning’s truly entertaining meltdown by America’s most reliable liberals on cable news.

 

{snip}

 

Of course, they’re right. Wasserman Schultz has been a disaster. Not just this year during the presidential primary process but since she became DNC Chairwoman.

 

Rory Cooper ‎@rorycooper

Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy.

9:01 AM - 4 Nov 2015

 

The Tweet above singles out President Obama, but these losses have occurred on Wasserman Schultz’ watch too. Couple those losses with the fact that the DNC is over $7 million in debt, according to the Daily Caller, heading into a critical Presidential election, while the RNC appears to be swimming in cash.

 

And let’s remind our Democrat friends about one other important bit of information: All of this vitriol is a direct result of the strong-arm tactics imposed by the power-hungry Clintons who dictated conditions that were not consistent with a fair and democratic primary process, but more in keeping with a combination of a coronation and a putsch.