***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Many posters are aware I find it offensive because I told @deuce king that I found it offensive. But he proceeded to continue. Other posters liked the messages, responded, etc.

There was no meeting that I am aware of.

And not really a matter of previously made statements that are now at odds with more recent statements.

In any event, I brush it off mostly. Because when I respond it tends to derail the thread.
Just because you say something doesn't mean that everyone has heard or read it.

Just because they've heard something doesn't mean that they comprehend it.

Just because they comprehend something doesn't mean they know it to be true.

your ultimate conclusion requires you to make an assumption on what was known and the reasoning behind making statements.
 
It's worse than I feared. The virus is growing faster each day, infecting more and more people. At some point it'll reach 100% saturation.

That's right, we have a threademic on our hands.

We had a test run a few years ago with Severe Acute Deflection Syndrome 1. Some say it originated in the Bronx, in a single bedroom, and quickly spread to infect at least a dozen threads. Symptoms included massive deflections, quoting unread articles, and incorrect use of numbers. However, quarantine proved effective, and life went on as usual.

But it was only a matter of time before a more evolved, dangerous form of SADS-1 emerged. And it did, in 2019. Scientists are still unsure of the first case of transmission, but they believe it came out of Tennessee, perhaps the Smoke & Mirrors Mountains. This strain of can't-call-it-a-lie-virus can be diagnosed by looking for pathognomonic signs such as nitpicking word choice, avoiding the point, and shortness of depth. Other symptoms may include diarrhea, nausea, loss of common sense, and abdominal pain.

This virus is highly contagious. One seed post can quickly spread to infect an entire thread within hours. The virus is spread mainly through quote contact and via post expansions produced when people click on "show ignored content." People may also contract the virus by clicking a contaminated thread and then touching their face.

While scientists work to find a cure, public health experts warn that the only way to avoid contracting this virus is to self-isolate from contaminated threads. Unfortunately, many threads do not know they are infected initially due to the long incubation period, as "ignored content" can often go 3 or 4 hours without being quoted and thus slip undetected until it is too late.
 
Last edited:
dwalk31 dwalk31



1585718418628.png
 
Moderates on twitter think they can post how people should not have to pay out of pocket for corona virus testing and treatment all the while thinking that leftists will not seize on that and modify their statement and change "corona virus" to "sickness" or "medical care."

We dunk on Bernie when he says "no one who works 40 hours per week should live in poverty," you think that people who only want universal healthcare for corona virus will be spared?
 
This is what I mean by your ultimate conclusion of him telling a lie relies on assumptions you are making.

As it relates to the statements you mentioned they seem aspirational and like responses shot from the hip.

I think you can find a lot of similarities between that and "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." I wouldn't consider that statement by the prior administration a lie. But certainly factually inaccurate. Would you consider that a lie as it relates to the affordable care act? Or more an aspirational goal based on information known to the speaker at the time?
The example I gave is a perfect fit for the criteria you set in the quote I responded too. I find your response argument utterly ridiculous.

That Trump had knowledge his statement was false is not a mere assumption. Mike Pence conceded the truth the day before. There’s simply no chance whatsoever that the shortage of test kits, a national security threat, wouldn’t have been brought to Trump’s attention repeatedly in either the PDB or coronavirus taskforce briefings. It’s inconceivable.

Even if I were to hypothetically accept that the first statement was not a lie, that then does not apply to the March 10 statement where he doubled down on the initial false claim. In the days after his first remarks,the falsehood of his claim was all over the press and reporters questioned him about it.
“That’s CNN, fake news”, Trump responded when asked to explain the discrepancy between his statements and Mike Pence conceding the supply shortage, as well as the countless hospitals and medical association. If, hypothetically he didn’t know it was false on March 6, he unequivocally knew by March 10 when he doubled down.


As for your question, I can’t really properly answer it because I don’t have sufficient knowledge of the ACA to gauge how realistic “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” was, if at all. Likewise I’m not sure how the alterations to the bill during negotiations and Lieberman’s vote might have changed how realistic “keep your doctor” was.
Obama is a very intelligent man so I’m leaning towards a lie. I think Obama had to have been in a position to know whether or not that was by any means a realistic goal.
So based on my limited ACA knowledge, I would argue Obama lied.
The clear motive for a man like Obama would be to lessen people’s concerns and anti-ACA views by misleading them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom