US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Mostly true tpically means that it is missing some mitigating context. That is not the case here.

That is not their definition. That is why the article is dishonest by posting "mostly true" 100% out of context.

[aygart]

That is not their definition. That is why the article is dishonest by posting "mostly true" 100% out of context.

So now you do know their definition?
What context was it out of?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

So now you do know their definition?
What context was it out of?

They said the statement was accurate. Where is that in the article? They explained their definition of "mostly true". Where is that in the article?

[aygart]

They said the statement was accurate. Where is that in the article? They explained their definition of "mostly true". Where is that in the article?

It was a tweet! Now you are nit picking

[ChaimMoskowitz]

It was a tweet! Now you are nit picking

Of course it was a tweet. The purpose was to mislead. Not sure what the issue is.

[aygart]

Of course it was a tweet. The purpose was to mislead. Not sure what the issue is.

Lol

[gingyguy]

D's want SCOTUS nominee to recuse himself from all things relate to Mueller investigatoin

[ChaimMoskowitz]

D's want SCOTUS nominee to recuse himself from all things relate to Mueller investigatoin

That is a legal question. The same goes for his first pick.

[aygart]

That is a legal question. The same goes for his first pick.

Ultimately decided by John Roberts. The answer he will probably give during hearings will be that he will follow paper procedure regarding recusal blah blah and a bunch more meaningless blather.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Ultimately decided by John Roberts.

It is not up to the individual judge?

[aygart]

It is not up to the individual judge?

I think that the Chief Justice has the ability to enforce but I may be wrong. Either way that would be the limit of the enforcement. There is no appeal.

ETA seems that there is no enforcement and it is fully up to the judge other that the ability to impeach.

[Yammer]

By cherry picking what they said. Your definition of being dishonest.

Our ruling
Hawley said, "Claire McCaskill voted for 100 percent of President Obama’s judicial nominees."
Senate Republicans also approved Obama’s nominees with minimal objections 82 percent of the time, and McCaskill voted for most of Bush’s nominees.
Hawley's statement is accurate but requires a touch of clarification. That's our definition of Mostly True.

I don't see how what they wrote clarifies anything about what he said. So what she voted for most of Bush's nominees? So what other Rs voted for many of Obama's nominees? She voted for most of Bush's and ALL of Obama's. How does any of that change even one iota. His point is true in fact and spirit!

He cherry picked "mostly true" without saying what they meant by it. He did it purposely to change what they said. Totally dishonest by your standards.

I don't see that to be the case. They added some irrelevant stuff to make something true in fact and spirit only mostly true when there is not one thing even slightly misleading about it.

That's because like most of time you are thinking like a Trumpster. You might not agree with their definition of "mostly true" but it is 100% relevant in this case.

lets just say that if he was cherry picking then they were nit picking much worse. It couldn't be mostly true so they figured out a reason.

That would only be true if they only use their definition for this instance. I don't know if that is the case or not.

Mostly true tpically means that it is missing some mitigating context. That is not the case here.

That is not their definition. That is why the article is dishonest by posting "mostly true" 100% out of context.

So now you do know their definition?
What context was it out of?

They said the statement was accurate. Where is that in the article? They explained their definition of "mostly true". Where is that in the article?

It was a tweet! Now you are nit picking

Of course it was a tweet. The purpose was to mislead. Not sure what the issue is.

Lol

My head's spinning and I'm losing focus....

[Yammer]

D's want SCOTUS nominee to recuse himself from all things relate to Mueller investigatoin

That is a legal question. The same goes for his first pick.

I would like to know if there is any precedent to this. If yes go with precedent

[aygart]

I would like to know if there is any precedent to this. If yes go with precedent

Nixon appointees did not recuse other than Rehnquist who actually served in the administration as AG.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I would like to know if there is any precedent to this. If yes go with precedent

Have we had a situation like this before?

[Yammer]

I would like to know if there is any precedent to this. If yes go with precedent

After a quick search it seems like recusals are a very common thing. I still don't know if nominating someone for SCOTUS would disqualify then from a case, but in today's polorized America Im sure that it would.

Nixon appointees did not recuse other than Rehnquist who actually served in the administration as AG.

Thanks

[ChaimMoskowitz]

My head's spinning and I'm losing focus....

Here is the whole article without any cherry picking.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/10/josh-hawley/did-claire-mccaskill-vote-100-obamas-judicial-nomi/

[aygart]

Have we had a situation like this before?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

[ChaimMoskowitz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

They were appointed before we new of anything. Little different then now, no?

[aygart]

They were appointed before we new of anything. Little different then now, no?

Why?