She could have said her daughter was an native American. Oh wait, that one's taken too.
Fiorina - Is this true and does anyone care?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
She could have said her daughter was an native American. Oh wait, that one's taken too.
Joe Scarborough just said Carly won't win the nomination, and there was a healthy discussion of the benefits and negatives of her time at HP. A lot of the talk centered on how Carly was a blank slate (As John Heileman described her), up until now. People are now finding out more about her, and the slate is being filled in. She has upward mobility, but I can see her ceiling ahead.
This is true. It's true of most newcomers to politics. It was true of Obama, but the difference in his case was that the media didn't want to find anything negative, so the didn't look very hard, and if they stumbled upon something, they ignored it.
Harry Truman was a failed businessman and a politician with close ties to a notoriously corrupt machine. Of course, he came to the presidency by a route that minimized the significance of those things. But he DID get re-elected.
For the record, I've never thought Carly had much of a chance at the nomination. I like a lot of things about her, and from what I know, I think she'd be a good choice. But I think the significant thing about her campaign is how far she's come, not her odds of winning.
I have thought from the beginning that she was aiming for the VP spot and had a decent chance to land it. Right now she has probably set her sights higher because of the MSM adulation. But since much of that was manufactured, we'll have to wait to see if she has staying power.
She needs to be careful not to make a serious gaffe. She's skating well but the ice is still thin.
And she needs to conceal her arrogant nasty streak a little better. That definitely won't wear well.
I still think she has a good shot at VP, but will be very surprised if she snags the top spot. Of the 4 most likely to be on the ticket - Bush, Kasich, Rubio and Fiorina - I give her the least chance. But 1 out of 4 for 2 available positions is still a darn good chance.
It's interesting to me that part of this graphic is being neglected. The part that points out that her family's tragedy involved legal substances.
I wish I could find the spot on the video when this is being discussed because I thought it was about illegal drugs. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
If the conversation was about illegal drugs, then I think the graphic has bite.
Personally I think pointing out that the daughter wasn't her biological child is a bit of a low blow. But the charge that she crafted a deliberately misleading story seems to have legs. To the extent that she did that several times, it's good that people are calling her out on it, even the minor examples.
A big part of the GOP campaign against Hillary will be playing the honesty card. How can you do it if your own candidate plays fast and loose with the truth? We've seen her do it with her corporate experience, her attacks on Planned Parenthood, the Iran deal, and now this. No doubt there are others, but those are the ones that pop to mind.
Of course she isn't the only bald-faced liar on that stage. But she becoming a leader and is an obvious comparison to Hillary.
I wish I could find the spot on the video when this is being discussed because I thought it was about illegal drugs. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
If the conversation was about illegal drugs, then I think the graphic has bite.
Personally I think pointing out that the daughter wasn't her biological child is a bit of a low blow. But the charge that she crafted a deliberately misleading story seems to have legs. To the extent that she did that several times, it's good that people are calling her out on it, even the minor examples.
A big part of the GOP campaign against Hillary will be playing the honesty card. How can you do it if your own candidate plays fast and loose with the truth? We've seen her do it with her corporate experience, her attacks on Planned Parenthood, the Iran deal, and now this. No doubt there are others, but those are the ones that pop to mind.
Of course she isn't the only bald-faced liar on that stage. But she becoming a leader and is an obvious comparison to Hillary.
I think he may have been referring to Hillary. But I agree with your response as well.
Are the videotapes labeled so that you can refer to them? Abortion-o-rama #1?
If this piece actually becomes an attack angle, I think some people may find that it completely backfires. Basically, anyone taking this piece on as a "lie" or a reason that Carly shouldn't have felt so much pain "because it wasn't her bio kid" is basically slapping the face of every step parent and adoptive parent in this country an insinuating that the relationships they have are really of little import because they're not genetically tied. It would be absolutely moronic for anyone to attack her on that angle.
Plus, it is easier, simpler to say "child". Hell, she probably would have been attacked for labeling her a "step-child" and treating her not as her own.
I'm not a step-father, but do people really go around discussing (with non-friends) their step-child as a "step-child"?
"Hey, whose the cute kid?" "My step-son". Seems weird to me.
I'm not a step-father, but do people really go around discussing (with non-friends) their step-child as a "step-child"?
"Hey, whose the cute kid?" "My step-son". Seems weird to me.
In my anecdotal experience, it usually comes down to when they started being the "step". If they married later in life when the kids were adults and on their own, I've heard "step-" more often. When the marriage happened earlier and the parent then helped raise them, I've generally not heard it much. I've much more often heard the kids in the relationship talk about step-mom and step-dad....but that's probably for clarity as much as anything.
Yes, and this certainly makes sense, because they usually have a "real" parent, therefore the necessary explanation of "step".
Don't know where the tape that she is referring to is. Hopefully she will explain further what she meant.
Who’s Really Lying About The Planned Parenthood Videos?
...In the video in question, a technician is talking about harvesting the brain of an alive, fully formed fetus. While she tells her story, there is footage of another baby of roughly the same gestational age as the one whose brain she harvested. This baby is seen still kicking and its heart still beating.
While it is obviously not the same baby as the one she harvested the brain of, the footage helps viewers to understand what a 19-week old baby looks like when hearing the testimony of an ex-employee who harvested brains from babies of the same age. Illustrating stories with appropriate images is a common journalistic technique, one used by all media outlets...
Follow the link and read the full article and see the videos.
...In the video in question, a technician is talking about harvesting the brain of an alive, fully formed fetus. While she tells her story, there is footage of another baby of roughly the same gestational age as the one whose brain she harvested. This baby is seen still kicking and its heart still beating.
While it is obviously not the same baby as the one she harvested the brain of, the footage helps viewers to understand what a 19-week old baby looks like when hearing the testimony of an ex-employee who harvested brains from babies of the same age. Illustrating stories with appropriate images is a common journalistic technique, one used by all media outlets...
Follow the link and read the full article and see the videos.
And it still isn't what she claimed. She said there was video of a live baby and somebody saying to keep it alive to harvest the brain. It's becoming obvious she is full of shit, otherwise somebody would point out the video this happens in.
