Correct. I intend to vote for Clinton.
Reluctantly, to be sure. I would have voted happily for Rubio, Kasich, or Bush. I would have voted unhappily for Cruz. But not Trump.
nm, too early for this
Well congratulations, I’m sure your guns will be a huge comfort when Trump collapses the world economy, wrecks the international order and America’s reputation, carries out an ethnic cleansing campaign, stacks the Supreme Court with theocrats, sets off multiple wars, and who knows what else.
Even if there was the slightest chance of Hillary banning guns - there isn’t - prioritizing that of all things over the massive amount of suffering and death that would result from a Trump victory is totally morally bankrupt.
Hey, if things are going to get that apocalyptic, damn right guns will be a huge comfort. 
What difference does it make if a vote for Hillary is a vote to ban guns. A vote for Obama four and eight years ago were votes to ban guns; surely it’s impossible to get your hands on a gun by now.
Hands are also banned.
If having a classroom of kindergarten children shot up doesn’t manage to motivate the US Congress to establish firearm regulation then nothing will. “Gun grabbing” is a fig leaf to help rationalize an irrational vote.
On the contrary, in both articles they declined to rate Murphy’s effectiveness. They pointed out the problems in the metric under discussion along with examples of where Murphy had been effective. The only difference is, in the second article, they rashly went ahead and declined to rate his effectiveness without making the explanatory statement that they were about to decline to rate his effectiveness, lazily (or sneakily) hyperlinking back to the article where they did make this caveat explicit for the benefit of those who demand real-time narration.
OK - point of order here, you need to acknowledge that AFF received the rating “mostly false.” Let’s go to the source:
[QUOTE=Politifact]
The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False.
[/quote]
You’ve already provided the element of truth - that InGov made this misleading claim. That much is true. But AFF suggested that the InGov argument was adequate proof of ineffectiveness, which is false.
Some people like popping zits or bubble wrap. I like to pop flawed lib’rul gotchas.
What a lovely analogy, Senator Blutarsky!
Thank you, that was kind of the point I was trying to make this morning, but it was just too early for such things…
The other point that Bricker will not acknowledge is that in his examples, the republican gets a “mostly false”, and the democrat gets a “false”, for what he feels is the same statement. Now, i could have sworn that bricker was claiming that politifact was biased against republicans, but it appears as though he is making the opposite case.
To be fair the the counselor, I do not believe that these are examples that he has personally witnessed and felt bias about, but instead he is pulling them from another right wing source, where such statements get met with “ayup, dem are biased”, rather than a critical examination of the claims, which is why he has been feeding us such weak examples that if anything, prove the opposite case.
Some people juggle geese.
I can’t count how many times I’ve heard someone say he’s better than this. So it’s possible he could yet come clean.
On the other hand, nobody ever says that about me, so this is as good as my contribution here is going to get. Peace out.
I have seen him be better than this. I have actually learned quite a bit from his challenges to the more left leaning members of this board. Sometimes, he is even right.
This is why I don’t think that these are his own examples, and that he is pulling them from another source without actually examining them himself. He usually IS better than this.
Even if no one else does, I appreciate your contribution to this thread. 
Which is something I very well might have said, if I were a better person. Not much chance of that.
Why in the hell would a real Trump supporter even talk to you after being called an imbecile for considering a vote for Trump? Even if you can find one on this board, they will just let you rant on. No matter what any Trump supporter says, the reply will be, but he is an orange buffoon and you are an idiot. If your mind is so closed that you think it is even on to call 40% of the electorate idiots, you don’t deserve a reply.
And yet, here you are.
You phrase it entirely as though the ball is in the defender’s court; it’s impossible, not to find a situation where two examples are agreed upon, but that defenders will agree are acceptably accurate (and I disagree with your characterisation of what’s being compared, anyway). Surely disagreement on such things is not limited solely to defensive disagreement?
Putting that to one side for a moment, that is a reason why, as a matter of debate between individuals, a rigorous analysis is going to be a tricky thing to work out with all parties accepting it. But it isn’t a reason for you, personally, not to do it, for the sake of your own personal satisfaction. It’s a shame purely for my own benefit that you don’t have stats you think would convince others, but ok. In your view, Politifact applies two different standards; alright. What statistics did you use to convince* you*, personally, of that?
I’m assuming you’re asking for Politifact’s opinion on these, rather than mine? So far as I can tell, Politifact seem to add shades like “Mostly” true or false to their judgements, so it’s not an either or. As I was writing this, I was about to say that we could just add that into your question and I’d agree it was a good representation of Politifact’s views, but on thinking about it I’m not sure that those shades don’t mean something for the “verifiably” part, as well. “Mostly” leaves some room for not just a modicum of truth/falsehood, but uncertainty, as well.
That’s the first character trait that comes to mind when I think of Trump supporters. Their “open minded-ness”.
Don’t forget “temperament”. It’s yuge! The best! Tremendous temperament!
Incorrect. I will be voting for Gary Johnson. I do not believe Trump or Hillary are fit to be president for different reasons and refuse to support either. I just can not understand why anyone would think you should get a reply after calling someone an idiot. All it shows me is the person asking the question is totally insincere and really just wants to hear from the echo chamber.