CDZ False Premises in Debate Questions

[sartre play]

People who use the cover of peaceful protests to loot damage destroy & vent their personal rage, are not good people.
People who use our flag, words like patriot, to defend promoting death by gun, aggressive actions & vent personal rage, are not good people.

 

[Andylusion]

People who use the cover of peaceful protests to loot damage destroy & vent their personal rage, are not good people.
People who use our flag, words like patriot, to defend promoting death by gun, aggressive actions & vent personal rage, are not good people.

I don't see anyone promoting death. I see people promoting self defense, and defending the innocent by gun.

Never seen anyone anywhere, in my entire life, promote death with words like patriot. Never. Not once.

 

[Ame®icano]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

You mean the well-proven implication.

If I ask a question about the earth, flat earthers will tell me how questions assuming the round earth are loaded. The fact that someone doesn't understand the science doesn't mean the science is wrong.

The question is badly phrased. It sounds like it's asking whether someone believes climate science exists, as opposed to whether they believe the results of that science.

The second is also just clumsy phrasing, as it seems to be getting at whether you'd accept the results of independent states.

If science need to cook the data to prove the point, than it's a fake science.

Accepting the results from cooked data as real, is just as insane as cooking the data itself.

 

[Ame®icano]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

"Global warming is a fact."

LOL

In leftist heads only.

Now, please explain how me paying higher taxes are going to stop "global warming" or force China to lower pollutions?

 

[Ame®icano]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Quote him.

 

[Ame®icano]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

And again, quote him, word for word.

 

[Ame®icano]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Excellent points and observations. The biased format was a mixed bag indeed, but what caught my attention was stated right before the debate on stage, by Joe Biden to Trump. Biden's greeting, "How ya doing man?" is never the way to speak to a country's president and this was an intentional comment meant to fire up Trump at the get-go. It's significant when US citizens feel they can address the president so informally, but I suspect it was intentional. Our country has come to yet another crossroad in 2020, and the next election in 2024 will be equally as important. I look for a valid 3rd party presidential nominee to win in 2024, regardless of which current candidate wins in 2020. It will be a candidate that the average American can be proud to have as a world leader. The current two major parties have too much of their rhetoric in the gutter. Only the middle of the road is the usable surface of course This will be the way forward and the way to "save" our fine country.

Trump is so sensitive that being addressed with "How's it going man?" can trigger him into a petulant rage?

Should United States Senators be called Pocahontas?

Speaking of being triggered...

 

[Ame®icano]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He didn't do it.
It isn't groveling to do the decent thing. He's just not used to doing the decent thing.

As I've said, he has already denounced them openly in the past. He doesn't need to continue to do anything to appease stupid people, that won't vote for him no matter what he does, and will constantly call everyone they don't like 'racist' regardless of truth.... you on here, being proof of my point.

And on Tuesday he didn't denounce them, he told them to "stand by".
Those are the facts and that is no in dispute. Except from Trump worshipers like yourself.

Quote him.

 

[Ame®icano]

Great ad by the Lincoln Project about Trump being asked to denounce hate groups:

Yeah.... so the person who just promoted the Proud Boys as being a white supremacist hate group, and didn't even know the leader of the group was a black man... is now promoting this video as truth?

Sorry, you are lacking a bit of credibility.

LOL...

We know who the founder is
We know who organized the Charlottesville Riots
We know who the proud boys are.
We know Trump (and his supporters) crave violence
It's a match made in heaven.

Too bad he is such a fan of white supremacists groups and didn't denounce them when he had the chance.

To repeat...
And as I said, he already denounced white supremacists in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

He doesn't need to do it every time corrupt supporters of corrupt politicians on the left, scream about racism.

I support him, and I don't care what you think, because he's better than left-wingers. Just flat out, he's better than Democrats.

One can only conclude that he supports white supremacists since he wouldn't denounce them at the debate.

And as I said, he already denounced white supremacists in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

He doesn't need to do it every time corrupt supporters of corrupt politicians on the left, scream about racism.

I support him, and I don't care what you think, because he's better than left-wingers. Just flat out, he's better than Democrats.

When asked to denounce white supremacists on stage...he chose to embrace them. It was a disgusting, disgraceful act by the President.

And as I said, he already denounced white supremacists in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

He doesn't need to do it every time corrupt supporters of corrupt politicians on the left, scream about racism.

I support him, and I don't care what you think, because he's better than left-wingers. Just flat out, he's better than Democrats.

When asked to denounce hate groups, the "better" candidate on the stage embraced them. Your yardstick is as faulty as your logic.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still a lie.

Quote him!

 

[mamooth]

If science need to cook the data to prove the point, than it's a fake science.

That's how we know with 100% certainty that denialism is fake science. Deniers _always_ cook the data, unlike the real climate scientists. Denialism is open fraud, and deniers are open frauds.

 

[Ame®icano]

Neither does Trump... vigilantes...hate groups...white supremacists.

The FBI just uncovered a plot to kidnap a governor....and you think they are "good people".

Wow.

Alleged. I wouldn't be surprised it's all fake.

Just like they said they prevented terrorist attack in New York that they planned and financed themselves.

 

[Ame®icano]

If science need to cook the data to prove the point, than it's a fake science.

That's how we know with 100% certainty that denialism is fake science. Deniers _always_ cook the data, unlike the real climate scientists. Denialism is open fraud, and deniers are open frauds.

Except, the guys who were caught cooking data all worked for UN.

When their emails that exposed their "hiding the decline" in temperature got hacked, they and whole global warming alarmist world quickly changed their stance from "global warming" to "climate change". That stance is not denied by anyone, but you lefties still calling everyone who questioned and exposed "global warming" - deniers.

 

[mamooth]

Except, the guys who were caught cooking data all worked for UN.

No, they work for NASA, NOAA or universities. You're off in conspiracy loony land.

When their emails that exposed their "hiding the decline" in temperature got hacked,

There was no fraud revealed in those emails. Anyone saying there was is lying.

Thank you for confirming my point about how deniers always push fraud. I'll let you know when I need any more of my points proven.

they and whole global warming alarmist world quickly changed their stance from "global warming" to climate change".

More open fraud on your part. The Bush admin coined the term "climate change", because they thought "global warming" sounded to scary.

Is there even one fraudulent denier talking point anywhere that you didn't fall for?

 

[Ame®icano]

Except, the guys who were caught cooking data all worked for UN.

No, they work for NASA, NOAA or universities. You're off in conspiracy loony land.

When their emails that exposed their "hiding the decline" in temperature got hacked,

There was no fraud revealed in those emails. Anyone saying there was is lying.

Thank you for confirming my point about how deniers always push fraud. I'll let you know when I need any more of my points proven.

they and whole global warming alarmist world quickly changed their stance from "global warming" to climate change".

More open fraud on your part. The Bush admin coined the term "climate change", because they thought "global warming" sounded to scary.

Is there even one fraudulent denier talking point anywhere that you didn't fall for?

Well, it's truth that every single leftist agenda is based on a lie.

 

[Andylusion]

If science need to cook the data to prove the point, than it's a fake science.

That's how we know with 100% certainty that denialism is fake science. Deniers _always_ cook the data, unlike the real climate scientists. Denialism is open fraud, and deniers are open frauds.

No, denial is part of science. Science by it's nature, is questioning the data. If you don't question the data, that makes you a bigot.

You do realize that you are engaging in the same logic as flat-earthers? Back then, they were saying people who deny the earth is flat, are engaging in fraud.

Now you are on that side, by claiming anyone who questions your conclusion is engaged in fraud.

Fraud is when you change the data to fit your ideology. For example the hocky-stick graph from the IPCC.

That was fraud. Just flat out, it was fraud. You know it was fraud, because some of the scientists listed on the report, had to file lawsuits in court, to force them to remove their names from the report they said was false.

You can go look that up if you want.

 

[mamooth]

No, denial is part of science. Science by it's nature, is questioning the data. If you don't question the data, that makes you a bigot.

So by your standards, not denying the round earth theory makes someone a bigot. Got it. Good luck with that.

Fraud is when you change the data to fit your ideology. For example the hocky-stick graph from the IPCC.

Confirmed independently in a dozen ways. Anyone claiming it was fraud is either misinformed or lying.

That was fraud. Just flat out, it was fraud. You know it was fraud, because some of the scientists listed on the report, had to file lawsuits in court, to force them to remove their names from the report they said was false.

You're also demonstrating the denier propensity for pushing weird fraud.

You can go look that up if you want.

Look up your fantasy? That's not how it works. It's your fraud, so you're the one obligated to back it up.

 

[Andylusion]

No, denial is part of science. Science by it's nature, is questioning the data. If you don't question the data, that makes you a bigot.

So by your standards, not denying the round earth theory makes someone a bigot. Got it. Good luck with that.

Fraud is when you change the data to fit your ideology. For example the hocky-stick graph from the IPCC.

Confirmed independently in a dozen ways. Anyone claiming it was fraud is either misinformed or lying.

That was fraud. Just flat out, it was fraud. You know it was fraud, because some of the scientists listed on the report, had to file lawsuits in court, to force them to remove their names from the report they said was false.

You're also demonstrating the denier propensity for pushing weird fraud.

You can go look that up if you want.

Look up your fantasy? That's not how it works. It's your fraud, so you're the one obligated to back it up.

Obviously if you refuse to even consider evidence the Earth is round... yes. Just like refusing to even consider the counter evidence to man-made global warming, makes you a bigot as well.

Confirmed independently in a dozen ways. Anyone claiming it was fraud is either misinformed or lying.

Exect that it wasn't independently confirmed. So you just lied.

Michael Mann "Hockey Stick" Update: Now Definitively Established To Be Fraud — Manhattan Contrarian

The Michael Mann “Hockey Stick” is suddenly back in the news. It’s been so long since we have heard from it, do you even remember what it is? The “Hockey Stick” is the graph that took the world of climate science by storm back in 1998. That’s when Mann and co-authors Raymond Bradley and Malcolm

www.manhattancontrarian.com

There are actually dozens of sources showing how they filtered out data that did not fit their predetermined outcome.

 

[danielpalos]

Except, the guys who were caught cooking data all worked for UN.

No, they work for NASA, NOAA or universities. You're off in conspiracy loony land.

When their emails that exposed their "hiding the decline" in temperature got hacked,

There was no fraud revealed in those emails. Anyone saying there was is lying.

Thank you for confirming my point about how deniers always push fraud. I'll let you know when I need any more of my points proven.

they and whole global warming alarmist world quickly changed their stance from "global warming" to climate change".

More open fraud on your part. The Bush admin coined the term "climate change", because they thought "global warming" sounded to scary.

Is there even one fraudulent denier talking point anywhere that you didn't fall for?

Well, it's truth that every single leftist agenda is based on a lie.

The truth is, right wingers are worse and simply not that great.

President Trump has made more than 20,000 false or misleading claims....

 

[danielpalos]

Seawalls that promote the general welfare not useless landwalls that don't!

 

[Ame®icano]

Except, the guys who were caught cooking data all worked for UN.

No, they work for NASA, NOAA or universities. You're off in conspiracy loony land.

When their emails that exposed their "hiding the decline" in temperature got hacked,

There was no fraud revealed in those emails. Anyone saying there was is lying.

Thank you for confirming my point about how deniers always push fraud. I'll let you know when I need any more of my points proven.

they and whole global warming alarmist world quickly changed their stance from "global warming" to climate change".

More open fraud on your part. The Bush admin coined the term "climate change", because they thought "global warming" sounded to scary.

Is there even one fraudulent denier talking point anywhere that you didn't fall for?

Well, it's truth that every single leftist agenda is based on a lie.

The truth is, right wingers are worse and simply not that great.

President Trump has made more than 20,000 false or misleading claims....

That's 20,000 misrepresentations or lies fabricated by the leftist media.

Try again.