Second Republican Debate

[steamboat1]

At this point what difference does it make?

[Mister Moose]

George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America the morning after the second Republican debate.

He said, “Another powerful moment last night was when you talked about those Planned Parenthood tapes. But analysts who’ve watched all 12-plus hours say the scene you’ve described, that harrowing scene you described, actually isn’t in those tapes. Did you misspeak?”

Fiorina, "Rest assured, I have seen the images that I talked about last night."


Maybe she's like George from Seinfeld. "It's not a lie if you believe it"

Uhhh.... are you sure Fiorina's answer you posted directly follows Stephanopoulos's question you posted. Because i found a transcript (didn't see the show) and it has quite a different exchange.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Another powerful moment last night was when you talked about those Planned Parenthood tapes. But analysts who’ve watched all 12-plus hours say the scene you've described, that harrowing scene you described, actually isn't in those tapes. Did you misspeak?

FIORINA: No, I didn't misspeak and I don't know who you're speaking about in terms of watching the tapes, but I have seen those images. I don't know whether you've watched the tapes, George. Most people haven't. Certainly none of the Democrats who are still defending Planned Parenthood have watched those tapes, Planned Parenthood needs to be defended [sic]. This kind of butchery erodes at the character of our nation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, Sara Kliff, actually, writing in Vox, watched all 12 hours and she concluded, “Either Fiorina hasn't watched the Planned Parenthood videos or she is knowingly misrepresenting the footage, because what she says happens in the Planned Parenthood videos simply does not exist.”

FIORINA: Well, you know, there's a lot of commentary about these tapes being doctored. In fact, that's what the mainstream media keeps talking about is the tapes and their origins. Rest assured, I have seen the images that I talked about last night. Rest assured that human lives are being aborted, fully formed, in order to harvest body parts. Rest assured that this erodes at the character of our nation. And once again I will say I dare Mrs. Clinton and President Obama, two defenders of Planned Parenthood, to watch these videotapes.

See all that green stuff? That's stuff you or your source left completely out. Sorta changes the meaning, doesn't it? Why was it left out?

Couple that with this:

As for Fiorina’s quote, she is likely referring to the entirety of the 10 videos, including the seventh video released by the Center for Medical Progress. Watch the full video for yourself. It does, in fact, show a fully formed fetus, heart beating and legs kicking. And it shows this while Holly O’Donnell, a former organ harvester who worked for StemExpress at a Planned Parenthood affiliate, graphically discuss the harvesting of a brain from a baby whose heart was beating.

Although, as we find out, this is misleading as well, as the video of the baby kicking is not the baby O'Donnell is describing.

So what we have is huge mis-reporting by the press, <gasp>, liberties taken with the expose videos that mix unrelated footage to illustrate the speaker's account of what she saw, all of which was viewed and recounted by Fiorina. Fiorina likely assumed the stock footage was an aborted baby, when it was not, it was a different delivered baby of the same age as the aborted fetus O'Donnell was describing.

This is the problem you have, Stephanopoulis has, and Planned Parenthood has:

Earlier in the video, around the 5:56 mark, there is footage of another baby boy around the same gestational age as Fretz who is not stillborn either, but a baby who survived an abortion and was left in a metal bowl to die. In the footage, he kicks his legs and twitches his arms during the final moments of his life, and a pair of forceps lays beside him. The footage was provided by The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, a pro-life organization headquartered in Lake Forrest, California.

Read this in it's entirety, and then we'll talk further.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/18/who ... tcheckers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mister Moose]

She doubled down and said she saw the tape of the surgery happening.

When did she say that?

....and you still haven't answered my question on when said that she saw the tape of the "surgery happening".

[deadheadskier]

I read that Federalist article before even making my first post on the subject. The gaff seemed so ridiculously bad, that I read as many articles as I could and only that one tries to explain things away for Fiorina. It does a poor job because if all the suggestions it makes are true, she has had ample opportunity to back it up and clarify this "misreporting" by the media.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, Sara Kliff, actually, writing in Vox, watched all 12 hours and she concluded, “Either Fiorina hasn't watched the Planned Parenthood videos or she is knowingly misrepresenting the footage, because what she says happens in the Planned Parenthood videos simply does not exist.”

FIORINA: Well, you know, there's a lot of commentary about these tapes being doctored. In fact, that's what the mainstream media keeps talking about is the tapes and their origins. Rest assured, I have seen the images that I talked about last night.


That doesn't change the meaning at all, it only confirms things further. If there was still confusion following the GMA interview, she had every opportunity to clarify her point in the Fox interview. She did not. Her position is that the horrific scene she emphatically stumped about during the debate happened in the videos. It did not. She was lying. Her campaign has been asked to produce the tapes. It can't.

Now, I'm not sure why you want to play politician and spin things away from her lying to her actual position. I don't have a problem with her expressing her position and agree with her on some of her positions. What I brought up is an issue of character. This is something that people do with Hillary all the time and quite honestly, I agree with the character assassination of the former first lady. If dishonesty is a disqualifier for one candidate, it should be for all candidates. Fiorina is lying to gain your support. Your "rising star" shouldn't have to do that. Someone on her staff wrote that to try and rally support from the conservative base figuring the average schmo isn't going to watch 12+ hours of video. Well, people have and the footage doesn't exist.

If she wants to put this to bed, all she has to do is put a link to the video up on her website. Show everyone what she was challenging the president to watch. She hasn't and she won't because she can't.

She's a bright woman, but a dishonest one.

[deadheadskier]

She doubled down and said she saw the tape of the surgery happening.

When did she say that?

....and you still haven't answered my question on when said that she saw the tape of the "surgery happening".

implicit

The question from Wallace was that the horrific surgical footage didn't exist. She said she saw the footage.

[Mister Moose]

I read that Federalist article before even making my first post on the subject. The gaff seemed so ridiculously bad, that I read as many articles as I could and only that one tries to explain things away for Fiorina. It does a poor job because if all the suggestions it makes are true, she has had ample opportunity to back it up and clarify this "misreporting" by the media.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, Sara Kliff, actually, writing in Vox, watched all 12 hours and she concluded, “Either Fiorina hasn't watched the Planned Parenthood videos or she is knowingly misrepresenting the footage, because what she says happens in the Planned Parenthood videos simply does not exist.”

FIORINA: Well, you know, there's a lot of commentary about these tapes being doctored. In fact, that's what the mainstream media keeps talking about is the tapes and their origins. Rest assured, I have seen the images that I talked about last night.


That doesn't change the meaning at all, it only confirms things further. If there was still confusion following the GMA interview, she had every opportunity to clarify her point in the Fox interview. She did not. Her position is that the horrific scene she emphatically stumped about during the debate happened in the videos. It did not. She was lying. Her campaign has been asked to produce the tapes. It can't.

This is the video. Look at 5:56 as referenced by the article. The campaign doesn't need to produce the video, it is on Youtube with 1.2 million views. It is graphic, and it is disturbing.



You say you read the article, and all the information you could find, but I guess that doesn't include, you know, actually watching the video being discussed. The same way maybe all the press that keeps getting it wrong does?

Now, I'm not sure why you want to play politician and spin things away from her lying to her actual position. I don't have a problem with her expressing her position and agree with her on some of her positions. What I brought up is an issue of character. This is something that people do with Hillary all the time and quite honestly, I agree with the character assassination of the former first lady. If dishonesty is a disqualifier for one candidate, it should be for all candidates. Fiorina is lying to gain your support. Your "rising star" shouldn't have to do that. Someone on her staff wrote that to try and rally support from the conservative base figuring the average schmo isn't going to watch 12+ hours of video. Well, people have and the footage doesn't exist.

If she wants to put this to bed, all she has to do is put a link to the video up on her website. Show everyone what she was challenging the president to watch. She hasn't and she won't because she can't.

She's a bright woman, but a dishonest one.

I agree character is important. I haven't seen where Fiorina is lying. I'm less concerned with how Fiorina does than I am with the process and how the candidates and issues are being reported. All I've read so far on this indicates gross misrepresentation of the facts, or wholesale disrespect for any fact checking at all by the media.

[Mister Moose]

She doubled down and said she saw the tape of the surgery happening.

When did she say that?

....and you still haven't answered my question on when said that she saw the tape of the "surgery happening".

implicit

The question from Wallace was that the horrific surgical footage didn't exist. She said she saw the footage.

No, Wallace said "incident". Apparently you said "surgery". Surgery happening carries a whole different meaning as the topic being discussed was harvesting of intact fetal brains. You are misquoting just like the media here. Fiorina does not need to produce a tape of "surgery happening" she needs to produce a tape of a fetus "on the table" kicking and it's heart beating. The article states the fetus, now outside the womb, which is now a delivered baby, was left to die. That video is on youtube.

[deadheadskier]

In what scenario would a kicking fetus with it's heart beating happen upon a table?

Answer: Surgery

Abortion = Surgery
C - Section = Surgery
Live Birth = Surgery

[deadheadskier]

This is the video. Look at 5:56 as referenced by the article. The campaign doesn't need to produce the video, it is on Youtube with 1.2 million views. It is graphic, and it is disturbing.



You say you read the article, and all the information you could find, but I guess that doesn't include, you know, actually watching the video being discussed. The same way maybe all the press that keeps getting it wrong does?

Question,

Why does that video include this link in it's description?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... d-19-weeks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

If that video is true and yes it is horrific, the girl being interviewed whom I assume was operating the camera as well would be in jail.

We've got this thing in America called HIPPA laws. It would be completely illegal for that to be taped without the consent of the patient. It would be completely illegal for the organization who did the "sting" to release the tape. I've operated X-ray equipment in the OR for hundreds of surgeries. The only way you'd ever see a video being taken is for educational reasons. The other potential situation would be maybe an illegal cell phone video, which that certainly didn't look like to me. There's no way that even happens. The docs, surgery techs and nurses would completely shut it down as they could all lose their licenses.

Look, I'm not denying that Planned Parenthood has questions of their own to address. The Pro-Birth crowd such as Fiorina have a lot of points that I agree with. But, let's make the dialogue honest and free of hyperbole. Her statement during the debate was anything but. I have tremendous respect for you Moose. I find you extremely intelligent and pragmatic; much more so than myself and I have no problem admitting that. However, your defense of Fiorina with this is a little disappointing.

[Mister Moose]

In what scenario would a kicking fetus with it's heart beating happen upon a table?

Answer: Surgery

Abortion = Surgery
C - Section = Surgery
Live Birth = Surgery

Webster's definition of Surgery:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surgery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Medical treatment in which a doctor cuts into someone's body in order to repair or remove damaged or diseased parts.

I'm not a doctor, but it doesn't sound like abortion of an intact fetus is surgery. It is an extraction. Birth is not surgery either. A C-section would certainly be surgery.

Try again.

[Mister Moose]

Question,

Why does that video include this link in it's description?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... d-19-weeks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

If that video is true and yes it is horrific, the girl being interviewed whom I assume was operating the camera as well would be in jail.

We've got this thing in America called HIPPA laws. It would be completely illegal for that to be taped without the consent of the patient. It would be completely illegal for the organization who did the "sting" to release the tape. I've operated X-ray equipment in the OR for hundreds of surgeries. The only way you'd ever see a video being taken is for educational reasons. The other potential situation would be maybe an illegal cell phone video, which that certainly didn't look like to me. There's no way that even happens. The docs, surgery techs and nurses would completely shut it down as they could all lose their licenses.

Look, I'm not denying that Planned Parenthood has questions of their own to address. The Pro-Birth crowd such as Fiorina have a lot of points that I agree with. But, let's make the dialogue honest and free of hyperbole. Her statement during the debate was anything but. I have tremendous respect for you Moose. I find you extremely intelligent and pragmatic; much more so than myself and I have no problem admitting that. However, your defense of Fiorina with this is a little disappointing.

Now you're getting into the authenticity of the video. I have no idea. I'm sure more will come of this, and perhaps that and other questions will be addressed. I will say that one does not imply the other, HIPPA does not mean the video is fake. It only raises the question you point out. But who is the patient being protected by HIPPA? Was there a name? A face? Can't be the fetus, it has no standing.

What remains in this discussion though, is Fiorina didn't lie. Even if the video is fake, as you assert might be the case, that does not make Fiorina's statements untrue. It just makes the video untrue.

As I said before, it's more about the inaccurate reporting. I am not endorsing Fiorina. (Although I'm certainly watching)

What I don't understand is why you are still clinging to "Fiorina lied". First it was because there was no video. I provided you the video.

[deadheadskier]

In what scenario would a kicking fetus with it's heart beating happen upon a table?

Answer: Surgery

Abortion = Surgery
C - Section = Surgery
Live Birth = Surgery

Webster's definition of Surgery:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surgery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Medical treatment in which a doctor cuts into someone's body in order to repair or remove damaged or diseased parts.

I'm not a doctor, but it doesn't sound like abortion of an intact fetus is surgery. It is an extraction. Birth is not surgery either. A C-section would certainly be surgery.

Try again.

Moose,

A live birth involves doctors and nurses using aseptic technique. There are significant amounts of drug administration involved typically, vital signs monitoring of the mom and often the baby and typically suturing of the mother after the fact. Also, the umbilical cord is cut and removed which falls well within the Webster definition you're arguing. The birth of my son really wasn't too different from the spinal fusion surgeries I sat in on with neurosurgeons.

But, if you're hung up on the word surgery and would prefer the terms "incident" or "extraction", by all means, reread everything I wrote and substitute those words. It really doesn't change anything. How about "medical procedure"? Does that suit your fancy better?

[freeski]

I'd imagine that when you have an abortion you sign paperwork giving up your right to the fetus. I do not think HIPPA laws would apply. I do not know about laws protecting the dead. I'm all for stem research and realize it's kind of like making sausage (bad analogy), but don't these videos prove PP was selling the fetuses for profit? They should be prosecuted.

[freeski]

Medical procedure.

[deadheadskier]

Fiorina lied because she challenged the president and Clinton to watch the video of a kicking fetus with it's heart beating, on the table, while the doctor said they need to keep it alive to extract the brain. That video does not exist yet. period.

What you provided tonight didn't show that full sequence happening. The authenticity of it doesn't matter because it's incomplete of what she claimed. I find it a bit hypocritical that you challenge me on the word "surgery" and being inaccurate like the media, yet you can't produce a video that's true to her words and pass off a production product with a 5 second snippet as "proof" in her defense. I really don't want to see it, but if this group that's trying to take down Planned Parenthood is to have any credibility at all, they'd release the whole tape inclusive of that physicians dialogue and heck the actual brain extraction itself. They would do more than release 5 horrific seconds and build a narrative around it with some girl giving the play by play. They'd leave nothing to interpretation.

Show me the whole thing and I'll admit being wrong and likely support a defunding of PP. This despite the fact that I think the essential services they provide outside of abortion are critical to millions of women around the country and the loss of PP would create massive problems unless they're replaced by other means that are equally affordable and accessible.