Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fake polls, fake news
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 466 of 710 (800911)
03-01-2017 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 465 by Asgara
03-01-2017 10:07 PM


Re: it's hard to walk with only right feet ...
Right, smack dab in the middle. Which does surprise me somewhat since even I think of myself as identifiably on the right. But the reason I brought it up was that RAZD said I must be reading his chart from the point of view of the VERY far right and I don't think that's true. My midline score at least supports my idea that it's more likely that "Mainstream" has gone Leftist (and that EvC is SO far Left it looks neutral to y'all).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Asgara, posted 03-01-2017 10:07 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by caffeine, posted 03-02-2017 1:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 467 of 710 (800912)
03-01-2017 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by RAZD
03-01-2017 3:40 PM


Re: it's hard to walk with only right feet ...
Tell me Faith, is there any news source or internet source too far to the right for you?
I don't know. Run one by me. But what I suspect is that "right" is defined by the left in your thinking and I don't accept most of those definitions as representing anything I believe.
You go on in your post to put leftist spin on everything else too. I can see how it would be very difficult to recognize leftist fake news when you simply accept it all as fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2017 3:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2017 8:31 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 468 of 710 (800913)
03-01-2017 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by Percy
03-01-2017 3:38 PM


Re: Analysis of New York Times Article
I see I can't answer the rest of your post because I didn't hear the speech. Comments I've heard today -- not a lot of that even -- are quite positive about it, and the NYT account is even pretty positive for them.
I will mention one of the biggest gripes I have about media coverage these days, the word "undocumented" for illegal aliens, and leaving off the term "illegal" from "immigrants." That's deep-dyed fake news IMO.
Speaking of illegal immigration, I have nothing against developing a pathway to legality for those who deserve it. Maybe Trump didn't bring it up in the speech because he hasn't had time to think it through.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Percy, posted 03-01-2017 3:38 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Phat, posted 03-02-2017 3:44 AM Faith has replied
 Message 484 by Percy, posted 03-02-2017 8:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18310
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 469 of 710 (800921)
03-02-2017 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 468 by Faith
03-01-2017 10:51 PM


Re: Analysis of New York Times Article
Faith writes:
Speaking of illegal immigration, I have nothing against developing a pathway to legality for those who deserve it.
I guess our next question is how to define the standard for who deserves it and who does not. It makes sense not to let everyone in, but how can we fairly discriminate?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Faith, posted 03-01-2017 10:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 8:31 AM Phat has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 470 of 710 (800923)
03-02-2017 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by Faith
02-27-2017 8:01 PM


Re: Galloping disinformation as usual
Faith responds to me:
quote:
I don't see any reason to trust you over the Swedish-speaking narrator of that video, who was translating a written text of a speech given by the ex-prime minister. Perhaps you have a different speech in mind.
How about video of him actually saying it in full and complete context rather than going off the statement of a questionable source such as the one you provided?
You did notice that Modulous posted the videos of him making the statement. I notice you still can't even bring yourself to use his name. Do you even know what it is? Do you know the name of the person you're talking about?
I notice you didn't respond to Modulous...even though my post came after...quite literally the post directly after his.
I have no doubt as to why you decided to respond to me rather than to him: Your source lied to you and you know it and thus you are actively avoiding any evidence that would contradict you.
You still haven't answered my question. Fourth time:
If Ronald Reagan said that the country belongs to the young, would you interpret that to mean Reagan was saying everybody over the age of 21 should be killed a la Logan's Run?
That is not a rhetorical question, Faith. I really want to know your answer to it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by Faith, posted 02-27-2017 8:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 471 of 710 (800924)
03-02-2017 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by Percy
03-01-2017 3:38 PM


Re: Analysis of New York Times Article
Percy writes:
quote:
quote:
The president has yet to propose major legislation to achieve his goals, with members of his cabinet and senior staff members divided over key elements of tax and health plans, and congressional Republicans split on how to structure them. By this point in his presidency, Mr. Obama had established an active if not always friendly working relationship with a Democratic Congress, having signed into law a $787 billion package of spending and tax cuts intended to stabilize the economy.
This is a clearly biased paragraph that goes well beyond factual reporting to make comparisons with the previous president who faced far more urgent economic problems than those faced today and so had to move rapidly.
Your analysis is only partially true and therefore misleading. This is partly because the original article is being misleading about the state of Congress at the time: "Democratic Congress" is only partially accurate. Indeed, both the House and the Senate were majority-Democrat at the time, but the Senate Republicans had established an obstructionist policy that was literally declared on the day of Obama's inauguration: Thus, any action was going to require a busting of Republican filibusters as the Democrats did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until the summer (Al Franken)...and then were only able to keep it for a few months (Ted Kennedy).
And while the economic policies at the time were partially managed by Bush and inherited by Obama who implemented them (along with his own actions), you are missing the point: Obama's cabinet and senior staff were on board whereas Trump still can't get his cabinet and staff together.
And you are also neglecting the fact that the Republicans in general and Trump in particular have declared that repeal of the Affordable Care Act is the most important thing the country has ever seen: Ben Carson, put forward to be head of HUD, called Obamacare the worst thing "since slavery." Now that both houses of Congress are in Republican hands, surely they should be able to do what they were unable to do the previous 50+ times when Obama was in the White House.
So no, this paragraph isn't really biased. It is a bit incomplete, but its basic premise is sound.
quote:
quote:
Nor did Mr. Trump criticize one of his favorite foils, the fake news media.
This seems an unnecessary jab at a time when the president has just taken a very positive step toward a more traditional and presidential style.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
That's rich, Percy. That's just precious.
The fact that Trump did not take off his shoe and pound the podium does not mean he "has just taken a very positive step toward a more traditional and presidential style."
On the contrary, his speech was just a rewarmed campaign speech that he didn't write and merely read. You can see this in his treatment of Carryn Owens and also of Ryan Owens: Notice that he was following the script regarding his address of Carryn...
...and then milked the applause...
...and then went off script to make it all about him by commenting about the "record" applause. It's all about ratings and being number one and the "best." As soon as he goes off script, he returns to his old habits of being the con man he is known for being.
How is that "presidential"?
And as for Ryan, have you forgotten that he still cannot take responsibility for the mission that led to his death? "THEY [meaning the generals] lost Ryan." Not "we." Reagan took responsibility for his failed operations in Beirut. Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, they all took responsibility.
Trump can't do it.
How is that "presidential"?
Did you forget that he said he was going to put out a hit list for immigrants? You didn't really think that his "Victims of Immigrant Crime Engagement office" was anything less than a dog whistle to those who already think that immigrants are literally coming for them to kill them in the night (ahem....Faith....)
How is that "presidential"?
Oh...and the official count: 51 lies in 61 minutes.
How is that "presidential"?
As a White House official put it, it was "nationalism with an indoor voice." Do not confuse the fact that he wasn't standing in front of a bunch of screaming fans at a rally while wearing a ridiculous red hat with "traditional and presidential."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Percy, posted 03-01-2017 3:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 472 of 710 (800925)
03-02-2017 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 459 by Faith
03-01-2017 7:58 PM


Re: it's hard to walk with only right feet ...
Faith writes:
quote:
Headlines I'm talking about misrepresent facts I happen to know about
Such as? You are so often wrong about these "facts you happen to know about," that we cannot take your word for it. For example, you were wrong about the statement of the ex-prime minister of Sweden (you still don't know his name, do you?)
Examples, Faith. You need to learn to be specific.
quote:
or put accounts into pejorative language
As Miss Manners put it: Outrageous behaviour requires an outrageous response.
When you catch someone taking a dump in the punch bowl, they are not the aggrieved party when it gets pointed out. The headline is not merely, "Disturbance at Gathering." Your definition of "pejorative language" seems to be simply accurate descriptions that you don't like because they reveal the monstrosity of your position.
quote:
or focus on somebody's negative opinion of something Trump said or did instead of just describing what he said or did.
It's called "analysis," Faith, and it is a necessary part of journalism. Reportage is more than mere stenography. It is not enough to simply say, for example, that the Republicans are putting forward a new healthcare system. It is not "focusing on somebody's negative opinion" to point out that the new system will result in millions of people losing their health insurance compared to what exists now and that there will be no system to control costs.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by Faith, posted 03-01-2017 7:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 473 of 710 (800926)
03-02-2017 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
03-01-2017 8:24 PM


Re: Analysis of New York Times Article
Faith writes:
quote:
His ""tumultuous" presidency has had nothing to do with him, it's all about leftist reaction to him
His first national security advisor forced to resign in less than a month, his replacement tells him to take the job and shove it, his nominees for both Secretary of the Army and Secretary of the Navy withdraw, his Education Secretary had to be confirmed by the Vice President, and his nominee for Secretary of Labor failed.
His administration has more leaks than a sieve...to the point that Spicer held a meeting about what they were going to do to stop the leaks...which was promptly leaked.
Officials at the State Department and CIA resign.
Exactly what is your definition of "tumultuous," Faith, and how is it the "leftist reaction" that causes it?
quote:
the threats to kill him
Names or it didn't happen, Faith.
Hint: Exactly how many death threats did Obama have? Why was his transition so much more smooth considering that he had so much more antagonism against him personally?
quote:
His "chaotic immigration ban was not chaotic
Exactly how is not discussing it with the relevant parties, not talking over the policy with any of the other branches of government or departments who would have to carry it out, and the outright defiance of court orders "not chaotic"? Exactly what is your definition of "chaotic"?
quote:
his supporters had no problem with it and we still don't.
Here's a hint, Faith: There are more people in the world than his supporters. That you are happy with the chaos doesn't mean it isn't chaos. When the people and departments who have the task of carrying out the policies of the administration are unaware of what those policies are, that is what is known as "chaotic." When every court looks at it and blocks it, that is what is known as "tumultuous."
Those words do not mean what you think they mean.
quote:
What on earth did Trump do except promise to deport criminals?
You mean you don't know? The order is not merely to "deport criminals." Instead, it is to deport anybody "charged."
Note, that doesn't mean convicted. All it takes is for a cop to not like the color of your skin, manufacture a charge, and suddenly you're being deported for a crime you didn't actually commit.
On top of that, you're ignoring that the current policy is already to deport criminals. It's why more people have been deported under Obama than under any other administration. So exactly why did Trump need to bother?
quote:
Cuomo's strange remark suggesting Trump might throw out his legal immigrant family, are either a failure of intelligence to the point of dementia, or a designed attempt to pretend he is a threat to legal immigrants.
You do realize that legal immigrants were deported after the fiasco with his Muslim ban, yes? At least 60 were coerced into giving up their visas and green cards.
The agents "lied to immigrants arriving after the Executive Order was signed, falsely telling them that if they did not sign a relinquishment of their legal rights, they would be formally ordered removed from the United States, which would bring legal consequences including a five-year bar for reentry to the United States," the lawsuit claims. Their legal immigrant status was subsequently "revoked without due process of law," according to the lawsuit.
That you don't think this is the necessary result of Trump's policy indicates you have a failure of intelligence to the point of dementia or is a designed attempt to pretend there is no threat.
quote:
I don't know about "the concerns he's sparked in NATO"
If you don't know, what makes you think you have anything of any value to say on the subject?
quote:
but perhaps concerns should be sparked in NATO, perhaps Trump plans to do something good and right that concerns NATO?
Because everything that he has said about NATO (including withdrawing from it) has been horrendous and foolish. Why should now be any different considering that he has surrounded himself with advisers that counseled him to promote the horrendous and foolish statements?
quote:
you mean his mention of the chaos in Europe caused by the flooding in of millions of Muslim immigrants who are a big problem they don't want to admit
There's that Grand Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C) again. I take it Interpol is in on it, too, right? Because they don't agree with you.
quote:
that's Trump's fault for telling the truth about it.
Lies are "the truth"? What a strange definition you have of "truth."
It does not mean what you think it means.
quote:
I'm not sure exactly what "confusion he's caused about health care"
If you don't know, what makes you think you have anything of any value to say on the subject?
Here are a few questions you should consider: When is this going to happen? The talk is about "repeal now, replace later." OK...so you're a health insurer: What does that mean? All those people who have bought your policies over the past few years: What happens to them? And what is this replacement? After all, you want to keep those people as customers. How are you going to do that if you have no idea how we're going to transition from the ACA to whatever is coming next (which has yet to be defined)?
Will pre-existing conditions still be covered? What about the people in the expanded Medicaid program? What about the drug program?
This is the chaos that has been introduced into the health care market. Nobody knows what is going on.
Once again, Faith, you prove that you literally don't have a clue what you're talking about. You just know that anybody who disagrees with you must be evil. The Grand Conspiracy continues.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 03-01-2017 8:24 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by JonF, posted 03-02-2017 7:52 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 475 by Percy, posted 03-02-2017 8:27 AM Rrhain has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 474 of 710 (800936)
03-02-2017 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 473 by Rrhain
03-02-2017 6:00 AM


Re: Analysis of New York Times Article
You mean you don't know? The order is not merely to "deport criminals." Instead, it is to deport anybody "charged."
It's worse than that. Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest :
quote:
Additionally, regardless of the basis of removability, Department personnel should prioritize removable aliens who: (I) have been convicted of any criminal offense; (2) have been charged with any criminal offense that has not been resolved; (3) have committed acts which constitute a chargeable criminal offense; ( 4) have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter before a governmental agency; (5) have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits; (6) are subject to a final order of removal but have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or (7) in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.
{emphasis added}
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Rrhain, posted 03-02-2017 6:00 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 475 of 710 (800937)
03-02-2017 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 473 by Rrhain
03-02-2017 6:00 AM


Re: Analysis of New York Times Article
Rrhain writes:
You mean you don't know? The order is not merely to "deport criminals." Instead, it is to deport anybody "charged."
It's important to note that the original order applied to everyone from those seven countries, including those with green cards.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Rrhain, posted 03-02-2017 6:00 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 8:35 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 505 by Rrhain, posted 03-02-2017 4:59 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 476 of 710 (800938)
03-02-2017 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by Phat
03-02-2017 3:44 AM


Re: Analysis of New York Times Article
It's not that hard to figure out who deserves it, Phat, it would be anyone who has been living and working without committing any criminal offenses, or without being describable by the paragraph in Message 474. For starters anyway. Maybe other criteria should also be considered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Phat, posted 03-02-2017 3:44 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by jar, posted 03-02-2017 8:41 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 477 of 710 (800939)
03-02-2017 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by Percy
03-02-2017 8:27 AM


Re: Analysis of New York Times Article
Trump's statement during the campaign about deporting illegal aliens who have committed criminal offenses, which is what I was talking about, is a separate thing from the "immigration ban" that put a delay on allowing Syrian refugees, or people from those seven nations, into the country.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Percy, posted 03-02-2017 8:27 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 478 of 710 (800940)
03-02-2017 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 476 by Faith
03-02-2017 8:31 AM


Re: Analysis of New York Times Article
Faith writes:
It's not that hard to figure out who deserves it, Phat, it would be anyone who has been living and working without committing any criminal offenses, or without being describable by the paragraph in Message 474. For starters anyway. Maybe other criteria should also be considered.
Yet those are exactly the people being rounded up and deported; people who have been living in the US and contributing to the US and paying taxes and not committing criminal offenses.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 8:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by Faith, posted 03-02-2017 8:43 AM jar has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 479 of 710 (800941)
03-02-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
03-01-2017 8:24 PM


Re: Analysis of New York Times Article
Faith writes:
Oh I'm not particularly bothered by the word "tumultuous" but blaming on him what is really media-generated tumult,...
The entire media, including the outlets you like, reported on these things. The tumult in the Trump administration is caused by Trump himself. Reporting events is a result of the events, not a cause of them. You've got it backwards.
I'm not up to reading your whole post right now I'm afraid so the above is just my initial reaction.
Gee, too bad, you missed the portions I thought biased.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 03-01-2017 8:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 480 of 710 (800942)
03-02-2017 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 478 by jar
03-02-2017 8:41 AM


Re: Analysis of New York Times Article
As I understand it, some deportations are continuing from Obama's administration that have nothing to do with Trump's plan. We haven't even heard anything about Trump's plan yet have we? All I was talking about was what he said during the campaign.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by jar, posted 03-02-2017 8:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by jar, posted 03-02-2017 8:47 AM Faith has replied
 Message 491 by JonF, posted 03-02-2017 11:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024