Page 14 of 66 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 651

Thread: Elizabeth Warren's Pregnant Pause

  1. #131
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,442
    Amen (Given)
    1064
    Amen (Received)
    1613
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    There is a significant history that makes it unwise to interpret anything Trump says 'in the most charitable way you can'. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    You are being ridiculous. Donald Trump began his Presidency exhibiting unreasoned egomania, denying plain facts obvious to all, and surrounded in unfounded conspiracy theories. (I speak here of the inauguration crowd size idiocy). And little has changed since. Further, those that support him refuse to see any of that or factor any of that into how people not sucked into his rhetoric see him. You just can't toss out some other set of names and say - "see, you don't respond to these people like you respond to Trump". There just is no equivalency among normal people with Trump. And in a very negative way.


    Jim
    You're just going round in circles, Jim.

    Trump's history of telling nothing but lies justifies your consistent cynicism and interpretation of what he says in a poor light. When he's misquoted or misrepresented (it does happen) you can't see it, because you expect Trump to always lie, be egomaniacal etc. Why do you expect that? Because that's what Trump does. How do you know that's what he does? Because he always lies, boasts, exaggerates, etc etc.

    You're probably at least partially correct that some people who support Trump get sucked into his rhetoric. How come you can't consider the idea that many of those who oppose Trump are sucked into anti-Trump rhetoric? That he's not as good as his supporters think, and not as bad as his political and media opponents would have us believe?





    Here's an example from the Independent (British newspaper)

    Headline on front page: "Trump rages at Fox News after poll shows majority want him impeached"

    Note the loaded term: "rages"

    Before we've read the story, we're already being given the impression that Trump is angry, out of control, and very upset with the poll result. If we don't read the story, that's the impression we're likely to take away. Trump is out of control angry, presumably because he's threatened by the idea of impeachment.

    First line of the story, Trump "... has vented his anger at Fox News..." . Again the idea is that he's angry and expressing it forcefully (it's an intense emotion that has been kept bottled up but now is vented). But note that it's a step down from "Trump rages"

    After a line about the poll results, the story continues, saying that Trump "...made his displeasure clear with the network...". Note that this is a fair bit more neutral than "Trump rages". Why? Because the actual data doesn't support the claim.

    What did Trump actually say? Nothing. There is no footage of him 'raging' at Fox. No verbal quotes, nothing.


    The story is based off a Twitter tweet, which is quoted as: "From the day I announced I was running for President, I have NEVER had a good @FoxNews Poll," and "Whoever their Pollster is, they suck. But @FoxNews is also much different than it used to be in the good old days."

    Note that the actual tweet(s) itself isn't posted, so it is possible that context or some wording has been omitted. Note that the claim of 'rage' in the headline is not supported by the quotes given. The whole article could be rewritten with the idea that 'Trump is disappointed that he doesn't poll better on Fox News polling', and be just as supported (more supported, actually) by the facts (two unsourced tweet quotes).

    The whole article is hot trash: a clickbait headline designed to give a (false) negative impression of Trump, angry, out of control and under pressure, and then a slow walkback in the article itself. But the first impression made is likely to colour our assessment of Trump. It's media bias and manipulation of readers.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  2. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.
  3. #132
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,390
    Amen (Given)
    5759
    Amen (Received)
    6124
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    The whole article is hot trash: a clickbait headline designed to give a (false) negative impression of Trump, angry, out of control and under pressure, and then a slow walkback in the article itself. But the first impression made is likely to colour our assessment of Trump. It's media bias and manipulation of readers.
    That's because the media knows that a lot of people don't read more than a paragraph or two, assuming they even get past the headline.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  4. Amen MaxVel, Teallaura amen'd this post.
  5. #133
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,442
    Amen (Given)
    1064
    Amen (Received)
    1613
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    Whether you see me or anyone else being objective is less relevant than whether you can demonstrate how me or anyone else are lacking objectivity. It's not enough, in other words, to say "You're just partisan because if the names were swapped, you'd do the opposite". That's not a truism and it's not evidenced.

    It's just a cynicism. So it doesn't prove your point because your point is actually an unfalsifiable counterfactual from the start. And the underlying premise of the counterfactual is that all these politicians are more or less alike -- just as deceitful, repugnant, unfit, immoral -- such that general attitudes toward them are reducible to crass partisanship instead of something else.

    As EvoUK notes, I think that's very wrong and leads to a category error. Regardless, the meritorious response is to demonstrate how partisanship is making a person unreasonable rather than just attributing disagreements to mass partisanship.

    --Sam

    My point is that we're all (to a greater or lesser degree) biased. We are all prone to overlooking fault in those we prefer, and finding it in those we dislike.

    Of course we all think that we are objective, reasonable, and calmly logical in our analysis. We're just not any of those things to the same degree that we think we are.




    Think I'm wrong? Cite where you have defended Trump against an accusation AND where you have also defended Hilary / Warren / Biden / Sanders / Obama against an accusation.

    I note that you haven't done that.


    I don't think I can pass that test. Yet surely there have been some attacks made on Trump that were unjustified, and some attacks on Hilary et al that were unjustified.

    I just dislike Hilary and crew, their politics, and their behaviour, so I am biased against them. Which means that I'm also biased towards Trump, because they hate him, and constantly attack him. I don't believe that they are impartial, fair, unpartisan, and only opposing Trump because he is so bad.

    I don't think Trump is that great, either. He's a loudmouth, boastful, self-important American nationalist. I think he didn't really expect to be President. But there he is. And I think he's trying to the best he can, by his lights, by and large. I see that he gets a lot of negative and biased media coverage (see my post #131).
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  6. Amen Teallaura, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  7. #134
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,442
    Amen (Given)
    1064
    Amen (Received)
    1613
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    That's because the media knows that a lot of people don't read more than a paragraph or two, assuming they even get past the headline.
    You think that "The media knows" ??? Wow, just wow....


    (Sorry, I didn't read past the first few words...)
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  8. Amen Cow Poke, Teallaura amen'd this post.
  9. #135
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,318
    Amen (Given)
    145
    Amen (Received)
    630
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    My point is that we're all (to a greater or lesser degree) biased. We are all prone to overlooking fault in those we prefer, and finding it in those we dislike.

    Of course we all think that we are objective, reasonable, and calmly logical in our analysis. We're just not any of those things to the same degree that we think we are.




    Think I'm wrong? Cite where you have defended Trump against an accusation AND where you have also defended Hilary / Warren / Biden / Sanders / Obama against an accusation.

    I note that you haven't done that.


    I don't think I can pass that test. Yet surely there have been some attacks made on Trump that were unjustified, and some attacks on Hilary et al that were unjustified.

    I just dislike Hilary and crew, their politics, and their behaviour, so I am biased against them. Which means that I'm also biased towards Trump, because they hate him, and constantly attack him. I don't believe that they are impartial, fair, unpartisan, and only opposing Trump because he is so bad.

    I don't think Trump is that great, either. He's a loudmouth, boastful, self-important American nationalist. I think he didn't really expect to be President. But there he is. And I think he's trying to the best he can, by his lights, by and large. I see that he gets a lot of negative and biased media coverage (see my post #131).

    A better scenario would be where you think that Trump has done something for which he's attacked unfairly and I can respond whether I've defended him or jumped in for the attack or simply ignored the noise. Honestly, we've forgotten so many actual Trump scandals (whatever happened with that GSA Trump international decision?) that it's difficult to even remember non-events.

    One thing I can recall: the Trump administration's decision to back off from demanding North Korea denuclearize in exchange for talks and relief. While Trump gets taken to task for his change in rhetoric and broken campaign promises (legitimately), nuclearization was a decades-long problem that got dumped into Trump's lap at the beginning of his term -- he wasn't going to stop North Korea from becoming a nuclear power and no US president in the near future is going to make NK give up is nuclear weapons. So Trump gets some unfair heat for his administration's failure to prevent/eradicate NK's nuclear arsenal.

    But, no, Trump's not trying the best he can to fulfill the responsibilities and great expectations of the presidency. He has, more than any other president in modern history, turned the executive branch into an extension of his own desires and animus. And that's so evident, I think, with so many examples of wrongdoing and self-serving action, that I just don't think someone can objectively follow American politics and see Trump as more or less on the same level as past presidents, Republican or Democrat. We're just dealing with someone and something very different here.

    In any case, the answer to that problem isn't to simply decry partisanship but to show how a given event or issue should break down on objective means. Yes, we all harbor bias -- but holding bias isn't fate. We can, and should, subject those biases to scrutiny and challenge and work to make sure that our opinions stem from justified and warranted beliefs.

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  10. #136
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,426
    Amen (Given)
    12067
    Amen (Received)
    25778
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    A better scenario would be where you think that Trump has done something for which he's attacked unfairly and I can respond whether I've defended him or jumped in for the attack or simply ignored the noise. Honestly, we've forgotten so many actual Trump scandals (whatever happened with that GSA Trump international decision?) that it's difficult to even remember non-events.

    One thing I can recall: the Trump administration's decision to back off from demanding North Korea denuclearize in exchange for talks and relief. While Trump gets taken to task for his change in rhetoric and broken campaign promises (legitimately), nuclearization was a decades-long problem that got dumped into Trump's lap at the beginning of his term -- he wasn't going to stop North Korea from becoming a nuclear power and no US president in the near future is going to make NK give up is nuclear weapons. So Trump gets some unfair heat for his administration's failure to prevent/eradicate NK's nuclear arsenal.

    But, no, Trump's not trying the best he can to fulfill the responsibilities and great expectations of the presidency. He has, more than any other president in modern history, turned the executive branch into an extension of his own desires and animus. And that's so evident, I think, with so many examples of wrongdoing and self-serving action, that I just don't think someone can objectively follow American politics and see Trump as more or less on the same level as past presidents, Republican or Democrat. We're just dealing with someone and something very different here.

    In any case, the answer to that problem isn't to simply decry partisanship but to show how a given event or issue should break down on objective means. Yes, we all harbor bias -- but holding bias isn't fate. We can, and should, subject those biases to scrutiny and challenge and work to make sure that our opinions stem from justified and warranted beliefs.

    --Sam
    Part of this is that there's so much "I HATE TRUMP" mentality that the accusations go even beyond the stupid/jackass things he does. If the TrumpHaters simply stuck to what Trump has actually done, they'd have plenty to talk about, and there's a whole lot for which I wouldn't even try to defend Trump. As I've stated numerous times, I wish somebody would take his Twitter account from him, but there's no need to make up stuff.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  11. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.
  12. #137
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,669
    Amen (Given)
    305
    Amen (Received)
    1605
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    You're just going round in circles, Jim.

    Trump's history of telling nothing but lies justifies your consistent cynicism and interpretation of what he says in a poor light. When he's misquoted or misrepresented (it does happen) you can't see it, because you expect Trump to always lie, be egomaniacal etc. Why do you expect that? Because that's what Trump does. How do you know that's what he does? Because he always lies, boasts, exaggerates, etc etc.

    You're probably at least partially correct that some people who support Trump get sucked into his rhetoric. How come you can't consider the idea that many of those who oppose Trump are sucked into anti-Trump rhetoric? That he's not as good as his supporters think, and not as bad as his political and media opponents would have us believe?





    Here's an example from the Independent (British newspaper)

    Headline on front page: "Trump rages at Fox News after poll shows majority want him impeached"

    Note the loaded term: "rages"

    Before we've read the story, we're already being given the impression that Trump is angry, out of control, and very upset with the poll result. If we don't read the story, that's the impression we're likely to take away. Trump is out of control angry, presumably because he's threatened by the idea of impeachment.

    First line of the story, Trump "... has vented his anger at Fox News..." . Again the idea is that he's angry and expressing it forcefully (it's an intense emotion that has been kept bottled up but now is vented). But note that it's a step down from "Trump rages"

    After a line about the poll results, the story continues, saying that Trump "...made his displeasure clear with the network...". Note that this is a fair bit more neutral than "Trump rages". Why? Because the actual data doesn't support the claim.

    What did Trump actually say? Nothing. There is no footage of him 'raging' at Fox. No verbal quotes, nothing.


    The story is based off a Twitter tweet, which is quoted as: "From the day I announced I was running for President, I have NEVER had a good @FoxNews Poll," and "Whoever their Pollster is, they suck. But @FoxNews is also much different than it used to be in the good old days."

    Note that the actual tweet(s) itself isn't posted, so it is possible that context or some wording has been omitted. Note that the claim of 'rage' in the headline is not supported by the quotes given. The whole article could be rewritten with the idea that 'Trump is disappointed that he doesn't poll better on Fox News polling', and be just as supported (more supported, actually) by the facts (two unsourced tweet quotes).

    The whole article is hot trash: a clickbait headline designed to give a (false) negative impression of Trump, angry, out of control and under pressure, and then a slow walkback in the article itself. But the first impression made is likely to colour our assessment of Trump. It's media bias and manipulation of readers.
    We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see anything misleading or incorrect in the article or in it's characterization of Trumps response. He expects polls to show what he wants to see, not what actually is, and he's vented a ridiculous accusation on twitter that somehow fix 'isn't being fair'. How is that any different from his response to the inauguration? And good on fox for ignoring him and publishing the findings anyway.

    A more complete text for the tweet is:

    Source: trump tweets


    From the day I announced I was running for President, I have NEVER had a good @FoxNews Poll. Whoever their Pollster is, they suck. But @FoxNews is also much different than it used to be in the good old days. With people like Andrew Napolitano, who wanted to be a Supreme....


    Donald J. Trump

    @realDonaldTrump
    ...Court Justice & I turned him down (he’s been terrible ever since), Shep Smith, @donnabrazile (who gave Crooked Hillary the debate questions & got fired from @CNN), & others, @FoxNews doesn’t deliver for US anymore. It is so different than it used to be. Oh well, I’m President

    © Copyright Original Source



    And he did not stop with these two tweets, he just kept on complaining about it and putting up other polls that look 'better' (but come from less reliable sources).

    All in all, I would say 'rages' is accurate.



    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 10-10-2019 at 08:31 AM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  13. #138
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,318
    Amen (Given)
    145
    Amen (Received)
    630
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Part of this is that there's so much "I HATE TRUMP" mentality that the accusations go even beyond the stupid/jackass things he does. If the TrumpHaters simply stuck to what Trump has actually done, they'd have plenty to talk about, and there's a whole lot for which I wouldn't even try to defend Trump. As I've stated numerous times, I wish somebody would take his Twitter account from him, but there's no need to make up stuff.

    There's merit to that, certainly, and I agree that sticking to what Trump has actually done gives everybody plenty of reason to oppose him or even view him with contempt. But, there again, we have to define where and how people are making stuff up. Not here in a list, of course, but when it's happening. Then a discussion about the factual merits can be had: ideally, though rarely in practice, the chaff is winnowed from the wheat.

    --Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"


  14. #139
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,426
    Amen (Given)
    12067
    Amen (Received)
    25778
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam View Post
    There's merit to that, certainly, and I agree that sticking to what Trump has actually done gives everybody plenty of reason to oppose him or even view him with contempt. But, there again, we have to define where and how people are making stuff up. Not here in a list, of course, but when it's happening. Then a discussion about the factual merits can be had: ideally, though rarely in practice, the chaff is winnowed from the wheat.

    --Sam
    Well, that's all wonderful, but when you point out an actual false accusation, you're accused by the TrumpHaters of being a "Trumpster" and "supporting Trump at every turn". Hate trumps fact.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  15. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.
  16. #140
    What's that? lilpixieofterror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    9,433
    Amen (Given)
    1500
    Amen (Received)
    3149
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Part of this is that there's so much "I HATE TRUMP" mentality that the accusations go even beyond the stupid/jackass things he does. If the TrumpHaters simply stuck to what Trump has actually done, they'd have plenty to talk about, and there's a whole lot for which I wouldn't even try to defend Trump. As I've stated numerous times, I wish somebody would take his Twitter account from him, but there's no need to make up stuff.
    Yes, but that’s a chess match and democrats have made it clear they don’t want a chess match, they want a brawl. They want him gone and gone now, no matter what it takes. Of course, this plays into who Trump is because he’s actually quite good at it and the Democrats are not used to it, thus why they end up with a bloody nose each and every time. Trump, with enough time and given enough rope could hang himself, but again who has time for that?
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •