Vort

It's hard to stay non-partisan in a heavily polarized environment

Recommended Posts

Longtime TH members will perhaps remember how NOT pro-Trump I was four years ago. I believe the best thing I had to say about the man was that he was a much less evil choice than Hillary Clinton. Damning by faint praise, indeed.

That was then. This is now. What a difference four years can make.

Not that I'm a huge Donald lover. While I do not find him nearly as repulsive as I did four years ago, I can't pretend he's my top choice. He's vulgar, he's intentionally divisive, he talks and acts like a junior high school wannabe bully. Frankly, he has invited much of the media criticism he gets. And he cannot possibly pretend to fiscal conservatism when he doesn't care a whit about budget concerns or a crushing deficit that, if we started right now working toward reducing it, our great-grandchildren would pay off.

But Trump has done some good and even remarkable things. He has shown some real leadership, at times at least. If he doesn't portray the statesman as well as Obama sometimes did, perhaps that's because he's less fundamentally dishonest than Obama is.

Certainly no reasonable person can pretend that the mainstream media has not taken a decisive stand against him, to the point that they no longer even have a pretense of objectivity in their reporting. In their eyes, Trump is Hitler, and the media is doing their patriotic duty in slandering him at every turn, shamelessly propagandizing even worldwide disasters, and with no scruples about misrepresenting and outright lying about things if it furthers their holy agenda.

My extreme distaste for the media and those who run that monster machine actually pushes me into Trump's camp, a thing I might not have believed possible four years ago. This is not because Trump is so virtuous, but because his haters are so unbelievably vile. I think I'm at least as resistant to kneejerk reactionism as the average American, and probably quite a bit more than average. If I find myself being polarized by the bitter hatred of society (read: the political left, primarily), what hope is there that the American people as a whole can rise above it?

Maybe what we need is a really good, deadly epidemic to stop all our squabbling. But when I look at what the media stands for and the fact that they're puppets of the political left, how do I stop "squabbling" with those who actively seek to undermine marriage and literally kill babies? How do you compromise with Satan or with those who openly preach his version of good news?

Is there another way of viewing these events and our situation that bypasses this conclusion? Real question.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vort said:

And if he doesn't portray the statesman as well as Obama sometimes did, perhaps that's because he's less fundamentally dishonest than Obama is.

Why do you say this and what evidence do you have?  Trump is a lot more dishonest than Obama was or is (which isn't to say that Obama was always honest). 

Politifact, for example has been really good at calling out all politicians for untruthful remarks.  

According to the latest truth-o-meter, here is the current score card concerning public statements:

Trump Score Card on Telling the Truth

4% True
10% Mostly True
14% Half True
21% Mostly False

34% False

14% Pants on Fire

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Obama Score Card on Telling the Truth

19% True
26% Mostly True
25% Half True

11% Mostly False

11% False

1% Pants on Fire

You can't say that Politifact is a left wing website.  They have been really good at calling out all public statements by politicians and they were calling out plenty of things about Obama too.

Obama however, has been way more honest than Trump has even though Obama's statements were only 45% true of mostly true.  That's still a lot better than the 14% from Trump.

What evidence do you have that Trump has been more honest.

Quote

And no reasonable person can pretend that the mainstream media has not taken a decisive stand against him, to the point that they no longer even have a pretense of objectivity in their reporting.

I can't disagree, but Trump has made war with the media so it isn't just the media.  Trump also slanders everyone who even disagrees with him civily.  
 

Quote

Maybe what we need is a really good, deadly epidemic to stop all our squabbling.

It won't stop the squabbling.  If anything it has made it worse.  Sad.

Quote

how do I stop "squabbling" with those who actively seek to undermine marriage and literally kill babies? How do you compromise with Satan or with those who openly preach his version of good news?

If you find out let me know.   The political right literally wants to allow corporations to kill tens of thousands of men, women, and children in the United States through pollution.   Zero pollution is unrealistic, but there is no reason to allow tens of thousands of people each year to be killed by those who only want to make an extra few bucks.  If that isn't Satanic, I don't know what is.

Added:

The left may support abortions by choice, but the right wants to force women to miscarriage, even when they want the baby, which is the same as forcing a woman to have an abortion:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/2018/12/27/20662077/u-study-yields-upsetting-results-linking-miscarriages-with-spikes-in-utah-air-pollution

In addition to forced abortions, air pollution is also linked to autism, low birth weight, asthma, ect.

https://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-health/how-air-pollution-impacts-pregnancy/

Any roll back air pollution standards (which is what the political right wants to do) is forcing women to have a abortions.  That's about as wicked and evil as it comes with US politics.

Using energy is good and leads to many good things, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and do it cleanly.  Rolling back air pollution standards is incredibly wicked and evil.   So is destroying the remaining wildlands and trying to get rid of public lands, which is something many other politicians on the right have wanted to do.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Anyway, the only solution I have is to find a way to weaken partisanship without weakening the Constitution or our rights.

My idea is for the states to split their electoral votes between the voting percentage rather than a winner take all in the state electoral vote.   This still helps smaller states to not be overrun with larger states, but it also opens the door for third party and non-partisan candidates.

Third party candidates and non-partisan candidates still wouldn't win, at least not in this point in history, but they could have enough electoral votes to make sure that either one of the Republican or Democrat candidates might have enough votes to get elected if the election was close enough.

This would send the final vote to the House and Senate.   Unless one party dominates both, this could make the VP and POTUS from both parties.  That would be interesting for sure.

The main effect though would be that partisanship would be weakened, without rights being weakened.   Third party candidates and ideas would have to be taken more seriously and the two parties couldn't be as polarized if they knew they might not get enough electorals automatically decide the election.

At least that's my theory.

Edited by Scott
Addition about air pollution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vort said:

Longtime TH members will perhaps remember how NOT pro-Trump I was four years ago. I believe the best thing I had to say about the man was that he was a much less evil choice than Hillary Clinton. Damning by faint praise, indeed.

That was then. This is now. What a difference four years can make.

Not that I'm a huge Donald lover. While I do not find him nearly as repulsive as I did four years ago, I can't pretend he's my top choice. He's vulgar, he's intentionally divisive, he talks and acts like a junior high school wannabe bully. Frankly, he has invited much of the media criticism he gets. And he cannot possibly pretend to fiscal conservatism when he doesn't care a whit about budget concerns or a crushing deficit that, if we started now, our great-grandchildren would pay off.

But Trump has done some good and even remarkable things. He has shown some real leadership, at times at least. And if he doesn't portray the statesman as well as Obama sometimes did, perhaps that's because he's less fundamentally dishonest than Obama is.

And no reasonable person can pretend that the mainstream media has not taken a decisive stand against him, to the point that they no longer even have a pretense of objectivity in their reporting. In their eyes, Trump is Hitler, and the media is doing their patriotic duty in slandering him at every turn, shamelessly propagandizing even worldwide disasters, and with no scruples about misrepresenting and outright lying about things if it furthers their holy agenda.

My extreme distaste for the media and those who run that monster machine actually pushes me into Trump's camp, a thing I might not have believed possible four years ago. Not because Trump is so virtuous, but because his haters are so unbelievably vile. And I think I'm at least as resistant to kneejerk reactionism as the average American, and probably quite a bit more than average. If I find myself being polarized by the bitter hatred of society (read: the political left, primarily), what hope is there that the American people as a whole can rise above it?

Maybe what we need is a really good, deadly epidemic to stop all our squabbling. But when I look at what the media stands for and the fact that they're puppets of the political left, how do I stop "squabbling" with those who actively seek to undermine marriage and literally kill babies? How do you compromise with Satan or with those who openly preach his version of good news?

Is there another way of viewing these events and our situation that bypasses this conclusion? Real question.

I like him because he says what he thinks and does not pretend, unlike politicians, who smile as they slide a knife into your side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Scott said:

Why do you say this and what evidence do you have? 

  • If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
  • Fast & Furious
  • IRS targeting of conservative groups
  • Solyndra
  • Jeremiah Wright
  • Iran Nuclear deal including $400 Million payoff that we got nothing in return for
  • Spying on Trump's Campaign
  • Droning of US Citizens

In case you're wondering why I named scandals instead of what he actually said: He lied about all of these.

Regarding your politifact argument, I agree that they aren't as left wing as the MSM.  But they are just a tad left of center.  This tilts your numbers in the following ways: 

  • When a lie is said, a leftist politician is more likely to be given a "mostly false" rating than a "pants on fire rating" (as an example). 
  • Conversely, when Trump says virtually anything, he's almost always going to be given a lying rating no matter how slim a margin by which that "lie" can be considered dishonest.
  • They are less likely to check a lie by a politician on the left than on the right.  The sheer number of checks on Trump vs the sheer number of checks on Obama is a dead give away.

 

Example: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/27/donald-trump/fact-checking-whether-biden-called-trump-xenophobi/

Seriously?  They point directly to the fact that Biden reacted to Trumps Corona actions as xenopobic, and yet give the claim a "mostly false" rating?  You call this neutral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been watching chunks of the daily covid press briefings, for weeks now. Some things I have noticed:

- 70 to 80% of the stuff he says, his supportive, empathetic, useful, relevant, and not reported by any media outlet anywhere.  I don’t frequent fact checking sites, but I wonder how much of it is actually fact checked, since it’s so unarguable.

- I can’t begin to express how comforting it is to see this on multiple occasions:  

Young Media Reporter: “We have all these reports of governors not doing it right. Why don’t you just make them do what’s right?”

Trump: “ Well, for starters, we have this thing called the constitution…”

I am paraphrasing, but not really, I’m getting it pretty close to the exact words that are being said. Again, find those exchanges in your fact check site.

- I also watch the occasional press conference from the governor of New York, and my own governor. Both very very very liberal. And again, 70 to 80% of the stuff they say is the same stuff that Trump is saying. There is so much less division between our politicians right now, then you will ever hear about reading the news.
 

Vort, The only disagreement I have with you, is that “main stream media”, is not main stream anymore. They are falling in relevance.  The sensationalistic elements of CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and all the rest, or more closely related to the back alley quick trick turning prostitutes, then legitimate news outlets. And every day, 1000 more millennials figure that out, because they have the light of Christ, and a few brain cells to rub together. And it’s that obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:
  • They are less likely to check a lie by a politician on the left than on the right.  The sheer number of checks on Trump vs the sheer number of checks on Obama is a dead give away.

This isn't true.  Many of the checks on Trump are from Twitter.  Trump tweets a lot more than Obama ever did.  That's why he has more checks.

In case you're wondering why I named scandals instead of what he actually said: He lied about all of these.

Like I said, only 45% of Obama's statements were true or mostly true.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel both major parties in the US are evil and both promote many evil things.  There are things they promote that may be good, but at the same time they are filled with gadiantons.  It is a choice between two evils rather than one good and one evil. 

I think it is a mistake to marry one's morals, views, and/or identity with one party or another, but that's just me speaking personally on my own view on allegiances and such. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vort said:

 

Is there another way of viewing these events and our situation that bypasses this conclusion? Real question.


 

 

1. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can unite the world as one. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He personally prayed for us to become one with He and the Father. He WANTS us to be one. 
 

There is no other way because He is the Way. 
 

 

2. Politicians, like the lawyers in The Book of Mormon, purposely cause division amongst the people. Why? Because that is how they grow their business and that is how they maintain power over the people. To the point that we beg and plead for them to “do something” to stop the opposition, to stop whatever emergency is occurring, and to come up with solutions for us on a myriad of questionable subjects. There is a continual back and forth shifting of laws and principles in which we “need” them to fight for our side. 
 

 

3. The news media never lets a good “crisis” go to waste. That is how they grow financially. It’s bad for business when there is nothing to report. We don’t “need them” when things are good. (Even the most ideal society among the Nephites after the Savior’s visit only received half a chapter of discussion from Mormon. There was only so much to report!)  

 

Therefore, we can never fully trust what the media reports because only the sensational gets reported. Using the news media as our main source to know what is happening around us creates a skewed view of reality as opposed to the Spirit that teaches things as they really are and really will be. 

 

4. Even under the guidance of Captain Moroni, there were still kingmen. 

 

The point: 

If we take the above items as true, then the question really becomes a personal evaluation of our time and our priorities. How do we spend our time and are our priorities properly focused? 
 

So, @Vort, while I pretty much fall into line with your same views of the situation you outlined above, I would say that it ultimately matters far less than what we are doing to help bring about the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that we can actually become unified as one. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vort said:

Longtime TH members will perhaps remember how NOT pro-Trump I was four years ago. I believe the best thing I had to say about the man was that he was a much less evil choice than Hillary Clinton. Damning by faint praise, indeed.

That was then. This is now. What a difference four years can make.

Not that I'm a huge Donald lover. While I do not find him nearly as repulsive as I did four years ago, I can't pretend he's my top choice. He's vulgar, he's intentionally divisive, he talks and acts like a junior high school wannabe bully. Frankly, he has invited much of the media criticism he gets. And he cannot possibly pretend to fiscal conservatism when he doesn't care a whit about budget concerns or a crushing deficit that, if we started now, our great-grandchildren would pay off.

But Trump has done some good and even remarkable things. He has shown some real leadership, at times at least. And if he doesn't portray the statesman as well as Obama sometimes did, perhaps that's because he's less fundamentally dishonest than Obama is.

And no reasonable person can pretend that the mainstream media has not taken a decisive stand against him, to the point that they no longer even have a pretense of objectivity in their reporting. In their eyes, Trump is Hitler, and the media is doing their patriotic duty in slandering him at every turn, shamelessly propagandizing even worldwide disasters, and with no scruples about misrepresenting and outright lying about things if it furthers their holy agenda.

My extreme distaste for the media and those who run that monster machine actually pushes me into Trump's camp, a thing I might not have believed possible four years ago. Not because Trump is so virtuous, but because his haters are so unbelievably vile. And I think I'm at least as resistant to kneejerk reactionism as the average American, and probably quite a bit more than average. If I find myself being polarized by the bitter hatred of society (read: the political left, primarily), what hope is there that the American people as a whole can rise above it?

Maybe what we need is a really good, deadly epidemic to stop all our squabbling. But when I look at what the media stands for and the fact that they're puppets of the political left, how do I stop "squabbling" with those who actively seek to undermine marriage and literally kill babies? How do you compromise with Satan or with those who openly preach his version of good news?

Is there another way of viewing these events and our situation that bypasses this conclusion? Real question.

I'm in pretty much the same boat.  🚣. I'm absolutely amazed at how polarized politics has become.    I didn't vote for Trump in the primary, but voted for him over Hillary.  I don't care for him or his tactics, but his policies are similar to my own and much better than his opponents.  

The left is doing the same thing.  I can't believe Biden is going to get the nomination.  This lockdown is the best thing that could have happened to him.   Once again this fall I'll be faced with voting for a man who I don't personally like but who's policies I largely support or voting for someone who seems incompetent and incompatible with my beliefs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we just trash the partisan system? Democrats don't represent me. Republicans don't represent me.

Perhaps there was a time when the two parties had a place in our government. No longer, I say. It is seemingly no longer possible to live in accordance with section 98:10 whilst supporting either party. In fact, strangely enough, I am often laught to scorn when I suggest such an idea as electing moral men to be my leaders. It's as if everyone is brainwashed into thinking that virtue has no place in politics.

How tragic. Such a notion is a heart wrenching departure from the foundations of this country. A nation of virtue and righteousness built in the midst of an apostate world of corrupt and greedy kingdoms is what makes America greatest of all. The spread of democracy across the world has been her greatest achievement. It makes me sad when it seems most have forgotten our legacy.

Maybe my passion is misguided, but I wholly blame the 2 major parties for this. During my lifetime, I have observed them employ the same sinister and beguiling rhetoric that anti-christs use. They are devilish in their conduct, and have both condoned wickedness at some point or another. Their methods of obtaining power over each other have driven men to be contentious; and so, the Spirit of God no longer has a place in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Scott said:

Why do you say this and what evidence do you have?

I say it because it is true. My evidence is all of the substantive lies that Obama told.

23 hours ago, Scott said:

You can't say that Politifact is a left wing website.

Sure I can. More to the point, I can say that PolitiFact is a cynically misnamed website that pushes a very obvious agenda. To wit:

**********************************************************************************************************

(1) In 2009, PolitiFact did an "Obameter" claim where candidate Obama promised: "I will immediately sign a law that begins to phase out all incandescent light bulbs - a measure that will save American consumers $6 billion a year on their electric bills." PolitiFact's verdict: Promise Kept, despite PolitiFact's own acknowledgement that it was Bush, not Obama, that signed the legislation. Their excuse was as follows:

Way back in October 2007, candidate Barack Obama pledged to "immediately sign a law that begins to phase out all incandescent light bulbs." About two months later, President George W. Bush signed a bill to do that -- the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. So for the purposes of this promise, we won't focus on whether Obama signed such a bill as president, but rather whether the goal was advanced.

Well, I suppose that sort of makes sense, especially if you're a Democrat. The legislation had already been passed, so Obama didn't need to personally sign it. And as PolitiFact documents, the net effect was to move people away from incandescent and toward other light bulb types.1 Remember that: It's important later.

1By the way, please note that the total US usage of electricity for home lighting is about 5% of the total energy used. So saving, say, a whopping 20% (!!!) on lighting consumption gives an overall impact of about 1% of the actual energy usage. That's one percent, as in one-one-hundredth the total usage. In short, worrying about energy consumption from lighting is worrying about water leaking into your boat through a loose joint between boards when you have a gaping hole in the hull.

The point is that PolitiFact rated Obama's claim about "phasing out incandescent light bulbs" as true.

Okay, whatever. So far, so good, gymnastics aside. But what if a conservative group makes exactly the same claim?

(2) Two years later, in 2011, PolitiFact reported on a conservative fundraising group claiming that Democrats banned incandescent light bulbs. The wording here is potentially problematic:

"The Democrats have already voted to BAN our conventional lights bulbs (that you and I use even today!) in favor of DANGEROUS fluorescent light bulbs," writes Alan Gottlieb, chairman of AmeriPAC, a political action committee that largely supports conservative Republican candidates.

Uh-oh. This specifies "fluorescent light bulbs" as the replacement. An apples-to-oranges comparison, perhaps?

Nope. PolitiFact conveniently spares us this problem by explicitly clarifying, "But the bigger issue here is the claim that the bill bans incandescent light bulbs."

So that's what they're focused on: That Democrats have banned incandescent light bulbs. Of course, based on the article two years earlier, where PolitiFact was crowing about how Obama's (and Bush's) efforts were doing exactly that, you might think that of course PolitiFact would rate this claim as true! They already admitted it was true! That was the whole point! PolitiFact might disagree with AmeriPAC's political reasoning, but it already conceded their point!

Right?

Right?

RIGHT?

Wrong. PolitiFact's ruling: Pants on Fire. Their basis: The legislation requires increased efficiency, which might effectively ban incandescents, but the bill itself does not explicitly ban incandescents. So PolitiFact rated AmeriPAC's claim about "banning incandescent light bulbs" as false.

**********************************************************************************************************

Let's sum up.

  • Your supposedly unbiased, reliable source PolitiFact rated liberal Obama's claim that he would "phase out all incandescent light bulbs"—which, remember, was literally false—as true (Promise Kept).
  • Then that same supposedly unbiased, reliable source rated conservative AmeriPAC's claim that "Democrats have already voted to BAN our conventional lights bulbs"—which was in effect true—as completely false (Pants on Fire).

Oh, come on! you might say. Surely things are better now! PolitiFact must be much more equitable in their rating system today! Like, for example, if Joy Behar makes an utterly false claim about Trump. Doubtless they'll pounce on that as a Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

Oops. Guess not. Behar's whopper did manage to eke out a False rating (since it was, you know, egregiously and provably false). But apparently, Pants on Fire is reserved for those of a more conservative mindset.

So a final question to @Scott: How can you maintain with a straight face that PolitiFact is in any way a believable, unbiased source?

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Scott said:

This isn't true.  Many of the checks on Trump are from Twitter.  Trump tweets a lot more than Obama ever did.  That's why he has more checks.

You don't read very carefully do you?  I didn't disagree with this -- except for the last statement that I crossed out.

Since you've apparently bought the MSM line and drunk the Cool-Aid, I'll point out several MSM whoppers:

CNN Claims that Trump told the public that Chloriquine was "approved by the FDA" for use against Corona.  They point out that he lied because it has NOT been approved. 

Let's see what he actually said.

Quote

The FDA has approved the compassionate use for a significant number of patients.

This was never meant to say it was a blanket approval for all situations.  This is a step towards total approval.  It was a limited approval for the purpose of gathering data on the effectiveness of the drug to see if it works. 

Let's see what Trump actually said about the chemical several days before the fish tank couple.

It started with a question from a reporter and Dr. Fauci gave the technical response.

Quote

The evidence that you're talking about is anecdotal evidence...

We're trying to strike a balance between (making available) something that has a potential to have an effect...(and do a study under proper protocols)... so you can't really make any definitive statements on it at this time.

Trump then gave his non-technical statement.

Quote

I'm probably more of a fan of it ... than anybody.  But we'll see what happens.  We all understand what the doctor said was 100% correct.  It's early.  We'll see.  We're gonna know soon.

So, what exactly was irresponsible with saying that they're still looking at it, but there appears to be hope? That's the President's job -- to give hope.

Out of 330 Million people that heard this, only two people were stupid enough to do something unauthorized because of it.  You don't think they could have gotten that idea without the Pres saying a word?  I guarantee you that they would.

And I again ask what was iresponsible about what he said?

I think you need to take a hard look at what the MSM has done here.  THEY WERE THE ONES WHO TOOK HIS WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT and plastered it all over every screen on the planet.  You try to scoot around the issue of blame?  I flat out say that the media killed that man, and potentially killed that woman.  THEY gave the soundbite without proper context to all the world.

But you can go ahead and (not really) blame Trump so you can feel better.  But consider this:

Chloroquine really does have the potential to help MANY people.  But the media has gotten such Trump hatred, that their rhetoric is causing people to want to RUN AWAY from chloroquine treatments, because it's more important for Trump to be wrong than it is to save lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2020 at 2:22 AM, Scott said:

Politifact, for example has been really good at calling out all politicians for untruthful remarks.  

DID YOU REALLY JUST USE POLITIFACT AS YOUR SOURCE ON OBJECTIVITY ON TRUMP?  Goodness gracious, Batman.  KNOW YOUR SOURCE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

DID YOU REALLY JUST USE POLITIFACT AS YOUR SOURCE ON OBJECTIVITY ON TRUMP?  Goodness gracious, Batman.  KNOW YOUR SOURCE!

I have been reading Politifact since it come out (which is well before Trump).    Politifact came out at the end of the Bush administration and although not perfect has been pretty good at calling out statements from all sides.

Do you have a better source for fact checking?  Obviously it's best to check each statement in question for yourself, but it's hard to quantify that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2020 at 1:23 AM, Vort said:

Maybe what we need is a really good, deadly epidemic to stop all our squabbling. But when I look at what the media stands for and the fact that they're puppets of the political left, how do I stop "squabbling" with those who actively seek to undermine marriage and literally kill babies? How do you compromise with Satan or with those who openly preach his version of good news?

Is there another way of viewing these events and our situation that bypasses this conclusion? Real question.

Of course there is.

By applying one of Jordan Peterson's rules:  Tell the truth.

That means - seek and tell the truth regardless of which party benefits from the truth.

There's no difference between my father-in-law who posts Right-Wing Fake News on his Facebook page seemingly every hour and a blue-haired, fish-lipped, left-winger spouting Left-Wing Fake News.  They're both seeking only that which makes their party smell like roses regardless of its truthfulness.  Don't be like both of them.

I have found that the way I can keep things straight is to know the inherent biases of the source and try to find the truth straight from the horse's mouth as much as possible.

Let me illustrate from a very recent Fake News by CBS News - a source that is left-of-center that is not as egregious as CNN:

CBS Headline:  "Shoot them dead": Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte orders police and military to kill citizens who defy coronavirus lockdown

Now, as a Filipino, this headline wouldn't shock me.  It goes par for the course in Philippine culture.  BUT, this is VERY EASY to seek truth because it is a speech.  More often than not, somebody would have uploaded the entire speech to youtube.  So, I go find the unedited speech.  Well, the speech is only 14 minutes long.  I can listen to that speech while washing dishes.  So, I did.  And, that's how I find out it is Fake News because... Duterte did not say to kill citizens who defy coronavirus lockdown.  He said to government officials that the political opposition is fanning riot and unrest in the middle of a pandemic by looting life-saving relief and medical goods headed to local government and hospitals for distribution.  He said in the speech these people are putting government officials' and frontliners' lives in danger so he told the government officials to shoot them dead.

So, I start wondering why would CBS feel the need to twist the speech's context?  It wouldn't be for sensationalism because a President ordering government officials to shoot criminals dead without trial is sensational and shocking enough... there is an agenda here.  The first clue to the agenda is Amnesty International immediately picking up the story and instead of doing what I did and listen to an ONLY-FOURTEEN-MINUTE speech, they decide to put Duterte on censure citing the CBS article.... there's your agenda.  It won't be long before UN Human Rights Council will jump in on the censure - that council has been trying to unseat Duterte (with the help of US Senators like Marco Rubio).  Duterte's VP is from the globalist opposition party. 

Interestingly, after 4 days, the UN Human Rights Council haven't jumped on it yet.  I guess they realize people have an attention span of at least 14 minutes.

 

 

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Scott said:

I have been reading Politifact since it come out (which is well before Trump).    Politifact came out at the end of the Bush administration and although not perfect has been pretty good at calling out statements from all sides.

Do you have a better source for fact checking?  Obviously it's best to check each statement in question for yourself, but it's hard to quantify that way.

Politifact is Anti-Trump.  Blatantly. They've been inaccurately fact checking covid-19 and even Obama's H1N1 left and right.

I don't trust Fact Checkers.  Nobody is Fact Checking the Fact Checkers.  I do my own Fact Check even if the source is a Fact Checker.

This is just 2 of their blatant anti-Trump "fact checking":

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

And I again ask what was iresponsible about what he said?

I (not really) blame Trump so you can feel better.  

First of all, I never said anything about the "MSM" in this thread.

Second of all, that was a completely different thread where I said Trump's tweet was reckless.  I didn't say anything about anything verbally said about the medication.

Third, I already went into lots of detail of why the statement was reckless.

Ine reason that I said it could cause a shortage of the medication in countries where it is available over the counter and sadly my prediction turned out to be 100% correct.

The other reason was that it came without adequate warnings.

As I already pointed out, my reasoning behind the statement being reckless had nothing to do with the couple (then again you don't read very carefully do you?). 

As far as the couple goes, that was 100% their fault.  They weren't even taking the same substance Trump tweeted about.

If course all of that was already discussed on the other thread.  Why don't you go back and read it?

PS, Trump's tweet in question was not malicious and all presidents make reckless statements at times.  "Mission Accomplished" and "Ebola won't come to the US" are two examples from other presidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 I do my own Fact Check

Yes, I do a lot of that too.

The reason I used Politicfact is because it quantifies the percentages.

That's hard to do with personal fact checking.

Anyway, you are a big Trump fan, but do you really think that Trump is more honest than Obama was (I do not) and if you do believe so, what evidence do you have? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scott said:

Yes, I do a lot of that too.

The reason I used Politicfact is because it quantifies the percentages.

That's hard to do with personal fact checking.

Anyway, you are a big Trump fan, but do you really think that Trump is more honest than Obama was (I do not) and if you do believe so, what evidence do you have? 

How exactly does it quantify the percentages when they don't actually fact check everything said?  How does it quantify when they cherry pick what statements they do check?  Also, if Obama and Trump each tell a half-truth / half-lie they will say Obama's statement is mostly true and Trump's is mostly false. Politifact? Really? C'mon man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Scott said:

Yes, I do a lot of that too.

The reason I used Politicfact is because it quantifies the percentages.

That's hard to do with personal fact checking.

Anyway, you are a big Trump fan, but do you really think that Trump is more honest than Obama was (I do not) and if you do believe so, what evidence do you have? 

Everybody lies.

This is my opinion only on Obama versus Trump speaking style:

Obama - manipulates truth to achieve an agenda.  Every statement is prepared.  Basically the exact same thing the MSM does.  Was the Benghazi attack caused by a Youtube video?  Of course not.  There is a youtube video - true.  Obama manipulated this truth to achieve an agenda - deflect the Benghazi incident away from the Obama/Clinton massive failure.  The MSM does this day in and day out to achieve an agenda.

Trump - 2 kinds:  1.) brain to mouth without filter.  "There were thousands and thousands of people in New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 attacks".  He saw/read something about it on the news over 10 years ago.  He doesn't bother to be accurate about referencing what he saw/read.
2.) Manipulates truth to spin it to maximum persuasiveness.  Or says something as truth when it is him trying to make something true by force of will.  Basically the exact same thing a product advertisement does.  "The tax cut is going to happen before the mid-term elections" (trying to make something true by force of will) or "We’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away."  This is how you sell cars.

It doesn't help that Trump does not have a smooth command of language.  It is very easy to take him out of context through pull-quotes.  Obama doesn't have a smooth command of language either but the way he masks this is through pause-words (usage of ah, uhm, or stuttering the first syllable while forming the statement in his mind) so it's not as easy to take his statements out of context.  Trump just says what's in his mind even if it is still in the form of a jumble of words and not a sentence.   He speaks as he thinks.  Biden does this too, by the way.  He just has massive political speaking experience so he's not as grating on the ears as Trump sounds.  Obama thinks first, then speaks - always focused on the agenda, choosing his words carefully.

Which one is better?  Trump.  Hands down.  It's much easier to understand the motives of a car salesman and detect when he's taking you on a ride than to detect when you're getting conned by a con artist.  Especially when the people in charge of the dissemination of information (journalists) are in on the con.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Scott said:

Do you have a better source for fact checking?  Obviously it's best to check each statement in question for yourself, but it's hard to quantify that way.

Yeah, I'm with doing it the hard way.  We should all be naturally suspicious of all sources who purport to tell us the truth, and present their comparison between two sides as accurate.  So you've hung with Politifact since the Bush administration, and you figure it presents an accurate reality?  They call that confirmation bias. 

Unalterable truth of the universe #1 that you must accept in order to have your opinions taken seriously:  There is no such thing as zero bias.  Everyone, every organization has a bias.

Unalterable truth of the universe #2 that you must accept in order to have your opinions taken seriously:  We all have confirmation bias.  We all tend to give greater weight to the source that tells us what we already believe.  It's a human thing, and unless you strive to be aware of it working in yourself, you can't be a persuasive voice, you're only a mouthpiece for whatever opinions you happen to have.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scott  Would you post the exact words and proof of anything that President Obama said that was precisely accurate and unquestionably true?  Especially any statements that have direct bearing on the Constitution? 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, I'm with doing it the hard way.  We should all be naturally suspicious of all sources who purport to tell us the truth, and present their comparison between two sides as accurate.  So you've hung with Politifact since the Bush administration, and you figure it presents an accurate reality?  They call that confirmation bias. 

Unalterable truth of the universe #1 that you must accept in order to have your opinions taken seriously:  There is no such thing as zero bias.  Everyone, every organization has a bias.

Unalterable truth of the universe #2 that you must accept in order to have your opinions taken seriously:  We all have confirmation bias.  We all tend to give greater weight to the source that tells us what we already believe.  It's a human thing, and unless you strive to be aware of it working in yourself, you can't be a persuasive voice, you're only a mouthpiece for whatever opinions you happen to have.  

 

THIS.

You win the internet for the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vort  Very, very interesting thread.  I am not sure that my response will add much but I will try.  Sometimes it seems that the logic is: that if there are two differences in opinion that neither opinion needs to demonstrate that they are right - just that the other is wrong or more wrong.  I realize that in search for truth one does need to be able to identify that which is not truth - but the sad reality is that meeting some of the criteria for not truth does not make something true.  

We should have learned, especially with thousands of years of history in religion and science - that being in opposition to something that is false - does not make such opposition true.  And just because something is more accurate - does not meant that such accuracy cannot be improved.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no more cynical organization on the face of the earth than the news media. They manipulate everything and anything.

One thing they've learned to manipulate with frightening precision is the human, common-sense tendency to seek middle ground. Person A voices Opinion X, and Person B spouts Opinion Y. Opinions X and Y now represent the poles of a one-dimensional continuum, and the truth of the matter must lie somewhere between the two.

How to manipulate this? Easy. Obvious, in fact. You bias the polar opinions toward your slant.

I remember years ago how Ellen Goodman, a leftist newspaper columnist, positioned herself as "centrist". I rolled my eyes but said nothing more, until a bit later I noticed that a newspaper analysis article was including her as a "moderate" or "centrist" voice. See that? That's how it's done.

Example: The "far-left" crazies say that abortion must be allowed from conception to the age of three. The "right-wing" crazies say that abortion should not be allowed at all, thus enslaving women, which is good. The "centrist", "moderate", "sensible" position is that abortion should be available in all situations, yes, but only until childbirth occurs.

See how that works? The pro-abortionists are the rational and even the compassionate ones!

News media does this All.The.Time. 

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now