ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , Trump administration , Trump controversies

Closed Thread
Old 28th January 2017, 11:54 AM   #681
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,259
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Well you took it out of context (which I added back in).
Sorry about the snip.

I worked at a newspaper for 29 years and wrote and edited thousands of articles. I don't think I ever saw someone labeled a liar (by the newspaper itself). It was part of the "show, don't tell" esthetic. And I don't see, "The President maintains, however ..." as ceding anything to Trump. It's just allowing for a response from him, which is normal practice.

My approach would be to let him have his say, then surgically eviscerate his claim. I think there's a danger in calling him a liar. There's no need for the label, IMO. In fact I think the labeling undermines The Post (or CNN) credibility. IMO, people do not want news stories telling them what to think. But if you write straight headlines saying "Trump's estimate conflicts with that of (credible source). Play it absolutely straight. People will get it.

Show don't tell, in this case very literally with the photographs. Then just leave Trump twisting in the wind and clutching his alternative facts with his tiny little hands. It would be more effective news strategy, IMO, because Trump will contradict every credible source in the known universe.

I haven't been able to sort out those inauguration pictures. I don't know where on the Mall it happens, or if perhaps security measures include a headcount. I'm not saying that Trump isn't lying (though if he believes it, what then?); I have just found the pictures disorienting.

Picking a fight with the media won't hurt him. Picking fights with career federal bureaucrats might.

Last edited by Minoosh; 28th January 2017 at 12:01 PM. Reason: bolding, clause, another clause
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 11:57 AM   #682
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 75,276
It should be easy enough to do:

President Trump claims that there were X people at his inauguration, fact checking that claim we find that Y people were at his inauguration.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 12:19 PM   #683
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,442
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
IMO, people do not want news stories telling them what to think.
Have you ever heard of a tiny news outlet called "Fox News"? You should try watching them sometimes. They very clearly and plainly tell people what to think.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 12:28 PM   #684
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen View Post
Actually I think that is another factor. People like Trump (and Farage in the UK) have realised there's a substantial idiot* vote out there that normally can't be bothered to vote but if you can push their buttons and mobilise them it brings a new factor into play that can tip the balance.

*To be clear I'm not saying everyone who voted Trump / Brexit was an idiot** but that tapping into that undereducated, politically naive and usually non-active pool*** added enough to tip the balance.
**Though it's hard not to come to that conclusion with Trump.
***Stagnant pond in the case of Brexiteers where I live - bar a handful who had considered reasons for voting leave, the vast majority cited 'foreigners nicking our jobs' in an area with the lowest levels of immigration in the country and the highest European aid!
People keep suggesting Trump consciously courted certain voters, eg the "idiots" you note. I say he courted people who believe the crazy stuff he believes. There's no evil genius inside Trump, what you see is who he is. You can look back at the man long before he ran for office and you'll see the same person.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 12:34 PM   #685
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
Is not a review of how she lost the general election by necessity an exercise in hindsight?
Yes but an honest, broad view in hindsight, not the confirmation biased readily accepted claim by Clinton critics that she failed the blue collar white community.

No, she didn't. She won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. That is a huge margin, not the piddly 70,000 Trump won those three states by.

Where did she fail? A number of campaign decisions could have made the difference. Claiming she lost because she failed some entire population of blue collar whites is simply a false narrative.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 12:43 PM   #686
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Yes, and that wouldn't have changed my vote.
This election says a lot about the people who choose some idealistic vote. Just like Nader tries to blame Gore, it doesn't matter. We got Bush, Nader taking FL votes mattered and we got 1,000+ preventable deaths following Katrina, we got the Iraq war and its disastrous consequences, and if you read Richard A. Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, you might even question whether or not Bush missed many opportunities to stop 9/11. Not that he could have, but the PDB that Bin Laden was determined to attack inside the US was not the only intelligence the Bush admin ignored.

So now you get Trump. Maybe you were in a solid blue or red state, allowing you the luxury of voting your ideals. But if you vote your ideals and you were in a state with a close vote count, you defeated your own idealism by claiming you weren't one of the responsible people that gave us Trump.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 12:51 PM   #687
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
... This time around the economy is performing decently, American kids aren't coming home in body bags, so people decided to indulge themselves. ...
I think it's more about the Democrats not countering the negative messaging about Obama's term.

The GOP has been hammering the message for 8 years that the economy was bad, blaming Obama and not things like the minimum wage being too low. Claiming the job gains were not good jobs. Claiming falsely that regulations and taxes on corporations were the problem when anyone who has taken Economy 101 should have been able to see the problem was not enough demand. You don't solve a demand problem by feeding the suppliers.

Look at the ACA, pounding pounding pounding how horrible the legislation is. And now when their bluff has been called, low and behold they have nothing better.

The Democrats should have been putting out a coordinated relentless counter message. The GOP has all that money behind it, from the Kochs to Corporate support. It can be countered, but it wasn't.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 12:53 PM   #688
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
It was more about jobs in the rust belt and also some central red states. Hillary did not even address the issue. Bernie sort of did, with free college to retrain.
And you know this, how? Because you heard it somewhere?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 12:55 PM   #689
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
The Comey letter certainly didn't help. I don't know if it hurt her more or less than the deplorable comment, there is no way to tell. It may have hurt worse than Trump's slurs against various minority groups because it was aimed so broadly, 25% of the population if you were paying attention, but if you weren't you may have thought it was half.
You have yet to address how disenfranchising Trump voters with the deplorables comment somehow lost Clinton votes.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 12:59 PM   #690
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
This is the problem with the press that has been bugging me for ages. Its the myth of balance. To appear neutral they simply report both sides of the argument. Its not journalism of any form that I recognise.
Part of the problem is the business model that claims neutrality when the equivalence is false.

But there is also the element of the business model which says, controversy (among other things) sells.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:04 PM   #691
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Sorry about the snip.

I worked at a newspaper for 29 years and wrote and edited thousands of articles. I don't think I ever saw someone labeled a liar (by the newspaper itself). It was part of the "show, don't tell" esthetic. And I don't see, "The President maintains, however ..." as ceding anything to Trump. It's just allowing for a response from him, which is normal practice.

My approach would be to let him have his say, then surgically eviscerate his claim. I think there's a danger in calling him a liar. There's no need for the label, IMO. In fact I think the labeling undermines The Post (or CNN) credibility. IMO, people do not want news stories telling them what to think. But if you write straight headlines saying "Trump's estimate conflicts with that of (credible source). Play it absolutely straight. People will get it.

...
Yes, and the GOP comeback is to detract from the lie by directing the focus to the disrespect being shown Trump calling lies, lies. They seek to change the story to the fact the word, 'lie' was not used with other politicians.

The news media might do better to either stay away from the word, lie, or, to point out Trump's alternate reality is the exception not the rule and his claims reach the level of 'lies'. I like the latter approach but perhaps the former is more acceptable to more people.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 28th January 2017 at 01:05 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:25 PM   #692
Beelzebuddy
Illuminator
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,829
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Sorry about the snip.

I worked at a newspaper for 29 years and wrote and edited thousands of articles. I don't think I ever saw someone labeled a liar (by the newspaper itself). It was part of the "show, don't tell" esthetic. And I don't see, "The President maintains, however ..." as ceding anything to Trump. It's just allowing for a response from him, which is normal practice.

My approach would be to let him have his say, then surgically eviscerate his claim. I think there's a danger in calling him a liar. There's no need for the label, IMO. In fact I think the labeling undermines The Post (or CNN) credibility. IMO, people do not want news stories telling them what to think. But if you write straight headlines saying "Trump's estimate conflicts with that of (credible source). Play it absolutely straight. People will get it.
No they won't. That is the lesson I've taken from this election. People no longer care about the whole story, or what can be read between the lines.

Turn on CNN, or your 24-hour news bacchanalia of choice. See that ticker at the bottom? That's what people pay attention to now. That's the story. That's the ENTIRE story. If you "let him have his say," then he will have had his say and no one is paying attention anymore to your surgical evisceration. If you want to say "he is a liar," you literally have to call him a liar because you don't have the luxury of subtlety.

I'll echo wareyin: look to Fox News to see how it's done.
Beelzebuddy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:29 PM   #693
Marcus
Master Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,446
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You have yet to address how disenfranchising Trump voters with the deplorables comment somehow lost Clinton votes.
The deplorables comment reinforced an image of Hillary as condescending and arrogant, not just with the people the comment was aimed at, but with many others.

ETA: You must know that she issued an apology, that wouldn't be necessary if as you seem to think there was no damage.

Last edited by Marcus; 28th January 2017 at 01:40 PM.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:31 PM   #694
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,743
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I worked at a newspaper for 29 years and wrote and edited thousands of articles. I don't think I ever saw someone labeled a liar (by the newspaper itself). It was part of the "show, don't tell" esthetic. And I don't see, "The President maintains, however ..." as ceding anything to Trump. It's just allowing for a response from him, which is normal practice.
This has finally changed. I have seen several headlines in mainstream sources with headlines along the lines of "Trump repeats lies about voter fraud." Hannity was outraged.

Long before this election I observed, in completely non-political contexts, that we live in a strange modern world, where it is considered an extreme act to call someone a liar, but it is not an extreme act to lie.
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:39 PM   #695
Bob001
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You have yet to address how disenfranchising Trump voters with the deplorables comment somehow lost Clinton votes.
I doubt that it had any impact on people who had already decided to vote for Trump. But it looks like a larger-than-usual percentage of voters were undecided late in the campaign, and I suspect some of them said "So if I vote for Trump I'm deplorable? I'll show you!" And I suspect some undecideds who might ultimately have voted for Clinton just stayed home. In an election that was so close you can point to a dozen factors that could have made a difference. But "basket of deplorables" sure didn't help.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:44 PM   #696
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,743
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You have yet to address how disenfranchising Trump voters with the deplorables comment somehow lost Clinton votes.
Let me try.

If you think that illegal immigration is a problem (as I do), and that the government should do something about it, a lot of people will call you a racist.

If you support gay marriage, but think that it's ok for a baker to turn down a wedding cake order, I can guarantee you will be called a bigot.

If you think that girls who are perfectly normal, except that they have penises, ought to use a different locker room than the girls that don't have penises, you are a bigot.

Well, a lot of people agree with some or all of those positions, and they don't really feel like bigots. When someone comes along and calls them deplorable, it ruffles their feathers. Some of those people might agree with the above statements, but not feel very strongly about them. They aren't all that significant, and not enough to change their vote. That's the way I am, for example. I agree with all of them. In other words, the "you" in the statements above could apply to me I voted for Hillary anyway because, as much as I believe those statements, I think there are bigger issues.

Nevertheless, someone out there reading this is thinking, and will probably say, that my beliefs identify me as a deplorable bigot, and despite the fact that I voted for Hillary, will say that I am a Trump sympathiser, and one of "them". Well, do that often enough to enough people, and some of those people might agree that they are indeed one of "them", and might vote accordingly.

In fact, I think somewhere around 1% of the residents of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania did exactly that.
__________________
Dave

Last edited by Meadmaker; 28th January 2017 at 01:46 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:45 PM   #697
Bob001
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
This has finally changed. I have seen several headlines in mainstream sources with headlines along the lines of "Trump repeats lies about voter fraud." Hannity was outraged.

Long before this election I observed, in completely non-political contexts, that we live in a strange modern world, where it is considered an extreme act to call someone a liar, but it is not an extreme act to lie.
The issue is "what's a lie?" Trump surrogates have made outrageous claims on CNN and elsewhere, and then said "Well, how do you know it's not true? Prove it's not true." If there isn't some common agreement on how to identify a fact, then the word has no meaning. In the ABC interview, where the reporter basically said "The study you're citing doesn't say what you claim it says," Trump said, "Then why did they write it? They're just groveling now." WTF??
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:51 PM   #698
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,105
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Have you ever heard of a tiny news outlet called "Fox News"? You should try watching them sometimes. They very clearly and plainly tell people what to think.
There are more than Fox!

ABCNBCCBSMSNBCCNNPBS
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:07 PM   #699
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
The deplorables comment reinforced an image of Hillary as condescending and arrogant, not just with the people the comment was aimed at, but with many others.
So sayeth people with no evidence.

Quote:
ETA: You must know that she issued an apology, that wouldn't be necessary if as you seem to think there was no damage.
Sorry, logic fail. The apology could have very well neutralized any negative effect.

Enough of this Clinton blaming, @Marcus, @Meadmaker, @Bob001: get over it. Baskets of idiots and deplorables elected a disaster. That was not Clinton's fault.

[/off topic]

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 28th January 2017 at 02:09 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:12 PM   #700
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Do we have a new thread for Trump's latest blunder, the biggest most incredible blunder?

MSNBC is covering the ongoing protest at JFK airport because perfectly legitimate people arriving from Trump's targeted countries are being detained.

It's insanity, the most incredible insanity.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:19 PM   #701
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 13,720
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
This election says a lot about the people who choose some idealistic vote. Just like Nader tries to blame Gore, it doesn't matter. We got Bush, Nader taking FL votes mattered and we got 1,000+ preventable deaths following Katrina, we got the Iraq war and its disastrous consequences, and if you read Richard A. Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, you might even question whether or not Bush missed many opportunities to stop 9/11. Not that he could have, but the PDB that Bin Laden was determined to attack inside the US was not the only intelligence the Bush admin ignored.

So now you get Trump. Maybe you were in a solid blue or red state, allowing you the luxury of voting your ideals. But if you vote your ideals and you were in a state with a close vote count, you defeated your own idealism by claiming you weren't one of the responsible people that gave us Trump.
I did read Against All Enemies.

Chicago politics tends to smash idealism, for those paying attention. And the same Democratic Party that produced Hillary and Barack also produced the Daleys, Blagojevich, and Mike Madigan. And they are all intertwined.

Who's the idealist?

And to be fair, the Republican Party here is really no better, just out of power.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:20 PM   #702
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 21,388
So much for checks and balances protecting the US from Trump's whims.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:22 PM   #703
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 21,388
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Chicago politics tends to smash idealism, for those paying attention. And the same Democratic Party that produced Hillary and Barack also produced the Daleys, Blagojevich, and Mike Madigan. And they are all intertwined.
Are they really intertwined? All politics is local, and nowhere more so than the US.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:22 PM   #704
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,259
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Have you ever heard of a tiny news outlet called "Fox News"? You should try watching them sometimes. They very clearly and plainly tell people what to think.
I don't like it there either.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:23 PM   #705
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I did read Against All Enemies.

Chicago politics tends to smash idealism, for those paying attention. And the same Democratic Party that produced Hillary and Barack also produced the Daleys, Blagojevich, and Mike Madigan. And they are all intertwined.

Who's the idealist?

And to be fair, the Republican Party here is really no better, just out of power.
No, who is the realist? The one who campaigned for Clinton (me) because I saw the Trump disaster for what it was. And I do believe I can safely say, "Told ya."
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:24 PM   #706
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
So much for checks and balances protecting the US from Trump's whims.
Give them time, the latest Trump whim/disaster over banned arrivals has yet to play out.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:27 PM   #707
Bob001
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So sayeth people with no evidence.

Sorry, logic fail. The apology could have very well neutralized any negative effect.

Enough of this Clinton blaming, @Marcus, @Meadmaker, @Bob001: get over it. Baskets of idiots and deplorables elected a disaster. That was not Clinton's fault.

[/off topic]
Millions of people who voted for Trump voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And it's not like Obama got a free ride from anybody. If she couldn't keep the same voters who supported Obama, that's on her. And now we all pay a high price.

Last edited by Bob001; 28th January 2017 at 02:33 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:38 PM   #708
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Millions of people who voted for Trump voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And it's not like Obama got a free ride from anybody. If she couldn't keep the same voters who supported Obama, that's on her. And now we all pay a high price.
[/off topic] And you've had many chances to post evidence, but you haven't. This is just another assertion.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:53 PM   #709
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 13,720
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
No, who is the realist? The one who campaigned for Clinton (me) because I saw the Trump disaster for what it was. And I do believe I can safely say, "Told ya."
Trump is a disaster. Hillary is lesser only by degree, there is no high ground there. If you wanted a candidate folks would jump on board with, Hillary was not the wagon to hitch your horse to. I won't be shamed, by you or any other. I have my principles, and I feel fine.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:54 PM   #710
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 8,612
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I worked at a newspaper for 29 years and wrote and edited thousands of articles. I don't think I ever saw someone labeled a liar (by the newspaper itself)...
First, this is about calling a lie a lie. Not labeling the person who tells it "a liar." There's a big difference which I would've expected you to understand -- this even gets touched on within the ISF MA -- between using the word "lie" and using the word "liar." I don't agree the media has never used the word "lie." There are many examples of statements by various people having been labeled "lies." How many times have you seen:
Quote:
President Bill Clinton lied under oath, and told the court he had never had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

I agree with this:
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
No they won't. That is the lesson I've taken from this election. People no longer care about the whole story, or what can be read between the lines...
Many people I know seldom read the entire story for a very simple reason: they don't have the time. As for The Times decision to label Trump's voter fraud allegations "lies" it was not taken lightly.
Quote:
Some news organizations used words like “falsely” or “wrongly” — adverbs that tend to weaken the impact — in framing what the president said. Some used “with no evidence,” or “won’t provide any proof,” or “unverified claims,” or “repeats debunked claim.” The New York Times, though, ultimately chose more muscular terminology, opting to use the word “lie” in the headline. After initially using the word “falsely,” it switched to “lie” online and then settled on “Meeting With Top Lawmakers, Trump Repeats an Election Lie” for Tuesday’s print edition.

“This is the very unique situation that we find ourselves in as journalists and as a country,” said Joshua Benton, the director of the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University. “We have an administration that seems to be asserting a right to its own facts and doesn’t seem to be able to produce evidence to back those claims.” link
If we ever get to the point where the president can tell blatant lies to the public without having them labeled as such, will we still be a democracy?
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:57 PM   #711
Bob001
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
[/off topic] And you've had many chances to post evidence, but you haven't. This is just another assertion.

So is your blind reverence for Ms. Clinton.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ma-voters.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...for_trump.html
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502032...re-in-3-charts
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/up...ters.html?_r=0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...=.269e55ed1ecc

There's also evidence that some Trump voters would have supported Sanders if they could.
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-s...crushed-trump/
http://newrepublic.com/article/12744...crossover-vote
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 03:08 PM   #712
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 3,910
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post

Where did she fail? A number of campaign decisions could have made the difference.
Agree.

Quote:
Claiming she lost because she failed some entire population of blue collar whites is simply a false narrative.
And not one I put forth.
__________________
"God is not a magician" - Pope Francis

"I doubt that!" - James Randi

Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 28th January 2017 at 03:14 PM.
Fast Eddie B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 03:20 PM   #713
Bob001
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,473
Trump's travel ban countries (coincidentally, no doubt) are places where he just happens to have has no business interests. The places where he's making money are A-OK.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...=.acc0f74db200
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 03:34 PM   #714
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 8,612
There are reports of travelers stranded in foreign countries and detained at American airports despite being fully vetted with proper travel documents. This followed Trump's executive order that bars entry to the U.S. for:
  • Syrian refugees indefinitely
  • Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen citizens for 90 days
  • All refugees, regardless of citizenship, for 120 days.

According to news reports the Department of Homeland Security has said even green card holders from the countries named are barred from reentering the United States, leaving some vacationers stranded. This is from Snopes:

Quote:
At least one case quickly prompted a legal challenge as lawyers representing two Iraqi refugees held at Kennedy International Airport in New York filed a motion early Saturday seeking to have their clients released. They also filed a motion for class certification, in an effort to represent all refugees and other immigrants who they said were being unlawfully detained at ports of entry.

Shortly after noon on Saturday, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, an interpreter who worked on behalf of the United States government in Iraq, was released. After nearly 19 hours of detention, Mr. Darweesh began to cry as he spoke to reporters, putting his hands behind his back and miming handcuffs. Link
One Syrian family being detained had been sponsored by a Jewish group led by Tufts law professor Daniel W. Drezner. Drezner tweeted, "Who drafted and advised on this idiocy?"
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 03:43 PM   #715
Bob001
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
There are reports of travelers stranded in foreign countries and detained at American airports despite being fully vetted with proper travel documents. This followed Trump's executive order that bars entry to the U.S. for:
  • Syrian refugees indefinitely
  • Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen citizens for 90 days
  • All refugees, regardless of citizenship, for 120 days.

According to news reports the Department of Homeland Security has said even green card holders from the countries named are barred from reentering the United States, leaving some vacationers stranded. This is from Snopes:
...
Yep.
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us...rder.html?_r=0

CNN commentators say that there has been no formal instruction of how to apply the presidential order, so every immigration officer is pretty much making it up on the spot.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 03:45 PM   #716
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Trump is a disaster. Hillary is lesser only by degree, there is no high ground there. If you wanted a candidate folks would jump on board with, Hillary was not the wagon to hitch your horse to. I won't be shamed, by you or any other. I have my principles, and I feel fine.
And thus we have the Trump disaster and, throw in touch of denial believing that Clinton was as bad or almost as bad.

Care to revisit this in another couple weeks?

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 28th January 2017 at 03:49 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 03:48 PM   #717
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 58,414
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I'm not going to search through that data dump! At least post a paragraph as supporting evidence, in particular, something besides some commenter asserting their opinion as fact.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 04:02 PM   #718
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,105
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
This election says a lot about the people who choose some idealistic vote. Just like Nader tries to blame Gore, it doesn't matter. We got Bush, Nader taking FL votes mattered and we got 1,000+ preventable deaths following Katrina, we got the Iraq war and its disastrous consequences, and if you read Richard A. Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, you might even question whether or not Bush missed many opportunities to stop 9/11. Not that he could have, but the PDB that Bin Laden was determined to attack inside the US was not the only intelligence the Bush admin ignored.

So now you get Trump. Maybe you were in a solid blue or red state, allowing you the luxury of voting your ideals. But if you vote your ideals and you were in a state with a close vote count, you defeated your own idealism by claiming you weren't one of the responsible people that gave us Trump.
You really have to be drinking the Kool-aide to think a different president could have prevented deaths in Katrina.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 04:04 PM   #719
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,105
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I think it's more about the Democrats not countering the negative messaging about Obama's term.

The GOP has been hammering the message for 8 years that the economy was bad, blaming Obama and not things like the minimum wage being too low. Claiming the job gains were not good jobs. Claiming falsely that regulations and taxes on corporations were the problem when anyone who has taken Economy 101 should have been able to see the problem was not enough demand. You don't solve a demand problem by feeding the suppliers.

Look at the ACA, pounding pounding pounding how horrible the legislation is. And now when their bluff has been called, low and behold they have nothing better.

The Democrats should have been putting out a coordinated relentless counter message. The GOP has all that money behind it, from the Kochs to Corporate support. It can be countered, but it wasn't.
What reality are you from? The Dems had a lot more money than the GOP.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 04:05 PM   #720
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,105
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And you know this, how? Because you heard it somewhere?
Lol
Lordy
Because it is reality!
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.