Guns Down America's leader says Biden 'has simply not done enough' on gun control. Rising: October 21, Rising: October 20, Donziger: Prison sentence is federal judge's attempt to 'punish me as much as she can'.
Don't miss a brief. Sign up for our daily email. Your Email. Let's review who's 'making it about Bernie Not about policy. Agreed -- the usual suspects. Do you have time to post the links?
I feel chastised. To you. Not to me and many others -- perhaps more than not. So tell us, what "genuine progressive economic policy" has he gotten enacted "over the past Whatever you do. Look up his amendments, there are a lot -- if you really are interested. I'm not your gofer George. Yes they are, to those of us who value facts anyway. Well, we're not in British or in Britain now are we? Don't feel bad. Lots of people make the mistake of trying to correct someone.
You are telling me that all posters on DU live in the US? Still waiting on backup for this "specious" claim The media is "ignoring" him, but I would loved to be ignored that way.
So you think WaPo's version of this is correct? According to the facts in this article, the Washington Post is correct. This attitude is exactly why we don't always get out the vote.
Poo-pawing or downplaying. The Washington Post read the underlying study which is part of fact checking. In the real world, one needs to keep an open mind in order to tell the difference betwen. Fact checking means checking the facts. I am less concerned with the number, because it surely is a problem, and more. Now that is a reasonable statement and one.
I am concerned if someone who claims they can fix a problem gets their numbers wrong. But imagine if he actually did win, is he going to change his.
Oh brother. What's ridiculous about it? Care to share with us all? I already have above. Several times. That's one way to avoid the question. The study cited does not support that claim according to the Washington Post.
Oh really. Well, why don't you go ahead and. The study stated that bankruptcies were due to more than one condition. If a politician is going to use numbers to support their case, the numbers should be correct. Apparently some candidates are considered "exempt' from fact checking. A thing is either accurate or it is not. It's accurate -- like global warming is. No, global warming is supported by facts.
The WAPO piece is like climate science. I would venture to guess that more voters are turned off by candidates exaggerating As viewed from an obviously biased perspective. In what way is the perspective biased? Where are the REAL numbers specifically? I don't see them. How about look at the study.
I did. With an OPEN mind. So what are those specific facts? As I said:. Okay, pick bones between contributed and caused if you like. The point being contributed has the. Contributed to, and causality are not mere 'bones' when it comes to statistics. Oh, like carbon emissions relative to global warming. Actually, not the same thing at all. Thank you. It is ugly and unbecoming. Ugly and unbecoming is attacking the messenger. You mean correcting Bernie's statistics is what you think is ugly.
Now there's a euphemism Your very educated opinion doesn't outweigh this groups' collective very educated opinion. Facts are facts and the Washington Post did its job in checking the facts. No, they lied. WAPO said the study that Bernie used was not peer reviewed and in fact it was,. I trust the Washington Post here. Far more than an opinion piece by Krystal Ball. I was disappointed in that piece by Krystal Ball. They "lied"? They didn't have a problem with it but they clearly looked at it more objectively.
If the WaPo made a mistake I'm sure they will make a retraction. WaPo published an update today. They are standing by their Three-Pinocchio rating. That's not what WaPo said. There you go, bringing facts into this Regarding peer review. WaPo says that the editorial was not peer reviewed. Bernie does abide. That ,, which was then increased to ,, is people, not bankruptcies About The Hill. According to Himmelstein, the author of the study:. Another evasion of the actual question.
No surprise. But since you brought it up Not my take, but if that's where your head's at Oh I think it is your take. No, not what I said, and not who I was mocking at all. Damn corporate media!! They're just threatened by Are you saying that this paper is more accurate than. Not a Sanders fan for numerous reasons, but too many financial hardships are caused by health costs. If a Pol is going to quote numbers, that pol needs to be sure that those numbers are correct.
He was close enough. It's not like we need action only when it's over K. I go to Krystal Ball when I want an ubiased analysis. I think the Washington Post has a lot more credibility than either. Seems like a lot of energy spent arguing about a factoid in a campaign speech. If one is going to make a point with facts, it's sort of important that they be facts. Are you equally concerned by Factcheck.
I get tired of all candidates promising the world with questionable funding sources. Well, this OP is about a candidate using faulty statistics to make a point. Bernie is right about this. I'm not necessarily a Bernie supporter, but I don't like to see stupid.
What "stupid false attack? The study Bernie cited found , medical bankruptcies, not people. The link is for the excerpt above it.
This keeps getting posted but there's a paywall on WAPO and no paragraphs at Thanks for the thread, Uncle Joe. Thank you sheshe. As usual Bernie's analysis of the data is slanted and sloppy. If I were to vote in a presidential primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden. Let's just get the facts cleared up from a reputable, credible source instead of all these pundits and surrogates spinning the facts the way they'd like them to be.
That's not true. Why aren't those detailed instead of just glossing over them like they don't exist? I hope you'll answer that directly. We're not talking about an "acceptable number", we're talking about a realistic reason why bankruptcies occur. So what say you about that, other than another question? The nonsense you're trying to derail the thread with? I think it's nonsense.
Invincible Ignorance Fallacy: The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc.
Complete nonsense Why should I entertain bad faith arguments? The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. Krystal Ball actually showed very clearly that Bernie's statement was factually correct and that the WaPo was wrong most likely intentionally in order to undermine Bernie because of his forthright use of the fact that Amazon paid zero federal taxes in during his campaign presentations as an example of the gross inequities going on in our current political system.
Everything is a conspiracy against Bernie. Fact checking that relies on actual facts is unbiased. Using gross generalities or relying on relatively minor if not questionable exceptions to the norm is not relying on actual facts. This whole argument is silly. It occurs solely because some go into attack mode on anything Bernie. That's attacking the messenger, with a rather silly premise as the justification. And yes, it's silly. My premise I don't think so. Check the posts again And I was just pointing that out because I thought you enjoyed fallacy talk.
Seeing as how you're constantly and often incorrectly calling them out and all. But I guess not. Thrice, even. And yes, I'm still right. As usual Lord knows why. KPN 8, posts KPN It was not my intent to insult you but I can see how one could feel that way,. No easier than the specious attacks on Sanders that are obviously grounded in long standing bias and disdain.
Make this about me if it suits you. So, why exactly are you NOT supporting "the person who has probably been the most aggressive champion of genuine progressive economic policy over the past 20 or so years" as you claim, for POTUS? There are a couple of other candidates whose views align with mine but are likely more electable in than Sanders in my estimation. It's not about the person It's about the policy.
They like to make it about Bernie because it's convenient for them. The real agenda is something different. You'll notice all the same people hate Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.
Exactly That's what makes this so ugly. Trying to minimize this horror for cheap political points. The Ben Shapiro Show. The Daily Wire. Morning Wire. Bad Bets. The Wall Street Journal. You Might Also Like. Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar. Breaking Points. The Realignment.
0コメント