|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 11 2017 05:11 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 11 2017 04:29 oBlade wrote:Why do people keep doing this? When you compare someone to ISIS, as USA today did, you are compelling a defense against that. They are the ones who brought this up. Not Fox. When you compare someone to Hitler, the Nazis, any of these ridiculous instances of name-calling, and someone rebuts it, you can't mockingly pretzel that into somehow proving you right. This is an obnoxious meme and it always takes the same form: "Trump wants to repeal the 19th amendment!" (just an example) -No, you just made that up in your head, it has no connection to reality. "Haha fail, isn't it sad that's the best you can say in Drumpf's defense? That he doesn't want to strip women of the right to vote?" It's like, no, they didn't bring it up, it's a direct response to an attack. Imagine someone called you a serial rapist, DPB, and you explained you weren't. Then they turned around and said "Wow, do you want a cookie, you should be so proud of yourself for somehow managing not to rape multiple people, don't set the bar too high for yourself there." Absurd attitude, isn't it. If it's the source (Fox) delivery that's causing confusion, imagine this was on a CNN news ticker instead: USA Today Compares Bannon to ISIS Leader (Fact-check: He's Not). I find this similar to the cases where Milo is unnecessarily given voice/ limelight by the people who hate him, when they create a louder ruckus. Don't feed the troll. Why would Fox News (or any other source) even bother humoring such a patently silly comparison? If someone called me a serial rapist, I'd tell them to fuck off and then I'd move on. I wouldn't want a TV network to broadcast anything about the topic, even if it was defending me, because that just invites scrutiny from dumb people. All Fox is doing is drawing more attention to the analogy with trying to establish a "defense", much to the glee of the people who are already looking for Fox to waste time on stupid things. Because ratings man. Even though the media is going crazy over Trump they are probably secretly pleased because of all the ratings boost this reality show of an administration produces.
That's true. Wasn't there a time when the desire to accurately inform an audience was more important than just receiving high ratings? I wish The Newsroom was still on.
|
On February 11 2017 05:12 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 04:56 oBlade wrote:On February 11 2017 04:49 Acrofales wrote:On February 11 2017 04:29 oBlade wrote:Why do people keep doing this? When you compare someone to ISIS, as USA today did, you are compelling a defense against that. They are the ones who brought this up. Not Fox. When you compare someone to Hitler, the Nazis, any of these ridiculous instances of name-calling, and someone rebuts it, you can't mockingly pretzel that into somehow proving you right. This is an obnoxious meme and it always takes the same form: "Trump wants to repeal the 19th amendment!" (just an example) -No, you just made that up in your head, it has no connection to reality. "Haha fail, isn't it sad that's the best you can say in Drumpf's defense? That he doesn't want to strip women of the right to vote?" It's like, no, they didn't bring it up, it's a direct response to an attack. Imagine someone called you a serial rapist, DPB, and you explained you weren't. Then they turned around and said "Wow, do you want a cookie, you should be so proud of yourself for somehow managing not to rape multiple people, don't set the bar too high for yourself there." Absurd attitude, isn't it. If it's the source (Fox) delivery that's causing confusion, imagine this was on a CNN news ticker instead: USA Today Compares Bannon to ISIS Leader (Fact-check: He's Not). I think Ben Ghazi did it. Or maybe a Muslim president born in Kenya. Clearly it works. It just sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it? I'm not part of whatever team you think I am, and whatever labels you meant to tacitly give me here are probably wrong. He's not wrong though, the whole "make ridiculously false claim to get people talking and then retract it when nobody is looking" is straight out of Trump's birtherism playbook.
Do you think the national news media should be copying the M.O. of a political celebrity, then? "When they go low, you go... low?" Calling Steve Bannon Al-Baghdadi because Trump "started it," or can we have a working media?
On February 11 2017 05:12 ZasZ. wrote:
It works, there are still millions of people in this country who think Obama is Muslim.
They believed that since the 2008 election, before Trump latched onto the birth certificate.
|
On February 11 2017 05:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 05:25 crms wrote:Question was "Do you agree or disagree with the following state: 'The bowling green massacre shows why we need Donald Trump's executive order on immigration?" + Show Spoiler +For full results: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/830052652683767808 Wow, talk about a pretty clear split: Trump voters still getting trolled hard. Clinton voters seem well-informed. Third party voters don't really know.
I would be hesitant to claim that. Correlation doesn't equal causation. They may have disagreed because they are opposed to the muslim ban regardless of whether they know the "bowling green massacre" is a farce or not.
|
On February 11 2017 05:25 crms wrote:Question was "Do you agree or disagree with the following state: 'The bowling green massacre shows why we need Donald Trump's executive order on immigration?" + Show Spoiler +For full results: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/830052652683767808
What a terrible poll. There should be a "what's a bowling green massacre?" answer for that to have any kind of use.
|
???
WASHINGTON — President Trump told President Xi Jinping of China on Thursday evening that the United States would honor the “One China” policy, reversing his earlier expressions of doubt about the longtime diplomatic understanding and removing a major source of tension between the United States and China since shortly after he was elected.
In a statement, the White House said Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi “discussed numerous topics, and President Trump agreed, at the request of President Xi, to honor our One China policy.” It described the call as “extremely cordial” and said the leaders had invited each other to visit.
The concession was clearly designed to put an end to an extended chill in the relationship between China and the United States. Mr. Xi, stung by Mr. Trump’s unorthodox telephone call with the president of Taiwan in December and his subsequent assertion that the United States might no longer abide by the One China policy, had not spoken to Mr. Trump since Nov. 14, the week after he was elected.
Administration officials concluded that Mr. Xi would take a call only if Mr. Trump publicly committed to upholding the 44-year-old policy, under which the United States recognized a single Chinese government in Beijing and severed its diplomatic ties with Taiwan.
Given the domestic political stakes of this issue for Mr. Xi, the fact that both sides went ahead with a call – and that the White House statement afterward acknowledged Mr. Trump’s acquiescence – suggested that the agreement on “one China” had been worked out beforehand.
The Chinese state news media, in its readout of the call, said Mr. Trump had “stressed that he fully understood the great importance for the U.S. government to respect the One China policy,” and that “the U.S. government adheres to the One China policy.”
It also said the two leaders had agreed on the “necessity and urgency of strengthening cooperation between China and the United States” and noted that Beijing wants to work with Washington on a range of issues, including the economy and trade, science, energy, communications and global stability.
The timing of the conversation was significant, as Mr. Trump is about to welcome Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, for an extravagant three-day visit that will include a weekend of golf in Florida — a visit that will be closely monitored in China.
...
New York Times
Reading comprehension?
|
On February 11 2017 05:35 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 05:12 ZasZ. wrote:On February 11 2017 04:56 oBlade wrote:On February 11 2017 04:49 Acrofales wrote:On February 11 2017 04:29 oBlade wrote:Why do people keep doing this? When you compare someone to ISIS, as USA today did, you are compelling a defense against that. They are the ones who brought this up. Not Fox. When you compare someone to Hitler, the Nazis, any of these ridiculous instances of name-calling, and someone rebuts it, you can't mockingly pretzel that into somehow proving you right. This is an obnoxious meme and it always takes the same form: "Trump wants to repeal the 19th amendment!" (just an example) -No, you just made that up in your head, it has no connection to reality. "Haha fail, isn't it sad that's the best you can say in Drumpf's defense? That he doesn't want to strip women of the right to vote?" It's like, no, they didn't bring it up, it's a direct response to an attack. Imagine someone called you a serial rapist, DPB, and you explained you weren't. Then they turned around and said "Wow, do you want a cookie, you should be so proud of yourself for somehow managing not to rape multiple people, don't set the bar too high for yourself there." Absurd attitude, isn't it. If it's the source (Fox) delivery that's causing confusion, imagine this was on a CNN news ticker instead: USA Today Compares Bannon to ISIS Leader (Fact-check: He's Not). I think Ben Ghazi did it. Or maybe a Muslim president born in Kenya. Clearly it works. It just sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it? I'm not part of whatever team you think I am, and whatever labels you meant to tacitly give me here are probably wrong. He's not wrong though, the whole "make ridiculously false claim to get people talking and then retract it when nobody is looking" is straight out of Trump's birtherism playbook. Do you think the national news media should be copying the M.O. of a political celebrity, then? "When they go low, you go... low?" Calling Steve Bannon Al-Baghdadi because Trump "started it," or can we have a working media? Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 05:12 ZasZ. wrote:
It works, there are still millions of people in this country who think Obama is Muslim. They believed that since the 2008 election, before Trump latched onto the birth certificate.
In general principle, I agree with you. It would've been great before the election too, but they were too busy trumping up emailgate to bother.
However, as a general strategy going high has apparently failed. If you're playing repeated prisoner's dilemma it may be time to return some tats. So go just as low, and watch the mediascape burn in memes.
|
On February 11 2017 05:54 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 05:25 crms wrote:Question was "Do you agree or disagree with the following state: 'The bowling green massacre shows why we need Donald Trump's executive order on immigration?" + Show Spoiler +For full results: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/830052652683767808 What a terrible poll. There should be a "what's a bowling green massacre?" answer for that to have any kind of use.
Maybe as a separate field, to see how knowledgeable people are about the event when voting.
But no reason to separate those people out from the base poll. It's a poll about a fake event, so the response including people who 1) believe the fake info, 2) don't know anything and guess, or 3) research when asked the question, are perfectly valid responses.
|
On February 11 2017 06:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 05:54 Acrofales wrote:On February 11 2017 05:25 crms wrote:Question was "Do you agree or disagree with the following state: 'The bowling green massacre shows why we need Donald Trump's executive order on immigration?" + Show Spoiler +For full results: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/830052652683767808 What a terrible poll. There should be a "what's a bowling green massacre?" answer for that to have any kind of use. Maybe as a separate field, to see how knowledgeable people are about the event when voting. But no reason to separate those people out from the base poll. It's a poll about a fake event, so the response including people who 1) believe the fake info, 2) don't know anything and guess, or 3) research when asked the question, are perfectly valid responses.
Except that logically, ex falso veritas. The poll gives you no way of answering that you know the bowling green massacre is not a real thing, but are in favor of the EO regardless. You get lumped in with the idiots who don't know and would love to bomb Agrabah.
|
On February 11 2017 05:56 eviltomahawk wrote:??? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/830047626414477312Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — President Trump told President Xi Jinping of China on Thursday evening that the United States would honor the “One China” policy, reversing his earlier expressions of doubt about the longtime diplomatic understanding and removing a major source of tension between the United States and China since shortly after he was elected.
In a statement, the White House said Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi “discussed numerous topics, and President Trump agreed, at the request of President Xi, to honor our One China policy.” It described the call as “extremely cordial” and said the leaders had invited each other to visit.
The concession was clearly designed to put an end to an extended chill in the relationship between China and the United States. Mr. Xi, stung by Mr. Trump’s unorthodox telephone call with the president of Taiwan in December and his subsequent assertion that the United States might no longer abide by the One China policy, had not spoken to Mr. Trump since Nov. 14, the week after he was elected.
Administration officials concluded that Mr. Xi would take a call only if Mr. Trump publicly committed to upholding the 44-year-old policy, under which the United States recognized a single Chinese government in Beijing and severed its diplomatic ties with Taiwan.
Given the domestic political stakes of this issue for Mr. Xi, the fact that both sides went ahead with a call – and that the White House statement afterward acknowledged Mr. Trump’s acquiescence – suggested that the agreement on “one China” had been worked out beforehand.
The Chinese state news media, in its readout of the call, said Mr. Trump had “stressed that he fully understood the great importance for the U.S. government to respect the One China policy,” and that “the U.S. government adheres to the One China policy.”
It also said the two leaders had agreed on the “necessity and urgency of strengthening cooperation between China and the United States” and noted that Beijing wants to work with Washington on a range of issues, including the economy and trade, science, energy, communications and global stability.
The timing of the conversation was significant, as Mr. Trump is about to welcome Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, for an extravagant three-day visit that will include a weekend of golf in Florida — a visit that will be closely monitored in China.
...
New York TimesReading comprehension?
Chill, it's easy to miss. Has/had and reading without the bolder contrast. His twitter policies will still hurt him (eventually, he still gets buoyed by fake news) because flying off the handle every time will stack up embarrassment.
|
The poll is not persuasive without further evidence. But it is troubling.
|
United States43581 Posts
On February 11 2017 05:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 05:25 crms wrote:Question was "Do you agree or disagree with the following state: 'The bowling green massacre shows why we need Donald Trump's executive order on immigration?" + Show Spoiler +For full results: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/830052652683767808 Wow, talk about a pretty clear split: Trump voters still getting trolled hard. Clinton voters seem well-informed. Third party voters don't really know.
This shit is short sighted. Clinton supporters joking about it is funny to them, but they were never going to support Trump. Whereas the average Trump supporter went from having never heard of the Bowling Green Massacre to believing that it happened and that it supports his push for immigration controls. There's no point laughing at conservative alternative facts, all it does is reinforce those facts in the half of America that will believe anything. They should instead be pushing that everyone killed in the Bowling Green Massacre was Muslim and that their killers were extreme white nationalists.
|
I don't take "poll shows people are stupid" polls seriously. They are generally neither useful nor fair.
|
On February 11 2017 06:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 05:56 eviltomahawk wrote:??? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/830047626414477312WASHINGTON — President Trump told President Xi Jinping of China on Thursday evening that the United States would honor the “One China” policy, reversing his earlier expressions of doubt about the longtime diplomatic understanding and removing a major source of tension between the United States and China since shortly after he was elected.
In a statement, the White House said Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi “discussed numerous topics, and President Trump agreed, at the request of President Xi, to honor our One China policy.” It described the call as “extremely cordial” and said the leaders had invited each other to visit.
The concession was clearly designed to put an end to an extended chill in the relationship between China and the United States. Mr. Xi, stung by Mr. Trump’s unorthodox telephone call with the president of Taiwan in December and his subsequent assertion that the United States might no longer abide by the One China policy, had not spoken to Mr. Trump since Nov. 14, the week after he was elected.
Administration officials concluded that Mr. Xi would take a call only if Mr. Trump publicly committed to upholding the 44-year-old policy, under which the United States recognized a single Chinese government in Beijing and severed its diplomatic ties with Taiwan.
Given the domestic political stakes of this issue for Mr. Xi, the fact that both sides went ahead with a call – and that the White House statement afterward acknowledged Mr. Trump’s acquiescence – suggested that the agreement on “one China” had been worked out beforehand.
The Chinese state news media, in its readout of the call, said Mr. Trump had “stressed that he fully understood the great importance for the U.S. government to respect the One China policy,” and that “the U.S. government adheres to the One China policy.”
It also said the two leaders had agreed on the “necessity and urgency of strengthening cooperation between China and the United States” and noted that Beijing wants to work with Washington on a range of issues, including the economy and trade, science, energy, communications and global stability.
The timing of the conversation was significant, as Mr. Trump is about to welcome Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, for an extravagant three-day visit that will include a weekend of golf in Florida — a visit that will be closely monitored in China.
...
New York TimesReading comprehension? Chill, it's easy to miss. Has/had and reading without the bolder contrast. His twitter policies will still hurt him (eventually, he still gets buoyed by fake news) because flying off the handle every time will stack up embarrassment.
They should take away his Twitter again. It wouldn't be much of a loss other than losing some entertainment from those rowdier Tweets.
|
On February 11 2017 06:14 LegalLord wrote:
I don't take "poll shows people are stupid" polls seriously. They are generally neither useful nor fair.
What is unfair about the massacre poll?
|
On February 11 2017 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:14 LegalLord wrote:
I don't take "poll shows people are stupid" polls seriously. They are generally neither useful nor fair. What is unfair about the massacre poll?
It's a loaded question and you know it.
"Do you believe people who support terrorists like Bill Ayers should be allowed to hold public office?"
|
On February 11 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:14 LegalLord wrote:
I don't take "poll shows people are stupid" polls seriously. They are generally neither useful nor fair. What is unfair about the massacre poll? It's a loaded question and you know it. "Do you believe people who support terrorists like Bill Ayers should be allowed to hold public office?"
Its only loaded if the person assumes the massacre is real. It is a fair characterization of the people responding because it shows that these people are as easily manipulated as telling them something is real. That's a shameful reality for each of those people.
|
On February 11 2017 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:14 LegalLord wrote:
I don't take "poll shows people are stupid" polls seriously. They are generally neither useful nor fair. What is unfair about the massacre poll? It's a loaded question and you know it. "Do you believe people who support terrorists like Bill Ayers should be allowed to hold public office?" Its only loaded if the person assumes the massacre is real. It is a fair characterization of the people responding because it shows that these people are as easily manipulated as telling them something is real. That's a shameful reality for each of those people.
The question has the person already thinking that its a real massacre as bill ayers is a terrorist. Its also loading the question by saying if someone who supports a terrorist or terrorism to hold office. This is the most slam dunk loaded question ever.
|
On February 11 2017 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:14 LegalLord wrote:
I don't take "poll shows people are stupid" polls seriously. They are generally neither useful nor fair. What is unfair about the massacre poll? It's a loaded question and you know it. "Do you believe people who support terrorists like Bill Ayers should be allowed to hold public office?" Its only loaded if the person assumes the massacre is real. It is a fair characterization of the people responding because it shows that these people are as easily manipulated as telling them something is real. That's a shameful reality for each of those people.
So: yes, no, or don't know? Should supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers make you ineligible for holding public office?
|
On February 11 2017 06:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:14 LegalLord wrote:
I don't take "poll shows people are stupid" polls seriously. They are generally neither useful nor fair. What is unfair about the massacre poll? It's a loaded question and you know it. "Do you believe people who support terrorists like Bill Ayers should be allowed to hold public office?" Its only loaded if the person assumes the massacre is real. It is a fair characterization of the people responding because it shows that these people are as easily manipulated as telling them something is real. That's a shameful reality for each of those people. So: yes, no, or don't know? Should supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers make you ineligible for holding public office?
No one should be comfortable answering a question without knowing the basic assumptions of the question. A willingness to answer a question they don't know the basic assumptions of is a disgusting quality. This poll rightfully shows these people to be disgusting.
|
On February 11 2017 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:14 LegalLord wrote:
I don't take "poll shows people are stupid" polls seriously. They are generally neither useful nor fair. What is unfair about the massacre poll? It's a loaded question and you know it. "Do you believe people who support terrorists like Bill Ayers should be allowed to hold public office?" Its only loaded if the person assumes the massacre is real. It is a fair characterization of the people responding because it shows that these people are as easily manipulated as telling them something is real. That's a shameful reality for each of those people. So: yes, no, or don't know? Should supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers make you ineligible for holding public office? No one should be comfortable answering a question without knowing the basic assumptions of the question. A willingness to answer a question they don't know the basic assumptions of is a disgusting quality. This poll rightfully shows these people to be disgusting.
Ok, so your response is to walk away from the question?
There is no "decline to answer" option. It's part of a bigger poll. That's what we call a loaded question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7tRfs3P.png)
