Are all of them right wing nut jobs or could it possibly be that you are so far from center that even center-left people seem like right-wing extremists?
OT: Another offshore wind farm project cancelled
- Thread starter newell138
- Start date
- Status
GOP dropped the ball on the Benghazi hearing when Hillary asked “At this point, what difference does it make?” The easy layup would have been, “You aspire to be President. If you can’t run the State Department effectively, why should people think you can run the whole government?”
thank you
The Regime is scheduled to premiere on Sunday, March 3, 2024, at 9 pm ET. The series will consist of six episodes with the finale airing on Sunday, April 7, 2024.
The Regime will be streaming exclusively on Max. For those who aren't Max subscribers, the new series will also be airing on HBO as well, at the same time as it streams on Max
Tucker can be trusted.
Conspiracy theories are always proved right.
What in the heck are you talking about? Tucker who?
Nah, I'm talking about some esteemed faculty from Harvard, Stanford, Oxford and other esteemed institutions. You know, people who had a backbone and dared to question the questionable decisions and not go along with the losers like Rachel Madcow and the vax gang. Instead, Fauxi, Collins and the vax gang issued takedown memos so as to not harm their interests in shilling vaxes. See how this works if you want to resort to baseless retorts?
Martin Kulldorff
Hillsdale in D.C. is an extension of Hillsdale College’s educational mission, teaching and promoting American constitutionalism, citizenship, and the liberal arts in Washington, D.C.
dc.hillsdale.edu
Jay Bhattacharya
Jay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research. He directs Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. Dr. Bhattacharya’s research focuses on the health and well-being of vulnerable...
Professor Sunetra Gupta
www.biology.ox.ac.uk
are you trying to flush our resident expert into this thread, dont make me tag himWhat in the heck are you talking about? Tucker who?
Nah, I'm talking about some esteemed faculty from Harvard, Stanford, Oxford and other esteemed institutions. You know, people who had a backbone and dared to question the questionable decisions and not go along with the losers like Rachel Madcow and the vax gang. Instead, Fauxi, Collins and the vax gang issued takedown memos so as to not harm their interests in shilling vaxes. See how this works if you want to resort to baseless retorts?
Martin Kulldorff
Hillsdale in D.C. is an extension of Hillsdale College’s educational mission, teaching and promoting American constitutionalism, citizenship, and the liberal arts in Washington, D.C.
Jay Bhattacharya
Jay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research. He directs Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. Dr. Bhattacharya’s research focuses on the health and well-being of vulnerable...healthpolicy.fsi.stanford.edu
Professor Sunetra Gupta
when you have around 1,193,777 deaths measures need to be taken.What in the heck are you talking about? Tucker who?
Nah, I'm talking about some esteemed faculty from Harvard, Stanford, Oxford and other esteemed institutions. You know, people who had a backbone and dared to question the questionable decisions and not go along with the losers like Rachel Madcow and the vax gang. Instead, Fauxi, Collins and the vax gang issued takedown memos so as to not harm their interests in shilling vaxes. See how this works if you want to resort to baseless retorts?
Martin Kulldorff
Hillsdale in D.C. is an extension of Hillsdale College’s educational mission, teaching and promoting American constitutionalism, citizenship, and the liberal arts in Washington, D.C.
Jay Bhattacharya
Jay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research. He directs Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. Dr. Bhattacharya’s research focuses on the health and well-being of vulnerable...
Professor Sunetra Gupta
You make decisions on what's know at the time and if later on after new ifo on the issue is found you change your position based on new findings.
One thing that hurt was when the President was told how bad the situation was becoming and despite the death count rising he refused to inform the public about
how serious Covid 19 was and told the public not to worry and talk about it being an epidemic was only scare tactics
Misinformation about the virus became the truth and even today there are those believing that misinformation while bashing those who spoke the truth ( based on the current info available) and were honest enough to change their stance based on the latest info on the subject .
From the beginning to the present there are those that refuse to believe scientific facts and base their opinion on what conspiracy theorist spread.
Tucker who is as funny as me not knowing who you meant with your loser Rachel Madcow statement.
Guess we both can play innocent
If he was so unserious about the situation, why did he stop travel from China on Jan. 31? (against Fauci's advice, but coincidentally, at the same time Fauci was receiving and responding to emails that suggested the virus appeared engineered--or something to that effect) That move, I'm sure saved possibly hundreds of thousands of lives--it was more than 6 weeks before U.S. lockdown. Also, while we're on the topic, 45 admin accelerated the vaccine. I know people have differing opinions on the vax, but if you like the vax, then 45 deserves credit for accelerating the bureaucracy. This despite the Dem pres and VP candidates openly questioning the vax in debates, and the pharma/DC complex holding back on the announcement of the vax to post election to not provide a win to 45. All told, any perceived mistakes he made are offset by the good moves he made. And further, is it not dangerous to spread false information that you can't get Covid, spread it or die from it if you're vaxed? So all things considered, it seems to balance out.
in other words the good ( speeding up the vax and stopping travel ) made every death because of believing the misinformation an acceptable tragedy.
As for the virus being engineered, no one can say for sure if that was the case or not.
There are experts on both sides that present good arguments. I wouldn't be surprised if it did, but won't claim it was or wasn't until one side or the other can really prove their case. As for from the market might be true as well, there are cases of transmissions of a disease from a animal or bird to a human, Psittacosis is one along with other ones that jump
As for release date delayed to hurt Trump, the public knowing 45 was the one to get production speeded up makes that claim unfounded.
The lockdown helping or not necessary is a subject debated and not solved since it happened but the 6 week wait was probably because in the beginning no one was sure what to do and when evidence pointed to a lockdown might be a good idea , that was put in play.
The vax was claimed ineffective in stopping getting the virus, but it has been credited in cutting down the deaths and serious complications for those that got the shot.
So despite being imperfect it has a positive effect.
this is what I found out about the China travel ban
AP FACT CHECK: Trump and the virus-era China ban that isn't | AP News
>He didn’t ban travel from China. He restricted it. Dozens of countries took similar steps to control travel from hot spots before or around the same time the U.S. did.
The U.S. restrictions that took effect Feb. 2 continued to allow travel to the U.S. from China’s Hong Kong and Macao territories over the past five months. The Associated Press reported that more than 8,000 Chinese and foreign nationals based in those territories entered the U.S. in the first three months after the travel restrictions were imposed.
Additionally, more than 27,000 Americans returned from mainland China in the first month after the restrictions took effect. U.S. officials lost track of more than 1,600 of them who were supposed to be monitored for virus exposure.
As FactCheck.org pointed out, the same day Pelosi went to Chinatown, Trump tweeted: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health (Organization) have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!” The CDC is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Two days later, Trump asserted that only 15 people in the U.S. were infected and that number would go down “close to zero.” Instead the numbers exploded. More than 3.6 million Americans have had COVID-19.
https://apnews.com/article/asia-pac...p-fact-check-d227b34b168e576bf5068b92a03c003d
Get outta here with your left wing sources (yes AP is left wing). You guys also love to be very selective and precise with your information when it suits you. We've got you figured out.
But couldn't the same be said for some on the other side? Reverse confirmation bias - since you don't like the source, just disregard it entirely? The AP may have a left lean, and they have absolutely published articles with erroneous information, but they also tend to produce accurate stories with verifiable information. So to immediately dismiss it out of hand..................
Just out of curiosity, what is a news source or publication that you won't dismiss out of hand immediately?
Last edited:
OK, I know when some don't want to accept the facts.
Seeing what is being said by many posters in some of the threads on this board has me thinking of buying Reynolds Wrap stock .
I get most of my political information from Real Clear Politics, which is an easy way to scan the landscape and ultimately nets out around the center. AP, CNN and many media ruined what credibility they had left with their reporting of 45. I also kind of have insight in this area--I worked with all kinds of media for about 20 years professionally. I've been on the phone complaining to Don Hewitt (60 Minutes creator and exec producer), been berated by Hal Bruno (Pres debate moderator in the '90s), and managed to outwit Pulitzer Prize winner Zachary Mider.
You haven't accepted any facts presented. You just parse things out to run the clock out. Fact check nonsense.
No offense but dismissing the AP immediately but then putting faith in Real Clear Politics is kind of funny. Real Clear Politics took a turn right around 2017 when they fired a large number of their straight reporters. What you get now is a lot of regurgitation from right leaning places like The Federalist. They became an outlet for pushing pro-Trump stuff.
In no way am I saying it's wrong to read that site but there is a certain level of irony throwing aside the AP for apparent bias and not straight reporting but then claiming Real Clear Politics apparently shoots straight. In reality, there are very few news sources now that don't exhibit bias.
At the end of the day, is it wise to immediately dismiss a story based on what you think the leanings are? I mean take for example that AP article linked above. It actually has information that is easily verifiable. So are we now dismissing legitimate, accurate information as not factual simply because the source falls somewhere on your political leanings' scale? Seems like a dangerous slope.
fact about the site you claim unbiased , but a right wing media outlet
"A Popular Political Site Made a Sharp Right Turn. What Steered It?" - Election Law Blog
>Interviews with current and former Real Clear staff members, along with a review of its coverage and tax filings, point to a shift to the right within the organization in late 2017, when the bulk of its journalists who were responsible for straight-news reporting on Capitol Hill, the White House and national politics were suddenly laid off.<
>They were never given much of an explanation why, the former employees said. But they were surprised to learn who was replacing them in some cases: writers who had worked in the conservative movement or for the Republican Party. One hire was the former chair of the Manhattan Republican Party and was married to a senior Trump administration official.<
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118746
Well, here's the rundown on my points, since you may have comprehension issues:
- Did 45 restrict (eye roll) travel from China: Yes
- Did it save lives: Yes
- Did 45 accelerate the vax: Yes
- Did that save lives: Yes
- Did 46 and VP create FUD around the vax in the most televised moments (debates): Yes
- Did that have some effect on vaccine acceptance? Yes
- Was Fauci against restricting travel from China: Yes
- Was Fauci at the time receiving emails that the virus could be engineered/not natural/whatever: Yes (the emails were made public--if you haven't seen them, that doesn't mean they don't exist)
- Did 46 admin say that you couldn't get Covid, spread it or die from it if you were vaxed? Yes
- Could that be considered dangerous disinformation? Yes
So again, if there were mistakes made, the net net is that these things all balance out--maybe not to you, but likely to anyone within eyesight of the center.
I would say I take anything from any media with a grain of salt. My inside perspective is that media are lazy and of course biased. If something has unnamed sources, that's a red flag. If I'm not sure about the logic, I look for real info (video, testimony, emails, documents). Unfortunately, since no media are trustworthy, it requires much more effort to get what could be the real story. I will say for Real Clear, they very often have diametrically opposed articles on the same topic one right after the other.
Follow the money. Many large Republican donors started funding Real Clear Politics. That's the reason their regular reporters were replaced with many coming from right leaning publications, etc.
Another thing I just thought of, although it doesn't apply to political reporting per se: Several years ago, on more than one occasion, I had to call AP because their auto generated story about my former company's earnings was incorrect. Probably because the company reported a particular number in an odd way that the machine couldn't interpret, but it's a different aspect of the laziness I noted.
Post
See new posts
Conversation
Jonathan Karl
@jonkarl
This is important. Fauci, in fact, had been advocating for a China travel ban for days BEFORE the president imposed the ban. The president has repeated said Fauci was against the ban. That is simply not true.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ehj4_N8XkAAgIuX?format=jpg&name=900x900
edited to add
"Over 200 million Americans should have the peace of mind that they did not have in March of 2020: They’re protected from hospitalization, and they’re protected from death." is something Biden claimed, so that is misinformation like you said
Last edited:
You would save yourself some time by actually reading what I said: "which is an easy way to scan the landscape and ultimately nets out around the center"
By the way, I run into your approach all the time with the left: I mention someone like Bjorn Lomborg, and the person responds with Google results of what people have to say about him, but not actually reading what he himself says. Gets kinda tiresome, and it's definitely lazy.
"I get most of my political information from Real Clear Politics, which is an easy way to scan the landscape and ultimately nets out around the center."
is what you said.
I posted something about that site.
It's lazy to dismiss info given because you think the "left" is always wrong..
Seems like there are those that feel everyone is left/right and any disagreeing puts one in a category that makes what they point out not worth considering
Take a good look at what I posted and don't look for ways to dismiss what you don't want to hear.
Poor source, but I'll accept it and revise my take to: Fauci was against the travel restriction before he was for it.Post
See new posts
Conversation
Jonathan Karl
@jonkarl
This is important. Fauci, in fact, had been advocating for a China travel ban for days BEFORE the president imposed the ban. The president has repeated said Fauci was against the ban. That is simply not true.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ehj4_N8XkAAgIuX?format=jpg&name=900x900
edited to add
"Over 200 million Americans should have the peace of mind that they did not have in March of 2020: They’re protected from hospitalization, and they’re protected from death." is something Biden claimed, so that is misinformation like you said
Stop your nonsense. You don't get to parse why I read what I read. A collection from many media sources is definitely better than reading many stories from one biased source. Real simple.
Here is a video from a source you will trust which should help you confirm some of my other points:Post
See new posts
Conversation
Jonathan Karl
@jonkarl
This is important. Fauci, in fact, had been advocating for a China travel ban for days BEFORE the president imposed the ban. The president has repeated said Fauci was against the ban. That is simply not true.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ehj4_N8XkAAgIuX?format=jpg&name=900x900
edited to add
"Over 200 million Americans should have the peace of mind that they did not have in March of 2020: They’re protected from hospitalization, and they’re protected from death." is something Biden claimed, so that is misinformation like you said
so is thinking everyone who disagrees with you get info from only sources you feel are tainted. That's nonsense
Seems like sources that have info you don't like to hear you probably consider tainted
""I get most of my political information from Real Clear Politics," sounds like you rely on mainly one source, one I posted an article about that implies the info you get there might be tainted and turned from the center to the right.
I posted facts, in rely you posted" left wing sources" when trying to dismiss the info I presented .
That's the type of reply that comes from someone who doesn't want to hear something that goes against what they think .
I would say a dangerous slope is 95% negative coverage of 45. 75/25 could have easily tipped the election just on that.
very good I agree with you making some valid points .
I also feel you dismiss points made that go against what you think.
Many things said that were based on current info at the time it was said were changed into a different opinion because new info became available that wasn't know before and
the advice changed based on the new findings.
Too often by changing that advice some tried to make everything look wrong and not admit that science is based on learning and as we learn new things sometimes the new proves what was thought before needs to be thrown out with the trash .
Admitting mistakes is the best way to handle fixing problems when you find out you were wrong based on new info found and using the new information to try and make things work the right way.
Post
See new posts
Conversation
Jonathan Karl
@jonkarl
This is important. Fauci, in fact, had been advocating for a China travel ban for days BEFORE the president imposed the ban. The president has repeated said Fauci was against the ban. That is simply not true.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ehj4_N8XkAAgIuX?format=jpg&name=900x900
edited to add
"Over 200 million Americans should have the peace of mind that they did not have in March of 2020: They’re protected from hospitalization, and they’re protected from death." is something Biden claimed, so that is misinformation like you said
Jonathan Karl
Peak tds
Hmmm...
AllSides Media Bias Chart
The AllSides Media Bias Chart is an easy way for you to identify political bias in the news so you can be better equipped to navigate our increasingly polarized media landscape.
www.allsides.com
I'm sorry, but this take is rosy and gives too much leeway to career experts who know better. This wasn't their first rodeo. There was a good test case with SARS-COV-1 in 2003. Ironically, in a paper from Fauci's organization, it said HCQ was effective. That was about 15 years before COV2. An expert with his experience over 40 years knows what masks can and can't do with viruses right out of the gate. He was right the first time he spoke about them.
"I also feel you dismiss points made that go against what you think." Well now there's a surprise. Now I've joined your club. I promise not to parse out fellow club members with Google results and I will only support my points with media you trust. That's my pledge.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
***WAR ROOM: Latest Recruit Scoop and Team News on Rutgers Athletics***- Latest: -RUFAN4LIFE-
