Donald Trump for President Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
dandydan said:
It still shows they were wrong, and a quick google leads to other sites doubting their neutrality.
Click to expand...
That's fine.

I just was questioning everything, at your suggestion. And the whistle blower in your article works for a right wing political organization, and thus cannot be considered unbiased.

Basically, before proclaiming one or another thing to be correct, take a look at the underlying data and the claim that was made (I have not, and cannot speak on the accuracy of either source, but am simply pointing out a biased being used to claim bias).
 

RaleighBlue said:
That's fine.

I just was questioning everything, at your suggestion. And the whistle blower in your article works for a right wing political organization, and thus cannot be considered unbiased.

Basically, before proclaiming one or another thing to be correct, take a look at the underlying data and the claim that was made (I have not, and cannot speak on the accuracy of either source, but am simply pointing out a biased being used to claim bias).
Click to expand...
And the source for that is shown as biased, and you'll probably show my source about your source was biased then i'll do the same and we'll be here all night.
 
dandydan said:
And to continue the merry go round.
https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/12-center-for-media-democracy/

CMD takes significant sums of money for its work from left-wing foundations, and has even received a half-million dollar donation from one of the country’s largest donor-advised funds—all the while criticizing pro-business or free-market advocacy groups who also use donor advised funds or rely on foundation support.

Left leaning groups are notably absent from negative mention in PR Watch and SourceWatch. While SourceWatch maintains a “tobacco portal” dedicated to exposing links between free-market groups and the tobacco industry, the site neglects to include the thousands of dollars given by the tobacco industry to many labor-affiliated advocacy organizations.

Despite this history of far-left advocacy and funding, media sources often mistakenly cite CMD and its SourceWatch website as independent watchdog organizations.
Click to expand...
Fairplay:
http://think-tanks.insidegov.com/l/4/American-Enterprise-Institute

Still conservative. Dunno the quality of this source, but everything except for the AEI website itself is coming up Conservative.
 

Ruairi77 said:
he gets paid millions to tell people how he did it.
Click to expand...
When Condoleezza Rice headlined a 2009 fundraising luncheon for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, she collected a $60,000 speaking fee, then donated almost all of it back to the club, according to multiple sources familiar with the club’s finances.

Hillary Clinton was not so generous to the small charity, which provides after-school programs to underprivileged children across the Southern California city. Clinton collected $200,000 to speak at the same event five years later, but she donated nothing back to the club, which raised less than half as much from Clinton’s appearance as from Rice’s, according to the sources and tax filings.


Instead, Clinton steered her speaking fee to her family’s own sprawling $2 billion charity.

So the warmongering republican gives most of her fee back while the progressive champion of the little people charges 3 times as much and "donates" it to her own charity (tax loophole?)
Nice work if you can get it.
 
@dandydan Quick check -

There is a rise in crime in 2016 as compared to 2014/2015. However it is a very small rise, generally considered statistically insignificant, and is localized largely to Chicago and a few other large cities. Crime has risen this year, but continues to be generally extremely low and fits on the curve with the general downward trend of crime in the U.S.

In other words, Trump was technically correct over the course of 12 months, but incorrect over the longer term. Politifact's article did touch on these things, but absolutely put a left leaning bias on the article by editorializing on Trump's insinuation rather than sticking to the pure statistics.

So if we allow room for insinuation, Trump is fearmongering - a crime is still super, super unlikely to happen to you and relative to even 20 years ago is incredibly unlikely. But without inferring anything from the statement that 'crime is rising' he is technically correct over a small recent time period.

And, as an engineer, technically correct IS the best kind of correct.

Your article does not touch on the nuances of the scenario though in extolling the technical accuracy of the statement, and also therefore shows bias, because it fails to illuminate the issue with context thus hiding important factors from the reader.

So in conclusion - everybody is biased.
 

dandydan said:
Question everything.
On crime, Trump’s right and Politifact is wrong [UPDATED]
Politifact, a biased liberal operation that purports to fact-check political claims, recently examined Donald Trump’s statement that “crime is rising.” It found the claim to be false, rating it “pants on fire,” the worst rating these liberals dole out.

But Trump, in this instance, is correct. Crime is rising.

How did Politifact err on such a basic question? It erred by looking at no data past 2014. Sean Kennedy at AEI Ideas blows the whistle.

Trump made his statement on June 7, 2016. Thus, his claim that crime is rising can only be fact-checked by analyzing current data. By failing to do so, Politifact confirmed that it is either incompetent, hopelessly biased, or both.

Kennedy did what Politifact was obligated to do before proclaiming Trump a liar. He looked at data that would illuminate whether crime is increasing.

Specifically, Kennedy examined local agency data for 2016 and compared it to 2014 and 2015 data. He found that violent crime in most major US cities, especially homicide, is up substantially since 2014.
Click to expand...

It is not a biased liberal organization. Conservative and liberals alike have criticized them...especially when they are caught in a lie.

And if you would have read all the way down on their sight you would have seen this:

"UPDATE, July 5, 2016: After we published our article, the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, published a blog post critiquing our analysis. The post cited preliminary figures for 2015 that show crime rising.

Our fact-check acknowledged the point made in the post, although this data is preliminary and subject to revision. Two criminologists we checked with before publication warned us that such data may not be indicative of a real trend.

In addition, while the preliminary data shows spikes in crime rates in some cities, Trump’s statement was broad, without qualifiers, and it came amid comments that painted an overarching image of a nation in decline. Trump didn’t say that crime was rising "recently" or "in recent months" or "over the past year" or "in some places."

Ultimately, we find that Trump’s sweeping rhetoric about a nation in decline and beset by crime ignores the overall trend of violent and property crime rates over the past 25 years, which is that they have fallen, consistently and significantly. We stand by our rating of Pants on Fire."
 
RaleighBlue said:
Oh, I realize that. He was the prototype of the hypocritical charlatan preaching about the good ol' days.

However, from a public perception standpoint he aimed to consolidate power for the Senate and weaken popular leaders such as Scipio Africanus. This drove the legions of Africanus deeper into debt to the general rather than the Senate, leading the way to Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and eventually Caesar.

So in pushing for the 'old family values' of Rome, he assisted the eventual breakdown of the Republic.

I realize he was a toad in his personal (and backroom) life and of course did not practice what he preached. I was more referring to his public image and actions being inspired by history but being a leading cause of the Republic running off a cliff.

...We should have a thread about classical history I think:coffee:
Click to expand...

We should certainly have such a thread.

As for Cato, I think his contribution there was to prevent any meaningful land reform whilst it could have been done politically, which led to (after his death) the Gracchi getting butchered for trying to bring about that reform. Those murders then taught everyone that followed that they would need an army before trying to fix things, which is what led to the armies being indebted to their generals, and the eventual collapse of the Republic.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top