Thread: American Politics
+
Add Report
Results 5,746 to 5,760 of 14362
-
06-21-22 17:57 #8617Guys, thanks to those of you who already voted, and thanks in advance to those who will vote. We will tally up the results on Monday June 27th. We all have our opinions and very unlikely any of us will change our position at this point, but will be great to know our collective mongers' preference of POTUS.
Originally Posted by Gino02
[View Original Post]
Please vote by Sunday June 26th:
"Donald Trump would have been a much better POTUS now than Joe Biden" - YES / NO / Not sure.
-
06-21-22 17:47 #8616
Biden on the rocks: 32% approval, 27% on economy
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...omy/ar-AAYHMZp
In two new polls depressing the White House today, one put his approval rating at a career low of 32% and another rejected the president's finger-pointing on the economy.
The latest Civiqs (https://civiqs.com/results/approve_p...ue&zoomIn=true) approval rating hit 32% with 56% disapproving of the president. Even Democrats are expressing frustration, with their approval rate at a low 69%, said the data.
At this stage of his presidency, Donald Trump was in better shape though also underwater with voters in the same Civiqs survey at 44% approval, 52% disapproval, numbers he rarely broke from.
Recent president have all had very temporary low approval ratings below 30%, according to Gallup, but they didn't stay there. Biden's trend line, however, has been steadily down in the Civiqs survey since May 20, 2021.
Driving Biden's disapprovals has been the public's dissatisfaction with the economy, surging gas prices and unending and spiking inflation.
The latest Rasmussen Reports (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...oor_on_economy) survey of likely voters found that just 27% were good with Biden's handling of the economy. Some 71% said his handling was fair to poor.
And when asked who they blame for the poor economy, a majority said Biden, not the many targets of his finger pointing including Russian President Vladimir Putin. Some 52% blamed Biden for high gas prices, for example, but just 11% Putin.
Maybe worst of all for Biden as he braces for the congressional midterm elections, 74% of voters told Rasmussen that the economy has "gotten. Worse" under the Democratic president.
https://civiqs.com/faq
Civiqs, based in Oakland California, is a polling and data analytics firm that conducts public opinion research online. Since 2013, Civiqs has fielded over two million scientific research surveys, and collected more than thirty million responses to survey questions.
Now, let's blame Trump for all of Biden's failures. But if Biden was successful, those wouldn't have been from Trump's good work. LOL.
-
06-21-22 17:21 #8615Yeah. Originally Posted by PVMonger
[View Original Post]
What he says.
-
06-21-22 15:52 #8614
Well, let's see
First off, I googled "The hierarchy of information". What I saw was a bunch of stuff related to how information was displayed on a page. https://www.bridgewaterlearning.co.z...f-information/#text=The%20 hierarchy%20 of%20 information%20 is,(either%20 ascending%20 or%20 descending). And https://taylorhieber.co/hierarchy-of...als-of-design/. Originally Posted by JustTK
[View Original Post]
I then googled "hierarchy of information expert opinion". One of the entries pointed me to a link entitled "Hierarchy of Evidence". It was on that link, and others, that I found the information you were blathering about.
So, it seems that you provided us with an incorrect search topic. But we all know that you do that. Constantly.
Second, since "Hierarchy of Evidence" was what you were blathering about, I read several articles on the topic. What I found was that "Hierarchy of Evidence" relates to scientific studies and mostly (but not always) those studies are medically related. https://canberra.libguides.com/c.php?g=599346&p=4149721.
"Hierarchy of Evidence" says absolutely nothing about the "source of anything" other than indirectly. What it deals with is ranking studies as to their value based upon how they've been reviewed. Therefore, a scientific study that has been peer reviewed is "more valuable" than one that has not. A randomized, controlled trial is more valuable than expert opinion. Of course, the key word in "expert opinion" is opinion not expert.
What you have done is to take a principle related to one thing, and say that is really about something else. You have ignored (as is typical) the fact that the "Hierarchy of Evidence" pyramid consists of 7 levels (starting at the top and working the way down) 1. Systematic reviews, 2. Critically appraised topics, 3. Critically appraised individual articles, 4. Randomized controlled trials, 5. Cohort studies, 6. Case controlled studies, and 7. Background information / expert opinion.
So, to answer the question you posed "If information is compelling, why does the source of that information matter? Compelling information stand, no matter the source, right? What you asked can not be answered within the framework of the "Hierarchy of Evidence". One of the reasons is that the "compelling information" as you put it has not been validated by the upper 6 levels of the "Hierarchy of Evidence" pyramid. There are no reviews of the "compelling evidence". Nothing has been critically appraised. There have been no randomized controlled trials. In fact, there is nothing.
So, while you are correct that there are other things more important than "expert opinion", your "post hoc ergo propter hoc" linking to the "Hierarchy of Evidence" is fallacious.
And, in your worldview, a "Systematic Review" of a topic that is filled with misspellings is a much better source of information (or "information" as you term it) than a lower-level source that is rigorously written. Blather.
It seems that all you look at is "evidence" that you deem as "compelling". You probably say that the film "2000 Mules" is compelling evidence of voter fraud and Bill Barr's characterization of it as "singularly unimpressive" is somehow incorrect. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checkin...s-voter-fraud/.
Or some other poster's constant posting of propaganda from Russian News sources or rightwingnut media as "compelling" while discounting virtually anything from centrist news sources as "fake news".
-
06-21-22 13:45 #8613
Another swing and a miss by you
Early January 2019 is the latest you can find for Trump? As I recall, he was a so-called potus right up until America kicked him out of office on January 20, 2021. Originally Posted by Elvis2008
[View Original Post]
Got anything for what was happening under Trump in January 2021?
-
06-21-22 02:11 #8612
No
A fishing or hunting license will suffice. Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
-
06-21-22 01:22 #8611TrumpShit's blather is compelling to a large group of suckers. Originally Posted by JustTK
[View Original Post]
The newest lie is information to it's intended suckers.
The crap Shit spews is compelling to a large portion of Americans.
Suckers that get their news primarily from Trumpshit and Fox Fake News, supported the big lie with $250 million.
Suckers.
-
06-21-22 00:37 #8610Sorry, I don't see the simillarity. We were talking about compelling information. And now you change the subject and talk about Trump information. Compelling information stands on its own. Nothing Trump says stands up to the slightest scrutiny. Originally Posted by ScatManDoo
[View Original Post]
-
06-20-22 23:05 #8609MarkiMark is still drinking the Koolaide. Originally Posted by MarquisdeSade1
[View Original Post]
Sucker flavor.
-
06-20-22 21:31 #8608
You represent everything vile about the United States
https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/19/h...en-easy-steps/
Donald Trump's election was not the genesis of a new white racial consciousness but rather, if anything, a consequence of identity politics run amok.
By Alexander Zubatov.
June 19,2022.
With every news cycle bringing us a racially inflected incident—such as the recent racial rampage in Buffalo—the media leaps at the opportunity to blame all the usual targets of elite scorn: Fox News, Tucker Carlson, the Republican Party, and Donald Trump. The mirror is the last place the race-baiters ever look to account for the toxic race-consciousness burgeoning in all of us, white people included. But that is squarely where the finger of blame should be pointed.
Headline notwithstanding, this isn't meant as a blueprint for actual white supremacists. I would not be writing this had the identity politickers on the woke Left not already followed this step-by-step guide perfectly. Perhaps they didn't know any better. But they couldn't have done any worse.
With that said, imagine we had the goal of taking a nation in which race relations had been steadily improving for decades and plunging it back into the racial maelstrom from which a new wellspring of white supremacy could emerge. Here's what we'd do:
Step 1: Dismantle the Idea of Race-Blindness. If our goal is more white supremacy, our big obstacle is that lots of people don't dwell on race, and when they do notice themselves thinking about race, they try to tamp down the thought. With several generations weaned on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 's ideal of a colorblind society, we need to begin by reviving race-consciousness. We start by seeding a bunch of articles and videos in high-circulation channels telling us race-blindness is racism.
We might hear a reaction like this: Huh? Haven't we been working hard for ages to get racists to stop judging others, particularly black people, based on race? And haven't we succeeded spectacularly in gradually turning this country into a place where black people can get a fair shake?
Here's our response, to be delivered by a bespectacled, young, black graduate of a university racial grievance department speaking in an aggressively sententious tone to make the audience feel like subhuman troglodytes:
"Um, actually, our race-blindness has both negated and decentered the lived experience of people of color and also masked from the perpetrators of race-blindness the myriad ways in which they judge others by race. It's a form of white privilege to go around saying 'I don't see race. ' White people can afford to ignore race. People of color don't have that luxury. Racism is their daily reality."
Step 2: Get Children to See Race Early and Often. Next, let's get kids while they're still young. It's "never too early to learn," contends the aptly titled EmbraceRace organization. Even toddlers and babies can detect race, a Boston University publication informs us, but because naïve kids might not make much of superficial skin-tone differences, let's make clear, starting in preschool, that what they're seeing is this big bugaboo we call "race. " Indoctrinating the future influencers in elite private preschools will have the most impact. By the time they're 6 years old, we can start teaching white kids that they are born privileged racist oppressors. As one fawning story about such education puts it.
For white people, it means eventually coming to the understanding that they're white—and. . . What white privilege actually means to them. White people are raised to believe they have no race, that they are "normal. " . . . But a historically white school. . . Can't say it wants diversity without dealing with the fact that its culture is white.
The problem—at least if one were actually trying to make white people less racist—is that there's no particular reason to think rousing up race-consciousness is going to lead people to identify less, or less positively, with their racial identity. The proposition that we'll somehow get formerly "raceless" whites to identify more as "white" but to identify less with their own newfound whiteness is absurd on its face.
Long-standing social psychology research concerning "in-group bias" confirms that even when we create totally arbitrary distinctions—like randomly assigning kids to a "green" or "orange" group—kids begin to form positive associations with their own group (the "in-group") and negative associations with others (the "out-group" Mere membership in the group is enough, without more. If this is what happens with arbitrary, meaningless color groups, why would we expect white kids made conscious of their non-arbitrary membership in a meaningful social group not to develop more in-group, I. E. , pro-white, bias than they previously had? Even if we succeed in drumming the "white = evil" equation and actual out-group bias into the confused little heads of elite white kids in their liberal monoculture, children of the less educated / indoctrinated white working class are likely to stick with their more consistently conservative political views.
But recall that what we're trying to do here is make white people more racist. From that standpoint, in-group bias is dandy.
Step 3: Invent Race-Based Insults to Target Whites. We've given whites a clear racial identity; now, we have to antagonize them. How about calling them "racist" on the slightest pretext? No need for fine distinctions. Grand Wizard of the KKK? Racist. Trump supporter? Just as racist. Republican? Racist, too. Married to or friends with a Republican? Racist enabler. Born white? Born racist! Clear enough?
Accusations of racism make people defensive and angry. That's perfect for driving up white supremacy. Making a big deal of this defensive reaction, in fact, is precisely what made race-grifter extraordinaire Robin DiAngelo's career. Her solution: pretend such defensiveness is a uniquely white reaction, coin a still more inflammatory race-based insult—"white fragility"—and use it as a derisive label for anyone white who doesn't love being called a racist.
The derisive racial label of "white privilege" is even better because there's no escape: if you're white, you've got white privilege, period. Do "white privilege" callouts decrease racism or increase empathy for blacks? No, of course not. According to research, if you're a white conservative, your attitudes don't shift, and the most likely shift for white liberals is decreased empathy for their poor white cousins. For spreading white supremacy, this is ideal: the more elite whites treat less "privileged" whites with contempt, attacking them as racists possessing "white privilege," the more white supremacy we're likely to sow.
At the very root of race-consciousness, there is the concept of "whiteness" itself. "Whiteness studies" is an offshoot of critical race theory and, thus, sheds roughly the same light on "whiteness" as Nazi race "science" does on "Jewishness. " Unlike other identity affiliations of which one is supposed to be proud, "whiteness" is touted as a "dangerous idea," a mark of shame. More than that, as a Harvard professor argued in Harvard Magazine as early as 2002, in an op-ed titled "Abolish the White Race," "the goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. " If you oppose abolishing the white race, you're a white supremacist! Hmm. . . There must be a whole lot of those running around.
Add to these assaults making whites feel like second-class citizens the following rule of good journalism (instituted right after the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots) at our foremost publications: capitalize "Black," but keep "white" lowercase. The explanation: "white doesn't represent a shared culture and history in the way Black does, and also has been long capitalized by hate groups. " So, white people need to be jolted out their raceless default mentality at Step 1 above but are now told that they—people with European roots—are a race and yet do not "represent a shared culture and history" in the way black people—people with African roots—do. . . And besides, we shouldn't capitalize "white" because of racial guilt by association with hate groups, apparently another uniquely white phenomenon.
Translation: white people are a race but not a very good one. White supremacists, take heed!
Step 4: Spread Black-and-White Thinking About Race. Racial issues are often complex. Accounting for present-day racial disparities takes us into a tangled cultural and historical web, including the history of postwar government policies enabling dysfunction. We cannot allow such complexity to get in the way of spreading white supremacy, however. We have to polarize people by offering a dumbed-down version of history in which everything is either racist or anti-racist and in which, to account for every single racial disparity that exists today, we either have to believe that black people are inherently inferior or else that contemporary disparities are universally products of racism, with no other alternative.
Alas, such a binary outlook seems so facially absurd no serious thinker would ever embrace it, right? Well, fortunately for those wishing to create white supremacy, exactly this binary approach is being actively propagated by another leading race-grifter among us—perhaps our most influential contemporary thinker on race—author of such classics as How to Be an Antiracist (2019) and Antiracist Baby (2020), Boston University professor and director of its Center for Antiracist Research, Ibram X. Kendi. Here's how the Washington Post summarized some of Kendi's views: "Any racial gap simply is racist by definition; any policy that maintains such a gap is a racist policy; and. . . Any intellectual explanation of its existence (sociological, cultural and so on) is also racist. . . . Anything that is not anti-racist is perforce racist. " Befitting its place as a publication critical to fomenting white supremacy in America and which previously housed such race industry luminaries as race-based reparations champion Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic has given Kendi a platform to sow his thinly veiled antiwhite bigotry far and wide. We are in good hands.
Step 5: Institute Double Standards in Every Walk of Life. Seeding racist ideas in woke publications is nice, but for all those "deplorables" who don't read the far-left Atlantic, we need to take more concrete action. Promising examples are legion.
Most obvious is the implementation of antiwhite racial preferences in all walks of life, from university admissions to public and private employment. Universities admitting blacks with an average SAT score 200 points lower than comparable whites is a good start, but let's also introduce an "adversity score" to give black students another leg up. Or why not eliminate standardized testing altogether? When a middle-class white girl from Texas with a 3. 95 GPA and a 1550 SAT score can't get into a single top university because the elimination of standardized testing requirements has brought a deluge of applications from unqualified students and left admissions officers with fewer objective criteria and more leeway to focus on factors like race, we know we're doing something very, very right. When everyone, from our vice president to our newest Supreme Court justice to our new White House press secretary to our newest appointee to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors is being unapologetically chosen for being the right race, we're on message. When Joe Biden, on his very first day in office, issues an executive order titled "Advancing Equity and Racial Justice Through Federal Government" that requires "equity assessments" by all federal agencies to lessen racial disparities, we're on our A-game.
Let's not let up. Devise an entire false media-manufactured narrative that cops disproportionately kill unarmed blacks even if a full consideration of the evidence shows cops kill unarmed whites at a slightly higher rate. Tear down statues of founding fathers and presidents because of complicity in slavery and erect monuments to career criminal George Floyd. Make Floyd a cause célèbre while all but ignoring the strikingly similar case of white victim Tony Timpa. Allow the summer 2020 #BLM rioters to get away with impunity despite causing some $2 billion in damage and at least 19 deaths over the course of weeks of unrest, while prosecuting the largely white January 6 Capitol rioters to the max despite their having caused a comparatively minuscule $1.5 million in damage and a single death due to violence, viz, Ashli Babbit shot by police.
And here's our ultimate double-standard: while white people cannot but be racist, black people cannot be racist at all. We learn, first, that all white people, even those who think themselves non-racist or anti-racist, suffer from "unconscious" or "implicit" bias. The tests purporting to show such bias are, in fact, junk science, with no correlation between this time and next time we take them and no ability to predict any correlation between test outcomes and real-world behaviors. But who cares about scientific rigor when we're trying to spread white supremacy, right? Besides, even if "implicit bias" isn't real, we can still claim racism is everywhere because it's not just individual but "systemic," "structural" and / or "institutional. " Meanwhile, we're told, racism can only be exhibited by people with power, and since black people don't have power in America, they cannot be racist. Tell that to Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Dean Baquet, or the many-tentacled institutional structures that stand behind them. Under cover of such sophistry, we can then project bare-faced antiwhite bigotry, and if white people dare to call out the obvious, we can deny it and throw in an accusation of "white fragility" to boot. Awesome.
Step 6: Mandate "Diversity" Training. To make sure white people don't even think about stepping out of line, we have forced diversity training to remind them who's in charge nowadays. Diversity training today serves roughly the same function as re-education camps did in 20th century Marxist states: re-shaping human clay into a new social mold. Roughly 90 percent of employees of large corporations have had to suffer through some sort of "diversity, equity, and inclusion" training. Where employers don't compel our participation, professional or accreditation organizations, such as state bar associations governing attorneys, can pick up the slack. Universities and K-12 schools are likewise hopping aboard. This is great news for white supremacist recruiters because lots and lots of research shows diversity training pushes people away, makes them wary of interacting with minorities the "walking on eggshells" effect, and ultimately makes them more prejudiced.
Step 7: Say You See Racism and White Supremacy Everywhere. We've summoned up white supremacy beyond our wildest dreams, but let's not just sit back and enjoy. We should rub our ideological opponents' noses in it.
Let's take stock, first, that we are indeed succeeding. While the conventional left-wing narrative tells us white identity extremism, long on the wane, returned to prominence due to its alleged mainstreaming by President Trump, the data respectfully disagrees. As the New York Times reported in 2019, "hate group" membership had been consistently falling through 2014 but then began to rise in 2015, increasing 30 percent between 2014 and 2018. So what caused the shift from 2014 to 2015? Did something significant happen in the latter half of 2014 that set the stage for greater racial division and radicalization?
Recall a little thing that happened in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014? That's when the Michael Brown "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" lie was etched into our consciousness, prompting the Ferguson riots, and the emergence of Black Lives Matter on the national scene. Our media's obsessive focus on race and "racism" has continued unabated even since. Ferguson prompted the current revival of race riots, a spate of anti-cop rhetoric, and an ongoing crimewave known as the "Ferguson Effect. " It prompted a spike in "black identity extremism" and the corresponding growth in white identity extremism.
By November 2016, many of the same exact white people open-minded enough to vote for our first black president twice over broke for Trump, as election analyst Nate Cohn aptly summarized in a Tweet on November 9, 2016:
Trump's election, in other words, was not the genesis of a new white racial consciousness but rather, if anything, a consequence of it, of the Left's betrayal of the Martin Luther King, Jr. 's colorblind dream, of identity politics run amok, of people being attacked again and again for having had the misfortune of being born white in 21st century America.
Thus, if Trump was brought to power by racists at all, it is racists on the Left, not the Right, who bear the brunt of the responsibility.
The race obsession among the press, academia, and corporate America has only intensified since 2016. In 2019, after the New York Times' Trump-Russia narrative collapsed, the paper's executive editor held a staff meeting in which he stated openly that it was time to turn the focus to racism. Shortly thereafter, the Times' notorious "1619 Project" was born, arguing America was evil from the outset, founded on slavery and racism. This ahistorical nonsense was then quickly parlayed into a school curriculum and rushed into action by multiple school districts. Soon enough, we had critical race theory running roughshod in classrooms nationwide. Then George Floyd died, and our collective racial obsession escalated still further. Hardly a single American could have escaped the ensuing BLM bombardment that hit us in every facet of our lives. Then we got yet more talk of race-based reparations, the brilliant idea that if you're white, you owe blacks something concrete and quantifiable. For encouraging white resentment and "white supremacy," all of this was marvelous.
Having created this monster, the Left can now declare, in somber tones, how they were right all along, how racism and white supremacy were, indeed, always everywhere among us, how, as Joe Biden told us, "the most lethal threat to the homeland today" is not the out-of-control criminality and thuggery besieging out cities, not the fentanyl epidemic, not runaway inflation or the looming threat of total economic collapse, not the plagues of obesity, diabetes and Alzheimer's, and no, not even COVID-19, but rather, yes, white supremacy. And if we keep on fighting it using the same tactics people like Biden and his many comrades-in-arms have been using for the better part of the last decade, we might just conclude, a few years further down this crooked path, that, in the same way that even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut, Biden was actually, even if ironically, correct.
-
06-20-22 20:04 #8607Sigh. 2014 under Obama, https://www.aogr.com/web-exclusives/us-rig-count/2014, peak was 1931, week of 9-19-14. Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
2019 under Trump, 1/4/19, peak was 1075. https://www.aogr.com/web-exclusives/us-rig-count/2019.
Current rig peak under Biden, current, 740. https://www.aogr.com/web-exclusives/us-rig-count/2022.
In 2021, rig count high was 586.
And you are bragging about all the oil drilling under Biden? Hey, dummy, which is the most: 1931 or 1075 or 740? Well, if you are a dumb Dem, it is whatever number wants to be the most right?
What next you dumb Dem? The source not right? Or maybe you have an "expert" who can dispute, you know something like "the rate of increase in rigs is growing under Biden whereas it was falling under Trump. " Yeah, let us just ignore the pandemic and let you and the "experts" cherry pick numbers.
What you posted was a lie, pure partisan BS. The rig count should be higher now than it is under Obama.
Of course, that does not fit your Democratic good guy and Republican bad guy style of investing does it? The rig count was higher under Obama because Obama was not a moron like Biden is.
Evil Republicans did not have jack to do with any of this. This is all on your sorry dumb Dem's asses.
-
06-20-22 18:48 #8606Sure, but let's require a practical "Voter Identification" before we can count your vote. You folks love "Voter Identification", right? Originally Posted by Gino02
[View Original Post]
Here is this one; in order for your vote to count you must provide a link to verifiable data on Jobs Creation, the Unemployment Rate, GDP Growth, Trump's Pandemic vaccination distribution, Bipartisan Infrastructure Legislation passed, Deficit Reduction, etc accomplished by Trump as it existed at the handoff to Biden and compared to what has happened under Biden so far.
After all, "so far" is all we've got for Biden but you want to compare that to what Trump gave us after four full years, don't you?
Just "guessing" Trump's four year results were better than Biden's as of today isn't worth a damn. Let's see your proof.
-
06-20-22 18:40 #8605Because crappy sources often spread lies. Originally Posted by JustTK
[View Original Post]
Grifter TrumpShit is the obvious example.
He spread false fraud accusations to gain power and money.
From suckers.
-
06-20-22 18:29 #8604
As usual, you provided an impressive source link
My linked source was Forbes. Yours was apparently your ass. Originally Posted by Elvis2008
[View Original Post]
Feel lighter now that you got all that crap out of your system?
-
06-20-22 12:52 #8603Explain that argument to me please. If information is compelling, why does the source of that information matter? Compelling information stand, no matter the source, right? Originally Posted by ScatManDoo
[View Original Post]
Go check out 'The hierarchy of information' - you will see that 'expert opinion' is the bottom rung when assessing the validity of information. So logicians accept that there are many better methods to assess the validity information than considering the source of that infiormation. I am not making this stuff up. This is accepted science.
And that is the scientific view of 'source". Spelling mistakes do not even make it on to the bottom rung of the 'The hierarchy of information'.
So please do, explain to me why the science behind the 'The hierarchy of information' is wrong and that you know better than everyone else.
Reply With Quote
Posting Limitations
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
