American Politics

[DramaFree11]

"The President needs to stop blaming others and do his job. " - Joe Biden on Apr 20,2020.

(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1252389082723790850).

"Here's my promise to you: If I'm elected president, I will always choose to unite rather than divide. I'll take responsibility instead of blaming others. I'll never forget that the job isn't about me it's about you. " - Joe Biden on Aug 16,2020.

(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1295133234637025284).

"Putin's Price Hike hit hard in May here and around the world," Biden said earlier this month. "High gas prices at the pump, energy, and food prices accounted for around half of the monthly price increases, and gas pump prices are up by $2 a gallon in many places since Russian troops began to threaten Ukraine. ".

(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...ex-cpi-in-may/).

Let the expert comments (and blaming Trump and others) start. LOL.

Exactly, and this has little to do with war. It is terrible leadership and even policies.

[Gino02]

"The President needs to stop blaming others and do his job. " - Joe Biden on Apr 20,2020.

(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1252389082723790850).

"Here's my promise to you: If I'm elected president, I will always choose to unite rather than divide. I'll take responsibility instead of blaming others. I'll never forget that the job isn't about me it's about you. " - Joe Biden on Aug 16,2020.

(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1295133234637025284).

"Putin's Price Hike hit hard in May here and around the world," Biden said earlier this month. "High gas prices at the pump, energy, and food prices accounted for around half of the monthly price increases, and gas pump prices are up by $2 a gallon in many places since Russian troops began to threaten Ukraine. ".

(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...ex-cpi-in-may/).

Let the expert comments (and blaming Trump and others) start. LOL.

[PVMonger]

Glad you managed to figure out how to use Google and you even found the hierarchy pyramid. Way to go!

So you see that expert opinion is bottom rung. So where does that leave non-expert opinion? Not even on the ladder, right? So you see that non-expert opinion is not important, so you cannot discount the opinion of non-experts when you choose to dismiss evidence. Bcos it has no weight in the first place.

"You probably. " - great. You read me like an open book. I am so transparent.

No defense on providing an incorrect search topic? Probably because you thought that nobody would bother to research your blather.

No defense on your "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (that's Latin by the way) usage of one thing (Hierarchy of Evidence) to "prove" something completely unrelated.

No defense about anything, really. Just BS trying to make yourself look good to the audience of rightwingnut idiots.

[JustTK]

First off, I googled "The hierarchy of information". A randomized, controlled trial is more valuable than expert opinion. Of course, the key word in "expert opinion" is opinion not expert.
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.
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.
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".

Glad you managed to figure out how to use Google and you even found the hierarchy pyramid. Way to go!

So you see that expert opinion is bottom rung. So where does that leave non-expert opinion? Not even on the ladder, right? So you see that non-expert opinion is not important, so you cannot discount the opinion of non-experts when you choose to dismiss evidence. Bcos it has no weight in the first place.

"You probably. " - great. You read me like an open book. I am so transparent.

[Elvis 2008]

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.

Got anything for what was happening under Trump in January 2021?

What does January 2021 have to do with anything you? We were in a pandemic. Demand was down and drilling was down.

Typical dumb Dem. You were caught bullshitting and want to change the topic. You are never wrong about anything even when it comes to numbers. LOL.

[Elvis 2008]

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/.

"If you take 2 million cell phones and figure out where they are physically in a big city like Atlanta or wherever, just by definition, you will find many hundreds of them have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes," Barr said.

Sorry, but that is complete and utter horse shit. Use any app like google maps or Uber and it will pinpoint your location to within feet. Now the question is how accurate does it have to be. Let us say it is only good to within 100 feet. So someone who just so happened to have visited a place that had ballots earlier, just so happened to be within 100 feet of 10 ballot boxes at between 1 and 4 AM.

And how many other times have we heard you Dems blow off something as conspiracy theory with Trump and it turn out to be true? He was being spied on during his campaign? That was a conspiracy theory right? Yeah, that turned out to be true.

How about everything in the Steele dossier? All you Dems lined up and believed every word in that. How did that turn out? You totally bought the pee story didn't you PVM? Well, what happened with that?

Yeah, everyone around Trump wanted him to blow off the claim the election was stolen but he had already been through all this BS before and as far as I am concerned, the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. That a bunch of judges did not even want people who engaged in incredibly suspicious behavior to be deposed is outrageous.

What none of you Dems want to talk about is what led up to 1-6. After the Ukrainegate, Russiagate, spying on Trump, and Hilary trying to steal an election, you want us to forget all that shit and buy that 1-6 was totally unjustified. Sorry, we do not, and we do not accept judges who blew off all the circumstantial evidence.

So yeah, there is a much superior source then double blind studies, your own two fucking eyes. Shit, I have used Uber hundreds of times and rarely had a problem with Uber getting my location wrong. Imagine that.

[Gino02]

How about we do a poll here on this thread. Given what we know today who thinks "Donald Trump would have been a much better POTUS now than Joe Biden". No explanation or TLDR essays please, just simple "YES / NO / Not sure" opinion poll for readers and writers in this thread. We can close the poll on next Sunday June 26th, and tally up the results. I will go first.

"Donald Trump would have been a much better POTUS now than Joe Biden".

YES. Gino02.

Guys, 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.

Please vote by Sunday June 26th:

"Donald Trump would have been a much better POTUS now than Joe Biden" - YES / NO / Not sure.

[Gino02]

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.

[ScatManDoo]

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/.

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..

Yeah.

What he says.

[PVMonger]

Explain 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?

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.

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/.

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".

[EihTooms]

Sigh. 2014 under Obama, https://www.aogr.com/web-exclusives/us-rig-count/2014, peak was 1931, week of 9-19-14.

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.

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.

Got anything for what was happening under Trump in January 2021?

[Paulie97]

Sure, but let's require a practical "Voter Identification" before we can count your vote. You folks love "Voter Identification", right?

A fishing or hunting license will suffice.

[ScatManDoo]

Sorry, 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.

TrumpShit's blather is compelling to a large group of suckers.

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.

[JustTK]

Because crappy sources often spread lies.

Grifter TrumpShit is the obvious example.

He spread false fraud accusations to gain power and money.

From suckers.

Sorry, 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.

[ScatManDoo]

If Trump wasn't cheated the country would be doing exponentially better.

MarkiMark is still drinking the Koolaide.

Sucker flavor.