President Biden thread

It should be  "criminal transmission. "  That was the charge for people who were convicted of deliberately spreading HIV.  At the very least that person should be fired for negligence in knowingly not following recommended practices.  If the person had a nursing license, maybe the BON would be interested in suspending it for a while or forever.  Her weapon turned out to be deadly and who can imagine how much money this cost?

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

My post did not include any sources.  Just my opinion on two happenings.  

I'm not "skeptical enough"?  What is that based upon?  Nothing.  Only that I often have differing opinion then you.  Talk about black and white thinking.

I would guess that the poster was referencing your tendency to share debunked or nonsensical partisan opinion as evidence of something beyond your thinking. That reflects lack of healthy skepticism.

19 hours ago, Beerman said:

My post did not include any sources.  Just my opinion on two happenings.  

I'm not "skeptical enough"?  What is that based upon?  Nothing.  Only that I often have differing opinion then you.  Talk about black and white thinking.

You just give your opinions without evidence.  And here you are again on the Biden thread avoiding talking about Biden.  I will toss this out:  https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/oklahoma-seeking-return-2m-worth-anti-malaria-drug-75517793

Nobody forced this governor to buy into the HCQ nonsense and now he wants his money back?  Biden would never fall for the HCQ fever and have states wasting taxpayer money on snake oil.  He defers to the specialists rather than to ignorance.

He is taking a step away from the last Hamas bombings in Israel becaue BOTH sides are represented by criminal losers.  I call that wisdom.  I'm sure you can try to set me straight with that but please don't defend your argument with arguments by people who are concerned more with destruction than construction.  This is really hard stuff that the NY Post and other like-ilked sources don't have the depth of coverage to any story, except for the bikinied girl on a beach in the Bronx.

5 hours ago, subee said:

You just gI've your opinions without evidence. ...

[...]

And in doing so he is different than most of the others that post here in what way?

9 minutes ago, chare said:

And in doing so he is different than most of the others that post here in what way?

The "evidence" he provides is generally right wing reporting with mixed accuracy at best. He repeats partisan political rhetoric as if it is actual evidence or data or analysis. His concerns match perfectly with the social media concerns that have Trump supporters clicking on increasingly extreme thinking because it tickles their predisposed political and social thinking.  

That poster fits perfectly in the current GOP that would cancel a conservative voice because she won't ignore the dangerous lies that Trump is telling and GOP leadership is campaigning and attacking voting rights on.

2 minutes ago, chare said:

And in doing so he is different than most of the others that post here in what way?

He uses non-journalistic opinion pieces as "evidence."  I don't know that anyone knows anything about anything:) but I do understand journalistic ethics that real journalists (they DO have a code of ethics) abide by.  Having said that,  I believe that MSM is liberally biased which is different than just out and out lying that Fox and other ultra-conservative demonstrate.  Who, what, where, when, why and how.  Those qualities are the hallmark of journalism.  It does not say that the reporter's opinion is part of the piece.  It forces opinion pieces publish on the op-ED page but not as the lead. That is how newspapers work.  BUT they fail, in general, to represent what thoughtful conservatives are opining in their columns.  That makes them liberally biased IMHO.  Look at the AP headlines and your will see value judgements in their headlines.  It's very sad that their standards have fallen so hard.  However, they do not disseminate non-facts.  

3 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The "evidence" he provides is generally right wing reporting with mixed accuracy at best. ...

2 minutes ago, subee said:

He uses non-journalistic opinion pieces as "evidence." ...

You both missed my point.  I'm not talking about the quality of his sources, although he isn't alone in, at least occasionally, in using questionable sources.  This is one of the primary reasons that I rarely post in the political forums; most, if not all sources I might use are going to be labeled right wing propaganda, and immediately discounted

Again, my comment was in reference to this:

5 hours ago, subee said:

You just give your opinions without evidence. ...

He is far from the only member here to do this.  And, it is not uncommon when I ask for sources to either be told to find them myself, or have my intelligence and understanding of current events questioned.

42 minutes ago, chare said:

 

You both missed my point.  I'm not talking about the quality of his sources, although he isn't alone in, at least occasionally, in using questionable sources.  This is one of the primary reasons that I rarely post in the political forums; most, if not all sources I might use are going to be labeled right wing propaganda, and immediately discounted

Again, my comment was in reference to this:

He is far from the only member here to do this.  And, it is not uncommon when I ask for sources to either be told to find them myself, or have my intelligence and understanding of current events questioned.

It shouldn't be necessary to provide citations for something that is widely known as true.  For instance, would you need a citation to believe that Liz Cheney's conservative congressional leadership was just cancelled? That's not what Beerman offers.  As explained before, he employs Trumpian tactics that want to put nonsense on the record as if everyone agrees.  Trump used that regularly in his public remarks with journalists. He would say thinks like "you know better than me that..." and then go on to make some bullcr@p point that no journalists agreed with. 

42 minutes ago, chare said:

 

You both missed my point.  I'm not talking about the quality of his sources, although he isn't alone in, at least occasionally, in using questionable sources.  This is one of the primary reasons that I rarely post in the political forums; most, if not all sources I might use are going to be labeled right wing propaganda, and immediately discounted

Again, my comment was in reference to this:

He is far from the only member here to do this.  And, it is not uncommon when I ask for sources to either be told to find them myself, or have my intelligence and understanding of current events questioned.

I stick by what I said.  Most people here take care to use reliable sources that are worth you time to read.  It takes time to sift through everything that's out in the ether.  B. would be laughed off the debate stage for quoting the NY Post:)  I think I mentioned their dutiful coverage to uncoverage with bikini clad girls and I had not even seen this one yet:

https://nypost.com/cover/covers-for-Friday-may-15-2020/

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

It shouldn't be necessary to provide citations for something that is widely known as true.  For instance, would you need a citation to believe that Liz Cheney's conservative congressional leadership was just cancelled? That's not what Beerman offers.  As explained before, he employs Trumpian tactics that want to put nonsense on the record as if everyone agrees.  Trump used that regularly in his public remarks with journalists. He would say thinks like "you know better than me that..." and then go on to make some bullcr@p point that no journalists agreed with. 

If I am asked for a reference I have no problem providing one, regardless of whether I believe it to be "widely known as true" or not.  I expect the same from others, and if the can't, or won't do so, that lends to their credibility.

2 hours ago, subee said:

I stick by what I said.  Most people here take care to use reliable sources that are worth you time to read.  It takes time to sift through everything that's out in the ether.  B. would be laughed off the debate stage for quoting the NY Post:)  I think I mentioned their dutiful coverage to uncoverage with bikini clad girls and I had not even seen this one yet:

https://nypost.com/cover/covers-for-Friday-may-15-2020/

I have stated before, several times, that in threads I am following I read most, if not all of the sources posted.

2 hours ago, chare said:

If I am asked for a reference I have no problem providing one, regardless of whether I believe it to be "widely known as true" or not.  I expect the same from others, and if the can't, or won't do so, that lends to their credibility.

I have stated before, several times, that in threads I am following I read most, if not all of the sources posted.

As do I and many others; read the citations.  And most of us offer citations without being asked or provide them when asked.  If you have a beef with a specific member why not be specific? In my view there's only a couple members participating in these political threads who don't post with credibility.  Beerman is one of them.