What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Published

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
48 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I think we all understand this (although I know next to nothing about Marc Thiessen), so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

I do know that often when I post opinion pieces, instead of discussing how one might agree or disagree with the opinion, the source is critiqued, or a insult is thrown at me for I dared to read such a source, or it's pointed out that it's just an opinion, like you just did.

That's your interpretation of the response to your posts which oddly, tend to rarely include any discussion from you about the offered opinion. We just assume that you agree with the opinion and that's why you chose to share.  Then you wait so that you can criticize any discussion of the opinion you offered without comment.  It's a pattern...

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
38 minutes ago, Assistedl8ving said:

Yes. I see this allot as well. Almost like a deliberate effort to defame a news source in order to discourage others from using it. 

If I was 

Published opinions are not news sources.

Are you talking about defaming news sources by calling them FAKE NEWS while encouraging people to watch FOX news and OAN?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Assisted living/Geriatric Medicine.
2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

They were opinions...now they've changed their opinions (sort of).  

Of course the truth matters.  

Did you know that if you say an untrue thing, and keep saying it over and over, that some people will begin to believe this untrue thing.  Goebbels used this reality to create a political advantage, so did Trump. His press and communications team introduced us to Trump's alternative facts with their very first briefing after the inauguration.  This was a pattern of conduct. 

There are still people who believe that Trump won, there were serious irregularities or that the election was fraught with fraud... they believe that because those sentiments are repeated over and over... every though there's not a shed of evidence that they are true. 

Can't force people to believe something or think a certain way. Again, that is not a bad thing. We do not want to live in a society in which the government can decided what we can or cannot believe or think. Or say etc etc. Unfortunately that means having to toloratate other opinions whether true or not. Or hear speech we do not like. Unless of course we want to become like N Korea. 

Truth does matter but for our politicians, agenda and narrative seems more important.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
7 minutes ago, Assistedl8ving said:

Can't force people to believe something or think a certain way. Again, that is not a bad thing. We do not want to live in a society in which the government can decided what we can or cannot believe or think. Or say etc etc. Unfortunately that means having to toloratate other opinions whether true or not. Or hear speech we do not like. Unless of course we want to become like N Korea. 

Truth does matter but for our politicians, agenda and narrative seems more important.

Truth doesn't matter to Trump or those who say that they would vote for him if he wins the GOP nomination.  If truth mattered to Trump he wouldn't be an accomplished and historic liar. If truth mattered to the GOP we would hear their political leadership state unequivocally that Trump lost the election which was not fraudulent and that the Trump claims are lies. Instead, the GOP political figures porifice their words and avoid saying words which undermine Trump's lies about the election. Those "conservative leaders" punish republican politicians who speak the truth about the 2020 election, the voters set them aside for someone who will lie to them about the election.  Does that seem tolerant to you?

 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Assisted living/Geriatric Medicine.
38 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Would you agree that character is important? Do you think that we are suffering the consequences of elevating people of poor character and shabby morals into positions of authority? 

Correct, I have little respect for people who continue to support and defend Trump.  Why should I respect them or their support for the fellow who is trying to break our democratic republic? Yeah... that sense that Trump is a direct threat to our constitution generates some strong sentiments among those who can recognize it...I call people alarmed by the attempt to overthrow our government patriots, apparently you call them democrats even though many of them (like me) have never identified as Democrat. 

With all due respect,  you are making an assumption based upon your exposure to a tiny representation of my comments on this platform... that says something about you not me. 

Yeah, when you compare January 6 to BLM protests you are downplaying the significance of the corrupt intentions behind the attempted coup. You just don't realize that's what you are doing. 

It doesn't help "your side" when "your side" tried to overthrow the last presidential election and is busily elevating election deniers at the state level who are legalizing the mechanisms to overturn vote results. 

I listen... that's why I know that Trump and his movement that is elevated in the GOP is a direct threat to our republic. 

What is "my side" exactly. Did it identify as a Republican? Assuming that's what you mean by "my side". I did not compare BLM with Jan.6. Only that violence is violence. Both had violence. This is a fact. Both had deaths, this is also a fact. Are you saying this is nor true? Perhaps you feel that some deaths were not as bad as other deaths? Or other violence? 

Your words speak loud and clear. One doesn't have to scroll through full forums to get an understanding of your ideals. 

From little that I have read of your posts.....

Do you think that someone who thinks the election was stolen, who never committed a crime or violence is a lesser human being? Should we punish them for their thoughts and beliefs? 

Do you seek to end the Republican party and become a one party government? A secular state? 

Think what you may but I cannot help but point out if you would rather people not to believe the "big lie" than perhaps insulting them and and their political party is not the way to achieve that. 

Or are you more interested in winning an argument or vengeance against the side you obviously do not like. I would even say having seething hatred?  

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
54 minutes ago, subee said:

Fortunately, no injuries.  There are entirely too many angry, crazy people wandering around.  But our laws favor their rights over the public safety.  I don't know what it would take to reverse that process or whether the constitution of either the US or NY state would allow.  When they closed Willowbrook and other large state institutions, crime soared in NYC.  There was even a case where a woman was arrested for pooping on the sidewalk and the judge untimately decided that s

 

This guy was out in a matter of hours, on a PR (no cash) bond.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Assisted living/Geriatric Medicine.
46 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Published opinions are not news sources.

Are you talking about defaming news sources by calling them FAKE NEWS while encouraging people to watch FOX news and OAN?

Yes. Saying "fake news" is defaming. Absolutely. In order to dissuade people form believing the content because one disagrees with the content? Yes! Defaming. 

To dissuade people from hearing some truth or a different prospective than theirs? Yes! Defaming and manipulative too. Trump did this and some on here do it as well. 

Let me guess, it's not as defaming or manipulative when coming from a certain side and/or a personal belief? 

Well this bring hypocritical into the equation. 

 

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
42 minutes ago, Assistedl8ving said:

What is "my side" exactly. Did it identify as a Republican? Assuming that's what you mean by "my side". I did not compare BLM with Jan.6. Only that violence is violence. Both had violence. This is a fact. Both had deaths, this is also a fact. Are you saying this is nor true? Perhaps you feel that some deaths were not as bad as other deaths? Or other violence? 

Your words speak loud and clear. One doesn't have to scroll through full forums to get an understanding of your ideals. 

From little that I have read of your posts.....

A) Do you think that someone who thinks the election was stolen, who never committed a crime or violence is a lesser human being? Should we punish them for their thoughts and beliefs? 

B) Do you seek to end the Republican party and become a one party government? A secular state? 

C)Think what you may but I cannot help but point out if you would rather people not to believe the "big lie" than perhaps insulting them and and their political party is not the way to achieve that. 

Or are you more interested in winning an argument or vengeance against the side you obviously do not like. I would even say having seething hatred?  

Your side is the side that thinks that MTG  and AOC are comparable and that both parties are equally corrupt. 

A) you must have read very little... if you could just quote my words which implies punishment for thought or called someone a lesser human being... that would help your claim. Liberals weren't the folks hollering "lock her up",  remember?

B) Nope, I don't.  We need two strong parties committed to our democratic processes. Republicans seem to have lost their party to corrupt conmen and actual fascists and they will have to fix that. 

We are supposed to have a secular state...I don't think the SCOTUS realizes that either. 

C) I'm having a discussion with you.  I'm giving you a different point of view.  I'm sorry if truths and facts about republican politics and corruption is insulting.  Their behaviors and attitudes certainly aren't flattering but it's best if we don't sugar coat the truth in these dangerous times.  

You feel like we are arguing while I feel like we are exchanging ideas, opinions, beliefs and information.  What vengeance are you referencing?

 

And there's that "conservative" fixation on the concept of hate again.  Do you know what cable network mentions and talks about hate most often?

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
5 minutes ago, Assistedl8ving said:

Yes. Saying "fake news" is defaming. Absolutely. In order to dissuade people form believing the content because one disagrees with the content? Yes! Defaming. 

To dissuade people from hearing some truth or a different prospective than theirs? Yes! Defaming and manipulative too. Trump did this and some on here do it as well. 

Let me guess, it's not as defaming or manipulative when coming from a certain side and/or a personal belief? 

Well this bring hypocritical into the equation. 

 

 

Guess away... or make some more assumptions...but discussing disagreement with the shared opinion or criticizing the shared opinion doesn't meet that criteria for defamation.  

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.

Trump's revenge -Jonathon Swan

Quote

Loyalty — to Trump and the "America First" ideology — was only part of the formula McEntee and his team wanted. They deliberately sought recruits not chasing a long-term career in Washington. They screened out anyone who seemed merely interested in maintaining a good reputation with the business community, K Street, or GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.

Quote

By late 2020, McEntee and White House chief of staff Mark Meadows — working hand in glove — had org charts to plan a second term. They had a chart for each federal agency and they had them printed on large boards for review. One set of boards was in McEntee’s office and another in Meadows’ office.

Quote

What was being quietly worked on — by a more technocratic group of Trump officials — was a novel legal theory. It would give the president the authority to terminate and replace an estimated 50,000 career civil servants across the federal government.

Its genesis was back in early 2017. Senior Trump officials had talked about the need to expand the hiring category typically reserved for political appointees so that they could fire — and replace — a much larger number of career government officials. But their early discussions were bogged down by bureaucratic and legal delays for two years.

The idea for Schedule F was hatched in January 2019 by a little-known official working inside the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, an extravagant building in the Second Empire style across the street from the White House.

This is a really interesting look at Trump's agenda during his troubled presidency. This is multi-part reporting from Swan. He's worth reading. 

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med nurse in med-surg., float, HH, and PDN.

It somehow made me think of the currently popular Sports on-line games of building "Fantasy Teams".

Up Vote Up Vote ×
On 7/23/2022 at 1:57 PM, toomuchbaloney said:

Trump's revenge -Jonathon Swan

This is a really interesting look at Trump's agenda during his troubled presidency. This is multi-part reporting from Swan. He's worth reading. 

he should of gotten rid of 500,000 government grifters.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion