If Trump gets back in?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xelasnave.1947, May 11, 2020.

  1. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,209
    you are as usual lying your ass off. the WHO never denied the possibility of human to human transmission.

    https://twitter.com/UNGeneva/status/1217146107957932032 from the who official statement on the day you claimed they lied about human to human transmission. so fuck off with your fake righteous attitude and take you own advice your troglodyte.

    the fact remains despite you lies proof of human to human transmission didn't occur until 5 days after this who statement you are throwing your temper tantrum about.

    https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1190777.shtml
    https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0718_article

    you have zero evidence of the WHO lying, you are just repeating talking points because you aren't thinking for yourself.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    Whenever leftists level an accusation, you can usually bet that it's a projection of what they're just about to do themselves. Like claiming Trump would deny the results of the election, only to immediately have most leftists claiming "Hillary won" and "not my President".

    Here, pj is predictably lying. UNGeneva is not the official WHO twitter account. This is:
    World Health Organization (WHO) who Jan 14
    Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found
    no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus
    (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China
    https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en

    So either pj is willfully lying, or he honestly can't figure out how to find the official WHO Twitter himself. Assuming he's lying is actually the more charitable of the two.
    And directly from the WHO website:
    14 January 2020

    WHO held a press briefing during which it stated that, based on experience with respiratory pathogens, the potential for human-to-human transmission in the 41 confirmed cases in the People’s Republic of China existed: “it is certainly possible that there is limited human-to-human transmission”.

    WHO tweeted that preliminary investigations by the Chinese authorities had found “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission”. In its risk assessment, WHO said additional investigation was “needed to ascertain the presence of human-to-human transmission, modes of transmission, common source of exposure and the presence of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases that are undetected”.
    https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/29-06-2020-covidtimeline
    So their own timeline of their response admits to both knowing of the possibility of human to human transmission, but downplaying it, and Tweeting the China party line that there was none.
    The Taiwan health experts certainly thought there was evidence of human to human transmission, but the WHO is too beholden to China to piss them off by recognizing Taiwan. 5 days after that WHO statement, it was China who quit lying about it, which freed up the WHO to finally admit what they had already been told by Taiwan health officials.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,393
    And as well as the already known questionable qualities you have earned in your time here, we can now add fraudster to that list, with your continued ignoring of the obvious......
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/05/trumps-lies-about-coronavirus/608647/

    All the President’s Lies About the Coronavirus
    An unfinished compendium of Trump’s overwhelming dishonesty during a national emergency

    more at link......
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,209
    i suggest you learn how to read. your own posted pic shows the WHO didn't lie. just how stupid arte you to post an actual picture that proves you wrong?
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,561
    Few leftists claim "not my President". That's a decades old Republican thing (dates to Clinton, Obama) and something they and the self-labeled neverTrumpers - who are never leftists, and who usually support Trump's policies in general, and who continue to promote the Republican Party that Trump so fully represents, who are in short more or less completely dishonest ass-covering profiteers - are known for.

    And few leftists bother to claim Trump would "deny " the results of the next election if it went against him - that's too obvious to be worth mentioning. He's already denied, and continues to deny, the results of the 2016 election - that he would deny the results of the next one, as well, is so obviously likely as to be taken for granted. No: The claim currently rising to the forefront of concern among the reality based community is that Trump may destroy or "postpone" the 2020 election itself, or even refuse to abide by the results of the 2020 election, if successful thereby destroying the democratic basis of American national government and taking power via a common form of fascist coup. The grounds for the claim are the setup of election invalidation and other preparations Trump and his administration is making to do that, and the continuing erosion of the checks and balances famously built into the original American system to prevent such things from happening.

    Hillary did, in fact, win the election part of becoming President. She lost during the electoral college transmutation of the election results - a bureaucratic device originally designed (in significant part) to prevent the election of an abolitionist to the Presidency.

    Meanwhile, as with so many of these wingnut flailings, that borrowing of the language of a well-supported leftist observation of part of the workings of American fascism's typical propaganda operations,

    and conversion of it (by simply swapping out the references) to unsupported falsehood useful only for preemptive discussion poisoning and personal attack,

    is very late to the table of those with working memories; several steps behind, once again, if the goal were to make an argument or present a case for something. So that's not the goal, obviously.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2020
  9. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    That's just because you were too lazy to read the accompanying article, in which it clearly says:
    At 6:30 a.m. on Dec. 31, Dr. Lo at Taiwan’s CDC woke to an alert on his phone.

    His colleagues in the media monitoring unit had detected social media posts about a pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan. The original posts in China were quickly removed, but screenshots had been reposted on PTT, a popular online forum in Taiwan. Some commenters feared a resurgence of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which had killed 774 people in 2002 and 2003, mostly in Asia.
    ...
    But Taiwan didn’t wait to step up precautions. On Dec. 31, the island began instituting health screenings for all flights arriving from Wuhan. “We were not able to get satisfactory answers either from the WHO or from the Chinese CDC, and we got nervous and we started doing our preparation,” Foreign Minister Joseph Wu tells TIME.
    https://time.com/5826025/taiwan-who-trump-coronavirus-covid19/
    It wasn't until Jan 14 that the WHO admitted the "possibility" of "limited" human to human transmission, while Taiwan was acting on it on Dec 31.
    Taiwan said its doctors had heard from mainland colleagues that medical staff were getting ill — a sign of human-to-human transmission. Taipei officials said they reported this to both International Health Regulations (IHR), a WHO framework for exchange of epidemic prevention and response data between 196 countries, and Chinese health authorities on December 31.

    Taiwanese government officials told the Financial Times the warning was not shared with other countries.

    “While the IHR’s internal website provides a platform for all countries to share information on the epidemic and their response, none of the information shared by our country’s [Centers for Disease Control] is being put up there,” said Chen Chien-jen, Taiwan’s vice-president.
    https://www.ft.com/content/2a70a02a-644a-11ea-a6cd-df28cc3c6a68
    Pull your head out of your left-wing bubble and talking points.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,393
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,393
    Perhaps what really needs to be discussed is the question of Trump's mental state......which even his advisors are concerned about.....and this dick head has his finger on the nuclear button?


    or this more recent one about the mental incapability of this clown......
     
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    If you think Vox isn't part of the left-wing bubble, you're clueless.
    And it's unethical for psychiatrists to diagnose people they haven't personally examined and with their consent.
    The Goldwater rule is Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics,[1] which states that it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule
    Not that anyone's accused leftists of being especially ethical.


    Hey, fair warning. I'm thinking of changing my avatar again. So make sure you're all ready to erroneously crow about it being because of you. Can't have you missing an opportunity to toot your horn.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,663
    Of course. To a Trump supporter, any news outlet that's to the left of FOX News is "part of the left-wing bubble." As an aide in GWB's office explained to reporter Ron Suskind in 2004, pretty much every other media organization is part of the "reality-based community" which the aide defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality."
     
  14. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,232

    hows that for irony

    are there any (alive or dead) senators, governors or presidents or other equally high powered job positions SofS etc in the white house that have be born working class poor ?


    copy n paste from wiki
    2000 GWB gets 50.4 million
    2004 GWB gets 62 million

    thats quite a shift

    George W. Bush 2000 Republican 50,456,002

    George W. Bush 2004 Republican 62,040,610


    Barack Obama 2008 Democratic 69,498,516[1] Winner

    interesting to ponder how many republicans knew the global credit collapse was going to happen so threw their vote in with the democrats to avoid the republicans having to address big business to solve the problem they themselves created


    Reading the news saying the USA passport has taken a hard nose dive is quite interesting
    given the global economic situation
    i wonder how many republicans are ready to throw their vote to the democrats to hope the democrats win and can be blamed for the economic situation and also be then demanded to solve it while pretending they are a government of the popular vote


    do historic records show republican or democrats win the business vote during depressions ?

    the usa is basically in the downward slide of a depression & only economic genius class people can save it

    i dont think they have any. certainly none employed. they have to all sing off the same hymn book to get in to those positions
    so its pretty much a guaranteed outcome(the USA economic depression)
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2020
  15. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,209
    with every post you make your self look dumber. seriously do you know how to read? no you don't if you think you refuted a point. taiwan had no proof of human to human transmission until after the jan 14th WHO statement. the actually studies than proved human to human transmission were don't from jan13-15th. since you don't what the hell you doing im going to break down the time line for you because you apparently can't.

    december 31st taiwan upon seeing what appeared to be a resurgance of SARS acted as to prevent its spread.

    jan. 14th WHO makes statement that says SARS-CoV-2 was potentially capable of human to human trasmission

    jan. 15th proof of human to human transmission was discovered


    july 9th. you lie about the WHO claiming they said SARS-CoV-2 wasn't capable of human to human transmission even though they suggested the possibility and proof was only found after the statement your whining about. you cannot claim someone was lying about something before the information was available.

    and seriously is your sole defense of you bullshit to repeat my complaints of your bs back at me? im not the one in the bubble oh mighty and fierce trumper. you sound much like the president you adore, violently ignorant and aggressively childish. the fact you can't tell the difference between a precaution and actual fact is rather telling.


    you are so desperate to defend trump from his fuck ups and blame anyone but your fuher you are stumbling over your self. also i never said what i posted from the official WHO twitter account, i was saying the video in it was an official statement from WHO. so once again its not me whose lying you just don't know how to read.
     
  16. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,761
    No, every sensible source agrees with me and each other.
    https://www.allsides.com/news-source/vox-news-media-bias
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/
    https://www.adfontesmedia.com/vox-bias-and-reliability/

    Vox’s parent company, Vox Media, was founded and is run largely by individuals with a history of connections to the Democratic Party and backgrounds in left-wing activism. It was originally founded by left-wing activist and Howard Dean campaign strategist Jerome Armstrong, left-wing activist and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, and sports blogger Tyler Blezinski. [27] [28] Currently, Vox Media’s president Marty Moe, chief financial officer Steve Swad, and chief communications officer Meredith Webster all served in staff positions in Democratic administrations, and chief operating officer Trei Brundett led digital strategy for the 2008 campaign of U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia).
    https://www.influencewatch.org/for-profit/vox/
    That's some solidly left-wing credentials. But I can see how you'd want to deny that reality, if you're trapped in that bubble.


    "Proof" is your own straw man. I never said anything about proof. Learn to read.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,393

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You mean learn to read, as opposed to your own refusal to read? Yeah a charlatan and a fraud you be.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,393
    Change what you like, *shrug* and I don't really need to crow about any of the fraud you claim, or your childish categorisation/s of anything that shows your mythical rhetoric up for what it is...toot, toot!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,209
    you truly get dumber with every post. proof isn't a strawman. it is integral to the argument. your claim was the WHO lied about human to human transmission; they didn't. now could you make an honest argument saying the should have far more stringently pushed for precautionary measures, most definitely and i'd agree with you there. What you claimed though was the WHO deliberately lied and intentionally gave out information that was factually incorrect, which is not what happened. Also the fact you are attacking the WHO who missteps weren't that bad while defending trump someone who actual you know straight up lied and down played the virus shows your partisan colors. The reason america is struggling with SARS-CoV-2 isn't because of the WHO its because of trump and people like you who support him. seriously you are telling me to lead when all you do is construct strawmen and repeat talking points. Lets be real; the only reason you crying about the WHO is because trump is, you are lemming following your fuhrer.
     
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,420

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Click to step.

    We've been through this, before↗: Media Bias/Fact Check is not a "sensible" source; the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart is similarly problematic:

    Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google "media bias," and you'll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site's methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices ("does the source report news from both sides"), and political affiliation.

    A similar effort is "The Media Bias Chart," or simply, "The Chart." Created by Colorado patent attorney Vanessa Otero, the chart has gone through several methodological iterations, but currently is based on her evaluation of outlets' stories on dimensions of veracity, fairness, and expression.

    Both efforts suffer from the very problem they're trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in.


    (Wilner↱)

    The criteria at Allsides—

    AllSides uses a patented bias rating system to classify news sources as left, center, or right leaning. Components of the rating system include crowd-sourcing, surveys, internal research, and use of third party sources such as Wikipedia and research conducted by Groseclose and Milyo at UCLA. Note that while the Groseclose & Milyo results are popular, the methodology it is not without critique.

    (Univ. of Michigan↱)

    —aren't necessarily reliable, and see Brendan Nyhan↱ for a critique of Groseclose and Milyo.

    You said, "every sensible source agrees with me and each other", except they're not sensible sources, and you already knew that about at least two of them.

    Influence Watch is an allegedly libertarian operation, founded by a former vice president of the Heritage Foundation; their Wikipedia↱ page suggests, "It discourages donations by corporations to non-profits supporting what it sees as liberal or anti-business policies." Your own chosen source, Media Bias/Fact Check↱, notes:

    Influence Watch is owned by the Capital Research Center, which in turn is funded through donations. Some of their top donors are Exxon-Mobil, Koch Industries, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. “CRC’s president is Scott Walter, who took office in 2016. A philanthropic consultant and former editor of publications released by the Philanthropy Roundtable and American Enterprise Institute.” Influence Watch has also been directly funded by the Bradley Foundation and the John William Pope Foundation. The common theme among all donors is conservative political affiliation and ties to the fossil fuel industry.

    Honestly, when even those jokers can see the bias, it isn't subtle.

    Whatever else you think you're trying to argue, that was a really dishonest post.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Nyhan, Brendan. "The problems with the Groseclose/Milyo study of media bias". 22 December 2005. Brendan-Nyhan.com. 11 July 2020. https://bit.ly/2C1IyIy

    Van Zandt, Dave. "Influence Watch". Media Bias/FactCheck. 17 January 2019. MediaBiasFactCheck.com. 11 July 2020. https://bit.ly/3gQPDKC

    University of Michigan. "'Fake News,' Lies and Propaganda: How to Sort Fact from Fiction". University of Michigan Library. 24 June 2020. Guides.Lib.UMich.edu. 11 July 2020. https://bit.ly/3ekb3ON

    Wikipedia. "Capital Research Center". 4 June 2020. en.Wikipedia.org. 11 July 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Research_Center

    Wilner, Tamar. "We can probably measure media bias. But do we want to?". Columbia Journalism Review. 9 January 2018. CJR.org. 11 July 2020. http://bit.ly/2QqSoqt
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,561
    There is no leftwing bubble in the US. The necessary isolation and framing dominance does not exist on the left, and being reality based prevents the formation of a bubble anyway ( incoming facts, if allowed and incorporated, pop all bubbles.).
    You appear to believe that "Democratic" implies left-wing. I don't want to unjustly slander you, or mock your ignorance, but do you really believe that?
    Now that's funny. Mark Warner, venture capitalist and corporation founder, is a lefty? This guy?:
    Meanwhile: There has never been a leftwing Federal administration in the US, or anything close to one.

    It's becoming clear what the Trump enablers and Heritage-addled agitprop victims think a "left wing bubble" comprises. Problem is, it includes much of the common physical, social, and economic reality of the world - especially, almost all of the modern scientifically discovered aspects of it.
     
  22. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,232
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Watchtower
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Tower_Bible_and_Tract_Society_of_Pennsylvania

    ?(we watch youtube influencers) ?
    intentional name trawl to whole sale buy in right wing conservative cheer leaders ?
    (very poor choice of a name if that is not the boat they are paddling)

    like "family protection" "preserving family's" "family values" "family society" etc etc adnausium
    jospeh gobbles worshiper types
    used by extremists to name their extremist religious political organizations

    ?
    im guessing ...
    i notice the right wing radical money(someone must be paying the bills) always moves first to the extreme conspiracy media to pull a popular voice behind fringe minority extremist opinions
    they then dog-whistle to liberal opinions as conceited hidden speak for far left pro gayism

    watched it get peddled for years
    nasty stuff
    same people who fund(support/promote) those medical clinic terrorists faking themselves as pro choice when they are trying to terrorize people into not having a choice.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2020
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,393
    Among many other dishonest posts.
     

Share This Page