rangerx

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The acting AG previously criticized the Mueller investigation in a published OP-ed. Unless he is willing to get indicted for Trump he'd be smart to recuse himself.

Indeed. Especially given Peter Stzrok was fired from the FBI for doing something similar (to a much lesser degree) you'd think that would be true.

But no, we're seeing a glaring double standard instead.

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Sessions won't be the last between now and New Years. Nielsen, Mattis, Kelly, Sanders, Rosenstein, and mnuchin are all on the chopping block. I will be surprised if most aren't gone shortly. 

I don't know what's worse. Firing or elevating them to high positions.

Sen. Graham: "If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay"

I guess by holy hell, he meant being appointed Chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee?

If that's not corruption, nothing is.

Besides that, the Saturday Night Massacre is now the day after the election massacre.

You know what they say about ignoring history.

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

When the left gets extreme, people get healthcare. When the right gets extreme, people get shot. Claims of equivalence are absurd, as are those making them. 

Yup. Socialism v capitalism (even fascism as you put it). Little do Americans realize they are one of the more socialist societies in the western world. Schools and libraries, fire fighting and police. Disaster relief. The courts and public defenders. The VA, medicare and medicaid. Welfare and food stamps. The Transportation Safety Board. The FAA and the FCC. Radio and TV stations, cellular networks and internet providers use public air waves. Stadiums for sporting events. Harbors for ports, rights of way for trains. Roads are a social construct. If socialism is so horrible, then every road should be a toll road, where land is purchased and controlled by private interests for profit. Commercial and recreational fishing are social constructs. As is game hunting, foraging or parks. Hydro electric power and drinking water depend on public lands, rivers and lakes. Even wells are a social offering apart from surface rights and land ownership. Mining depends on exclusive access by corporations to public resources. Forestry and agriculture are heavily subsidized as are many secondary industries. Ranching is a socialist thing, after all it's done (broadly) on public land by private interests. Land use fees, stumpage, taxation and pollution controls are supposed to balance profits with job creation and spin offs. Tax breaks and relaxed pollution/safety regulations are looked upon as entitlements or privileged exceptions rather than compensation for losses of opportunity by others. Yet many who's dependency stem from those things, deny socialism even exists, so long as it's in their self interest. When religions use politics to convey their messages, they should pay property taxes like anyone else. Let's not forget the trade war, where governments put a hand in everyone's pocket by applying tariffs.

Then of course the biggest, baddest taboo of all, universal healthcare and the slippery slope to the gulags, even though the majority of the countries that have it are capitalistic.

If those are not a false equivalences, nothing is.

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I will take it back. 

If you read what I wrote, I was attacking your manner of delivery, not your intelligence.

But I will apologize as it was directed at you, not just at what you wrote.

Accepted. it's in the past.

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I am not as familiar with MSNBC, so i can't agree or disagree. All I can say is that your thought that I had substituted CNN for MSNBC is not an example of the false equivalence fallacy.

From a personal standpoint, I mainly rely on Reuters. I don't subscribe to FOX or MSNBC, but CNN is thrown in with my TV package so it gets watched more often than not, as I do CBC, CTV and Global. You don't need to remind me about the CBC thing. I get it, though I only partially agree with it, so let's leave it at that.

I'm pretty sure the average person can sort out what's what based on their own observations when they watch CNN. No so much for FOX or MSNBC. Being constantly beat over the head with accusations of fake news or enemy of the people got old really fast. It's ultra-extremism and undermines otherwise reasonable discourse. It "Godwins" the debate. A last resort, often invoked as a primary talking point. It's understandable that folks get defensive when needlessly beat over the head with it day after day, after day. It's a fucking lie that's not even remotely grounded in truth.

A false equivalence.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nor, IMO, is it a false equivalence to say that CNN has become as bad as Fox News. This is in regard to Trump, the GOP and Democrats, so called Left and Right Wing agendas, racism, and sexism. I do not believe that was the case 2 years ago.

The left wing has an agenda, but I don't see anyone mailing bombs or shooting up synagogues by it. As bad as it is, nobody is accusing FOX of being an enemy of the people, though. That is the bottom of the barrel for inexcusable, if not entirely reprehensible IMO, especially when it comes from so-called rigid constitutionalists or the president himself. Now right wing rhetoric involves kicking around the 14th Amendment likes it's some scholarly consensus instead of the eschewing the ramblings of a narcissistic man baby for reneging on his oath and duty. If they had any idea how much that undermines the 2nd, they'd STFU in heartbeat. The slippery slope if you will. It's an invitation to take their guns. I'd dare say the rhetoric would be ramped up tenfold if the show were on the other foot.

The left is rather adept at dehumanizing too, but not to the degree we've seen from the right wing of late.

Disagree as you may, but my opinion that it's a false equivalence stands.
 

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

OK rx

I'll ignore the first line, CNN being "infinitely more objective" (let me know if you want that taken seriously) and the "endless nitpicking"

Fox has more effect on voters than CNN is probably correct.

No, your claim that I "substituted" CNN with MSNBC (no matter how good or bad an idea that might be) is not an example of the false equivalence fallacy.

 

I dropped the nitpicking part when I rephrased.

My point that CNN is infinitely more objective than FOX and MSNBC stands. Ten Oz clearly spelled those reasons in his comment, so it needs no rehashing.

While you didn't mention MSNBC, my assertion is that is the true equivalence. Had you suggested that, we'd be in agreement. Your assertion of FOX is in the tank for republicans and CNN in the tank for Democrats is a false equivalence.

If you disagree with what I say, a simple --no, I disagree-- will suffice, you don't even have to explain why. If you don't understand my point, the rules on this board provide that you ask for clarification or ignore it. I took back the disparaging part when I rephrased my comment following the mod note. You lectured me on disparaging your point, by disparaging me personally, insulting my intelligence and coherence rather than speaking to the point. Do you take that back?

Fair enough. I will rephrase my point.


CNN is infinitely more objective than either FOX or MSNBC. The false equivalency is substituting CNN with MSNBC.

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Pistols at dawn then. 

Tell me String, as an objective contributor on the outside looking in, do you think my comment about CNN, MSNBC and FOX was out of line?

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I should take time out guys from this for a bit.

He accused me of disparagement and implied incoherence (no less in a snide manner). He did not criticize my point. That cannot be allowed to stand.

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You would prefer an incoherent rant?

If that was your best effort I apologize, but right now I think you are capable of better.

Bring up a point properly and I will clarify or discuss it, but I'm not replying to something you make no effort at, except to disparage.

Hogwash.

My point was clear as day. If you don't understand something about it, state it.

Cut with this insulting my intelligence bullshit.

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nice word salad...

Got anything better than a facetious insult?
 

59 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

1. I am not claiming equivalency. I am clearly claiming the opposite. CNN has much more effect on voters than I have on CNN.

CNN is an apple and you are an orange. What does that have to do with the OP?

To bring it back on point, by your own admission, FOX has much more effect on voters than CNN, correct? The false equivalency is substituting CNN with MSNBC.

CNN is infinitely more objective than either FOX or MSNBC. Endlessly nitpicking CNN in the absence of context is bias, yet here you are criticizing bias with bias.

52 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who is claiming reporting what someone says or does is equivalent to speculating what someone is thinking based on no evidence? 

Yes that would be a false equivalence...if anyone had said or implied it. No one did.

Cuomo was, absolutely, participating in false news when he did that, and should be ashamed of himself. There is no justification for it, and he hurts CNN's credibility along with his own.

And no, "but it's Trump" does not justify it.

I'm not the one who brought it up the Cuomo example, maybe you can discuss that with Raider in another thread because it's off topic here.

If they claim they hadn't implied it was a false equivalence, why bring it up in the first place? It's off topic if not a bait-and-switch tactic to derail the dialog.

Whataboutism perhaps? In that case is just another form of false equivalence whether it was implied or not.

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

It seemed extremely biased to me, and not just reporting on a story in a negative light.

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I fail to see how saying that speculative reporting on Trump's thoughts is a false equivelance. I didn't equate it to anything.

And yet you did, by equating bias to accusations of racism.

Had you left it at extreme bias, your point would stand without contention. But no. Instead undermined it by lumping it in with something else entirely, if not just negative reporting.

This thread is about false equivalence, not a one-off report by one media outlet. What is the false equivalence in your comment?
 

Never mind. It's probably better to just drop it, because it's off topic anyway.

25 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Casting a story in a negative light is taking a story which most people wouldn't consider negative, and portraying it in a negative light. I.e. Trump looks like he's thinking something racist during a meeting with Kanye.

Some people. Not most people. That's a false equivalence.

Besides that, while it may be wrong to report what Trump may be thinking, it's reporting what Trump says and does that really matters. Another false equivalence.

I never suggested CNN didn't have bias.

I said that bias is falsely equated to Trump and FOX News level of falsehoods.

On 10/26/2018 at 2:58 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Agree... and pretty damning on it's own. Why CNN feels the need to take it so much further amazes me. The example I gave of Cuomo describing what Trump was thinking loses Cuomo and CNN credibility.If reacting like that is because Trump calls them "fake News" it is more than a little ironic.

Well, if Trump said it, what's to discuss?

Let's call a spade a spade here. Fake news as being bantered here is not really fake news. It's merely a reprehensible assertion that is intended to demean reporters who report a story in a negative light.

Enemy of the people? My sore ass! Until that gets burned to the ground, laying at the feet of the media that reports it, instead of checking it at the source is the height of egregiousness.

That's what I'd expect from gangsters and thugs, not leaders. It's a disgrace.

It's the height of a false equivalence.

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Can you not see any substance in Trump's positions? (rhetoric and falsehoods aside?) 

People get so ticked off at Trump they seem to leave themselves exposed in their positions, probably left to look less balance, or less practical, than they otherwise would be.

As opposed to the way Obama or Clinton were treated?

Both were attacked relentlessly for things they either didn't say or didn't do, whereas Trump brought it on himself.

But, just to indulge your point. No. There's next to nothing redeeming about Trump's policies IMHO. I am struggling to even come up with one, because nothing jumps out at me.

Let's talk about what affects us as Canadians. We got rid of the milk board, which is a good thing, but at the end of the day milk is the same price and America can push hormone laden milk on us. Now we pay more for cars, steel and aluminum and products thereof. Kind of like biting off your nose to spite your face, don't you think?

47 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I honestly do not believe Trump ever reads for leisure or to learn. So it is hard for me to believe he would have been studying Hitler.

Agreed. Even when spoken to, Trump is a bad listener.

51 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In response to the PA shooting some, including POTUS, have argued that armed security at houses of worship are the answer

When they can't play the victim, they blame the victim.

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

As usual (it ridiculous mass shooting have become this common) discussion regarding this shooting with include gun control but is it time to also start having discussions about hate speech? 

I accept that at face value, it's time. It needs no more comment than that.

However,  I'll expect I'll return after the inevitable "both sides" or  "you just want to take our guns" drivel to derail the topic from actually discussing gun control or hate speak.

*sets watch*

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It does not mean that CNN is free of bias.

Pretty much everyone and everything has some bias. Demanding squeaky clean from others while one's house stinks of shit is something yet again. It's authortarianism.

Quoting the president verbatim is not bias, it's reporting the truth. Quashing the same because it's negative is bias. Insisting others must follow suit is yet again... authoritarianism.

Both under the guise of something else. The false equivalence is how to get there.

It's dirty pool.

Apoptosis.

A form of programmed cell death that occurs in multicellular organisms.

Gamma rays too, I suppose.

39 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Interchange Republican/Democrat and Fox News/CNN to suit and you have the state of politics and news in the U.S. right now.

If you were to substitute CNN for MSNBC, I'd be inclined to agree. As it stands, you've demonstrated a false equivalence instead.

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

Correct.

It’s a false equivalence, for example, to suggest 2+2=4 is the same as saying universal healthcare = communism. 

Ranger, I’m not sure you realize it, but you’ve effectively done that by asking this... being an example of the very thing you decry:

 

In my defense, I don't start thread after thread abusing this tactic to deflect or put up smoke and mirrors to distract from the issue of the day.

I believe this is the only topic I've opened on this board, ever.

There is a difference.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Isn’t false equivalence just specific example of a logical (or more accurately, perhaps, rhetorical) fallacy?

Yes, I suppose. However my question is why does it apply to crackpots but not politics on this board.

Does putting a question mark behind a statement make it okay, when clearly the implication is something else entirely?