World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[CRTGAMER]

http://fox5sandiego.com/2016/10/23/bara ... president/

SAN DIEGO - Barack Obama will make what's likely to be his final trip to San Diego as president Sunday night, as he arrives in town to speak at a fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. According to the White House, the president will fly from Las Vegas and arrive aboard Air Force One at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, and speak at two private events - one Sunday and another on Monday.

According to the White House, the president will fly from Las Vegas and arrive aboard Air Force One at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, and speak at two private events - one Sunday and another on Monday. Obama is expected to speak at Hillary Victory Fund reception Monday at an undisclosed private location.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Ben Ray Lujan are also scheduled to appear at the fundraiser. The event will reportedly be limited to 45 attendees, and costs $10,000 per person to co-host or $33,400 per couple to be co-chairs.

Air Force One is scheduled to depart the base at Miramar Monday for a short hop to Los Angeles, White House officials said. The president's last trip to San Diego County was last October, when he spent just over two days in Rancho Santa Fe and played a couple of rounds of golf.

From Vegas to San Diego and then to Los Angeles, this certainly is not official business for the President and Congress officials. Both events took place in La Jolla for the rich elite. I know this has been done in the past by both parties, but it is so corrupt and should not be allowed! TAX PAYER MONEY for flying in the entourage at various campaign stops and all the extra security personnel city tax pays for; elected officials are on the clock to run the country and should not abandon their work to build their empire.

[J T]

Trump is now vowing to tear up the Paris agreement and remove funding that would help stop global warming.

Some men just want to see the world burn.

[jp1]

Trump is now vowing to tear up the Paris agreement and remove funding that would help stop global warming.

Some men just want to see the world burn.

Cue the Trump supporters claiming global warming is a hoax.

[foxhound1022]

I'm just stupefied that these 2 are the choices.

[MrPopo]

Trump is now vowing to tear up the Paris agreement and remove funding that would help stop global warming.

Some men just want to see the world burn.

Cue the Trump supporters claiming global warming is a hoax.

+1 for jp correctly using cue as opposed to queue or (god help us) que.

[BogusMeatFactory]

I was told recently that I was a sheep with my head in the sand for researching, fact checking and showing actual official documents to the contrary of some radical statements. I was then told that I should just stop trying to research this stuff and accept their perspective... and I am the sheep with my head in the sand.

[prfsnl_gmr]

That's hilarious, BMF!

[J T]

It's an aggressive form of stupidity that would criticize a person for researching an issue before drawing a conclusion. That kind of thing makes my head explode. Plus, they should know that sheep don't stick their head in the sand, that's what ostriches do. I often wear a shirt that has an icon of an atom and simply says "Demand evidence and think critically." I wear it because I used to teach Research Methods at the university and I love science. Surprisingly, the shirt evokes political controversy in passersby. Some peole make scrunched up grumpy faces at me, some smile, some say "right on," and I often have people start political conversations with me when they read the message. It's so strange to me. Science should not be a political issue. It's a method of being extra careful in determining what hypotheses are most likely to be true. Somehow that has become synonymous with liberalism in people's minds (which is really bad news for the right). The people who deny climate change now are of the same ilk as the people who convicted Galileo of heresy and had him imprisoned because he taught that the sun did not revolve around the earth.

[BogusMeatFactory]

It's an aggressive form of stupidity that would criticize a person for researching an issue before drawing a conclusion. That kind of thing makes my head explode. Plus, they should know that sheep don't stick their head in the sand, that's what ostriches do. I often wear a shirt that has an icon of an atom and simply says "Demand evidence and think critically." I wear it because I used to teach Research Methods at the university and I love science. Surprisingly, the shirt evokes political controversy in passersby. Some peole make scrunched up grumpy faces at me, some smile, some say "right on," and I often have people start political conversations with me when they read the message. It's so strange to me. Science should not be a political issue. It's a method of being extra careful in determining what hypotheses are most likely to be true. Somehow that has become synonymous with liberalism in people's minds (which is really bad news for the right). The people who deny climate change now are of the same ilk as the people who convicted Galileo of heresy and had him imprisoned because he taught that the sun did not revolve around the earth.

I agree wholeheartedly. One of the big arguing points that someone had against me was that I used the, "Extreme Left-ist" site of Politifact as one of many sources of information. I asked for reasons as to why they felt the site was biased and they bombarded me with jpeg after jpeg of instances where politifact gave a more positive judgement of truth to a democrat over a republican, even when the comparisons were on two different issues and two different statements.

You be the judge.









The person could not distinguish the differences between the statements made in these images as to why a different verdict was given to each.

When I pointed out the differences in a calm and rational way so as not to offend, he said I was a pedantic and needed to just see things his way. He then just linked to WikiLeaks and told me to look there for all my answers. I have used WikiLeaks a lot in my research, to find that it doesn't have much of substance. If you follow the trail of, "scandalous," emails you get context to a conversation and learn more about the candidates. Nothing big there.

[Sarge]

I had a really long post on fact-checkers, but in the end I realized my statement could be summarized thusly: Most fact-checkers are just opinion journalists masquerading as impartial arbiters of truth. It can be done right, but Politifact is not one of them.

I found a quite interesting discussion that was transcribed from NPR, and it's pretty long (I started skimming at some point, sorry!), but there are some good points in there. One of my issues is one that was brought up in the transcript, and that's the inherently reductionist nature of fact checks. Reducing it to a rating, in a discussion that is often infinitely more nuanced than said rating, feels like a disservice, an intellectual shortcut.