The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How To Live Under An Unqualified President by John Piper

I think that if person X supports and defends person Y, no matter what Y does, and if any negative stories about person Y comes out in most media, but are dismissed by Y and his supporters as “false news”, and if the reports of media 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 are regarded as “lying”, and their news reports are regarded as false, by Y and his supporters, while media 13 and 14 which report only positive things about Y are regarded by Y and his supporters as “the truth”, then I think X is biased in favour of Y.

think that if person X supports and defends person Y, no matter what Y does, and if any negative stories about person Y comes out in most media, but are dismissed by Y and his supporters as “false news”, and if the reports of media 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 are regarded as “lying”, and their news reports are regarded as false, by Y and his supporters, while media 13 and 14 which report only positive things about Y are regarded by Y and his supporters as “the truth”, then I think X is biased in favour of Y.
Paidion

Media 1-12 almost always quote “unnamed sources” and almost always immediately copy each other real time without verifying anything. I receive this on my phone on a regular basis, it’s more like a game show then news.

So you don’t think news orgs should ever use sources that wish to be anonymous?

Certainly an anonymous story is a lot more unreliable although it can be true, but also it can be untrue. So when it already is anonymous and comes out and is immediately copied by the same news org over and over when the subject matter is anti-Trump it’s beyond bias or left leaning IMHO.

BTW i have no special affinity to Trump, i just believe in free markets and free speech and honestly if it were up to me i’d rather see Mike Pence as President.

Actually, Steve, I am 100% in accordance, with that statement :smiley:

P.S. Most of my Zombie friends, also agree. :slight_smile:

P.S. Most of my Zombie friends, also agree. :slight_smile:

Yes they look like yuge Mike Pence supporters! :wink:

Actually i think many of the hard core left wing think if Trump gets impeached then Hill would be Pres! :laughing:

Well this guy does NOT like Mr. Trump. But he’s such a good writer, and writes incisively about so many things, that it’s only fair he gets recognition here and I think you will find him stimulating. If you are a Trump supporter, take a xanax before reading. :smiley:

IN full:
I haven’t written much about the ongoing siege of the Trump presidency; I haven’t frankly, had much to add. But I should say something, I suppose.

First, I should say that Donald Trump is proving to be everything that all of us knew or feared he would be: a vain, impulsive, unlettered vulgarian bigmouth, ignorant, undisciplined, and unreflective. I’ll say also that he’s been, just in terms of keeping his campaign promises, a disappointment to many millions of voters who supported him not just to stop Hillary Clinton, but in the hope of aggressive and effective reversal of decades of managerial-state growth, suicidal immigration policy, and race-baiting “social-justice” warfare against the traditional American nation.

That said, it should be obvious to all that a bloodthirsty coalition of the media and members of the United States Government (especially, in the latter category, members of the judiciary and the intelligence community) are waging a bitter, take-no-prisoners campaign against this sitting President, using everything they can lay a hand on. From the start there has been a torrent of leaks, obviously coming from people with privileged access (and therefore also, obviously in many cases felonious), and the press has, in every news cycle, done everything in its power to damage and destabilize Mr. Trump’s administration. Every day is another barrage of unsourced accusations, and (in particular) charges of treasonous collusion with Russia for which no evidence is ever given.

There is not the least attempt at coherence or consistency. Things that were defended (or, at least, ignored) when Democrats did them — like sharing anti-terror intelligence with Russia, or alleged carelessness with classified material, or believing James Comey shouldn’t be the FBI director — are front-page scandals for Mr. Trump. (What this shows is simply that looking for such consistency, is naive, as we’ve pointed out before.)

Now Ross Douthat of the New York Times is calling for the removal of Mr. Trump using the mechanism outlined in Section IV of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment: the Vice-President and Cabinet declare him “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” — and should the President disagree, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress chucks him out anyway.

I doubt that this could happen, but you never know. I do know that if it does happen, it will be seen by scores of millions of Americans as a forcible usurpation of the man they sent to Washington to “drain the swamp” — by the very snakes, leeches and reptiles they sent him there to do battle with. It will ratchet the nation another step closer to dissolution (or worse).

I’ve said for a while that politics in America are divided beyond all hope of healing, and that the civic and social cohesion that is absolutely essential for the central governance of such a vast and diverse nation is irreparably destroyed. It has seemed inevitable to me for at least five years that the United States, as presently constituted, will not exist very much longer. One metaphor I’ve used for the state of our politics is the way a car goes off the road: the driver sees, almost too late, that he’s drifted out of his lane, steers wildly back to center, overcorrects, yanks the wheel even more frantically back the other way, and after a few iterations of this ends up losing control altogether, with disastrous consequences.

With that metaphor in mind: if you’re wondering about the title of this post, here’s a video that should make it clear.

malcolmpollack.com/

For me, really, the media bias question has been completely settled. The ‘anonymous sources’ angle is covered pretty well here:
YMMV
frontpagemag.com/fpm/266714/ … greenfield

And a recent Harvard study. If you’re a doubter, take a xanax before reading.

truthrevolt.org/news/harvard … 8-negative

I think Trump forgot about one thing, in building this wall. That’s the resourcefulness, of the Mexican zombies :exclamation: :laughing:

qaz, I am not an expert on this particular issue. I have read a few things, and this article, written by a very animal-welfare proponent, shows the history of Obama’s horrible attitude toward animals throughout his presidency. The Act you are referring to was signed 2 days before he left office.

Excerpt:
While supposed animal welfare advocates everywhere are busy … their favorite animal abuser, let’s run down just a few examples of some of Obama’s most ridiculously anti-animal/anti-animal advocate actions as president:

Provided a $12 million grant through the USDA’s Dairy Management Council of the American Dairy Association to (get this) Domino’s Pizza in exchange for (wait for it) using 40% MORE cheese on pizzas;
The legalizing of the hunting and slaughter of America’s wild horses for human consumption, after promising to ban the act during his campaign for the presidency;
The backing of Ag Gag bills across the country that aim to unconstitutionally ban filming inside slaughterhouses, and criminally charge anyone caught doing so;
The signing into law of Senate Bill 1867 which not only lifted the ban on bestiality in the military (I must have missed all those US soldiers clamoring for the right to rape animals), but also, thanks to Obama’s predecessor and The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which classifies animal activists as potential terrorists, now legally allows for their detainment indefinitely. And here we all thought that Bush and Obama weren’t alike!
The purchasing of millions of chickens, hogs, lambs, and fish from farms and slaughterhouses across the US to, according to USDA spokesperson, Tom Vilsack, “Help bring supply in line with demand.” The Defense Department was even enlisted to “speed up purchases,” and said it “would review its meat purchases and see if they can be accelerated.” While campaigning in Iowa and bragging about the $170 million dollars in federal funds he had just dropped to “help the farmers through this crisis,” Obama is quoted as saying, “We’ll just freeze it for later. We’ve got lots of freezers.” Where is Michelle’s anti-obesity campaign when you need it?
The above statistic paves the way for Obama’s next act; the “by dark of night” signing of the 2012 Farm Bill, which, hidden amidst a massive “Fiscal Cliff” package, not only continued exorbitant government subsidies to farmers and ranchers, but also required the USDA to begin buying up dairy products. Wow! Screw the free market (and the animals)! Obama proved that the government can simply create supply and demand! Who knew?
And finally, a $15 million grant through the Dept. of Health and Human Services to build Arizona State University’s “Research Park,” which has become one of the world’s largest animal testing facilities, housing more than a quarter of a million animals, and unabashedly performing vivisection despite outcry from animal advocates.

LInk: ethikapolitika.org/2013/02/08/p … al-rights/

Perhaps not -non-issues"?
thenation.com/article/charg … hterhouse/

The article I linked to was during the Obama administration, but I suppose he’s not responsible.

:laughing:

Which I’ll try to keep in mind for the next 8 years :smiley:

Me thinks he is learning the difference between statistical correlation and statistical causation :exclamation: :laughing:


https://cdn-business.discourse.org/uploads/analyticsvidhya/132/176854dcc0230dc1.png

Let’s see - this guy is from an elite group of politicians who decided they did NOT want Obamacare for themselves, but were willing to inflict it on the rest of the country?

A pox on them all. There are a lot of people that will choose NOT to be on the new program - their choice.

Or can’t afford to be, on the new program. Again, their choice :question: :unamused:


Nice eye roll, Randy. Such thoughtfulness. You’re welcome.

Well, just vote the bum out of office. Then we can maybe elect Jonathan Gruber, an architect of the ACA who was famously caught on tape saying that it’s only because Americans are stupid, that the ACA could actually be passed. :unamused:
Or re-elect Obama, who will once again state that we can keep our insurance and our doctors. :unamused:
Or maybe he could kick even more millions of people off of their chosen health plan, and force them to a more expensive program with less coverage, i.e. ACA. :unamused:
Maybe the ACA is so good that the Louisiana PUrchase was not necessary. And so good that the entire government and all the government employees would be so happy to join up, and drop the cadillac plans? :unamused:

Maybe we can hire more Navigators, who received about 16 hours training on the most elaborate ever misconceived, to guide us through the process? At about $50 an hour for what were mostly felons, ex-cons, etc. Nice move. :unamused:

Or maybe use the single payer system known as the Veterans Administration, that well-oiled example of what government can do when it puts its mind to it - as an example? :unamused:

The point is not that you are so biased that you cannot think straight - :unamused: - but that you don’t have ANY FACTS TO SHOW THAT THE US GOVERNMENT CAN RUN ANYTHING WELL AND EFFICIENTLY. :unamused:

And as for the CBO, get real:

forbes.com/sites/theapothec … eb9e6846a7

And have these questions been answered yet? :unamused: :unamused:
I picked these from a much longer list.

  1. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the word “care” for the word “insurance?” it is patently untrue that millions of Americans do not receive health care. Millions of Americans do not have health insurance but virtually every American (and non-American on American soil) receives health care.

  2. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its budget health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of having the state decide what medical care to ration?

  3. According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the Manhattan Institute, “While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed in Europe, European price controls made drug development an American enterprise. Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed in the United States.” Given how many lives – in America and throughout the world - American pharmaceutical companies save, and given how expensive it is to develop any new drug, will the price controls on drugs envisaged in the Democrats’ bill improve or impair Americans’ health?

  4. Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a “public option”? Or is this really a cover for the ideal of single-payer medical care? How could a private insurance company survive a “public option” given that private companies have to show a profit and government agencies do not have to - and given that a private enterprise must raise its own money to be solvent and a government option has access to others’ money – i.e., taxes?

  5. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly as superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government will be severely cut? Haven’t the laws of human behavior and common sense been repealed here in arguing that while doctors, hospitals and drug companies will make significantly less money they will continue to provide the same level of uniquely excellent care?

  6. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical lawsuits and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance, shouldn’t any meaningful “reform” of health care provide some remedy for frivolous malpractice lawsuits?

  7. Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar is, and given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have the U.S. spend another trillion dollars? Even if all the other questions here had legitimate answers, wouldn’t the state of the U.S. economy alone argue against national health care at this time?

  8. Contrary to the assertion of President Obama – “we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren’t any healthier for it” – we are healthier. We wait far less time for procedures and surgeries.

Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy. Do you think a government takeover of American medicine will enable this medical excellence to continue?

http://rs246.pbsrc.com/albums/gg103/im-on-to-you/Emoticons%205/glock836_roll_eyes.gif~c200

Actually, Dave, the government can run medicare advantage programs well. Why? Because they allow the insurance companies to manage them. I think it was Geoffrey, I believe. Who said the biggest problem with our high medical costs, is administration costs. And he supplied quality articles - to prove it. Let the insurance companies administer it…the government rate the insurance companies success (like Medicare does now)…and the US government handle all the centralized stuff.

Then it raises the BIG question. Why does the US government fail miserably…but a country like Singapore - does well? And they are rated #1 in health care, by the World Health Organization?

Oh, yes. Least I forget :laughing: