The official RNC Convention thread (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    coldseat

    coldseat

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 30, 2019
    Messages
    4,151
    Reaction score
    7,796
    Age
    49
    Location
    San Antonio
    Offline
    Why are the Republicans doing their convention during the day? Isn't the roll call and nomination normally done at night?

    Anybody watching or going to watch in parts?

    What are the expectations of the convention for those who support Trump?
     
    coldseat said:
    I don't see how that determination on fact is even questionable.
    Click to expand...

    yea, I'm not following the verb 'protecting'

    "protecting" is not interchangeable with "not attacking"

    as a general aside, if we have to split semantic hairs like this, I'm not sure this is the best example of something 'open to interpretation'
     
    Ayo said:
    yea, I'm not following the verb 'protecting'

    "protecting" is not interchangeable with "not attacking"

    as a general aside, if we have to split semantic hairs like this, I'm not sure this is the best example of something 'open to interpretation'
    Click to expand...

    Agreed. I'm not even saying that Jim doesn't have a point because I have seen what he is talking about and recognize it at such. It's just that's an extremely poor example of the point he's trying to make.

    If there's going to be that level of cynicism, then I don't know where you'd even get information from.
     
    coldseat said:
    Agreed. I'm not even saying that Jim doesn't have a point because I have seen what he is talking about and recognize it at such. It's just that's an extremely poor example of the point he's trying to make.
    Click to expand...

    yea... I tend to stick to one 'fact checker' - Daniel Dale - and he got his start fact checking from here in Toronto for the Star. He puts a ton of time and research into his work, and I generally find him to be the most reliable - and accountable. When he's been wrong in the past, he's explained it and corrected or deleted as necessary.

    He doesn't seem to have much of proverbial horse in the race.
     
    Approximately 99% of the time when a person decides to "both sides" any issue, he or she is just using that as a device to support whoever is in power while also reserving the right to deny that support. All options are bad, so by gosh we need to stick with the one have! All speech is a lie so we must therefore ignore criticism! I am on the politics board to tell you that discussing politics is stupid!
     
    Ayo said:
    Is there nothing objective around the claim that can be evaluated?

    Separate any 'truth checker' or 'fact checker' - do you think that Trump was being deceptive in his comment about pre-existing conditions?

    Now, while I realize this is getting into intentionality, I'm operating under the assumption here that most everyone else is. Namely, politicians will lie, twist, distort, etc.

    And you seem to be okay with there being some entity in the role of 'fact checking.'

    If you agree that Trump's statement was misleading or deceptive or half-truth, how - ideally - would a 'fact checker' go about explaining or contextualizing the original claim?
    Click to expand...
    I think my problem is with the authoritative use of "true" or "false" or something like that. On this topic, I think the better avenue would be to give a brief history of the subject, including stuff like what insidejob posted and to essentially lay out the information as best the reporter can.
    I was trying to find a "fact-checking" article on the topic that is more like what I envision as better and I came across this: https://khn.org/news/fact-check-who...s-for-preexisting-conditions-its-complicated/

    Although I think this line in the article goes a little too far in being an arbiter of truth: "Clearly, if the lawsuit prevails in either its original form or the form preferred by the Trump administration, preexisting protections are not “safe,” as the president claimed."
     
    I think this line in the article goes a little too far in being an arbiter of truth: "Clearly, if the lawsuit prevails in either its original form or the form preferred by the Trump administration, preexisting protections are not “safe,” as the president claimed."
    Click to expand...
    If the attack fails it qualifies as protection? Seriously?
     
    Last edited:
    JimEverett said:
    I think my problem is with the authoritative use of "true" or "false" or something like that. On this topic, I think the better avenue would be to give a brief history of the subject, including stuff like what insidejob posted and to essentially lay out the information as best the reporter can.
    I was trying to find a "fact-checking" article on the topic that is more like what I envision as better and I came across this: https://khn.org/news/fact-check-who...s-for-preexisting-conditions-its-complicated/

    Although I think this line in the article goes a little too far in being an arbiter of truth: "Clearly, if the lawsuit prevails in either its original form or the form preferred by the Trump administration, preexisting protections are not “safe,” as the president claimed."
    Click to expand...
    So you want the process of fact-checking, or at least the appearance of fact-checking, but drawing any sort of conclusion of fact is where you draw the line.

    So in your perfect scenario, no one could ever be accused of lying because...we just don't do that around here? What's the point of fact-checking if you're not going to point out inaccuracies?

    How does our justice system continue to function if lying is not addressed? If there's no lying, there's no perjury, and if there's no perjury, then there's no real witness, and if all events are open to the interpretation of the people involved, then has a crime ever really been committed?

    I mean, surely you can see how society falls apart if there's no such thing as objective reality any more.
     
    1. The ACA provides protection to individuals with pre-existing conditions and the ACA is currently the law of the land.
    2. Trump and his administration are actively trying to kill pre-existing conditions protections.
    3. Trump signed an EO with language designed to protect something that he and his administration is currently trying to kill.
    4. Trump is accused of lying about protecting pre-existing conditions.
    5. Individuals argue that technically, the people saying trump is lying are not being truthful because he signed a meaningless EO with language designed to protect a LAW that he and his administration are actively trying to kill.
    Question for the people here arguing #5. If Trump signs an EO granting citizens the right the vote (something they already have). Is it accurate to say that trump is giving everyone the right to vote? Can trump now claim that he is protecting your right to vote because he signed an EO with language designed to grant everyone the right to vote? Is it inaccurate for someone to say trump is lying when he says he's protecting your right to vote because he signed an EO granting you something you already have?

    Is this really where we are?
     
    Ya think?

    Good luck with that, though.

    1598386171225.png
     
    Ayo said:
    He doesn't seem to have much of proverbial horse in the race.
    Click to expand...
    I follow him for fact checking too. And he's honest about it. Last night he misunderstood something Trump said and today corrected the tweet he'd put out calling Trump out for not knowing what he was talking about as soon as he realized it.
     
    JimEverett said:
    Regardless of it is or isn't, I think it still proves Infoman's point - the fact-checkers themselves are taking a particular interpretation - in your case, interpreting "protecting" in a certain way that, perhaps, some people would interpret differently.
    Click to expand...
    But again, they explain it all so that you can make a determination. It wasn't just "he's wrong", it was "he's wrong, here's why". here's the whole quote from the article. It is speaking in past tense, as in an action was rendered to protect. i.e. he stopped something from changing it. That's not true to me.

    You also have to use some recent context, which the reporters will have, which may bias them a bit... to history.

    thehill.com

    Trump teases order requiring insurers to cover preexisting conditions

    President Trump on Friday teased an executive order to require health insurers to cover all preexisting conditions, something already established under the Affordable Care Act, which his administra…
    thehill.com thehill.com

    President Trump on Friday teased an executive order to require health insurers to cover all preexisting conditions, something already established under the Affordable Care Act, which his administration is suing to dismantle.

    "Over the next two weeks I’ll be pursuing a major executive order requiring health insurance companies to cover all preexisting conditions for all companies," Trump said during a news conference at his Bedminster property in New Jersey. "That’s a big thing. I’ve always been very strongly in favor. We have to cover preexisting conditions."

    Trump claimed such a move "has never been done before," though insurance companies are already required to cover patients with preexisting conditions under the Affordable Care Act, which was enacted in 2010.

    Despite Trump's insistence he will protect those with preexisting conditions, the Justice Department argued in a Supreme Court briefing in late June that the entire Affordable Care Act should be invalidated.
    Click to expand...

    The full AP quote. Not sure if that's the full Trump quote though.

    HEALTH CARE

    TRUMP: “We protected your preexisting conditions. Very strongly protected preexisting ... and you don’t hear that.”

    THE FACTS: You don’t hear it because it’s not true.

    People with preexisting medical problems have health insurance protections because of Obama’s health care law, which Trump is trying to dismantle.


    One of Trump’s alternatives to Obama’s law — short-term health insurance, already in place — doesn’t have to cover preexisting conditions. Another alternative is association health plans, which are oriented to small businesses and sole proprietors and do cover preexisting conditions.

    Neither of the two alternatives appears to have made much difference in the market.

    Meanwhile, Trump’s administration is pressing the Supreme Court for full repeal of the Obama-era law, including provisions that protect people with preexisting conditions from health insurance discrimination.

    With “Obamacare” still in place, preexisting conditions continue to be covered by regular individual health insurance plans.

    Insurers must take all applicants, regardless of medical history, and charge the same standard premiums to healthy people and those who are in poor health, or have a history of medical problems.

    Before the Affordable Care Act, any insurer could deny coverage — or charge more — to anyone with a preexisting condition who was seeking to buy an individual policy.

    Democratic attacks on Republican efforts to repeal the health law and weaken preexisting condition protections proved successful in the 2018 midterms, when Democrats won back control of the House.
    Click to expand...

    Here is the full word salad from Trump. He's talking about the second amendment, then riots, then pivots oddly to preexisting conditions. Hard to read it.

    They’re almost used to it. This is the way our whole country would be if you ever let a thing like this happen, our whole country would be. So we protected your preexisting conditions, very strongly protected… and you don’t hear that. But we very strongly protected your preexisting condition. So we got rid of the horrible individual mandate, which cost everybody a fortune and we strongly protected. Every Republican is sworn to protecting your pre existing conditions. It’s very important. You won’t hear that. You won’t hear that from the fake news. We passed Right to Try. We passed VA Accountability and VA Choice. We mobilized the largest response since the Second World War. We are doing an incredible job on the China virus, but I’m going to talk to you about that Thursday night. Will anybody be listening on Thursday night?
    Click to expand...

    At best, you can argue as they're dismantling the whole thing, they only like the pre-existing coverage mandate part, because it is popular, but make the rest of it unusable due to expense by removing the individual mandate or other things like risk corridors.
     
    Yoweigh said:
    If the attack fails it qualifies as protection? Seriously?
    Click to expand...

    when the French and spanish tried to attack England and laid siege to Gibraltar, they didn’t gain an inch of ground.

    Total failure.

    it would be odd to have a chapter in a history text that explains this as “Franco Spanish joined forces to protect England.”
     
    wardorican said:
    But again, they explain it all so that you can make a determination. It wasn't just "he's wrong", it was "he's wrong, here's why". here's the whole quote from the article. It is speaking in past tense, as in an action was rendered to protect. i.e. he stopped something from changing it. That's not true to me.

    You also have to use some recent context, which the reporters will have, which may bias them a bit... to history.

    thehill.com

    Trump teases order requiring insurers to cover preexisting conditions

    President Trump on Friday teased an executive order to require health insurers to cover all preexisting conditions, something already established under the Affordable Care Act, which his administra…
    thehill.com thehill.com



    The full AP quote. Not sure if that's the full Trump quote though.



    Here is the full word salad from Trump. He's talking about the second amendment, then riots, then pivots oddly to preexisting conditions. Hard to read it.



    At best, you can argue as they're dismantling the whole thing, they only like the pre-existing coverage mandate part, because it is popular, but make the rest of it unusable due to expense by removing the individual mandate or other things like risk corridors.
    Click to expand...
    I will put it like this:

    If Jim says, "I crossed Main Street at about 3PM on Tuesday August 25, 2020" and someone was going to check as to whether Jim did cross Main Street at that time and interviews 3 people who say they were in the grocery store with Jim on Tuesday from 2.45PM to at least 3.30PM then I am saying report that. There is no need to add "Jim is lying" or Jim's statement is untrue.
    The addition of rating the statement as being false is not reporting a fact, likewise, if all 3 had said they saw Jim crossing Main Street at roughly 3PM then describing Jim as being "truthful" does not help the reader understand the facts at all.
     
    JimEverett said:
    I will put it like this:

    If Jim says, "I crossed Main Street at about 3PM on Tuesday August 25, 2020" and someone was going to check as to whether Jim did cross Main Street at that time and interviews 3 people who say they were in the grocery store with Jim on Tuesday from 2.45PM to at least 3.30PM then I am saying report that. There is no need to add "Jim is lying" or Jim's statement is untrue.
    The addition of rating the statement as being false is not reporting a fact, likewise, if all 3 had said they saw Jim crossing Main Street at roughly 3PM then describing Jim as being "truthful" does not help the reader understand the facts at all.
    Click to expand...
    And what if Jim crossed the street at 4pm? 5pm? 6pm?

    At what point is what he said so different from reality that it becomes a falsehood?

    And what if Jim said he crossed “around 3pm” because it was his alibi for a crime that happened 5 minutes away at approximately 3pm? If all the witnesses corroborate that they saw him in the window you gave, does that make him automatically innocent?
     
    brandon said:
    And what if Jim crossed the street at 4pm? 5pm? 6pm?

    At what point is what he said so different from reality that it becomes a falsehood?

    And what if Jim said he crossed “around 3pm” because it was his alibi for a crime that happened 5 minutes away at approximately 3pm? If all the witnesses corroborate that they saw him in the window you gave, does that make him automatically innocent?
    Click to expand...
    Why do you need someone to authoritatively tell you that it is a falsehood? Why not make your own determination given the facts as best laid out.
     
    JimEverett said:
    Why do you need someone to authoritatively tell you that it is a falsehood? Why not make your own determination given the facts as best laid out.
    Click to expand...

    People do that anyway. You obviously are. They have enough contexts for you to have your own interpretation.

    It doesn't change that Trump lied. There is nothing wrong with that fact check on health care.

    There is no way for the media to report anything that will satisfy everybody's vision of what media reporting should be. I don't know why there is that expectation. It fine to criticize the media, but we should have rational expectations of them as well.
     
    If Jim tried to rob a store but failed to get anything, then later proclaimed he actually supported the store, would it be true to say that Jim was protecting the store?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom