The official RNC Convention thread (2 Viewers)

[coldseat]

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?

 

[brandon]

The idea that everything you don't believe in is "Fake News" is insane...

The idea that you can't question science or what is popularly accepted as fact ("question nothing") is also insane...

This is still the same false equivalency, regardless of the fact that you added some more words.

Again, it's a hallmark of liberalism to be healthily skeptical.

 

[JimEverett]

Take the first "fact" from the AP "fact checking" article posted above.

The AP writes, " Trump falsely asserted that he was the one who ensured that people with preexisting medical problems will be covered by health insurance "
This assertion was based on Trump saying, “We protected your preexisting conditions. Very strongly protected preexisting ... and you don’t hear that.”

IMO, The AP can only classify Trump's statement as "false" if it assumes certain things, namely that Trump is basically trying to pull one over on a stupid populace that does not know or is not aware that coverage of pre-existing conditions was something mandated by Obama health insurance reform. It is NOT simply checking the factual accuracy of the statement. Because the statement, using the terms as ordinarily understood, is correct. The Trump Administration is, to my knowledge, enforcing the pre-existing aspect of the law. Now that enforcement is/was required by law - and that was not said by Trump, but then again - it goes back to the assumption the AP is making.
If the Trump Administration has not enforced that aspect of the law then that would make the claim "false" imo. Otherwise, the AP should have not claimed the statement was false but is, of course, free to say it could be misleadingly interpreted because of . . . .

 

[CoolBrees]

People’s opinions or life experience isn’t a fact. They might think it is but it isn’t. in other words your (royal) opinion or perception is only a fact when it aligns with facts.

you are describing scientific fact- which is a sleight of hand. nobody mentioned Scientific fact. Those are potentially proven inaccurate. A fact is that the earth is round and not flat. Another fact is a mile is 5280 feet. They cannot he disputed without leaving reality.

a scientific fact is that dark matter exists. Provable and accepted by science as fact. However, until we are able to sample and actually observe dark matter in its natural state it is not a Universal fact. Only a scientific fact.

Facts tend to have liberal bias I agree.

so there is no one who said “question nothing.” That is a opinion you hold. in the future, don’t put something in quote that isnt a quote. It is less confusing to your reader.

Finally to get back on topic and using the hopefully helpful information above here is my ”fact” as a former alcoholic and drug addict - Don Jr was on both Xanax or Halcyon and cocaine during his speech last night. which pharmy he was on is personal preference but the coke was unmistakable

ETA- thanks Jim.Typically AP will assert at the bottom of the article a scale of the statement. I would hope in the good example you share they stated it was misleading not false.

 

[JimEverett]

People’s opinions or life experience isn’t a fact. They might think it is but it isn’t. in other words your (royal) opinion or perception is only a fact when it aligns with facts.

Is it not? I am not disagreeing with you here, genuine question. Because at some level there does seem to me to be a "truth" about a person's experience with the world.
We see this commonly when we talk about getting diverse perspectives - with the understanding that a white straight man, for example, might experience the world in a different way than a black lesbian.

Obviously there is the other hand as well - there is a widely held belief that "facts" are somehow wholly independent from any particular experience.

 

[brandon]

fact
noun

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened:Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened:The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law.Often facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.Compare question of fact, question of law.

opinion
noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment:to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.:to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. Archaic. a favorable estimate; esteem:I haven't much of an opinion of him.

 

[wardorican]

Take the first "fact" from the AP "fact checking" article posted above.

The AP writes, " Trump falsely asserted that he was the one who ensured that people with preexisting medical problems will be covered by health insurance "
This assertion was based on Trump saying, “We protected your preexisting conditions. Very strongly protected preexisting ... and you don’t hear that.”

IMO, The AP can only classify Trump's statement as "false" if it assumes certain things, namely that Trump is basically trying to pull one over on a stupid populace that does not know or is not aware that coverage of pre-existing conditions was something mandated by Obama health insurance reform. It is NOT simply checking the factual accuracy of the statement. Because the statement, using the terms as ordinarily understood, is correct. The Trump Administration is, to my knowledge, enforcing the pre-existing aspect of the law. Now that enforcement is/was required by law - and that was not said by Trump, but then again - it goes back to the assumption the AP is making.
If the Trump Administration has not enforced that aspect of the law then that would make the claim "false" imo. Otherwise, the AP should have not claimed the statement was false but is, of course, free to say it could be misleadingly interpreted because of . . . .

Is that protecting though?

 

[JimEverett]

Is that protecting though?

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.

 

[brandon]

Obviously there is the other hand as well - there is a widely held belief that "facts" are somehow wholly independent from any particular experience.

So what's the endgame here? Fact-checkers should just let everything stand because facts are all relative now?

I never thought I'd see the day where the right is arguing for moral relativism.

Once again, the propaganda wins.

 

[JimEverett]

So what's the endgame here? Fact-checkers should just let everything stand because facts are all relative now?

I never thought I'd see the day where the right is arguing for moral relativism.

Once again, the propaganda wins.

How about be more accurate instead of trying to dumb down everything into and authoritative true or false? And I am not sure why empiricism would be seen as "moral relativism" but that is a different topic.

 

[insidejob]

Is that protecting though?

Am I imagining things or didn't Trump's admin file suit at some point to remove preexisting conditions from the ACA?

Yeah, he did.

Trump seeks to undo protections for pre-existing conditions, despite tweets

Trump claimed Monday that he "saved" health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions but his administration has been trying to eliminate that requirement on several fronts.

www.nbcnews.com

Trump's Justice Department is currently backing a lawsuit by Republican state officials to throw out the entire law — including those protections. The president has also previously urged Congress to pass a bill that would roll back some of the law’s protections for pre-existing conditions and his administration has expanded access to plans that do not cover pre-existing conditions, which critics deride as “junk insurance.”


If the courts agree with the White House’s legal arguments, the lawsuit would end the ACA’s landmark requirement that insurance companies take on all customers regardless of any pre-existing conditions and charge them the same premiums as healthy customers.

Yeah, I'd say the AP rating his statement as false is 100% accurate.

 

[Infoman]

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.

Precisely.

 

[brandon]

How about be more accurate instead of trying to dumb down everything into and authoritative true or false?

Why is the onus only on fact-checkers to be more accurate?

How about we hold the guy at the top accountable for his accuracy failures?

Wait, that's what the fact-checkers are doing.

So yea, we're back to having the fact-checkers stand down.

 

[Infoman]

How about be more accurate instead of trying to dumb down everything into and authoritative true or false? And I am not sure why empiricism would be seen as "moral relativism" but that is a different topic.

 

[CoolBrees]

We (as humans) are stating distinction without difference. That is wild because it is normally the other way around.

I am going to quote some folks that are (were) a hell of a lot smarter than me.

“we hold these truths to be self evident...”

here we have truth as distinction. But being qualified as “self evident.” As in not a universal fact.

the word “truth” muddies the water because it has two distinct meanings and differences. There is personal or “self evident” truth - that “all men are created equal.” But that is hardly a fact. Quite the opposite really.

the two words (truth and fact) are used synonymously, when they aren’t necessarily the same. Think a square is always a parallelogram but a parallelogram isn’t always a square.

My truth and your truth can be different- ie the great example you used. But my facts and your fact have to be the same. Otherwise they have no meaning whatsoever.

My truth- The 44th President was the greatest President of my lifetime (I was born in the year of our nations’ bicentennial for reference). That truth is a flat out lie to someone else.

Universal fact- President Obama was the 44th President; a fact that cannot be disputed. Same distinction, yet totally different.

when we argue facts we are pissing in the wind. There is ONE set of facts; there is an infinite set of truths.

this is why we must only stick to facts. Because there is no shade of gray.

 

[JimEverett]

Why is the onus only on fact-checkers to be more accurate?

How about we hold the guy at the top accountable for his accuracy failures?

Wait, that's what the fact-checkers are doing.

So yea, we're back to having the fact-checkers stand down.

Their job as reporters is to be accurate, especially when taking the self-described mantle of "fact-checker".

No one has argued the point that fact-checkers should stand down.

 

[brandon]

Their job as reporters is to be accurate, especially when taking the self-described mantle of "fact-checker".

No one has argued the point that fact-checkers should stand down.

You didn't address my other point. Should the president be accurate, as well? More to the point, should he lie? Does he lie?

I understand that politics should offer some leeway for the president in terms of interpretation, but the current president actively lies. He chooses to spread information that is factually incorrect. That's different than interpretation.

 

[Ayo]

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.

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?

 

[coldseat]

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.

Unless the federal government has had to bring legal cases though the justice department to uphold the "preexisting conditions" mandate of the ACA, then there is no "protecting" being done by this government. It's just and article of law that was passed under Obama and adopted by insurance companies. While I don't know for sure, I don't believe there have been any insurance companies that have fought that law/mandate in court.

The only ones that have fought to overturn the ACA are republican states backed up by Trump's justice department. So if anything, the Trump administration has fought to undo those protections.

I don't see how that determination on fact is even questionable.