(03-06-2020 05:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting comparison I heard yesterday:
Russians bought about $200,000 in FaceBook ads and these are credited by Democrats with helping to elect Trump.
Bloomberg spent $500,000,000 on ads and could not win.

Maybe Republicans are just bigger dupes than Democrats.
To be clear, I am 100% kidding. Plenty of dupes on both sides. Moreover, people across the political spectrum are more aware of misinformation today than 4 years ago or 8 years ago.
But Trump won, in part, by about 80,000 votes spread across Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. So the number of voters he needed to either turn out for him, scare away from Clinton, or win over from Clinton was very, very small. Bloomberg's ads bought him up to 10-20% of the vote on Super Tuesday, even though many people were likely trying to fast forward through his ads. The Facebook ads (his and pro-Trump ads) were shared a lot, so the Faceboook ads get magnified a bit and cost less.

Maybe they didn't have any impact at all.

Democrats seem to think those adverts had a big effect, because things on social media are big with their demographic. The people who spend enough time on Facebook to be impacted by it aren't the blue-collar voters in the Midwest who voted for Trump instead of Hillary. The idea that I would vote for anyone because on a Facebook advert (or multiple ones) is just preposterous to me. Maybe there are younger, tech-savvy voters that spend enough time on, and put enough stock in, social media that such adverts would influence them. But that's not who voted for Trump.

(03-07-2020 07:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 05:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting comparison I heard yesterday:
Russians bought about $200,000 in FaceBook ads and these are credited by Democrats with helping to elect Trump.
Bloomberg spent $500,000,000 on ads and could not win.

Maybe Republicans are just bigger dupes than Democrats.
To be clear, I am 100% kidding. Plenty of dupes on both sides. Moreover, people across the political spectrum are more aware of misinformation today than 4 years ago or 8 years ago.
But Trump won, in part, by about 80,000 votes spread across Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. So the number of voters he needed to either turn out for him, scare away from Clinton, or win over from Clinton was very, very small. Bloomberg's ads bought him up to 10-20% of the vote on Super Tuesday, even though many people were likely trying to fast forward through his ads. The Facebook ads (his and pro-Trump ads) were shared a lot, so the Faceboook ads get magnified a bit and cost less.

Maybe they didn't have any impact at all.

Democrats seem to think those adverts had a big effect, because things on social media are big with their demographic. The people who spend enough time on Facebook to be impacted by it aren't the blue-collar voters in the Midwest who voted for Trump instead of Hillary. The idea that I would vote for anyone because on a Facebook advert (or multiple ones) is just preposterous to me. Maybe there are younger, tech-savvy voters that spend enough time on, and put enough stock in, social media that such adverts would influence them. But that's not who voted for Trump.

Younger, tech-savvy voters aren't who uses or would be influenced through Facebook. I don't believe the election was nefariously "stolen" as there were far too many factors in play -- and far and away the most influential being the candidates' own qualities or lack thereof -- for any one to directly cause the outcome, but if you think blue-collar voters in the Midwest aren't using Facebook, you're just wrong. I would be surprised if there actually wasn't an *inverse* correlation between Facebook usage and age+educational level at this point. So yes, if you wanted to move low-information Obama voters toward Trump instead of Hillary (or just get them to stay home) and/or get low-information nonvoters off the sidelines and against Hillary, I absolutely believe Facebook would be where you'd do that work.

Now, proving that such a tactic ended up being the absolute defining factor for any one voter, much less for the whole election, is problematic to say the least. In fact it is probably the very elusiveness of such proof that makes the myth that much more powerful (and valuable - RIP Doc C).

(03-07-2020 11:34 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 07:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 05:16 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting comparison I heard yesterday:
Russians bought about $200,000 in FaceBook ads and these are credited by Democrats with helping to elect Trump.
Bloomberg spent $500,000,000 on ads and could not win.

Maybe Republicans are just bigger dupes than Democrats.
To be clear, I am 100% kidding. Plenty of dupes on both sides. Moreover, people across the political spectrum are more aware of misinformation today than 4 years ago or 8 years ago.
But Trump won, in part, by about 80,000 votes spread across Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. So the number of voters he needed to either turn out for him, scare away from Clinton, or win over from Clinton was very, very small. Bloomberg's ads bought him up to 10-20% of the vote on Super Tuesday, even though many people were likely trying to fast forward through his ads. The Facebook ads (his and pro-Trump ads) were shared a lot, so the Faceboook ads get magnified a bit and cost less.

Maybe they didn't have any impact at all.

Democrats seem to think those adverts had a big effect, because things on social media are big with their demographic. The people who spend enough time on Facebook to be impacted by it aren't the blue-collar voters in the Midwest who voted for Trump instead of Hillary. The idea that I would vote for anyone because on a Facebook advert (or multiple ones) is just preposterous to me. Maybe there are younger, tech-savvy voters that spend enough time on, and put enough stock in, social media that such adverts would influence them. But that's not who voted for Trump.

Younger, tech-savvy voters aren't who uses or would be influenced through Facebook. I don't believe the election was nefariously "stolen" as there were far too many factors in play -- and far and away the most influential being the candidates' own qualities or lack thereof -- for any one to directly cause the outcome, but if you think blue-collar voters in the Midwest aren't using Facebook, you're just wrong. I would be surprised if there actually wasn't an *inverse* correlation between Facebook usage and age+educational level at this point. So yes, if you wanted to move low-information Obama voters toward Trump instead of Hillary (or just get them to stay home) and/or get low-information nonvoters off the sidelines and against Hillary, I absolutely believe Facebook would be where you'd do that work.

Now, proving that such a tactic ended up being the absolute defining factor for any one voter, much less for the whole election, is problematic to say the least. In fact it is probably the very elusiveness of such proof that makes the myth that much more powerful (and valuable - RIP Doc C).

MPV lives on....

(03-07-2020 11:34 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 07:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Maybe they didn't have any impact at all.
Democrats seem to think those adverts had a big effect, because things on social media are big with their demographic. The people who spend enough time on Facebook to be impacted by it aren't the blue-collar voters in the Midwest who voted for Trump instead of Hillary. The idea that I would vote for anyone because on a Facebook advert (or multiple ones) is just preposterous to me. Maybe there are younger, tech-savvy voters that spend enough time on, and put enough stock in, social media that such adverts would influence them. But that's not who voted for Trump.

Younger, tech-savvy voters aren't who uses or would be influenced through Facebook. I don't believe the election was nefariously "stolen" as there were far too many factors in play -- and far and away the most influential being the candidates' own qualities or lack thereof -- for any one to directly cause the outcome, but if you think blue-collar voters in the Midwest aren't using Facebook, you're just wrong. I would be surprised if there actually wasn't an *inverse* correlation between Facebook usage and age+educational level at this point. So yes, if you wanted to move low-information Obama voters toward Trump instead of Hillary (or just get them to stay home) and/or get low-information nonvoters off the sidelines and against Hillary, I absolutely believe Facebook would be where you'd do that work.
Now, proving that such a tactic ended up being the absolute defining factor for any one voter, much less for the whole election, is problematic to say the least. In fact it is probably the very elusiveness of such proof that makes the myth that much more powerful (and valuable - RIP Doc C).

I should have stayed consistent with my "social media" terminology throughout, instead of using Facebook as an example.

I saw an analysis that said about 7% of Sanders supporters cast their vote for Trump in 2016.

In every contested battleground state that swung to Trump, that 7% was enough to provide the final margin of victory.

I think those voters reacted to the cheating in the DNC, not FB ads.

dont forget how completly full ofcrap donny is
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating...idnt-work/

Quote:When, in January 2016, I wrote that despite being a lifelong Republican who worked in the previous three GOP administrations, I would never vote for Donald Trump, even though his administration would align much more with my policy views than a Hillary Clinton presidency would, a lot of my Republican friends were befuddled. How could I not vote for a person who checked far more of my policy boxes than his opponent?

What I explained then, and what I have said many times since, is that Trump is fundamentally unfit—intellectually, morally, temperamentally, and psychologically—for office. For me, that is the paramount consideration in electing a president, in part because at some point it’s reasonable to expect that a president will face an unexpected crisis—and at that point, the president’s judgment and discernment, his character and leadership ability, will really matter.

..

It took until the second half of Trump’s first term, but the crisis has arrived in the form of the coronavirus pandemic, and it’s hard to name a president who has been as overwhelmed by a crisis as the coronavirus has overwhelmed Donald Trump.

Quote:To be sure, the president isn’t responsible for either the coronavirus or the disease it causes, COVID-19, and he couldn’t have stopped it from hitting our shores even if he had done everything right. Nor is it the case that the president hasn’t done anything right; in fact, his decision to implement a travel ban on China was prudent. And any narrative that attempts to pin all of the blame on Trump for the coronavirus is simply unfair. The temptation among the president’s critics to use the pandemic to get back at Trump for every bad thing he’s done should be resisted, and schadenfreude is never a good look.

That said, the president and his administration are responsible for grave, costly errors, most especially the epic manufacturing failures in diagnostic testing, the decision to test too few people, the delay in expanding testing to labs outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and problems in the supply chain. These mistakes have left us blind and badly behind the curve, and, for a few crucial weeks, they created a false sense of security.

Quote:Yet in some respects, the avalanche of false information from the president has been most alarming of all. It’s been one rock slide after another, the likes of which we have never seen. Day after day after day he brazenly denied reality, in an effort to blunt the economic and political harm he faced. But Trump is in the process of discovering that he can’t spin or tweet his way out of a pandemic. There is no one who can do to the coronavirus what Attorney General William Barr did to the Mueller report: lie about it and get away with it.

The president’s misinformation and mendacity about the coronavirus are head-snapping. He claimed that it was contained in America when it was actually spreading. He claimed that we had “shut it down” when we had not. He claimed that testing was available when it wasn’t. He claimed that the coronavirus will one day disappear “like a miracle”; it won’t. He claimed that a vaccine would be available in months; Fauci says it will not be available for a year or more.

Trump falsely blamed the Obama administration for impeding coronavirus testing. He stated that the coronavirus first hit the United States later than it actually did. (He said that it was three weeks prior to the point at which he spoke; the actual figure was twice that.) The president claimed that the number of cases in Italy was getting “much better” when it was getting much worse. And in one of the more stunning statements an American president has ever made, Trump admitted that his preference was to keep a cruise ship off the California coast rather than allowing it to dock, because he wanted to keep the number of reported cases of the coronavirus artificially low.

Quote:Taken together, this is a massive failure in leadership that stems from a massive defect in character. Trump is such a habitual liar that he is incapable of being honest, even when being honest would serve his interests. He is so impulsive, shortsighted, and undisciplined that he is unable to plan or even think beyond the moment. He is such a divisive and polarizing figure that he long ago lost the ability to unite the nation under any circumstances and for any cause. And he is so narcissistic and unreflective that he is completely incapable of learning from his mistakes. The president’s disordered personality makes him as ill-equipped to deal with a crisis as any president has ever been. With few exceptions, what Trump has said is not just useless; it is downright injurious.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...pyl6ZUb35Q

So, a leftwing rag hates Trump. No news there. Lot more unsupported allegations than supporting facts.

(03-16-2020 01:46 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:When, in January 2016, I wrote that despite being a lifelong Republican who worked in the previous three GOP administrations, I would never vote for Donald Trump, even though his administration would align much more with my policy views than a Hillary Clinton presidency would, a lot of my Republican friends were befuddled. How could I not vote for a person who checked far more of my policy boxes than his opponent?
What I explained then, and what I have said many times since, is that Trump is fundamentally unfit—intellectually, morally, temperamentally, and psychologically—for office. For me, that is the paramount consideration in electing a president, in part because at some point it’s reasonable to expect that a president will face an unexpected crisis—and at that point, the president’s judgment and discernment, his character and leadership ability, will really matter.
..
It took until the second half of Trump’s first term, but the crisis has arrived in the form of the coronavirus pandemic, and it’s hard to name a president who has been as overwhelmed by a crisis as the coronavirus has overwhelmed Donald Trump.

Quote:To be sure, the president isn’t responsible for either the coronavirus or the disease it causes, COVID-19, and he couldn’t have stopped it from hitting our shores even if he had done everything right. Nor is it the case that the president hasn’t done anything right; in fact, his decision to implement a travel ban on China was prudent. And any narrative that attempts to pin all of the blame on Trump for the coronavirus is simply unfair. The temptation among the president’s critics to use the pandemic to get back at Trump for every bad thing he’s done should be resisted, and schadenfreude is never a good look.
That said, the president and his administration are responsible for grave, costly errors, most especially the epic manufacturing failures in diagnostic testing, the decision to test too few people, the delay in expanding testing to labs outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and problems in the supply chain. These mistakes have left us blind and badly behind the curve, and, for a few crucial weeks, they created a false sense of security.

Quote:Yet in some respects, the avalanche of false information from the president has been most alarming of all. It’s been one rock slide after another, the likes of which we have never seen. Day after day after day he brazenly denied reality, in an effort to blunt the economic and political harm he faced. But Trump is in the process of discovering that he can’t spin or tweet his way out of a pandemic. There is no one who can do to the coronavirus what Attorney General William Barr did to the Mueller report: lie about it and get away with it.
The president’s misinformation and mendacity about the coronavirus are head-snapping. He claimed that it was contained in America when it was actually spreading. He claimed that we had “shut it down” when we had not. He claimed that testing was available when it wasn’t. He claimed that the coronavirus will one day disappear “like a miracle”; it won’t. He claimed that a vaccine would be available in months; Fauci says it will not be available for a year or more.
Trump falsely blamed the Obama administration for impeding coronavirus testing. He stated that the coronavirus first hit the United States later than it actually did. (He said that it was three weeks prior to the point at which he spoke; the actual figure was twice that.) The president claimed that the number of cases in Italy was getting “much better” when it was getting much worse. And in one of the more stunning statements an American president has ever made, Trump admitted that his preference was to keep a cruise ship off the California coast rather than allowing it to dock, because he wanted to keep the number of reported cases of the coronavirus artificially low.

Quote:Taken together, this is a massive failure in leadership that stems from a massive defect in character. Trump is such a habitual liar that he is incapable of being honest, even when being honest would serve his interests. He is so impulsive, shortsighted, and undisciplined that he is unable to plan or even think beyond the moment. He is such a divisive and polarizing figure that he long ago lost the ability to unite the nation under any circumstances and for any cause. And he is so narcissistic and unreflective that he is completely incapable of learning from his mistakes. The president’s disordered personality makes him as ill-equipped to deal with a crisis as any president has ever been. With few exceptions, what Trump has said is not just useless; it is downright injurious.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...pyl6ZUb35Q

(03-16-2020 02:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, a leftwing rag hates Trump. No news there. And no specifics, just unsupported allegations.

(03-16-2020 01:46 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:When, in January 2016, I wrote that despite being a lifelong Republican who worked in the previous three GOP administrations, I would never vote for Donald Trump, even though his administration would align much more with my policy views than a Hillary Clinton presidency would, a lot of my Republican friends were befuddled. How could I not vote for a person who checked far more of my policy boxes than his opponent?
What I explained then, and what I have said many times since, is that Trump is fundamentally unfit—intellectually, morally, temperamentally, and psychologically—for office. For me, that is the paramount consideration in electing a president, in part because at some point it’s reasonable to expect that a president will face an unexpected crisis—and at that point, the president’s judgment and discernment, his character and leadership ability, will really matter.
..
It took until the second half of Trump’s first term, but the crisis has arrived in the form of the coronavirus pandemic, and it’s hard to name a president who has been as overwhelmed by a crisis as the coronavirus has overwhelmed Donald Trump.

Quote:To be sure, the president isn’t responsible for either the coronavirus or the disease it causes, COVID-19, and he couldn’t have stopped it from hitting our shores even if he had done everything right. Nor is it the case that the president hasn’t done anything right; in fact, his decision to implement a travel ban on China was prudent. And any narrative that attempts to pin all of the blame on Trump for the coronavirus is simply unfair. The temptation among the president’s critics to use the pandemic to get back at Trump for every bad thing he’s done should be resisted, and schadenfreude is never a good look.
That said, the president and his administration are responsible for grave, costly errors, most especially the epic manufacturing failures in diagnostic testing, the decision to test too few people, the delay in expanding testing to labs outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and problems in the supply chain. These mistakes have left us blind and badly behind the curve, and, for a few crucial weeks, they created a false sense of security.

Quote:Yet in some respects, the avalanche of false information from the president has been most alarming of all. It’s been one rock slide after another, the likes of which we have never seen. Day after day after day he brazenly denied reality, in an effort to blunt the economic and political harm he faced. But Trump is in the process of discovering that he can’t spin or tweet his way out of a pandemic. There is no one who can do to the coronavirus what Attorney General William Barr did to the Mueller report: lie about it and get away with it.
The president’s misinformation and mendacity about the coronavirus are head-snapping. He claimed that it was contained in America when it was actually spreading. He claimed that we had “shut it down” when we had not. He claimed that testing was available when it wasn’t. He claimed that the coronavirus will one day disappear “like a miracle”; it won’t. He claimed that a vaccine would be available in months; Fauci says it will not be available for a year or more.
Trump falsely blamed the Obama administration for impeding coronavirus testing. He stated that the coronavirus first hit the United States later than it actually did. (He said that it was three weeks prior to the point at which he spoke; the actual figure was twice that.) The president claimed that the number of cases in Italy was getting “much better” when it was getting much worse. And in one of the more stunning statements an American president has ever made, Trump admitted that his preference was to keep a cruise ship off the California coast rather than allowing it to dock, because he wanted to keep the number of reported cases of the coronavirus artificially low.

Quote:Taken together, this is a massive failure in leadership that stems from a massive defect in character. Trump is such a habitual liar that he is incapable of being honest, even when being honest would serve his interests. He is so impulsive, shortsighted, and undisciplined that he is unable to plan or even think beyond the moment. He is such a divisive and polarizing figure that he long ago lost the ability to unite the nation under any circumstances and for any cause. And he is so narcissistic and unreflective that he is completely incapable of learning from his mistakes. The president’s disordered personality makes him as ill-equipped to deal with a crisis as any president has ever been. With few exceptions, what Trump has said is not just useless; it is downright injurious.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...pyl6ZUb35Q

Written by that noted liberal Peter Wehner, who :checks notes:

is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and served in the Reagan, and both Bush admins.

(03-16-2020 02:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, a leftwing rag hates Trump. No news there. Lot more unsupported allegations, than supporting facts.

Same old ant-Trump crap from the same old anti-Trump sources and the same old anti-Trump people.

(03-16-2020 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Written by that noted liberal Peter Wehner, who :checks notes:
is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and served in the Reagan, and both Bush admins.

So what?

Republican never-Trumpers probably hate him worse than democrat never-Trumpers.

And do you really think that if a democrat wrote a ringing defense of Donald Trump, The Atlantic would publish it?

(03-16-2020 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-16-2020 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Written by that noted liberal Peter Wehner, who :checks notes:
is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and served in the Reagan, and both Bush admins.

So what?

Republican never-Trumpers probably hate him worse than democrat never-Trumpers.

And do you really think that if a democrat wrote a ringing defense of Donald Trump, The Atlantic would publish it?

But...but...but, aren't they journalists, just seeking truth?

Oh,wait a minute....The Atlantic?

Never mind.

(03-16-2020 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-16-2020 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Written by that noted liberal Peter Wehner, who :checks notes:
is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and served in the Reagan, and both Bush admins.

So what?

Republican never-Trumpers probably hate him worse than democrat never-Trumpers.

And do you really think that if a democrat wrote a ringing defense of Donald Trump, The Atlantic would publish it?

You poo-poo'd the substance of the article because it came from a "leftwing rag." So I pointed out that the person who wrote the article is anything but a leftwinger.

Sorry that I so easily cut through your critique of why this article's critique wasn't worthwhile. But since you seem to also dismiss the opinions of "Republican Never Trumpers," then who exactly can levy a legitimate criticism at this POTUS?

(03-16-2020 02:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-16-2020 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-16-2020 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Written by that noted liberal Peter Wehner, who :checks notes:
is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and served in the Reagan, and both Bush admins.

So what?

Republican never-Trumpers probably hate him worse than democrat never-Trumpers.

And do you really think that if a democrat wrote a ringing defense of Donald Trump, The Atlantic would publish it?

But...but...but, aren't they journalists, just seeking truth?

Oh,wait a minute....The Atlantic?

Never mind.

Never heard of an opinion piece?

(03-16-2020 02:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-16-2020 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-16-2020 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Written by that noted liberal Peter Wehner, who :checks notes:
is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and served in the Reagan, and both Bush admins.

So what?
Republican never-Trumpers probably hate him worse than democrat never-Trumpers.
And do you really think that if a democrat wrote a ringing defense of Donald Trump, The Atlantic would publish it?

You poo-poo'd the substance of the article because it came from a "leftwing rag." So I pointed out that the person who wrote the article is anything but a leftwinger.
Sorry that I so easily cut through your critique of why this article's critique wasn't worthwhile. But since you seem to also dismiss the opinions of "Republican Never Trumpers," then who exactly can levy a legitimate criticism at this POTUS?

Someone who supports his/her arguments with facts and logic instead of just hurlings allegations.

I myself have criticized several elements of the handling of this event. CDC insisting on developing its own test, rather than using the WHO test, at least to start until a US test could be developed, is one. Another is not farming this out to state, local, and private labs and facilities from day one, in order to get maximum coverage. CDC even went so far as to issue a "cease and desist" letter to Dr. Chu in Washington, who developed her own test that identified the problem in Seattle before anyone else. I don't believe those were Donald Trump decisions. I think they were made at the CDC level, because they have all the trappings of bureaucrat-think. If information comes out to prove me wrong, I will gladly accept such information.

But I don't infer from that that Donald Trump is the worst president in history. My take-away is that we as a nation are very poorly prepared to deal with any emergencies--hurricanes, earthquakes, mudslides, brush fires, oil spills, and health crises. We always start slowly, but in the end usually come up to speed and do okay. I am still optimistic that will happen here. But I would use this and other events (Katrina, Maria, BP blowout) to determine that we need to find ways to build better capabilities to deal with disasters and emergencies.

(03-16-2020 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-16-2020 02:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-16-2020 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-16-2020 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Written by that noted liberal Peter Wehner, who :checks notes:
is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and served in the Reagan, and both Bush admins.

So what?

Republican never-Trumpers probably hate him worse than democrat never-Trumpers.

And do you really think that if a democrat wrote a ringing defense of Donald Trump, The Atlantic would publish it?

But...but...but, aren't they journalists, just seeking truth?

Oh,wait a minute....The Atlantic?

Never mind.

Never heard of an opinion piece?

Sure. They call them news on the MSM.

throwing money at it doesn't always help

“Most heartening, kids’ learning on average improved measurably in high schools,” Bruce Fuller said in a statement as the report was published. “But somewhat greater progress was made by students from better-off homes or schools in middle-class areas. The new funding appeared to bring far less benefit to the most disadvantaged groups.”

(03-16-2020 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Never heard of an opinion piece?

That's sort of the point though Lad. Do you think we can't find people who have worked for numerous Democrats critical of Bernie or Biden? Do you think that makes their opinion more meaningful. Do you think it makes one opinion more valid and someone else's less so? Is there something in there you think others would find enlightening, or is it just someone else saying the same things others have?

I think the obvious answer to all of those comments is 'no', so what is the point? If you're trying to simply say, here's an opinion you agree with... well... thanks

(03-17-2020 08:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-16-2020 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Never heard of an opinion piece?

That's sort of the point though Lad. Do you think we can't find people who have worked for numerous Democrats critical of Bernie or Biden? Do you think that makes their opinion more meaningful. Do you think it makes one opinion more valid and someone else's less so? Is there something in there you think others would find enlightening, or is it just someone else saying the same things others have?

I think the obvious answer to all of those comments is 'no', so what is the point? If you're trying to simply say, here's an opinion you agree with... well... thanks

I think what he is saying is something like "Republicans are notorious for defending their own at all costs, so if a Republican takes issue with Trump, it just shows how bad Trump is".

(03-17-2020 08:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-16-2020 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Never heard of an opinion piece?

That's sort of the point though Lad. Do you think we can't find people who have worked for numerous Democrats critical of Bernie or Biden? Do you think that makes their opinion more meaningful. Do you think it makes one opinion more valid and someone else's less so? Is there something in there you think others would find enlightening, or is it just someone else saying the same things others have?

I think the obvious answer to all of those comments is 'no', so what is the point? If you're trying to simply say, here's an opinion you agree with... well... thanks

Well, Ham, when the initial point was that the article didn't have merit because of the background of the publication, then yeah, the background of the author certainly is relevant.

Did you miss that very obvious connection to the response?

The summary of this back-and-forth is: Owl#s responded "So, a leftwing rag hates Trump. No news there." so I pointed out the author isn't leftwing. If someone/an organizations political bent doesn't matter to the meaning/weight of their articles, then why did Owl#s start off pointing out The Atlantic's political bent?

And very regularly the experience/position/organization a person identifies with does matter with respect to how meaningful their opinion is. Are you actually trying to argue that it doesn't? Or do you just want to try and pick a meaningless fight?

If it ends this stupid back and forth, sorry for pointing out to Owl#s that the author of article in the liberal rag isn't a liberal. My mistake!