Trump Ups his Fascism Game, bans words such as 'diversity' and 'science-based' from CDC

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Catnip1024:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Or for law and order, or for civil rights, or for geostrategic initiatives, or for ecological sustainability, or for fiscal & monetary policy, or for diplomatic capital...

As they say; "Took a Nixon for China and SALT..."

Trump has no redeeming qualities at all beyond idiots will vote for him.

I dunno, there is something to be said for incompetence. At least with incompetence, there is a lower limit on how shit things can get.

Trump has already fucked things up far worse than Bush Jr did. Your theory is wrong.

Saelune:

Catnip1024:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Or for law and order, or for civil rights, or for geostrategic initiatives, or for ecological sustainability, or for fiscal & monetary policy, or for diplomatic capital...

As they say; "Took a Nixon for China and SALT..."

Trump has no redeeming qualities at all beyond idiots will vote for him.

I dunno, there is something to be said for incompetence. At least with incompetence, there is a lower limit on how shit things can get.

Trump has already fucked things up far worse than Bush Jr did. Your theory is wrong.

Now it's just a matter of time before he gets us into a war. Who it will be with is the question. Will it be in East Europe? The Middle East again? The Far East? Or a straight up World War? Perhaps we will gain enough sanity in our nation that we impeach him before we allow him to further damage not just our nation, but the world.

Saelune:
Trump has already fucked things up far worse than Bush Jr did. Your theory is wrong.

Bush led the US into a decade of conflicts in which thousands died, which has devastated the Middle East to this day. And pretty much nobody (in the government / press) questioned it at the time. Trump can't feed fish without people questioning his motives.

Incompetence, and the distrust it causes, is an awesome mitigator.

renegade7:

These people don't consider themselves part of everybody.

You think I don't know that? Well, that's too bad for him. He's still on planet Earth. He doesn't get a vote if he gets sick or not. He gets to get sick if he catches a bug, and then work from there. I don't care what the so-called game plan is. This is reality, and IN reality, you did not fuck with the Center for Disease Control.

Catnip1024:

Incompetence, and the distrust it causes, is an awesome mitigator.

I don't hear anyone DOING anything. The only thing Trump hasn't done is literally gotten people killed, that is true, but that won't wash away the making-many-more-miserable thing and, hey, the night is young. He's a monstrous dick who pisses everyone off. Of course he's gonna get people killed.

So are far right people on reddit and other places on the interweb going to get super upset at this obvious and extreme violation of free speech? Like straight up banning entire terms regardless of the potential damage it could do to marginalized groups?

Any day now.

I'm sure of it.

What? You'd rather bitch and moan about Nazi terrorists not being given a platform in Charlottesville again?

Wow what a shock.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Trump has already fucked things up far worse than Bush Jr did. Your theory is wrong.

Bush led the US into a decade of conflicts in which thousands died, which has devastated the Middle East to this day. And pretty much nobody (in the government / press) questioned it at the time. Trump can't feed fish without people questioning his motives.

Incompetence, and the distrust it causes, is an awesome mitigator.

I dunno, Donald Trump seems more and more determined to lead the whole world into bloody nuclear war with each new tweet he sends. To the point where every morning after realizing the world still exists and didn't get destroyed in the eight or so hours I was asleep my first thought waking up is:
'Huh, I guess Trump finally got off twitter.'

Incompetence and impotent rage both combined together make the hideous nightmare that is America's President and thank you for that America, you know we in Australia and the entire rest of the world were begging you for anyone else other then Trump. I would have taken a vicious venom spraying hissing Komodo Dragon over Trump! And we could only watch helplessly unable to effect your terrible decision but now we still have to suffer the consequences of your decision. We don't get a say in that. Because unfortunately being such a powerful country means that what happens to you does effect everyone else.

And the fish feeding thing was stupid and I wish people didn't give it that attention because now Trump loyalists can point and say 'see the liberal globalist cuck lizards freak out about fish feeding, what an idiotic thing to do. This now clearly proves none of their concerns are valid because it's all just overreacting! THis invalidates all concerns about Trump, Trump can do no wrong!!!'

Shit like the subject of this thread though, this doesn't just make people 'question his motives' it straight up proves it. Petty bigotry and cruelty is the name of the game and he'll engage in nihilistic totalitarianism to prove it.

Honestly I'm surprised he didn't try to remove the word 'consent' as well, because lord knows I bet he wishes that word didn't exist.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Trump has already fucked things up far worse than Bush Jr did. Your theory is wrong.

Bush led the US into a decade of conflicts in which thousands died, which has devastated the Middle East to this day. And pretty much nobody (in the government / press) questioned it at the time. Trump can't feed fish without people questioning his motives.

Incompetence, and the distrust it causes, is an awesome mitigator.

And if Trump was in charge then instead, it would have been even worse.

Saelune:

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Trump has already fucked things up far worse than Bush Jr did. Your theory is wrong.

Bush led the US into a decade of conflicts in which thousands died, which has devastated the Middle East to this day. And pretty much nobody (in the government / press) questioned it at the time. Trump can't feed fish without people questioning his motives.

Incompetence, and the distrust it causes, is an awesome mitigator.

And if Trump was in charge then instead, it would have been even worse.

Again, all of this just assumes that he won't lead us into a war. Which he will.

Saelune:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-in-the-news%3Apage%2Fin-the-news&utm_term=.beccd49d35d2

Trump, clearly worried people still wont think he desires to be a fascist tyrant, now is banning the Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention from using a list of specific words. What words?

Vulnerable, entitlement, diversity, transgender, fetus, evidence-based and science-based.

The reasoning is pretty obvious, anti-intellectual, and anti-equality.

Trump and his administration is actively seeking to keep people stupid and bigoted.

To deny this is to fall prey to Trump's anti-intellectualism, to support fascism, and to support idiocy and bigotry.

Jesus. We're going full Newspeak here.

Saelune:
And if Trump was in charge then instead, it would have been even worse.

The thing is, I personally feel that if Trump had been in charge in the Bush administration, it wouldn't have been. Not because he is better than Bush, god no, but because people would have applied an appropriate amount of skepticism and questioning around the whole justification for war thing.

This is the thing. If the one thing this administration leads to is more savviness and less blind trust along party lines, that'd be grand.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
And if Trump was in charge then instead, it would have been even worse.

The thing is, I personally feel that if Trump had been in charge in the Bush administration, it wouldn't have been. Not because he is better than Bush, god no, but because people would have applied an appropriate amount of skepticism and questioning around the whole justification for war thing.

This is the thing. If the one thing this administration leads to is more savviness and less blind trust along party lines, that'd be grand.

Less blind trust along party lines? There was literally people who said it'd be worse to have a democrat than a child molestor. Trump could say that waters dry and the pope's a pastafarian and they'd believe it.

Catnip1024:
And just how do you use "entitlement" in research on spread of diseases? In a way that other, more specific descriptors wouldn't be more appropriate (income bands, for instance).

Firstly, the CDC has a considerably wider remit than just looking at the spread of diseases.

And in practice a great deal of discussion about healthcare involves certain entitlements. Basic access to forms of healthcare is an entitlement. More specifically as an example, perhaps consider entitlement to certain vaccination (which is also kind of important when considering spread of diseases.)

If we want to discuss a healthcare service, the average Western healthcare system is using a multiracial workforce to deliver healthcare to a multiracial popualtion, so words like "diversity" start being quite important. If, for instance, you look at the UK GMC's guiding document on medical education "Tomorrow's Doctors" (https://www.gmc-uk.org/education/standards.asp) it considers this sort of thing at great length. Much of it is an understanding that good healthcare outcomes do not derive from battalions of intellectually brilliant but socially incompetent people like Gregory House MD; and that's according to a load of evidentially-derived research. The doctor (/nurse/etc.) - patient relationship also involves a lot of aspects like trust, understanding, empathy, sensitivity etc. to achieve best practice.

This sort of shit is how the transmission of HIV was described as being through "bodily fluids" and not, you know, blood.

Which certainly didn't obfuscate the causes of transmission and make things more difficult for everyone. During the height of the AIDS epidemic. Which Reagan was doing his best to ignore.

Like, if the CDC wanted to gather evidence for a scientific study about the rates and causes of transgender suicides inside a diverse and vulnerable culture, THAT WOULD BE REALLY FUCKING DIFFICULT NOW.

Fucks sake.

CheetoDust:
Less blind trust along party lines? There was literally people who said it'd be worse to have a democrat than a child molestor. Trump could say that waters dry and the pope's a pastafarian and they'd believe it.

And you had a similar band of die-hard Democrats. The point is, healthy criticism is good. If this administration promotes that even from only some areas of the electorate, it's a step forward.

Unfortunately, there's also a good chance that this is only going to further deepen the "us and them" mentality, which will be counterproductive for everyone.

Agema:
Firstly, the CDC has a considerably wider remit than just looking at the spread of diseases.

And in practice a great deal of discussion about healthcare involves certain entitlements. Basic access to forms of healthcare is an entitlement. More specifically as an example, perhaps consider entitlement to certain vaccination (which is also kind of important when considering spread of diseases.)

If we want to discuss a healthcare service, the average Western healthcare system is using a multiracial workforce to deliver healthcare to a multiracial popualtion, so words like "diversity" start being quite important. If, for instance, you look at the UK GMC's guiding document on medical education "Tomorrow's Doctors" (https://www.gmc-uk.org/education/standards.asp) it considers this sort of thing at great length. Much of it is an understanding that good healthcare outcomes do not derive from battalions of intellectually brilliant but socially incompetent people like Gregory House MD; and that's according to a load of evidentially-derived research. The doctor (/nurse/etc.) - patient relationship also involves a lot of aspects like trust, understanding, empathy, sensitivity etc. to achieve best practice.

I get that "entitlement" is an albeit abstract variable that can be considered. What I don't get is why it would ever be better than actually referring to the variables that you use to quantify "entitlement" - income, employment, etc. Except in the one instance you refer to, where knowing the difference between entitlement and uptake of vaccinations would be significant.

I mean, I can see it being used as a function of other variables, but I don't particularly think it is a good choice of terms to use in that case, because of all the unnecessary baggage which will just get people bickering about how you quantified it.

The word "diversity" I have no issue with. It's a generic word that has pretty much always been used in Biology. Doesn't even necessarily have anything to do with race nor religion.

Update

"But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited 'a few' CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases."

So...you're not going to use certain words in your plan for your budget for fear of not receiving money? So pretty much banning words.

Catnip1024:
And you had a similar band of die-hard Democrats. The point is, healthy criticism is good. If this administration promotes that even from only some areas of the electorate, it's a step forward.

When was that? Because as of recently, I haven't seen any Democrats that have been committing sexual misconduct that are still being propped up on a pedestal

cjspyres:
When was that? Because as of recently, I haven't seen any Democrats that have been committing sexual misconduct that are still being propped up on a pedestal

Please, let's not get into that particular bickering. Why argue over who's worse when you should be fixing the system?

There are enough of the "If you didn't vote Hilary you voted Trump" brigade around here to give you plenty of examples of blind allegiances. Attacking people who voted for a third party, because they didn't buy your brand of bullshit. You're either with us or against us. Bipolar politics. Why are we obsessing over which side did what, when we should be focussing on the fricking policies? Why assume that anyone voting for neither party is some sort of anarchist / nihilist, when really it means you should be considering how your stance is not attractive enough to gain those votes?

Personally, I think you peeps need a system beyond two parties. Two parties leads to this sort of bullshit. More parties would give people legitimate alternatives.

cjspyres:
Update

"But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited 'a few' CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases."

So...you're not going to use certain words in your plan for your budget for fear of not receiving money? So pretty much banning words.

Indeed. But at least it's banning words because republicans are massive babies

Catnip1024:

cjspyres:
When was that? Because as of recently, I haven't seen any Democrats that have been committing sexual misconduct that are still being propped up on a pedestal

Please, let's not get into that particular bickering. Why argue over who's worse when you should be fixing the system?

There are enough of the "If you didn't vote Hilary you voted Trump" brigade around here to give you plenty of examples of blind allegiances. Attacking people who voted for a third party, because they didn't buy your brand of bullshit. You're either with us or against us. Bipolar politics. Why are we obsessing over which side did what, when we should be focussing on the fricking policies? Why assume that anyone voting for neither party is some sort of anarchist / nihilist, when really it means you should be considering how your stance is not attractive enough to gain those votes?

Personally, I think you peeps need a system beyond two parties. Two parties leads to this sort of bullshit. More parties would give people legitimate alternatives.

That's because if you didn't vote Hillary, you voted for Trump. If you want to get a third party into office, you don't just start AT the presidency. You need to start from the local government and work your way up, and then you can get a serious contender for the presidency. I don't like the bipartisan government that we have anymore than anyone else. But if you voted third party in this election, you threw away your vote and caused Trump to win.

I don't think anyone on this forum thinks that the Democrats are a perfect party, but they are sure as hell better than the alternative for right now.

Catnip1024:

Personally, I think you peeps need a system beyond two parties. Two parties leads to this sort of bullshit. More parties would give people legitimate alternatives.

Wait, I'm confused. If you don't think the alternatives are legitimate, then why are you criticising others for considering the alternatives unworthy of a vote?

Catnip1024:
Why are we obsessing over which side did what, when we should be focussing on the fricking policies?

The reason should be obvious, and is extremely valid. A Party's actions give perhaps the clearest indication possible of what it will do in the future, if granted power again. Which Parties (and which figures) did what is perhaps the single most important piece of evidence we have in deciding who to vote for.

Catnip1024:

cjspyres:
When was that? Because as of recently, I haven't seen any Democrats that have been committing sexual misconduct that are still being propped up on a pedestal

Please, let's not get into that particular bickering. Why argue over who's worse when you should be fixing the system?

There are enough of the "If you didn't vote Hilary you voted Trump" brigade around here to give you plenty of examples of blind allegiances. Attacking people who voted for a third party, because they didn't buy your brand of bullshit. You're either with us or against us. Bipolar politics. Why are we obsessing over which side did what, when we should be focussing on the fricking policies? Why assume that anyone voting for neither party is some sort of anarchist / nihilist, when really it means you should be considering how your stance is not attractive enough to gain those votes?

Personally, I think you peeps need a system beyond two parties. Two parties leads to this sort of bullshit. More parties would give people legitimate alternatives.

Blind allegiance? Everything and more that Trump has done wrong, we were saying he would do wrong, well before the election.

And Sanders really threw a wrench in the idea that Democrats have blind allegiance. Its Republicans endorsing Donald "The Swamp Monster" Trump, aka "Pussy Grabber", who then went on to support Nazis and pedos and Republicans flocked to both.

Catnip1024:
The thing is, I personally feel that if Trump had been in charge in the Bush administration, it wouldn't have been. Not because he is better than Bush, god no, but because people would have applied an appropriate amount of skepticism and questioning around the whole justification for war thing.

I really don't think that's likely.

The thing a lot of people forget about the Iraq War is how much political inertia was pushing towards military action in the wake of 9/11. Bush's approval rating shot up to like 95% after the attack, because aggression from an external foe is a powerful unifier. America wanted to go to war. They wanted to strike back. It was only years later, after the casualties and lies had all piled up past anyone's tolerance, that opposition to the war became politically popular.

If Trump had been in charge instead, here's what would've happened: 9/11 would have dramatically overshadowed any of his flaws and failings, any opposition to Trump would become politically suicidal in the short term, the man's Islamophobia would've gone into overdrive, and you would see a much more extreme military response - maybe not in Iraq, which was as much a personal target for Bush as a strategic one, but definitely in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the whole process would be managed extremely poorly by the man at the helm.

Catnip1024:
This is the thing. If the one thing this administration leads to is more savviness and less blind trust along party lines, that'd be grand.

I'm sick of the argument that Trump is somehow "worth it" if it means he gets people to pay attention. Firstly, because I don't think it's worth it; secondly, 98% of what Trump does is not in the public eye.

Case in point: Donald Trump is packing the shit out of the federal court system. He's appointed more circuit judges in his first year than any other president on record, has inherited more federal court vacancies than any other president on record (thanks, Mitch McConnell), is presiding over the oldest judiciary that America has ever had, and his appointees are overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly male, and in some cases shockingly unqualified. And they're even flirting with a plan to dramatically increase the total number of federal court positions by anywhere from 30% to 200%, so that they can squish in even more appointees.

These guys are appointed for life. There will be Trump nominees hearing cases in 2050. Does anyone here trust Donald Trump to appoint good judges? Because those judges are going to be screwing people over decades from now. They will literally reshape the foundation of US federal law. And they suck ass.

Silvanus:
Wait, I'm confused. If you don't think the alternatives are legitimate, then why are you criticising others for considering the alternatives unworthy of a vote?

I don't think the alternatives currently have a shot of power. That doesn't necessarily make them the least worthy party to vote for. If neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any policies which appeal to you, or both have incredibly lousy candidates, or both speak of you derogatorily, then there should be no blame for anyone voting for a third party.

That doesn't change the opinion that electoral reform would be quite helpful.

cjspyres:

There are enough of the "If you didn't vote Hilary you voted Trump" brigade around here

That's because if you didn't vote Hillary, you voted for Trump.

Selectively quoted, but point made.

It's never Hilary's fault for not appealing widely enough, it's the fault of the voter for not voting for her.

Well, this is stupid. But sounds familiar. Where have I heard of people pushing for words they disliked being banned before? Eh, I am sure I will remember it.

But yeah, this seems pretty bad if the president is outright banning words...
Wait, no, just setting recommendations driven by rewarding those that follow via financial incentive. Ok, not actually banning anything, just rewarding those that support his politics. Still not good though.

I mean it is a president leveraging their power to affect how the language of reports will be worded in order to benefit their party's goals. It would be like obama banning the use of terms like "Islamic Extremism" from documents and hindering the ability to describe it amid wars and efforts directly related to the conflicts caused by the very thing.

Whole thing is just stupid.

*drums fingers on table* It seems as if it hasn't been said yet on this thread that the claim here, of Trump banning certain words at the CDC...is either completely made up at worst, or at best, cannot be substantiated with the appropriate level of evidence.
Note that in the WaPo article cited in the OP, the 'analyst' is not named. Instead, this analyst remains anonymous, so we have to take this with a grain of salt. "Other officials" confirm the list of forbidden words, but no names are given, and no quotes are provided.

Oh and the kicker? The HEAD OF THE CDC, ON HER TWITTER, said there are no banned words.
https://twitter.com/cdcdirector?lang=en

Now, if one wants to maintain the idea that Trump actually HAS banned words at the CDC, one will have to explain why the head of the CDC says otherwise and why the media articles are relying on an anonymous 'analyst' and not actually providing any quotes.
When I saw this thread, and saw that the OP was quoting WaPo, my skepticism meter was activated, because WaPo, among other media companies, have recently been exposed as being...shall we say...a little bit too eager to try to attack Trump while relying on far too little evidence.
Readers of this thread may or may not have been aware that WaPo, CNN and other news outlets were all too quick to publish articles stating that Trump and his campaign had access to DNC leaks from Wikileaks ten days before they were made public - articles that relied on emails that the publications DID NOT YET HAVE and that the date was actually the day AFTER the leaks were made public and not before.

Catnip1024:
It's never Hilary's fault for not appealing widely enough, it's the fault of the voter for not voting for her.

Yes? People ended up with the choice of voting for Clinton, voting for Trump, or staying home and letting things fall as they may. If people chose not to vote for Clinton, that was their choice.

Catnip1024:

Silvanus:
Wait, I'm confused. If you don't think the alternatives are legitimate, then why are you criticising others for considering the alternatives unworthy of a vote?

I don't think the alternatives currently have a shot of power. That doesn't necessarily make them the least worthy party to vote for. If neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any policies which appeal to you, or both have incredibly lousy candidates, or both speak of you derogatorily, then there should be no blame for anyone voting for a third party.

That doesn't change the opinion that electoral reform would be quite helpful.

cjspyres:

There are enough of the "If you didn't vote Hilary you voted Trump" brigade around here

That's because if you didn't vote Hillary, you voted for Trump.

Selectively quoted, but point made.

It's never Hilary's fault for not appealing widely enough, it's the fault of the voter for not voting for her.

Exactly, selectively quoted, meaning you completely ignored what my point was. Let me put it in a way that is easy to understand.

Imagine you are being forced to set of explosives that are rigged all around your country. That sucks huh? But wait! You get a choice!

Choice #1: You trigger a series of C4 explosives around the nation

or

Choice #2: You trigger all the nuclear warheads in your country

or

You may choose not to vote, in which choice #2 will automatically be triggered.

Obviously these three choices are bad. Nobody wants to have to settle for these three choices, but it's what you've got, and you gotta make a choice. It's also apparent that one of these choices is a lot less worse than the others. So you grow up, accept the consequences, and you make the least damaging choice.

I don't know if you understand how American politics work, but it's a universal given that a third party is not going to get into the presidential office. The odds are literally predetermined and stacked against them. It sucks, but that's how it is until we fix it (Which we absolutely need to do). But until that happens, you don't intentionally shoot yourself in the foot by voting for them. Every vote for a third party member could have gone to a better choice, and it didn't. And it's one of the reasons that she lost.

Did she run a good campaign? No. But god forbid you have any sort of faith in the people of your nation to not to choose the man who:

1. Was recorded talking about how he sexually harasses women
2. Mocked a disabled reporter, and then tried to lie about it
3. Generalized that Mexico was sending rapists and drugs into our country
4. Insulted is supporters by saying that he could shoot somebody in the middle of the street and not lose voters
5. Openly called for the assassination of his opponent
6. Insulted the family of a fallen war veteran

RikuoAmero:
*drums fingers on table* It seems as if it hasn't been said yet on this thread that the claim here, of Trump banning certain words at the CDC...is either completely made up at worst, or at best, cannot be substantiated with the appropriate level of evidence.
Note that in the WaPo article cited in the OP, the 'analyst' is not named. Instead, this analyst remains anonymous, so we have to take this with a grain of salt. "Other officials" confirm the list of forbidden words, but no names are given, and no quotes are provided.

Oh and the kicker? The HEAD OF THE CDC, ON HER TWITTER, said there are no banned words.

Yeah, there's totally a huge difference between, "You can't say these words" and, "If you say these words, you won't receive funding".

cjspyres:

Catnip1024:

Silvanus:
Wait, I'm confused. If you don't think the alternatives are legitimate, then why are you criticising others for considering the alternatives unworthy of a vote?

I don't think the alternatives currently have a shot of power. That doesn't necessarily make them the least worthy party to vote for. If neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any policies which appeal to you, or both have incredibly lousy candidates, or both speak of you derogatorily, then there should be no blame for anyone voting for a third party.

That doesn't change the opinion that electoral reform would be quite helpful.

cjspyres:
That's because if you didn't vote Hillary, you voted for Trump.

Selectively quoted, but point made.

It's never Hilary's fault for not appealing widely enough, it's the fault of the voter for not voting for her.

Exactly, selectively quoted, meaning you completely ignored what my point was. Let me put it in a way that is easy to understand.

Imagine you are being forced to set of explosives that are rigged all around your country. That sucks huh? But wait! You get a choice!

Choice #1: You trigger a series of C4 explosives around the nation

or

Choice #2: You trigger all the nuclear warheads in your country

or

You may choose not to vote, in which choice #2 will automatically be triggered.

Obviously these three choices are bad. Nobody wants to have to settle for these three choices, but it's what you've got, and you gotta make a choice. It's also apparent that one of these choices is a lot less worse than the others. So you grow up, accept the consequences, and you make the least damaging choice.

I don't know if you understand how American politics work, but it's a universal given that a third party is not going to get into the presidential office. The odds are literally predetermined and stacked against them. It sucks, but that's how it is until we fix it (Which we absolutely need to do). But until that happens, you don't intentionally shoot yourself in the foot by voting for them. Every vote for a third party member could have gone to a better choice, and it didn't. And it's one of the reasons that she lost.

Did she run a good campaign? No. But god forbid you have any sort of faith in the people of your nation to not to choose the man who:

1. Was recorded talking about how he sexually harasses women
2. Mocked a disabled reporter, and then tried to lie about it
3. Generalized that Mexico was sending rapists and drugs into our country
4. Insulted is supporters by saying that he could shoot somebody in the middle of the street and not lose voters
5. Openly called for the assassination of his opponent
6. Insulted the family of a fallen war veteran

7. Insulted a (republican) war hero.
8. Admitted he avoided paying his fair share of taxes and was smart for doing so.
9. Said he would torture the families of SUSPECTED terrorists.
10. Bragged about his relationship with Saudi Royalty.

Catnip1024:
I get that "entitlement" is an albeit abstract variable that can be considered. What I don't get is why it would ever be better than actually referring to the variables that you use to quantify "entitlement" - income, employment, etc.

To the best of my knowledge, no-one measures "entitlement" in the way you seem to think. They almost certainly mean it as synonymous with a "right", e.g. a right/entitlement to be treated in a hospital if a Hummer runs them over.

RikuoAmero:
*drums fingers on table* It seems as if it hasn't been said yet on this thread that the claim here, of Trump banning certain words at the CDC...is either completely made up at worst, or at best, cannot be substantiated with the appropriate level of evidence.
Note that in the WaPo article cited in the OP, the 'analyst' is not named. Instead, this analyst remains anonymous, so we have to take this with a grain of salt. "Other officials" confirm the list of forbidden words, but no names are given, and no quotes are provided.

Oh and the kicker? The HEAD OF THE CDC, ON HER TWITTER, said there are no banned words.
https://twitter.com/cdcdirector?lang=en

Now, if one wants to maintain the idea that Trump actually HAS banned words at the CDC, one will have to explain why the head of the CDC says otherwise and why the media articles are relying on an anonymous 'analyst' and not actually providing any quotes.
When I saw this thread, and saw that the OP was quoting WaPo, my skepticism meter was activated, because WaPo, among other media companies, have recently been exposed as being...shall we say...a little bit too eager to try to attack Trump while relying on far too little evidence.
Readers of this thread may or may not have been aware that WaPo, CNN and other news outlets were all too quick to publish articles stating that Trump and his campaign had access to DNC leaks from Wikileaks ten days before they were made public - articles that relied on emails that the publications DID NOT YET HAVE and that the date was actually the day AFTER the leaks were made public and not before.

Wasn't WaPo the target of the latest O'Keefe shenanigans, the result of which was not taking the bait on cheap partisan fuckery?

RikuoAmero:
*drums fingers on table* It seems as if it hasn't been said yet on this thread that the claim here, of Trump banning certain words at the CDC...is either completely made up at worst, or at best, cannot be substantiated with the appropriate level of evidence.
Note that in the WaPo article cited in the OP, the 'analyst' is not named. Instead, this analyst remains anonymous, so we have to take this with a grain of salt. "Other officials" confirm the list of forbidden words, but no names are given, and no quotes are provided.

Oh and the kicker? The HEAD OF THE CDC, ON HER TWITTER, said there are no banned words.
https://twitter.com/cdcdirector?lang=en

Now, if one wants to maintain the idea that Trump actually HAS banned words at the CDC, one will have to explain why the head of the CDC says otherwise and why the media articles are relying on an anonymous 'analyst' and not actually providing any quotes.
When I saw this thread, and saw that the OP was quoting WaPo, my skepticism meter was activated, because WaPo, among other media companies, have recently been exposed as being...shall we say...a little bit too eager to try to attack Trump while relying on far too little evidence.
Readers of this thread may or may not have been aware that WaPo, CNN and other news outlets were all too quick to publish articles stating that Trump and his campaign had access to DNC leaks from Wikileaks ten days before they were made public - articles that relied on emails that the publications DID NOT YET HAVE and that the date was actually the day AFTER the leaks were made public and not before.

Let's play a game, shall we? You name every instance of the Washington Post outright and objectively lying or misrepresenting the truth, and I'll meet it with an instance of Trump or a member of his administration (the Directorate of the CDC is a political appointment of the President) doing the same. I'm willing to bet that you run out of occurrences first.

Note: If the party acknowledges that a mistake was made, retracts their original statement, and takes steps to make up for it, we'll take off half a point. Everyone does screw up and publicly admitting it deserves some reward.

Agema:
To the best of my knowledge, no-one measures "entitlement" in the way you seem to think. They almost certainly mean it as synonymous with a "right", e.g. a right/entitlement to be treated in a hospital if a Hummer runs them over.

Well, in which case the very stating that the term "entitlement" is banned is kind of bullshit, in that it clearly doesn't refer to what your layman would expect. I mean, banning it (if that actually is the case) is still stupid, but the portrayal of the story is not exactly accurate.

RikuoAmero:
snip

Now now, everyone knows that unnamed sources are perfectly legitimate as long as they align with my confirmation bias.

Catnip1024:

RikuoAmero:
snip

Now now, everyone knows that unnamed sources are perfectly legitimate as long as they align with my confirmation bias.

Tell that to Trump and right-wingers.

Still havent seen these roving bands of Antifa marauding across America.

Plus why should I believe one tweet from one person? Trump already is and surrounds himself with paid liars. Huckabee Sanders, Spicer, Conway. Plus you have Moore too who lies lies lies.

No, you want to refute this? Then proof it up.

Saelune:
Plus why should I believe one tweet from one person?

A named person stakes their reputation on the information they provide. An unnamed source has nothing to lose.

No, you want to refute this? Then proof it up.

Refute what? That confirmation bias is totally a thing prevalent across the US political spectrum at the moment?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked