• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oleander is POISIN.

Guyzilla said:
Trump could save us all a lot of grief, if he simply took a dose, like the Cloroquine. This man is a lunatic.
Click to expand...

"The involvement of the Secretary of HUD and MyPillow.com in pushing a dubious product at the highest levels should give Americans no comfort at night about their health and safety during a raging pandemic," a senior administration official told Axios.

---The point being, if a scientist or other medical expert suggests it, despite the risks, I may be inclined to listen and follow developments.
Maybe science can find a way to mitigate the possible harmful side effects somehow.
When Trump and the My Pillow Guy push it, I am inclined to seek strong drink because the only way to mitigate the harmful side effects of two ignorant morons is to stay drunk.
 
Ontologuy said:
When you can post a Fox news report, not an editorial, and not merely an AP quote, about what Trump said regarding oleandrin, then it's worth considering as a fact.
Click to expand...

Oh so the Associated Press, of which Fox News is a subscriber, is now the enemy of the people too? :lamo
 
Ontologuy said:
NOPE, not if reported by the lame-stream media representative MSNBC.

MSNBC (along with CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC) is notorious now for their "entertainment" fake news.

There's only one moderate news channel: Fox. This makes Fox the only channel that can be trusted to present real news.

When Fox reports that the President definitely said "the FDA should already have approved oleandrin for widespread use" then I'll think it's worth considering as a fact.

MSNBC and their ilk have already been caught misrepresenting President Trump many, many, many times, so they can no longer be trusted when it comes to supposedly "quoting" Trump, as their "exhibited" Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is off the charts.

I mean, you can tell by the way the OP linked article from MSNBC uses syntax and hedging statements that make them even seem apologetic about using the term "reportedly", that they're simply trying to make Trump look bad at the expense of the truth.

When you can post a Fox news report, not an editorial, and not merely an AP quote, about what Trump said regarding oleandrin, then it's worth considering as a fact.
Click to expand...

The AP is generally considered a news source of high factual integrity and no almost no bias. Unlike Fox News, which is one step away from political porn (fact free, with lots of bias), if its in AP, you can pretty much rely upon it.

Associated Press - Media Bias/Fact Check

".....Overall, we rate the Associated Press borderline Left-Center Biased due to left-leaning editorializing, but Least Biased on a whole due to balanced story selection. We also rate them Very-High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record. (7/6/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 4/23/2020)..."

Compared to:

Fox News - Media Bias/Fact Check

"....Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits, however, straight news reporting is generally reliable, therefore we rate them Mixed for factual reporting. (7/19/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 6/14/2020)..."

Thanks for admitting that you only take your news with the FOX sugar coating, but, like a breakfast cereal, dumping sugar on your news generally makes it less nutritious and maybe not even good for you. One day you will have grown up tastes and can sit at the big boy table.
 
Craig234 said:
If it were a game, you might be just the right person, but it's not, so you're not. There are real ethical issues and arguments on both sides that are brought into focus with the example of Hitler. Now, don't expect another response.
Click to expand...

I won't. And I won't even cite Godwin's Law or make reference to Peter and the Wolf. ;)
 
upsideguy said:
The AP is generally considered a news source of high factual integrity and no almost no bias. Unlike Fox News, which is one step away from political porn (fact free, with lots of bias), if its in AP, you can pretty much rely upon it.

Associated Press - Media Bias/Fact Check

".....Overall, we rate the Associated Press borderline Left-Center Biased due to left-leaning editorializing, but Least Biased on a whole due to balanced story selection. We also rate them Very-High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record. (7/6/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 4/23/2020)..."

Compared to:

Fox News - Media Bias/Fact Check

"....Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits, however, straight news reporting is generally reliable, therefore we rate them Mixed for factual reporting. (7/19/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 6/14/2020)..."

Thanks for admitting that you only take your news with the FOX sugar coating, but, like a breakfast cereal, dumping sugar on your news generally makes it less nutritious and maybe not even good for you. One day you will have grown up tastes and can sit at the big boy table.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

You can have all the "factual integrity" in the world, they're still just reporting a second-hand opinion of what the president actually said. And one that starts with the word "basically" at that.
 
Craig234 said:
Just wow. Ya, US politics has NEVER pandered to white people.

Groups like, say, overwhelmingly white evangelicals have never organized politically. What would they even call the group? Something ridiculous like "Moral Majority"?

For all the spam of whoppers told by the right, this one stands out.

Now, supporting equal rights is "identity politics", but "America First", anti-immigration, and the opposition to that equality on civil rights pandering to one group, white people, is not identity politics. The only whopper I haven't seen yet from them is perhaps saying Hitler was the protector of Jewish people.
Click to expand...
The difference is that "identity politics" causes the person sucked into it to experience that there very own egocentric self-image is fragile and could fracture if they all, aligned, lose something, like an election when liberal women were psychologically fractured and needed "safe spaces" created in universities etc. where they could emotionally recover .. like in 2016.

The Moral Majority did not experience that same fragility, such that Obama's two terms did not cause them to experience ego-fracture.

That's the main difference when we speak of "identity politics", it's about the partaker's ego being on the line, and the only side which truly partakes in that .. is the left.
 
Craig234 said:
Actually, to be fair, I mostly agree with you. They aren't the same thing. But they aren't mutually exclusive as you claim, either.

It's possible, but not required, to be both. When the cult leader makes identity a core part of the cult, it's both - as trump does, and as the Nation of Islam corrupt leader did in the 1960's.
Click to expand...
Read again -- I never claimed the two couldn't happen at the same time, "may or may not be shared" is what I said.

I'm simply saying the the terms are different with different meaning, correcting Moot's erroneous conflation, and obviously that's all I said.
 
Moot said:
But that's what you did. Project, much?

That's not what 'cancel culture' is or means...guy. lol

If you insist..



The cult of personality couldn't exist without people that are insecure in their own political identity, which Trump supporters are.


The GOP lost what was left of their identity when they elected Trump and became his cult of personality followers. They don't even resemble the GOP anymore.




Well, you're the one that digressed off topic with a contrived interpretation and rant about "identity politics." So obviously you're just projecting.

When you have to invoke 'TDS' instead of a rational argument, you've lost the debate...so I'll take that as your concession. :pimpdaddy: :thanks
Click to expand...
So many obvious and twisted errors in your post.

So not worth my time to correct.
 
Ontologuy said:
The difference is that "identity politics" causes the person sucked into it to experience that there very own egocentric self-image is fragile and could fracture if they all, aligned, lose something, like an election when liberal women were psychologically fractured and needed "safe spaces" created in universities etc. where they could emotionally recover .. like in 2016.

The Moral Majority did not experience that same fragility, such that Obama's two terms did not cause them to experience ego-fracture.

That's the main difference when we speak of "identity politics", it's about the partaker's ego being on the line, and the only side which truly partakes in that .. is the left.
Click to expand...

You have obsessive, neurotic ideas in my opinion. It deters any discussion. But you need a reality check about the way the people on their right lost their minds over Obama. You have some very biased glasses, and what looks a lot like misogyny.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Oh so the Associated Press, of which Fox News is a subscriber, is now the enemy of the people too? :lamo
Click to expand...
Or in other words, "Sorry, couldn't find a true Fox news report of the President advocating mass distribution of oleandrin, but to save my liberal face I have to chide you anyway".
:roll:
 
Ontologuy said:
So many obvious and twisted errors in your post.

So not worth my time to correct.
Click to expand...

Uh huh...and anyone who buys that excuse, I've got a bridge to sell them. :mrgreen: :bright: :2bow:
 
upsideguy said:
The AP is generally considered a news source of high factual integrity and no almost no bias. Unlike Fox News, which is one step away from political porn (fact free, with lots of bias), if its in AP, you can pretty much rely upon it.

Associated Press - Media Bias/Fact Check

".....Overall, we rate the Associated Press borderline Left-Center Biased due to left-leaning editorializing, but Least Biased on a whole due to balanced story selection. We also rate them Very-High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record. (7/6/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 4/23/2020)..."

Compared to:

Fox News - Media Bias/Fact Check

"....Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits, however, straight news reporting is generally reliable, therefore we rate them Mixed for factual reporting. (7/19/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 6/14/2020)..."

Thanks for admitting that you only take your news with the FOX sugar coating, but, like a breakfast cereal, dumping sugar on your news generally makes it less nutritious and maybe not even good for you. One day you will have grown up tastes and can sit at the big boy table.
Click to expand...
Your entire post is tossed out as meaningless, as you're using a web site that's really just one man's failed attempt to set himself up as a rating God. Truth is Wiki presents that his website has been described "as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst", "its method is in no way scientific" and "an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications". Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia.

:roll:
 
Craig234 said:
You have obsessive, neurotic ideas in my opinion. It deters any discussion. But you need a reality check about the way the people on their right lost their minds over Obama. You have some very biased glasses, and what looks a lot like misogyny.
Click to expand...
Or in other words, "I, Craig234, can't win a debate with you, Ontologuy, so therefore I'll do what most leftists do and start slinging ad hominems."

:roll:
 
Ontologuy said:
Your entire post is tossed out as meaningless, as you're using a web site that's really just one man's failed attempt to set himself up as a rating God. Truth is Wiki presents that his website has been described "as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst", "its method is in no way scientific" and "an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications". Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia.

:roll:
Click to expand...

You're right, you shouldn't need to resort to Media Bias/Fact Check to know that AP is less biased than Fox News. It's freaking obvious.
 
some poisons in correct low doses have cured a variety of things including cancer! I new a gentleman who had pancreatic cancer and was given six weeks to live. after taking hydrozene sulfate for several months he was given a clean bill of health!
 
Taylor said:
Irrelevant.

You can have all the "factual integrity" in the world, they're still just reporting a second-hand opinion of what the president actually said. And one that starts with the word "basically" at that.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

Identity politics is the alignment of political interests with "groups", mainly ethnic groups. Your "membership" in a "group" defines what your politics is and ought to be.

Politics in general is not like this nor does it have to be. "Groups" have lots of different political opinions within them, and many political ideas attract support across "groups".

I don't know what you're trying to prove by putting in links about Republicans. No one said Republicans are innocent of identity politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom