Democratic Primaries

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)

117. Ugly and unbecoming is attacking the messenger.

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 01:45 PM

Sep 2019

And no, fact checking and accuracy in citing studies, isn't like the 'logic track" used in global warming denial - you've got it backwards.

When someone misrepresents data, however well meaning they might be, to create more urgency for a very real problem like climate change being manmade, or medical debt crushing people, that's when those who think those are hoaxes gain ammunition to discredit the whole notion.

What those who think they are hoaxes can do with that ammunition "they're LYING" is the truly the ugliest thing of all, because it sets back real efforts to make change. Sometimes irreparably.

Remember "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?"

Look it up if you don't.

I happen to care about actually advancing health care reform, rising medical costs and climate change more than I care about any particular politicians' ego.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

181 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Krystal Ball: Washington Post "fact check" proves Bernie right [View all] Uncle Joe Sep 2019 OP

I didn't see that coming.... OnDoutside Sep 2019 #1

As usual WaPo is correct in fact checking Bernie. As usual Bernie's comradebillyboy Sep 2019 #2

Nothing new. efhmc Sep 2019 #3

Try viewing the video. KPN Sep 2019 #5

The video says (at about 2:50) that medical expenses are a "contributing factor"... George II Sep 2019 #17

"How much of a "contributing factor" - 10%, 20%, 30%? " melman Sep 2019 #56

It's been represented more than once that medical expenses are THE reason for bankruptcies.... George II Sep 2019 #60

"If it's only 30%" melman Sep 2019 #61

If it's only 30%, that means OTHER reasons other than medical expenses represent 70% of the reason. George II Sep 2019 #63

What do I say about what? melman Sep 2019 #64

Not unexpected. Have a great night melman. George II Sep 2019 #65

That's one way of avoiding the topic when one is losing ground. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #125

Invincible Ignorance Fallacy: ehrnst Sep 2019 #151

Complete nonsense melman Sep 2019 #155

That's an excellent example! ehrnst Sep 2019 #172

Huh? You obviously didn't view the video. KPN Sep 2019 #4

Lol. Yeah it's a conspiracy against Bernie. MrsCoffee Sep 2019 #6

No. Just pointing out facts. But there is a lot of bias against Bernie simpply because he has KPN Sep 2019 #10

"Bias?" ehrnst Sep 2019 #39

No, bias is bias. Fact checking that relies on actual KPN Sep 2019 #42

Because it doesn't flatter Senator Sanders... ehrnst Sep 2019 #48

How so -- to both relative to your point? KPN Sep 2019 #74

I tell you what... ehrnst Sep 2019 #90

... ehrnst Sep 2019 #131

"Gross generalities", as you put it, are what the premise of the % of bankruptcies was based. George II Sep 2019 #50

"It occurs solely because some go into attack mode on anything Bernie." ehrnst Sep 2019 #126

"Because Bernie could not POSSIBLY ever, have made an error? " melman Sep 2019 #127

Actually, the only logical basis for your premise. ehrnst Sep 2019 #130

My premise melman Sep 2019 #136

I did check them. ehrnst Sep 2019 #138

The bias is only as perceived. In fact, there IS no bias. George II Sep 2019 #45

Links please. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #59

Not going to hold my breath on that.... ehrnst Sep 2019 #73

Nor will I, ehrnst. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #81

If you need links, you either haven't been paying attention KPN Sep 2019 #129

This is what I asked a link for... sheshe2 Sep 2019 #132

That's gonna leave a mark... ehrnst Sep 2019 #133

Truth. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #135

I stand by what I said. It was not my intent to insult you but I can see how KPN Sep 2019 #137

Well, the apology is a start.... but ehrnst Sep 2019 #140

Thanks for the stab at an apology. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #157

What you responded to was a long way of saying "it's opinion", not fact. George II Sep 2019 #159

"I have better things to do with my time than try to meet anyone's demand for "links" ehrnst Sep 2019 #134

No easier than the specious attacks on Sanders KPN Sep 2019 #139

"specious attacks on Sanders" ehrnst Sep 2019 #141

My ... you really do have a strong disdain for KPN Sep 2019 #143

Got nothing? ehrnst Sep 2019 #144

Oh snap. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #153

So, why exactly are you NOT supporting "the person who has probably been the most aggressive ehrnst Sep 2019 #145

No. There are a couple of other candidates whose KPN Sep 2019 #169

It's not about the person melman Sep 2019 #146

Let's review who's 'making it about Bernie..." ehrnst Sep 2019 #149

Not about policy. betsuni Sep 2019 #164

Agreed -- the usual suspects. KPN Sep 2019 #174

Do you have time to post the links? sheshe2 Sep 2019 #152

That's IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ehrnst Sep 2019 #154

I feel chastised. :( sheshe2 Sep 2019 #156

To you. Not to me and many others -- perhaps more than not. KPN Sep 2019 #175

So tell us, what "genuine progressive economic policy" has he gotten enacted "over the past.... George II Sep 2019 #162

Whatever you do. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #165

... George II Sep 2019 #166

+++++++++++++++++++++ sheshe2 Sep 2019 #171

Look up his amendments, there are a lot -- if you really are interested. I'm not your gofer George. KPN Sep 2019 #176

"maths" melman Sep 2019 #147

Yes they are, to those of us who value facts anyway. ehrnst Sep 2019 #148

definition sheshe2 Sep 2019 #158

Well, we're not in British or in Britain now are we? KPN Sep 2019 #177

Don't feel bad. Lots of people make the mistake of trying to correct someone ehrnst Sep 2019 #178

You are telling me that all posters on DU live in the US? sheshe2 Sep 2019 #180

Links? George II Sep 2019 #160

;) sheshe2 Sep 2019 #161

Links?? Okay ... KPN Sep 2019 #179

Bazinga! George II Sep 2019 #170

Still waiting on backup for this "specious" claim.... ehrnst Sep 2019 #142

The media is "ignoring" him, but.... George II Sep 2019 #18

I would loved to be ignored that way. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #82

Lol Wawannabe Sep 2019 #58

Indeed. MrsCoffee Sep 2019 #7

So you think WaPo's version of this is correct? thesquanderer Sep 2019 #8

ty for the article..i prefer reading too...from the article questionseverything Sep 2019 #76

According to the facts in this article, the Washington Post is correct Gothmog Sep 2019 #9

This attitude is exactly why we don't always get out the vote. Poo-pawing or downplaying KPN Sep 2019 #11

The Washington Post read the underlying study which is part of fact checking Gothmog Sep 2019 #12

In the real world, one needs to keep an open mind in order to tell the difference betwen KPN Sep 2019 #13

Fact checking means checking the facts Gothmog Sep 2019 #14

The underlying facts were that 530000+ people went bankrupt KPN Sep 2019 #19

Yes, that's the fact that is being used - 530,000 PEOPLE went bankrupt, .... George II Sep 2019 #22

I am less concerned with the number, because it surely is a problem, and more Eliot Rosewater Sep 2019 #23

Now that is a reasonable statement and one KPN Sep 2019 #30

I am concerned if someone who claims they can fix a problem gets their numbers wrong ehrnst Sep 2019 #31

YEAH I hear you, I do...But imagine if he actually did win, is he going to change his Eliot Rosewater Sep 2019 #52

Oh brother. Ridiculous. KPN Sep 2019 #28

What's ridiculous about it? Care to share with us all? George II Sep 2019 #33

I already have above. Several times. KPN Sep 2019 #34

That's one way to avoid the question. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #68

Invincible Ignorance Fallacy: ehrnst Sep 2019 #150

The study cited does not support that claim according to the Washington Post Gothmog Sep 2019 #24

Oh really. Well, why don't you go ahead and KPN Sep 2019 #32

The study stated that bankruptcies were due to more than one condition Gothmog Sep 2019 #53

Indeed. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #96

If a politician is going to use numbers to support their case, the numbers should be correct. ehrnst Sep 2019 #98

Apparently some candidates are considered "exempt' from fact checking ehrnst Sep 2019 #29

incorrect questionseverything Sep 2019 #77

A thing is either accurate or it is not. LanternWaste Sep 2019 #15

Yup. It's accurate -- like global warming is KPN Sep 2019 #20

No, global warming is supported by facts. The WAPO piece is like climate science ehrnst Sep 2019 #93

I would venture to guess that more voters are turned off by candidates exaggerating.... George II Sep 2019 #16

As viewed from an obviously biased perspective. KPN Sep 2019 #21

In what way is the perspective biased? Where are the REAL numbers specifically? I don't see them. George II Sep 2019 #35

How about look at the study. KPN Sep 2019 #36

I did. With an OPEN mind. George II Sep 2019 #37

So what are those specific facts? KPN Sep 2019 #40

As I said: George II Sep 2019 #43

... KPN Sep 2019 #109

Well... ehrnst Sep 2019 #104

Okay, pick bones between contributed and caused if you like. The point being contributed has the KPN Sep 2019 #108

Contributed to, and causality are not mere 'bones' when it comes to statistics. ehrnst Sep 2019 #110

Oh, like carbon emissions relative to global warming. KPN Sep 2019 #113

Actually, not the same thing at all. ehrnst Sep 2019 #115

Exactly melman Sep 2019 #111

Thank you. It is ugly and unbecoming. KPN Sep 2019 #112

Ugly and unbecoming is attacking the messenger. ehrnst Sep 2019 #117

You mean correcting Bernie's statistics is what you think is ugly. ehrnst Sep 2019 #116

Now there's a euphemism ... "correcting" something that was in my very educated opinion KPN Sep 2019 #118

Your very educated opinion doesn't outweigh this groups' collective very educated opinion ehrnst Sep 2019 #119

No melman Sep 2019 #121

Yes ehrnst Sep 2019 #124

Facts are facts and the Washington Post did its job in checking the facts Gothmog Sep 2019 #25

No, they lied. WAPO said the study that Bernie used was not peer reviewed and in fact it was, Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #26

I trust the Washington Post here Gothmog Sep 2019 #27

Indeed. Far more than an opinion piece by Krystal Ball. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #41

I was disappointed in that piece by Krystal Ball Gothmog Sep 2019 #51

They "lied"? They didn't have a problem with it but they clearly looked at it more objectively. George II Sep 2019 #38

If the WaPo made a mistake I'm sure they will make a retraction Thekaspervote Sep 2019 #54

WaPo published an update today. They are standing by their Three-Pinocchio rating. lapucelle Sep 2019 #80

That's not what WaPo said. lapucelle Sep 2019 #79

There you go, bringing facts into this.... ehrnst Sep 2019 #91

Regarding peer review Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #107

WaPo says that the editorial was not peer reviewed. lapucelle Sep 2019 #163

re: "According to the facts in this article, the Washington Post is correct..." thesquanderer Sep 2019 #173

500,000? myohmy2 Sep 2019 #44

Bernie does abide. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #47

That 500,000, which was then increased to 530,000, is people, not bankruptcies... George II Sep 2019 #69

"...you can't beat Bernie..." ehrnst Sep 2019 #99

About The Hill. ehrnst Sep 2019 #46

What does WAPO have to say about Rolling Stone? Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #49

According to Himmelstein, the author of the study: George II Sep 2019 #66

Yep. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #67

Another evasion of the actual question. No surprise. But since you brought it up.... ehrnst Sep 2019 #97

"Well, being hot doesn't hurt either. " melman Sep 2019 #55

Not my take, but if that's where your head's at.... ehrnst Sep 2019 #70

Oh I think it is your take melman Sep 2019 #83

Hmmm....not who she was mocking................................... sheshe2 Sep 2019 #84

+1000 ehrnst Sep 2019 #88

No, not what I said, and not who I was mocking at all. ehrnst Sep 2019 #89

Hook. Line. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #181

Here's an article from the NCBI published in The New England Journal of Medicine- peer reviewed Thekaspervote Sep 2019 #57

Damn corporate media!! They're just threatened by... ehrnst Sep 2019 #71

Ntl Cntr of Biotech info with a peer reviewed paper published in The New England Journal of Thekaspervote Sep 2019 #78

Are you saying that this paper is more accurate than ehrnst Sep 2019 #95

Not a Sanders fan for numerous reasons, but too many financial hardships are caused by health costs. Hoyt Sep 2019 #62

If a Pol is going to quote numbers, that pol needs to be sure that those numbers are correct. ehrnst Sep 2019 #72

He was close enough. It's not like we need action only when it's over 500K. Hoyt Sep 2019 #75

"Close enough" isn't going to cut it in the age of the internet and fact checks. ehrnst Sep 2019 #94

I go to Krystal Ball when I want an ubiased analysis comradebillyboy Sep 2019 #85

I think the Washington Post has a lot more credibility than either comradebillyboy Sep 2019 #86

Seems like a lot of energy spent arguing about a factoid in a campaign speech. TreasonousBastard Sep 2019 #87

If one is going to make a point with facts, it's sort of important that they be facts ehrnst Sep 2019 #92

Are you equally concerned by Factcheck.org's finding that Warren's Wealth Tax will yield only 40% Hoyt Sep 2019 #100

Concerned? ehrnst Sep 2019 #101

I said earlier I am not a Sander's fan and I am positive he's wrong about the cost of M4A. Hoyt Sep 2019 #102

"if his stats are a little off or difficult to prove." ehrnst Sep 2019 #103

I get tired of all candidates promising the world with questionable funding sources. Hoyt Sep 2019 #105

Well, this OP is about a candidate using faulty statistics to make a point. ehrnst Sep 2019 #106

Bernie is right about this. I'm not necessarily a Bernie supporter, but I don't like to see stupid DanTex Sep 2019 #114

What "stupid false attack?" Fact checking? ehrnst Sep 2019 #120

The study Bernie cited found 530,000 medical bankruptcies, not people. DanTex Sep 2019 #122

The link is for the excerpt above it. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #123

This keeps getting posted but there's a paywall on WAPO and no paragraphs at... brush Sep 2019 #128

Thanks for the thread, Uncle Joe. sheshe2 Sep 2019 #167

Thank you sheshe. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #168