Democratic Primaries

brush

(61,033 posts)

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

Reply to Uncle Joe (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 03:48 PM

Sep 2019

all from the story. At least post a couple of graphs so we know what this is about.

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