[W:53] Twitter, Facebook remove Trump post

[Mr Person]

Or, I could draw the obvious deduction: That someone who throws lazy partisan broadsides against liberals while claiming to be liberal is lying about their lean in a hamfisted and dishonest attempt to boost those broadsides into credibility, aka, is thus not a trustworthy debate opponent.

Youve just described yourself. Congrats.

Oh, I described myself when I talked about Joe being "someone who throws lazy partisan broadsides against liberals while claiming to be liberal"?




Where are my broadsides against liberals?

:lamo


What a moronic attempt at a *gotcha*. Really, that was top ten stupid.

 

[MaryP]

Dude! I researched the question and provided data!

You ignored most of my post to make an inane point. Suck on this chart, liar!

View attachment 67290321

Can't. Invalid attachment.

 

[Ikari]

Moderator's Warning:

Enough is enough. Stop talking about each other and discuss the topic alone. I don't want to see anymore of this tit-for-tat nonsense against each other. Ignoring this warning may result in moderator action and/or thread bans. All posts made prior to this warning are still open to moderator review and action.

 

[Mr Person]

All I see is a poster lashing out with personal attacks because you've utterly humiliated in this thread.

Oh, I'm the one making personal attacks? What was this:

liar!

When did Trump say they're immune to it? Please provide that evidence. Please provide some evidence.

First, you should calm down.

Second, if you got so angry at being called out for the stupid act of pretending that children not dying from COVID mean that children are almost immune to COVID that you forgot what you're supposed to be whinging on about, go back to the OP.



Clue: you were arguing that Trump was right to say that children are almost immune to COVID. In an attempt to prove this, you posted a chart showing children tend not to die from COVID.

Children also do not die from the common cold. This does not mean that they are almost immune or immune. This is because words have meanings.

Your chart does not mean what you needed it to mean. In turn, your whinging about facebook and twitter taking it down was based entirely on a false premise. Hope that helps.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Oh, I'm the one making personal attacks? What was this:



:lol:






First, you should calm down.

Second, if you got so angry at being called out for the stupid act of pretending that children not dying from COVID mean that children are almost immune to COVID that you forgot what you're supposed to be whinging on about, go back to the OP.



Clue: you were arguing that Trump was right to say that children are almost immune to COVID. In a hopelessly moronic attempt to prove this, you posted a chart showing children tend not to die from COVID. This shows that either you are lying or you have less than no clue about how any of this works.

Children also do not die from the common cold. This does not mean that they are almost immune. And you shouldn't really need to be told that, since you really should have known what immunity means before you opened that mouth.

Therefore, your chart was stupid, bad, wrong, and dumb. And in turn, therefore, your whinging about facebook and twitter taking it down was based entirely on a false premise. Hope that helps.

You seem incapable of staying on topic. The issue is censorship of a U.S. official based on a wishy washy logic. You've utterly failed to make a real case. You're just getting mad.

 

[bongsaway]

How many kids under 20 die in car accidents annually per capita?

Regardless, my point is made. If you have to parse the word "almost" to justify censorship of a sitting U.S. official, then you're on the wrong side of the censorship issue. You seem like a reasonable poster. You don't seem to just ape talking points. I appreciate that about you.

But I think you're missing the real problem here: The censorship of the president's words is far more dangerous than Trump's "misinformation."

Horsecrap!!! Let me give you an example. A certain past president asked Americans, do you want the proof to be a mushroom cloud? Two bonus points for guessing the gop president and three bonus points for guessing what the result of that question.

 

[Mr Person]

You seem incapable of staying on topic. The issue is censorship of a U.S. official based on a wishy washy logic. You've utterly failed to make a real case. You're just getting mad.

Lazy trollish deflection. This was what you said:

So they took down a mainstream media interview with a sitting president? WTF?

How is what he said a lie exactly?

View attachment 67290297

Liberals are so full of crap. lol!

And the post you are making a big show of running away from - post #54 - is why what you said was moronic.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Horsecrap!!! Let me give you an example. A certain past president asked Americans, do you want the proof to be a mushroom cloud? Two bonus points for guessing the gop president and three bonus points for guessing what the result of that question.

I don't understand this post.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

My kids want to be in school, and I want my kids to be in school. I let my daughter get her driver's license and date and do all kinds of things that come with some low level of risk.
You can't see past your loathing of Trump. Please join is in the real world, where our society staves off the brutality of nature, where things devour each other, where viruses happen, where maintaining our successful structures is the best chance at good outcomes for individuals.

I asked about data, studies, and risk.

You replied with stuff about your daughter's feelings.

Not exactly a compelling argument there, fyi.



You keep saying the risk is low, but you're unable to offer an assessment of the quality of the information which says the risk is low.

Have we been able to determine kids are almost immune with enough certainty that we can start risking Americans' lives and limbs?

Or are there just some preliminary studies out at this point?

Is erring on the side of caution conservative?
Or is erring on the side of risk conservative?
What's a conservative choice when protecting families and children is the issue?

Risk? or
Caution?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Lazy trollish deflection. This was what you said:



And the post you are making a big show of running away from - post #54 - is why what you said was moronic.

Exactly! My first sentence -- my objection -- is that they took down the interview. The real issue is censorship. Trump words were defensible, and I used deaths because there was a convenient graph on the CDC site, but the case charts are essentially identical.

Can you please provide some data to support your claims?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I asked about data, studies, and risk.

You replied with stuff about your daughter's feelings.

Not exactly a compelling argument there, fyi.



You keep saying the risk is low, but you're unable to offer an assessment of the quality of the information which says the risk is low.

Have we been able to determine kids are almost immune with enough certainty that we can start risking Americans' lives and limbs?

Or are there just some preliminary studies out at this point?

Is erring on the side of caution conservative?
Or is erring on the side of risk conservative?
What's a conservative choice when protecting families and children is the issue?

Risk? or
Caution?

You're making my point for me. The censorship was not because of misleading information. It's because it didn't adhere to preferred narratives. Trump was not misleading anyone -- he was making a case. A strong case. A case backed by data. Data that I provided.

If you have to change the argument or parse words, then you've already lost.

 

[trixare4kids]

So they took down a mainstream media interview with a sitting president? WTF?

How is what he said a lie exactly?

View attachment 67290297

Liberals are so full of crap. lol!

They're not liberals...Liberals would agree to disagree and politely move on down the road.

Today's left are everything they say they hate; authoritarian and foot stomping intolerant.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You're making my point for me. The censorship was not because of misleading information. It's because it didn't adhere to preferred narratives. Trump was not misleading anyone -- he was making a case. A strong case. A case backed by data. Data that I provided.
If you have to change the argument or parse words, then you've already lost.

You keep saying the risk is low, but you're unable to offer an assessment of the quality of the information which says the risk is low.


Have we been able to determine kids are almost immune with enough certainty that we can start risking Americans' lives and limbs?


Or are there just some preliminary studies out at this point?


Is erring on the side of caution conservative?
Or is erring on the side of risk conservative?
What's a conservative choice when protecting families and children is the issue?

 

[bongsaway]

I don't understand this post.

How convenient.

 

[bongsaway]

You keep saying the risk is low, but you're unable to offer an assessment of the quality of the information which says the risk is low.


Have we been able to determine kids are almost immune with enough certainty that we can start risking Americans' lives and limbs?


Or are there just some preliminary studies out at this point?


Is erring on the side of caution conservative?
Or is erring on the side of risk conservative?
What's a conservative choice when protecting families and children is the issue?

Thoughts and prayers.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

How convenient.

Honestly, you made some vague reference to mushroom clouds. Can you make a cogent argument?

 

[Phys251]

So they took down a mainstream media interview with a sitting president? WTF?

How is what he said a lie exactly?

View attachment 67290297

Liberals are so full of crap. lol!

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the latest example of right-wing disinformation.

What GhostlyJoe is presenting is provisional data. Unlike the John Hopkins data, for instance, these do not include all the recent deaths. The plunge to near zero on 8/01 is a dead giveaway. In actuality this chart can only be trusted after you go back a few weeks. When you do, you get this:



Notice how our graphs are very similar until about the second week of July, and then they markedly diverge? That's because GhostlyJoe's data is provisional only. If he revisited it in a month, he'd see the number of deaths for July catch up.

BTW, how are other countries doing? Here's a comparison of the number of per capita cases. Compare our disaster to the outbreak that is happening in Australia right now:

GhostlyJoe should think twice before posting this kind of disinformation again.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

They're not liberals...Liberals would agree to disagree and politely move on down the road.

Today's left are everything they say they hate; authoritarian and foot stomping intolerant.

Pretty clear from this thread. These are some angry folks! They sure don't like data.

 

[trixare4kids]

At this point I no longer trust any politician on the subject of coronavirus, all of them are spinning half-truths and misrepresentations.

And I renew what I have been saying on this subject for a very long time now, if we are looking to Twitter and Facebook to be "arbiters of truth" (article) then we are in a world of pain going forward as those organizations are ran by other people with their own motivations and political views.

If someone really did a solid fact check of social media these days including bumper sticker memes floating around 99.99999% or more of posts would disappear and about all we'd have left is family pictures, terrible jokes, dinners out, and cute puppies and kittens.

Hence, why Trump or Biden's opinions shouldn't be banned.

 

[bongsaway]

They're not liberals...Liberals would agree to disagree and politely move on down the road.

Today's left are everything they say they hate; authoritarian and foot stomping intolerant.

You are describing the liberals of long gone.

Today's liberals stand toe to toe with the gop, we're dishing out now, like it?

 

[trixare4kids]

Pretty clear from this thread. These are some angry folks! They sure don't like data.

This is the new crazy left we are dealing with here... Jumping up and down with glee when someone they won't tolerate gets banned.

 

[Mr Person]

Exactly! My first sentence -- my objection -- is that they took down the interview. The real issue is censorship. Trump words were defensible, and I used deaths because there was a convenient graph on the CDC site, but the case charts are essentially identical.

It's like you don't even realize that your words are right there on the page. You don't get to move the goalposts every single time you get busted telling a stupid lie.

This was you complaining that they were wrong to take it down because Trump was right to say children are almost immune to COVID:

Can Trump stop lying?

So they took down a mainstream media interview with a sitting president? WTF?

How is what he said a lie exactly?

View attachment 67290297

Liberals are so full of crap. lol!

And this is why your complaint was stupid and dishonest:

Clue: you were arguing that Trump was right to say that children are almost immune to COVID. In an attempt to prove this, you posted a chart showing children tend not to die from COVID.

Children also do not die from the common cold. This does not mean that they are almost immune or immune. This is because words have meanings.

Your chart does not mean what you needed it to mean. In turn, your whinging about facebook and twitter taking it down was based entirely on a false premise. Hope that helps.

Repeat after me: children not dying from COVID does not mean children are almost immune to COVID.

This is because words have meanings, which apparently evade you.

Can you please provide some data to support your claims?

:lamo

The problem is that your data (a chart of children not dying from COVID) does not support your claim (Trump is right that children are almost immune to COVID).

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the latest example of right-wing disinformation.

What GhostlyJoe is presenting is provisional data. Unlike the John Hopkins data, for instance, these do not include all the recent deaths. The plunge to near zero on 8/01 is a dead giveaway. In actuality this chart can only be trusted after you go back a few weeks. When you do, you get this:



Notice how our graphs are very similar until about the second week of July, and then they markedly diverge? That's because GhostlyJoe's data is provisional only. If he revisited it in a month, he'd see the number of deaths for July catch up.

BTW, how are other countries doing? Here's a comparison of the number of per capita cases. Compare our disaster to the outbreak that is happening in Australia right now:

GhostlyJoe should think twice before posting this kind of disinformation again.

How does this prove that kids are susceptible to the virus? My data are from the CDC, and they show how the virus affects different age groups. It's directly relevant to the topic. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make with the charts you've provided.

But I do applaud the fact that, unlike others in this thread, you're actually using data to try to make your point. Thanks for that.

 

[bongsaway]

Honestly, you made some vague reference to mushroom clouds. Can you make a cogent argument?

I did. Sorry you claim not to understand, others do.

 

[dairyair]

Can Trump stop lying?




.

Does he ever shut his mouth or not tweet?