ABC poll: 55% approve of Trump's handling of the coronavirus crisi

[JimL]

Since I'm in no mood for 20 questions I'll only answer this first one but with one of my own. Do you think that he would have ever cited him if he wasn't highly critical of Trump?

If you mean to ask that if he was someone like yourself, a Trumpster right or wrong, would he have cited it? Then no, of course he wouldn't have.

[simplicio]

Since I'm in no mood for 20 questions I'll only answer this first one but with one of my own. Do you think that he would have ever cited him if he wasn't highly critical of Trump?

My post was meant to examine the reasons posters discount ideas, and referred to the oft used "if you disagree then you cannot make an informed opinion" argument.

Do I think Starlight would have linked to that authority if it wasn't critical of Trump? No, as it would not have supported the points Startlight was making. But we can look at the post to see if it brings up valid points.

And one important difference in posting styles, I think Star can and does address points that are hard to incorporate into his position. He does not necessarily dismiss the points raised, but explains reasons for his position. That is not saying I agree with Starlight on all his positions, but he at least justifies his positions and attempts to maintain some consistency.

[rogue06]

My post was meant to examine the reasons posters discount ideas, and referred to the oft used "if you disagree then you cannot make an informed opinion" argument.

Then look again at my response in post #27

[simplicio]

Then look again at my response in post #27

So you aren't discounting him..... just discounting what he has to say by arguing that he is not authoritative enough.... or not the ultimate authority......

In other words you are multiplying objections. But are your objections based on the premise that liberals (or those who don't like Trump) cannot form valid and objective opinions.

[rogue06]

So you aren't discounting him..... just discounting what he has to say by arguing that he is not authoritative enough.... or not the ultimate authority.......

facepalm3.gif

You really need to break this habit of yours of twisting what folks say until you reshape it into what you want.

I think he is an authority but not THE authority which is how I've seen him being represented as.

[demi-conservative]

You really need to break this habit of yours of twisting what folks say until you reshape it into what you want.

Remove his Christian faith label and a lot of his sanctimonious nonsense will stop.

[simplicio]

Remove his Christian faith label and a lot of his sanctimonious nonsense will stop.

Why? I have stated that I am a Christian, but the accusation that I am not a Christian is just that a hollow accusation, and used as an insult and as a attempt to divert the discussion.

The fact is that you are not recognized as a Christian, the 'cost' was too high to admit that anyone thought you were a Christian!

[simplicio]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]43447[/ATTACH]

You really need to break this habit of yours of twisting what folks say until you reshape it into what you want.

I think he is an authority but not THE authority which is how I've seen him being represented as.

But how was he used? A journalist cited him as a source, and he was critical of the response of this administration. How have you seen him represented as The Ultimate Authority, and not an authority? You manage to truncate my posts each time, in order to reshape my point each time, but that is par for the course

That is a distinction without a difference. (Do you really think anyone here, any Christian, would accept that line if the discussion was about religion, a bible verse, or a point of theology, or, shudder, complementarianism?)

[demi-conservative]

Why? I have stated that I am a Christian

Where?

and used as an insult and as a attempt to divert the discussion.

What has happened is demi ask you if you are Christian, and you run away from the thread.

[Tassman]

I'm not discounting him but rather objecting to how he was elevated to the ultimate authority solely because he dislikes Trump.

[rogue06]

But how was he used? A journalist cited him as a source, and he was critical of the response of this administration. How have you seen him represented as The Ultimate Authority, and not an authority? You manage to truncate my posts each time, in order to reshape my point each time, but that is par for the course

That is a distinction without a difference. (Do you really think anyone here, any Christian, would accept that line if the discussion was about religion, a bible verse, or a point of theology, or, shudder, complementarianism?)

His criticism has been cited by more than just the article that star noted. On one cable news channel program he was described as heading the effort to eradicate smallpox although according to Wikipedia "He participated, as a medical officer, in the World Health Organization (WHO) smallpox eradication program that in 1980 certified the global eradication of smallpox"

[rogue06]

If you are told 24/7 that he majorly screwed this up and refused to do anything a 55% approval rating is incredibly high. Especially given that at least a third of the population would find fault even if he personally found a cure because no matter what... orange man BAD

[simplicio]

His criticism has been cited by more than just the article that star noted. On one cable news channel program he was described as heading the effort to eradicate smallpox although according to Wikipedia "He participated, as a medical officer, in the World Health Organization (WHO) smallpox eradication program that in 1980 certified the global eradication of smallpox"

In other words, you are importing an error from outside the discussion. Star light did not provide any exaggerated claims about him, positing him as The Ultimate Authority. The fact is that Larry Brilliant is an epidemiologist with experience in the field, with a professional record of competence and experience.

Again, no one here would accept that line of argumentation if the discussion centered on the faith, it would be condemned as trolling and dishonesty.

[rogue06]

In other words, you are importing an error from outside the discussion. Star light did not provide any exaggerated claims about him, positing him as The Ultimate Authority. The fact is that Larry Brilliant is an epidemiologist with experience in the field, with a professional record of competence and experience.

Again, no one here would accept that line of argumentation if the discussion centered on the faith, it would be condemned as trolling and dishonesty.

Again, post #38

I'm not specifically addressing star's post but rather how he has been elevated by some of the MSM into being the ultimate expert because he is critical of Trump

I've been making that clear for quite awhile which you'd realize if you weren't so busy trying to "interpret" what I said.

[simplicio]

Again, post #38

I'm not specifically addressing star's post but rather how he has been elevated by some of the MSM into being the ultimate expert because he is critical of Trump

I've been making that clear for quite awhile which you'd realize if you weren't so busy trying to "interpret" what I said.

Post 35 (which it is linked to) provides the distinction without a difference, given that Starlight used Brilliant's critique as an example of a person knowledgeable of the situation and an authoritative source. Considering that you (and Ronson) are pointing to that instead of the points raised, it is a diversion.

While you claim it is not about Star's post, it is used to sidestep Star's post.

You are multiplying an objection, an objection which no Twebber would accept if the discussion was on the faith.