NY Times and MSNBC humiliate themselves by failing 3rd Grade math

[artichoke]

Truth Deflector said I lost the argument to him on grounds of "absurdity", and Arminius says I changed the subject on account of being an intellectually inferior Democrat. I can't win, and I'm not even a Democrat!

Don't argue with such garbage fallacies and people won't mistake you for being a Democrat.

Has it occurred to you that Bloomberg wanted to be president so that he could (among other things, of course) take government action to combat poverty?

Of course, just like he wanted to fight obesity by banning large sodas...which made not a single person one iota skinnier, but did make a bunch of things worse and more annoying. Democrats think their non-stop incompetence is to be forgiven because their intentions are (supposedly) well-meaning...but that's not good enough. Being a well-meaning moron who wrecks lives, shreds the Constitution, an bankrupts, impoverishes and enslaves people ISN'T FUCKING GOOD ENOUGH. You have a responsibility to think out your policy proposals all the way, which the "morally superior" halfwits of the left NEVER do. You are not a fucking child. You don't get a participation trophy. Government NEVER makes people more prosperous. See the "war on poverty."

View attachment 14508

 

[artichoke]

Well, isn’t the socialist remedy for poverty the government confiscation of Bloomberg’s money and giving it to ‘the poor; many of which, who already *enjoy* a standard of living tens of hundreds of millions of *actually poor* people on the planet can only dream about?

 

[artichoke]

Like that'll ever happen.

The salient point of Bloomberg's finances is this: he has dropped out, but his money, the ad contracts he signed, and the giant staff he hired are all now at the disposal of the DNC. Because he was a candidate, no disclosure of his finances is required by law.

That's nothing to laugh about.

Maybe that was the real point of his candidacy all along...to work around campaign finance laws.

 

[artichoke]

Don't you ever have anything, that makes sense to post????????????????????????

To semi-literate crack-smokers like you who can't follow straightforward plain English conversations? Probably not.

That's some awfully butthurt sniveling. Need a tissue?

 

[artichoke]

Maybe the left will realize that - once again - this is how MSNBC CNN and the NY Times (among others), report news these days...

They go onto social media, find some opinion they agree with and report it out as fact to the gullible public(the left) - with ZERO fact checking; if fits the narrative, it is simply reported as fact.

 

[artichoke]

Loved it.

 

[artichoke]

Brian Williams To Host New Game Show 'Are You Smarter Than A Journalist?'

 

[countryboy]

They are not the only ones who are bad at grade-school math. Just over a week ago:


Truth Detector says

These two LEFTISTS have spent 451.3 MILLION to get elected. Can you imagine the amount of poverty they could have reduced with all that?
More proof that political power means more to the Party of the Jackass than poverty or the lives of Americans.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...RICAN-ARISTOCRACY/page2&p=3501722#post3501722


Tranquillus in Exile says

Yeah, they could have given $1.50 to every American! That would relieve some poverty.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...OF-AMERICAN-ARISTOCRACY&p=3502228#post3502228

Thanks for demonstrating the point. If you want to relieve poverty, why would you distribute the money to every American? Every American is not impoverished. Your whataboutism fails miserably, as do you.

 

[artichoke]

Thanks for demonstrating the point. If you want to relieve poverty, why would you distribute the money to every American? Every American is not impoverished. Your whataboutism fails miserably, as do you.

 

[Nordberg]

The newscasters who made that mistake sheepishly corrected it before the next break. This is a nothing.

 

[artichoke]

The newscasters who made that mistake sheepishly corrected it before the next break. This is a nothing.

Except for the part about "journalists" unquestioningly reporting Democrat opinion and propaganda like this as hard fact and then getting all triggered when someone notices that they are the enemy of the American people.

"If You Don’t Read the Newspaper You Are Uninformed, If You Do Read the Newspaper You Are Misinformed"

 

[countryboy]

I already answered that yesterday. See post #13. If you have reading difficulties, get back to me.

Even that idiotic assertion doesn't explain, or have anything to do with the quote of yours I was addressing. The fact is, a half a billion dollars would go a long ways towards relieving a LOT of poverty. Period, end of story.

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

The fact is, a half a billion dollars would go a long ways towards relieving a LOT of poverty. Period, end of story.

Half a billion dollars, well invested, could pay America's 1% poorest 5-10c a week each. That's your solution?

Truth Deflector was making a political talking point which he hadn't thought through. You are trying to defend it literally and making a fool of yourself to any numerate reader.

That's the end of the story.

 

[artichoke]

Half a billion dollars, well invested, could pay America's 1% poorest 5-10c a week each. That's your solution?

Truth Deflector was making a political talking point which he hadn't thought through. You are trying to defend it literally and making a fool of yourself to any numerate reader.

That's the end of the story.

That's an outright lie. Here is the exact quote: "These two LEFTISTS have spent 451.3 MILLION to get elected. Can you imagine the amount of poverty they could have reduced with all that?"

No part of this indicates simply handing their money over to poor people. That could've easily meant government programs, charities, etc. It was the left-wing "journalists" (the subject of this thread) who used the fallacy you are blatantly falsely projecting onto Truth Detector.



Anything else you'd like to lie about?

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

That's an outright lie. Here is the exact quote: "These two LEFTISTS have spent 451.3 MILLION to get elected. Can you imagine the amount of poverty they could have reduced with all that?"

No part of this indicates simply handing their money over to poor people. That could've easily meant government programs, charities, etc. It was the left-wing "journalists" (the subject of this thread) who used the fallacy you are blatantly falsely projecting onto Truth Detector.

Anything else you'd like to lie about?

Truth Deflector's point was that Bloomberg should have spent his half billion on "reducing poverty" rather than running in the primaries. That's a political point, and it's wrong.

"Can you imagine the amount of poverty they could have reduced with all that?"

Yes I can. The answer is DAMN ALL.

In a country the size of America, half a billion dollars is peanuts in the big picture. The roots of poverty cannot be "reduced" significantly by private philanthropy. If they could, Carnegie would have done it over a century ago. He gave away hundreds of times more than half a billion by the standards of his day, and there were still desperately poor people at the end of it.

Of course there have been big improvements since then, and guess what, they were not brought about by the richest 1% voluntarily giving up their wealth. LOL.

I don't lie. Gfy.

 

[artichoke]

Truth Deflector's point was that Bloomberg should have spent his half billion on "reducing poverty" rather than running in the primaries.

You finally stated something accurately.

That's a political point, and it's wrong.

"Can you imagine the amount of poverty they could have reduced with all that?"

Yes I can. The answer is DAMN ALL.

So first you misinterpret his point as necessarily being about just handing money to people and mock the argument he didn't make ('Half a billion dollars, well invested, could pay America's 1% poorest 5-10c a week each. That's your solution?')...and now you're defending the same logic you falsely projected onto him and mocked him for.

In a country the size of America, half a billion dollars is peanuts in the big picture. The roots of poverty cannot be "reduced" significantly by private philanthropy. If they could, Carnegie would have done it over a century ago. He gave away hundreds of times more than half a billion by the standards of his day, and there were still desperately poor people at the end of it.

An excellent case against most redistribution of wealth schemes too. And nice reversal from your last point.

Of course there have been big improvements since then, and guess what, they were not brought about by the richest 1% voluntarily giving up their wealth. LOL.

And...now you're back to laughing at the idea you just got done defending. Around and around we go.

I don't lie. Gfy.

Except for when you misrepresented Truth Detector's argument as necessarily being about handing raw money to people when it clearly wasn't limited to that.

 

[CFM]

Is that so?

Ever notice how those that claim to not be Democrats support the Democrat agenda 100% of the time?

 

[CFM]

Truth Deflector's point was that Bloomberg should have spent his half billion on "reducing poverty" rather than running in the primaries. That's a political point, and it's wrong.

"Can you imagine the amount of poverty they could have reduced with all that?"

Yes I can. The answer is DAMN ALL.

In a country the size of America, half a billion dollars is peanuts in the big picture. The roots of poverty cannot be "reduced" significantly by private philanthropy. If they could, Carnegie would have done it over a century ago. He gave away hundreds of times more than half a billion by the standards of his day, and there were still desperately poor people at the end of it.

Of course there have been big improvements since then, and guess what, they were not brought about by the richest 1% voluntarily giving up their wealth. LOL.

I don't lie. Gfy.

In the first 50 years of the War on Poverty, $22 trillion was spent with only a slight decrease in the percentage of those living in poverty.

That says two things: The money was wasted and you can't eradicate poverty by giving someone another person's money.

 

[CFM]

Half a billion dollars, well invested, could pay America's 1% poorest 5-10c a week each. That's your solution?

Truth Deflector was making a political talking point which he hadn't thought through. You are trying to defend it literally and making a fool of yourself to any numerate reader.

That's the end of the story.

Since poverty is a result not a cause, you won't end poverty by handing one group what another group has earned. All you will end up with is those on the receiving end demanding more and those on the contributing end being forced to pay more. If redistribution worked, poverty would have been eradicated long ago with the $22 trillion + spent on social welfare since the War on Poverty started with LBJ.

 

[artichoke]

In the first 50 years of the War on Poverty, $22 trillion was spent with only a slight decrease in the percentage of those living in poverty.

That says two things: The money was wasted and you can't eradicate poverty by giving someone another person's money.

Government shouldn't even be INVOLVED in such things in the first place. It's beyond their constitutional authority. And government always has the reverse Midas touch (turns everything it touches to shit). But Bloomberg could have dumped his money into anything from Wounded Warrior, to YMCA, to Shriners and made a huge difference in a lot of lives, instead of investing it all in the most expensive vanity project ever constructed...a monument to himself...which ended up crumbling spectacularly for all the world to see anyway. What an embarrassing fool.