Bernie Was Right: Climate Change Demands Family Planning

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

The numbers also show that, around the world, people will be denied these but also other forms of healthcare due specifically to our country's stance on reproductive health, whether they personally want to receive birth control and/or abortion services, or not.

(snip)

Broadly speaking, those decisions are being made by governments as led by elected officials or (increasingly, perhaps through relationships with government) by corporations and private capital. But across the US and the world, people have increasingly come to realize that our current method of managing and dividing the planet's resources, as led by today's governments and market big league-ers, just cannot last.

(snip)

Yet for just over half of the people on Earth, as well as their families, the ability to make some of life's most important decisions toward our role in this future is partially or wholly withheld—often with vastly different rules, rights, and consequences depending on where they live—long before the potential for new life within their bodies would be capable of entering this world.

And today, more than ever, absolutely everybody deserves the right to genuinely try to make this world as habitable as possible in the coming years (especially if we plan to stick around a long while), and the tools to plan accordingly.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2019/09/07/bernie-was-right-climate-change-demands-family-planning/#3373683f26d5

[lapfog_1]

1. Don't worry, climate change will provide a form of "family planning"

for the planet.

[Zoonart]

2. Sure...he's probably right.

I remember the concept of ZPG (zero population Growth) way back in the 70's....however...how are you going to sell that to people who think that being asked to give up plastic drinking straws is tyranny?

Seriously... why on earth can't we talk about things that are actually doable with our raising the ire of half the country already scared by the idiots on FOX TV about the SOCIALISTS. We are playing right into their hands.

[Uncle Joe]

3. Because too many idiots' salaries on FOX TV depend on denying that anthropogenic

climate change even exists, that's why Al Gore titled his book "An Inconvenient Truth."

If you're just wanting to "talk about things that are actually doable" according to the far Reich wing in the our nation, the crisis of global warming will never be solved and the worst effects of climate change will devastate humanity.

(snip)

According to the United Nations Population Fund, human population grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion people during the course of the 20th century. (Think about it: It took all of time for population to reach 1.6 billion; then it shot to 6.1 billion over just 100 years.) During that time emissions of CO2, the leading greenhouse gas, grew 12-fold. And with worldwide population expected to surpass nine billion over the next 50 years, environmentalists and others are worried about the ability of the planet to withstand the added load of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere and wreaking havoc on ecosystems down below.

Developed countries consume the lion’s share of fossil fuels. The United States, for example, contains just five percent of world population, yet contributes a quarter of total CO2 output. But while population growth is stagnant or dropping in most developed countries (except for the U.S., due to immigration), it is rising rapidly in quickly industrializing developing nations. According to the United Nations Population Fund, fast-growing developing countries (like China and India) will contribute more than half of global CO2 emissions by 2050, leading some to wonder if all of the efforts being made to curb U.S. emissions will be erased by other countries’ adoption of our long held over-consumptive ways.

“Population, global warming and consumption patterns are inextricably linked in their collective global environmental impact,” reports the Global Population and Environment Program at the non-profit Sierra Club. “As developing countries’ contribution to global emissions grows, population size and growth rates will become significant factors in magnifying the impacts of global warming.”

According to the Worldwatch Institute, a nonprofit environmental think tank, the overriding challenges facing our global civilization are to curtail climate change and slow population growth. “Success on these two fronts would make other challenges, such as reversing the deforestation of Earth, stabilizing water tables, and protecting plant and animal diversity, much more manageable,” reports the group. “If we cannot stabilize climate and we cannot stabilize population, there is not an ecosystem on Earth that we can save.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-growth-climate-change/

[Zoonart]

7. I am painfully aware.

You will NEVER win an election with this message. PERIOD.
Then what will we do? We must stop making the perfect the enemy of the possible.

[Uncle Joe]

8. Saving human civilization or life as we know it; is perfect, anything short of that

is possible but not good.

What will any politician do should they win an election but not having run on this issue in an aggressive manner?

Said politician will have little or no mandate to push for critically needed reform or laws.

[Zoonart]

9. JMHO

[brooklynite]

39. You know who else won't have a mandate?

A candidate who loses.

[Uncle Joe]

43. Precisely brooklynite,

that's another reason why I support Bernie Sanders for President.

We need to win the White House first before we can save humanity and I'm convinced Bernie Sanders checks both of those critical boxes.

[sandensea]

80. You're absolutely right. The benefits of family planning to societies, rich and poor, is undeniable.

But sadly, too many of our fellow Americans have been brainwashed into seeing the term "family planning" as some kind of Maoist imposition.

"The gummint wants to tell me to have two chilluns?!?"

"Next thing you know, they'll be telling me I can't marry mah cuhsin."

[ehrnst]

44. At least it's good to see that Hillary pulled him to the left on reproductive justice

From someone who said that Democrats were getting "hung up" on abortion and gay marriage, and dissing Planned Parenthood.

Not to mention this from 2015...

Every other major country on Earth, every one, including some small countries, say that when a mother has a baby, she should stay home with that baby.

And from Krystal Ball's employer...

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/358608-bernie-sanders-doesnt-fight-for-womens-reproductive-justice

I guess he' seen the light that it's not just "identity politics" any more....

[BlueMississippi]

4. A $26 trillion family planning plan coming up ... nt

[Uncle Joe]

5. What do you believe will be the cost of climate change? n/t

[BlueMississippi]

13. You mean it is more than $26 trillion?

OMG

[Uncle Joe]

17. Well if you wish to just count dollar cost.

(snip)

Nordhaus won the Nobel Prize this week, in an announcement that coincided with the release of a hugely important UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on what will happen to the world when it gets 1.5°C, or 2.7°F, warmer than preindustrial levels.

The report puts the cost of a 1.5°Cincrease at $54 trillion, in today's money.

You think $54 trillion is a lot? That number comes from research that also says that a 2.0°C increase will cause $69 trillion of damage, and a 3.7°C increase will cause a stunning $551 trillion in damage.

$551 trillion is more than all the wealth currently existing in the world, which gives an indication of just how much richer humanity could become if we don't first destroy our planet.

We'll be environmentally richer, too. While it's hard to put a dollar value on that, the value of environmental benefits has been rising steadily over time and will continue to do so. Already, we regret environmental destruction in the past and would happily give up a small fraction of our current wealth to undo it.

(snip)

https://www.axios.com/climate-change-costs-wealth-carbon-tax-303d7cff-3085-49d9-accb-ec77689b9911.html

Of course it's more difficult to put a dollar amount on the lives of our children, grand children, great grandchildren, etc. etc. etc.

[BlueMississippi]

25. So BS population control plan is $551 trillion?

[Uncle Joe]

33. Reading is fundamental.

[Celerity]

36. +10000

[Uncle Joe]

6. P.S. Do you even believe that anthropogenic climate change is real? n/t

[BlueMississippi]

14. How is BS going to control population in the rest of the world?

Wave a magic wand so all brown and black males would get an instant magical vasectomy?

[Uncle Joe]

18. All you could do was throw racist, reich wing bullshit out. You couldn't even

bring yourself to answer a simple question.

"Do you even believe that anthropogenic climate change is real?"

Yes or no.

[ehrnst]

63. Someone else who doesn't COMPLY.

Does it bother you more that they didn't answer your question or what they actually said?

[Uncle Joe]

68. Your post is most enlightening ehrnst, common cause perhaps or just massive hyperbole?

The poster couldn't/didn't answer a simple question and that's an answer in itself.

"Do you even believe that anthropogenic climate change is real?"

Yes or no, it's not like I was proposing a "Sophie's choice" although the pressure of answering that question may feel like it to some.

[ehrnst]

70. "Does it bother you more that they didn't answer your question or what they actually said?"

Yes or no?

[Uncle Joe]

72. What they said was bothersome, the not answering a fundamental question was just revealing.

Is that clearer?

[ehrnst]

73. Is that a yes or no?

Did their lack of compliance with a yes or no answer bother you more than what they actually said?

[Uncle Joe]

74. Reading is fundamental, good luck with that. n/t

[ehrnst]

75. I'll take that as a yes...

[Celerity]

37. you should really think about self-deleting this racist bollocks nt

[Autumn]

48. Women, all women need access to birth control and abortion.

Climate change is creating global food insecurity. That will impact women and their children in third world countries first.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

120. Holy crap.

"so all brown and black males would get an instant magical vasectomy"

Damn. Add that to the list of things I never thought I'd see on DU.

But as to other countries, how about we stop the Trump and religious policies that make birth control either no available or seen as a tool of the devil? How about we actually work to create a world in which every woman on the planet has control over her reproductive system?

[mopinko]

10. bernie is not wrong. except that he is very wrong.

yes, population is clearly an issue.

i dont recall the exact quote that was going around, but the word that stuck out to me was that it was poor women, or some such.
we would do a lot more for the planet if we got rich people in america to stop reproducing. period.

and he is also wrong to have learned nothing from the debate that has been going on his whole political life. he's old enough to know the history of eugenics. he is an idiot if he cant discuss this issue w/o playing into racist old tropes.

bad enough he is stuck in the past, he cant even get the past right.

we will lose so large if he is the nom.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Here is Bernie's quote

"Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact," Readyoff said, and then asked, "Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?" Sen. Sanders responded,

Well, Martha, the answer is yes. The answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies, and make reproductive decisions.

The Mexico City Agreement which denies American aid to those organisations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control to me is totally absurd.

So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, is something I very, very strongly support.

(snip)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2019/09/07/bernie-was-right-climate-change-demands-family-planning/#102628c226d5

Bernie never stated nor implied that he support eugenics, that's just a reich wing talking point.

Bernie addressed population growth precisely where it is most needed.

(snip)

According to the United Nations Population Fund, human population grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion people during the course of the 20th century. (Think about it: It took all of time for population to reach 1.6 billion; then it shot to 6.1 billion over just 100 years.) During that time emissions of CO2, the leading greenhouse gas, grew 12-fold. And with worldwide population expected to surpass nine billion over the next 50 years, environmentalists and others are worried about the ability of the planet to withstand the added load of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere and wreaking havoc on ecosystems down below.

Developed countries consume the lion’s share of fossil fuels. The United States, for example, contains just five percent of world population, yet contributes a quarter of total CO2 output. But while population growth is stagnant or dropping in most developed countries (except for the U.S., due to immigration), it is rising rapidly in quickly industrializing developing nations. According to the United Nations Population Fund, fast-growing developing countries (like China and India) will contribute more than half of global CO2 emissions by 2050, leading some to wonder if all of the efforts being made to curb U.S. emissions will be erased by other countries’ adoption of our long held over-consumptive ways.

“Population, global warming and consumption patterns are inextricably linked in their collective global environmental impact,” reports the Global Population and Environment Program at the non-profit Sierra Club. “As developing countries’ contribution to global emissions grows, population size and growth rates will become significant factors in magnifying the impacts of global warming.”

(snip)

According to the Worldwatch Institute, a nonprofit environmental think tank, the overriding challenges facing our global civilization are to curtail climate change and slow population growth. “Success on these two fronts would make other challenges, such as reversing the deforestation of Earth, stabilizing water tables, and protecting plant and animal diversity, much more manageable,” reports the group. “If we cannot stabilize climate and we cannot stabilize population, there is not an ecosystem on Earth that we can save.”

Many population experts believe the answer lies in improving the health of women and children in developing nations. By reducing poverty and infant mortality, increasing women’s and girls’ access to basic human rights (health care, education, economic opportunity), educating women about birth control options and ensuring access to voluntary family planning services, women will choose to limit family size.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-growth-climate-change/

[Autumn]

52. Here's what stuck out to me. That women in poor countries don't have access to

birth control and abortion and the US is making sure of that by pulling what funding we had provided to those organizations around the world in the past.
But it's to be expected, our government is making it harder for women here to have access to birth control and abortion. I think someone is playing into racist old tropes, but it's not Bernie.

[George II]

11. No he wasn't. The Chinese controlled population. The Germans controlled population....

...even the Pharaoh controlled population. He should be more sensitive in his words.

The implication of his words is that the population of brown people (i.e., "poor countries" ) needs to be controlled.

Just what does he mean by "the tools to plan accordingly"?

[BlueMississippi]

12. A chill ran down my spine when I saw that line. nt

[Autumn]

49. You should try to find out who used the phrase "the tools to plan accordingly". It sure as fuck

wasn't Bernie. I'll give you a hint. The person who said it was a woman.

[jcgoldie]

55. bullshit

The population of the world is growing fastest in places that can least afford to support it. Its a well know sociological fact. It has nothing to do with racism, but it does have to do with lack of access to birth control in those places which is exactly what he was pointing out. The fake outrage here over this comment is ridiculous.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

121. Yes. Giving all women on the planet access to birth control

and letting them control their bodies and reproduction is the same as the Nazis.

Come on. Even you're better that that. And you might think the implication was that the population of brown people needs to be controlled, but if you look at everything that Bernie said, that implication is more a reflection of you and your agenda than the point that Sanders was making.

[SidDithers]

16. Random blogger says what?...nt

Sid

[ehrnst]

47. Oh, not just ANY random blogger...

[TreasonousBastard]

19. So what if he's right? The planet is overpopulated, and almost half of that population is...

in three countries-- China, India, and the US.

It's always fun to go back and re-argue the Malthusian Trap, but remember that back then things were different. There was lousy health care and not only was life expectancy low, but stillbirths were far more common. And agriculture was far less productive. We have handily avoided that trap so far, but how much longer can we hold out?

And, remember what happened when China tried to reduce the birth rate. How would we convince a large chunk of the world to try to do better?

http://worldpopulationreview.com

<...>
In 2018, the world’s population growth rate was 1.12%. Every five years since the 1970s, the population growth rate has continued to fall. The world’s population is expected to continue to grow larger but at a much slower pace. By 2030, the population will exceed 8 billion. In 2040, this number will grow to more than 9 billion. In 2055, the number will rise to over 10 billion, and another billion people won’t be added until near the end of the century. The current annual population growth estimates from the United Nations are in the millions - estimating that over 80 million new lives are added each year.

This population growth will be significantly impacted by nine specific countries which are situated to contribute to the population growth more quickly than other nations. These nations include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, and the United States of America. Particularly of interest, India is on track to overtake China's position as the most populous country by the year 2030. Additionally, multiple nations within Africa are expected to double their populations before fertility rates begin to slow entirely.
<...>

[Uncle Joe]

20. Bernie is for empowering women to make their own choices which too many governments prohibit now

thanks to our governmental policies.

Here is his quote.

"Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact," Readyoff said, and then asked, "Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?" Sen. Sanders responded,

Well, Martha, the answer is yes. The answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies, and make reproductive decisions.

The Mexico City Agreement which denies American aid to those organisations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control to me is totally absurd.

So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, is something I very, very strongly support.

(snip)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2019/09/07/bernie-was-right-climate-change-demands-family-planning/#102628c226d5

[TreasonousBastard]

22. I am in complete agreement there, but that means a reversal of many of our...

current policies. Not so easy with the religious right having too much power. AFIK, all the candidates pretty much go along with this, though.

Western Europe has very low growth rates, and Italy and Japan even have negative rates. China does, too, but may have something to do with the imbalance of women going back to the "one child" rule.

[Uncle Joe]

23. When nations industrialize their population growth rates do slow down, while

nations mired in poverty have among the highest birth rates and this in turn keeps them trapped in a cycle of poverty.

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Often true, but still complex...

Years ago some small district somewhere discovered that the advent of electricity and television caused the birth rate to drop-- people found something else to do at night.

[Uncle Joe]

29. Well there may be something to that,

T.V. is literally a hypnotic force.

[lapucelle]

30. We can all thank anyone who voted or worked against the Democratic Party in the 2016 GE season

for Trump's reinstatement and expansion of The Mexico City Agreement. It has never been policy under any Democratic administration.

Thanks BriBri!
Thanks Cashmere SuSu!
Thanks Nina!
Thanks David!
And special thanks to DrDooleyMD!

[LisaM]

21. Yes, ZPG needs to come back.

I did my part. I love kids, but had none.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

24. I'm surprised a good "democratic socialist" like Bernie didn't come back with the fact that

inequitable distribution of goods and services combined with rampant profit-chasing is much more an issue WRT climate change than overpopulation. Overpopulation is an alarmist scare tactic that gives ecofascists a chance to exercise their white supremacist tactics under "environmentalist" guises and makes candidates who gloss over intersectional oppressions around race and gender say things like they're in favor of population control.

[BlueMississippi]

28. +1000 nt

[kcr]

35. Twitter Redrose Socialism is the new Socialism

[Autumn]

40. Well to begin with he wasn't asked about any of that. He answered her question with a factual

answer. Women need access to birth control and abortion, especially women in third world countries. Most women don't have that, even here in the US where birth control and abortion are legal. That's undeniable.

[MadDAsHell]

27. We need to be aborting at a 2-3x greater rate and allow it basically until the moment of birth. nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

31. Why?

[Hekate]

32. China-style? The one-child policy involved a lot of infanticide.

You never want any part of family planning to be in the hands of a totalitarian government, because they will turn it on and off to suit the government's latest whim. See, for instance, Romania under Ceauscescu.

Left to ourselves and given the option of safe effective birth control (including abortion) most women choose to limit the size of our families.

[ehrnst]

42. "We?" And what about the woman's say in all of this?

[Autumn]

38. Yes it does. With climate change comes global food insecurity. We need to get a handle

on population now.

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/15/world-may-not-have-enough-food-to-eat-by-2050-report.html

[ehrnst]

41. Forbes.... I see we're no longer squeamish about "corporate media."

[Uncle Joe]

45. Then you would be wrong but consistent.

Concentration of media ownership (also known as media consolidation or media convergence) is a process whereby progressively fewer individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the mass media.[1] Contemporary research demonstrates increasing levels of consolidation, with many media industries already highly concentrated and dominated by a very small number of firms.[2][3]

(snip)

Risks for media integrity

Media integrity is at risk when small number of companies and individuals control the media market. Media integrity refers to the ability of a media outlet to serve the public interest and democratic process, making it resilient to institutional corruption within the media system, economy of influence, conflicting dependence and political clientelism.[9] Media integrity is especially endangered in the case when there are clientelist relations between the owners of the media and political centres of power. Such a situation enables excessive instrumentalisation of the media for particular political interests, which is subversive for the democratic role of the media.

Elimination of net neutrality

Net neutrality is also at stake when media mergers occur. Net neutrality involves a lack of restrictions on content on the internet, however, with big businesses supporting campaigns financially they tend to have influence over political issues, which can translate into their mediums. These big businesses that also have control over internet usage or the airwaves could possibly make the content available biased from their political stand point or they could restrict usage for conflicting political views, therefore eliminating net neutrality.[8]

(snip)

Diversity of viewpoints

It is important to elaborate upon the issue of media consolidation and its effect upon the diversity of information reaching a particular market. Critics of consolidation raise the issue of whether monopolistic or oligopolistic control of a local media market can be fully accountable and dependable in serving the public interest.

(snip)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

[ehrnst]

46. No, I'm both correct and consistent concerning your lack of consistency on

your view of the validity of media sources and their funding, based on their flattery of Senator Sanders.

[Uncle Joe]

50. Your consistency is in arbitrarily throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I know there are many good and conscientious journalists in the profession and unlike yourself, I actually consider the content of the article or video.

I support Bernie Sanders for President of the United States, that is no secret and I will post articles or videos that support him just as any other D.U.er that supports their favored or claimed favored candidate has the right to do.

[ehrnst]

51. As I said - so long as the *content* flatters Senator Sanders

the corporate funding of the media source isn't important enough to for you to dismiss the *content* of the article as being trustworthy. It is trustworthy by virtue of it being flattering to your favorite candidate.

However if the *content* of the article doesn't flatter Senator Sanders, then you point to the corporate funding of the media source as being 'evidence' that the *content* is suspect and untrustworthy.

Is that clearer?



dou·ble stand·ard
/ˈdəbəl ˈstandərd/
noun
a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.

I support Bernie Sanders for President of the United States, that is no secret and I will post articles or videos that support him just as any other D.U.er that supports their favored or claimed favored candidate has the right to do.

However, you specifically will attack the articles that other D.U.ers post that are not flattering to your favored candidate as being "hit pieces" or otherwise unfounded, based on the media source that they appear in, but share and give credence to articles from those very same media sources that flatter your favored candidate.

No one said that you didn't have the "right to do so."

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

[NurseJackie]

53. Bazinga!

[ehrnst]

64. Apparently so, judging by the flurry of posts. (nt)

[NurseJackie]

65. You've struck a sensitive nerve. Clearly.

Good.

[ehrnst]

66. It certainly doesn't display genuine self-confidence

if one gets so easily outraged and defensive at any challenge.

Those espousing binary world views aren't known for dealing well doubt or dissent from a manifesto, or even the idea of grey areas. To admit a mistake or idealogical change on even a single thing is cast doubt on all one's judgement.

That's why it's so threatening to some - more so than if someone was being irrational and attacking them with insults. That means one can dismiss it easily as ridiculous, which is why some often try to derail the offender, or goad them into defending a straw man they set up. It's the calm, reasoned rebuttals that really rattle.

[Uncle Joe]

54. As I said, unlike yourself, I always consider the content of the article or video.

My previous posts were crystal clear as to my position and yours.

"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is an idiomatic expression for an avoidable error in which something good is eliminated when trying to get rid of something bad, or in other words, rejecting the favorable along with the unfavorable.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Don't_throw_the_baby_out_with_the_bath...

Is that clearer?

[ehrnst]

56. Again, I'm discussing your inconsistency in assigning validity to the *content*

of the article, stating that the "media source itself" discredits *the content* when it doesn't flatter your favored candidate, but changing that metric to being a non-issue when an article from that same discredited media source flatters your favored candidate.

Inconsistent: not satisfiable by the same set of values for the unknowns (the unknowns being the content of the article being flattering or unflattering to your favored candidate.

You have made that inconsistency in your arguments against the validity of articles crystal clear. It's why you react as you do when this is pointed out.



As for the impartiality of the author:



https://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-politics.asp


I'm thinking an "I'm done here. Peace to you " folding and pushing away from the table as though you were magnanimously granting the pot to everyone else, is about due, yes?

[Uncle Joe]

57. Can you find a single post of mine where in I stated that ONLY

the media source discredited the content of the article?

[ehrnst]

58. And we have a combo Straw man AND red herring....

Last edited Mon Sep 9, 2019, 11:26 AM - Edit history (2)

Nice try...

As I said - the basis for your inconsistency is that you only accuse the media source of "corporate messaging influence and bias against progressive candidates" when an article content displeases you concerning your favored candidate. Only then you claim that the validity of the content of an unflattering article falls based on the media source. Then usually there follows a copy paste of the definition of "corporate media conglomeration," as though that addresses and damns the content of the article. So you only ever agree on the source being BIASED and a deal breaker when the content is unflattering to your favored candidate - because there would never be a time that a source you think is trustworthy (TYT, Intercept, Jacobin) would publish content that didn't praise or exonerate your favored candidate. (Thought you were gonna get me to go on that wild goose chase, didn't you? You should know better than that by now, Joe. ) They're sources with a particular and openly stated political bias you share, and are not known for even throwing a bone to being politically journalistically neutral.

https://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-politics.asp

I call you out when you *reverse* that postion on said corporate media sources' implicit bias when you share and approve of an article from that same media source, you claim that it's not the source that's important, but the content stands on its own and should be judged in that way...

Because it flatters your favored candidate.

And no, this isn't simply about Forbes, WAPO or any specific source. It's about your generalized attack of "corporate bias" against any source (except TYT, of course) that doesn't simply promote the Sanders campaign and their talking points.

See?



It sounds as though you're not very used to conversing with people who don't back down when you repeat yourself and deploy various logical fallacies as a rebuttal. Echo chambers can give one a false sense of one's own objectivity and ability to assimilate new data.

[Uncle Joe]

59. That's what I thought, you couldn't, just as you emotionally can't or deliberately won't

distinguish the difference between macro and micro.

That's why you consistently throw the baby out with the bath water.

[ehrnst]

60. You can keep repeating things over and over again, but that doesn't make them

accurate or factual.

I made my case, I'm not backing down, and it's clearly very uncomfortable for you.

As I said, you don't seem to be used to someone not submitting to your repeated declarations, not getting derailed by logical fallacies or simply not being intimidated by pronouncement that they are objectively, undeniably, unassailably wrong simply by virtue of disagreeing with your absolutely fact based, unassailable, flawlessly researched POV, despite the many times we've interacted.

[Uncle Joe]

61. I don't care whether you "back down" and from the points I made in my previous post #59 I don't

even expect you to.

[ehrnst]

62. Your replies indicate otherwise. You seem very much concerned that my

posts that provide arguments that clearly contradict your claims don't go unanswered, even when you have nothing new to say.



Go on... time for "Thank you for kicking my post! I'm done here. Peace to you. "

You know you want to.

But I understand if you "emotionally can't or deliberately won't."

[LanternWaste]

67. But no Identity Politics, right?

[Uncle Joe]

69. More elaboration please. n/t

[ehrnst]

71. I don't know if it's a matter of emotionally can't or deliberately won't

acknowledge your question.

But I have a guess.

[mikeysnot]

81. give it up

you lost....

[ehrnst]

82. It's very, very sweet of you to come to Uncle Joe's defense when it looks like he needs some help.

Consider me chastised...





Peace to you.

[mikeysnot]

83. ....

[ehrnst]

84. Awwwww. Still covering for your friend.

Lucky to have you, he is. Give it up, you refuse to do.

Adorable it is.

[mikeysnot]

85. ...

[ehrnst]

86. ....

UR it now.

[mikeysnot]

87. here... again.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=270998

[ehrnst]

88. ....

[mikeysnot]

89. Don't know when to quit do you? Too much time on your hands?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=270998

[ehrnst]

90. Lol. Here it is again....

Don't know when to quit, do you?

[mikeysnot]

91. ..

[ehrnst]

92. Tell me about it...

Trying to get my attention both by creepy PM and on Joe's thread... that's some serious, energetic multi-tasking there.

I'm sure Uncle Joe appreciates that someone cares enough to spend the time and energy to defend him when he can't or won't or has simply decided he was done.

Very sweet.

[ehrnst]

94. Uncle Joe is so lucky to have someone as devoted as you are to fight his battles for him.

But I see you gave up on trying to get my attention via Private Message. That was silly, wasn't it? Projection?

[mikeysnot]

95. No battle, you lost.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=276649

[ehrnst]

96. Lol.

[mikeysnot]

97. IDFSFY

[ehrnst]

98. lol.

[mikeysnot]

99. ...

...

[ehrnst]

100. ...

[mikeysnot]

101. I post nothing and you still reply... sad

That just substantiates everything I already knew.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=272814

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12456099

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=276697

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=272812

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=276743

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=271043

[ehrnst]

102. Sad...

TAGur IT

[mikeysnot]

103. sad, still coming back for more.

?content-type=image%2Fjpeg

[ehrnst]

107. SGPMAYTYYRS

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2019, 10:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Still not working.... harassment, stalking and intimidating won't make me lose my temper. Your need for attention is getting in the way of learning when something isn't working.

[mikeysnot]

111. YASFOSYEAB

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=282092

[ehrnst]

112. Somebody is very very very unhappy

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2019, 11:11 AM - Edit history (5)

that the fish aren't biting, you're not going to scare, intimidate, bait or needle me into losing my temper with continued stalking me around DU, to the point of PM'ing me.

Give it up.

[ehrnst]

117. Like clockwork.... Project much?

No nibbles and yet you still keep baiting, don't you.

See ya soon. You crave the attention, and are under the delusion you're going to stalk and needle me into getting me to lose my temper.

Sending me a creepy message backfired, and you still didn't learn, did you? You continue to stalk and harass.

[MythosMaster]

119. Took em to the

Woodshed you did.

[Joe941]

76. Bernie nailed it again! It's absolutely amazing how he continues to nail each and every issue.

[ehrnst]

77. To be fair, Hillary pulled him to the left on this.

I hope he's properly grateful.

[Joe941]

78. I don't mind that he takes policies from others if they are the right policies.

He should even give credit when he does so.

[ehrnst]

79. I don't foresee an acknowledgement forthcoming.

Ive never heard him say anything that might indicate that he has ever changed position even an inch, or that he was ever mistaken on anything ever.

[mikeysnot]

104. Wow

[ehrnst]

106. Following me around DU?

I'm flattered, but really.... this is getting to be a bit much.



https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=276746

[mikeysnot]

110. Same thread, just saying...

nice projection btw... coming from someone that responded to nothing you are digging a deeper hole. Keep posting the same thing over and over and over again like it is going to matter.

And if you respond to this it just proves my point.

[ehrnst]

113. Somebody is very put out....

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2019, 10:29 AM - Edit history (6)

The fish aren't biting, Hon, no matter how much you stalk me around DU and try to harass me via PM.



https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=276746

Or, as you put it, "keep posting the same thing over and over and over again like it is going to matter."

[mikeysnot]

116. my message rang a bell didn't it.

seeing that you keep responding with my material.

Desperation.

You're "I know you are but what am I " is getting old.

old. stale. lame.

[ehrnst]

118. "old. stale. lame."

Projection, Hon.

See ya soon, I'm sure, because you crave the attention, and hope to get me to lose my temper.




You should have learned better when the creepy intimidation by messaging tactic backfired on you...

[CTyankee]

105. SEND A CHECK TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD!

Funding your local PP can do more to empower women in your community/state/region than any other organization, IMHO.

At PP centers, women make up their own minds about their reproductive systems!

[ehrnst]

108. You know what would be great?

Donate in Senator Sanders name.

[CTyankee]

109. I'll bet some folks are!

[Hortensis]

114. This OP reminds: We must never support leaders unquestioningly.

Leave that to Trump's followers.

[Arkansas Granny]

122. You can make automatic monthly donations, as well.