White House Isn't Paying Attention to Americans Getting Their Retirement Plans Wiped Out

I think it’s overrated yes but honestly? Why go through the effort when I can point out the problem with the OPs sources?

 

Because if you knew anything about the stock market, you wouldn't be questioning the source. The market has been in deep red for a while. Peoples 401K's are tanking fast. And yet you're questioning the source? It's reality. If you don't know a thing about the market or you don't follow it, then don't comment attacking the source.

 

I will question the source because it directly bares on anything the OP has to say.

 

So you doubt the truth about the stock market crashing? It's all made up in the OP?

 

Pretty much yeah as according to the OP until the OP comes up with a better source.

 

So unless the OP can prove the stock markets are doing badly, then it's not true.... according to you?

Are you aware of the world around you or your country's economy? I'm going to say 100% no. This is like doubting inflation exists.

 

You aren't questioning the source at all - that would involve reading it and refuting it point by point. You're just trolling.

But okay then - @Zorro in post #64 linked THIS article. You wanna be a fundamentalist regarding FOX, go ahead - now there's another article. Debate that one.

 

Reread what I claimed.

I don’t have to question it because I know it’s a bad source on the top of my head. I’ve had to teach what acceptable sources are for like 2 years now and town hall is not a good source. As for why I am not refuting it point by point by point? Because that’s a not good way of dealing with bad sources. It’s engaging with misinformation. The better thing to do is to call it out as a bad source, and have the OP fix the problem.

As for the last point? Zorro didn’t make the thread. I want the OP to do it. The OP made a mess, and so the OP must clean it up.

 

Maybe not pump trillions of dollars into a booming economy? Maybe not strangle US oil production and then beg tyrants and communists to give us oil; Maybe not threaten to increase taxes on the most productive segments of our economy because they're "not paying their fair share" (technically true - they're paying far more than a fair share. Just a few thoughts.

 

LOLOLOLOL.....YOU don't even know what a source is. The source is where the information comes from. The information isn't coming from Town Hall, it's the actual stock market data. I didn't know it was possible to be so clueless about what a source is.

You're trolling. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the OP. You just can't refute anything so you immediately resort to what amounts to personal attacks against the OP.

Also, I've never seen you call out somebody for using CNN as a source when it doesn't get any more biased and unreliable as them. So not only are you trolling this topic, you're also putting on display an impressive level of hypocrisy.

 

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to (self) Authority. Not flying. Prove it wrong or just admit you can't. I'm going with the latter.

That's EXACTLY the way you deal with a bad source - prove it wrong. You are unwilling to do so and we all see and know it.

Laughable assertation. The entire forum needs to acquiesce to YOUR definitions of sources and debate? Suuuu-u-uuure.

 

uhhh… I can do that… if I am an expert on the topic or at the very least know enough about how the research process goes. Which I do. Because I asked my local library. And a librarian helped me develop my standards. Not quoting myself here. Now if you want to know my standards you can ask. Otherwise keep wondering why students ask “wait Wikipedia isn’t a good source?”

Or defend theirs. Which the OP has been unable to do.

 

Your responses are getting bizarre. All this BS and yet you still are clueless about what's going on with the stock market and economy and refuse to educate yourself.

 

You just keep going on about how you won't.

You're trolling. It's boring.

Get a better argument, Krane.

 

Because they are immaterial.

In all honesty, I don't know a single person that thinks LESS pollution is a bad idea.

I like photovoltaic technology even tidal and wind.

I just have a problem with the concept of destroying economies or forcing mandates.

We simply need to be logical and approach the transition and progress without panic or poor choices.

 

The government can't do anything about the stock market or fixing a weak economy either. The only thing government can do to help the economy is to stop spending money into existence. That causes inflation and we could do with less of it.

 

Try again.

1.It’s Kranes.
2. I don’t have the burden of evidence. The OP does. You don’t have to like it. But if I’m saying the OP has to defend their source because it’s a bad source, it’s probably a bad source. I mean do you even know what makes a good source a good source?
3. If it’s trolling then report. Go on. Do it.

 

I can. Sure.

You don't like the source - but you simply say it doesn't meet your standards because YOU don't like it. You haven't actually read the OP to signify WHY it doesn't meet your standards, you simply declare it unfit for you. Logical fallacy - Appeal to (your) authority. But you can't prove that the article has any inaccuracies, you just say it's wrong without any proof. We're simply to trust you that the source fails. Why? Because you say the source fails. Circular logic. You won't prove the source wrong because you don't like the source. Why? Because you say so. Therefore it's back to "Get a better source." Appeal to your own Authority AND Circular Logic.

You've failed to prove anything because you don't WANT to prove anything, you just wanna complain. Why would I even want to report you when deconstructing your own posts is so much more satisfying? I want the forum to see your posts.

 

... Well that's just a dumb argument that immediately goes in the face of the OP. The OP by your logic is also appealing to the authority of the source with no qualifications for why the source should be trusted other than the OP's own biases. Why is the source good? Because OP said so. Why does OP think the source is good? The source is good. So by your logic, the OP is a fallacy, or at the very least relying on one because the OP did not qualify the source. Now as for my standards? The part you conveniently left out before? My standards are pretty simple. The same research standards any library in the country would have for identifying whether a source is lying or not. Which is really just common sense practices. Like asking "does the source have a bias", or "do they slant the news towards a political position", or any basic common sense question that goes into basic information literacy? It's so common sense why do I have to explain that? Any reasonable poster should be able to practice those ideas.

The fact you are saying I am "appealing to my authority" when my "authority" is basic information literacy, says a lot about the average conservative on PF and how little they understand the basic concept information literacy.

 

The OP is neither good nor bad until someone either proves it right or wrong using something called debate and discussion. You do neither but condemn the OP because it doesn't meet your standards, then refuse to point out why it is wrong in any detail save that you don't like the source. Well, why exactly IS it wrong, even when it says the economy and 401k's are tanking and you don't even agree with that when everyone else knows it's happening? Because you don't like the source, even when anyone with a set of eyes can see that's exactly what is happening? That's denial.

Whatever slants left.

Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy in which - well, the first example I found online was "1. A commercial claims that a specific brand of cereal is the best way to start the day because athlete Michael Jordan says that it is what he eats every day for breakfast." Here's what you're doing: The source is void because it comes from FOX. Get a better example because Krane says so, not because anything within the OP itself was proven to be wrong by you. Appeal to (self-)Authority.

Ah, I remember you saying awhile back that you were upset posters vilified groups such as the left just as you are now to the right. Again, keep doing so. When you post about how posters generalize such as you are, I'll have your quotes ready to keep deconstructing your future posts. I'm unsure if you're trying to push buttons or suchlike in order to try to get me to report you - it's not working here. Sorry.

 

Which before any discussion can happen a firm foundation must be established first. You cannot talk about anything without a firm foundation.

Prove it. Go on. Prove it. Because that’s not what the appeal to authority says as a logical fallacy. I’m not making a deductive argument. I’m making an inductive one. The fallacy is:

P1. What Michael Jordan says is true.
P2. Michael Jordan says some brand of cereal is the best.
Con: it’s the best brand of cereal.

It’s a fallacy because the authority can be wrong but deductively since the conclusion can’t be false if the premises are true, leads to the fallacy. More importantly Michael Jordan hasn’t been qualified as an expert. But I’m not making that claim. The claim I’m making is the following:

P1: Kranes56 has some qualifications for determining the quality of the source (talked to librarian and employed a common sense test)
P2: Kranes56 determined the source is bad by using the skills taught to her.
Sc1: In Kranes56 expert opinion, the source is likely to have lied and is a bad source (this is the inductive claim).
P3: Let’s assume Better sources say the same thing without the shortcomings (can be qualified with another argument but let’s assume).
P4:If there are better sources, then the OP must use the better source.
Conclusion: The OP must use a better source.

Now if this confuses you let me know. Because it’s pretty obvious you don’t have a leg to stand on here. The test I’m citing is literally a common sense test asking basic questions. I’m presuming any poster can utilize said test. If this is an “appeal to authority” for you, that’s saying something. More importantly it’s not just you. It’s 5+ posters who are saying the same thing. Now if you need me to go over the common sense test that’s a different claim. But judging from the posters and you who have selectively chosen to respond to pieces of my argument can’t recognize that? I don’t think you guys can handle basic information literacy.

And nothing you have said has made me think the conservatives on this thread can.

 

It's all about the right-wing crying for government help when their stock market investments take a turn for the worst, but just remember that they were first in line demanding that the government shove Social Security and give them their money back so that they can invest it. Invest it and watch as their investments tumble their fortune to zero worth, nothing left!

 

You are 100% wrong. The only thing conservatives have going for them on this issue is Joe Biden being so ancient that he thinks $10K is a lot of help. At this point he is better off doing nothing than only doing $10K

 

So you think quoting Trump's FY 2021 budget is immaterial to government spending? And since you wanted me to take a look at the makeup of Congress during these times, I saw this.

• FY 2021: $1.5 trillion
• FY 2020: $4.2 trillion
• FY 2019: $1.2 trillion----->Repubs control both chambers
  
• FY 2018: $1.3 trillion----->Repubs control both chambers

Well, that's shocking isn't it. Repubs spent as much money as dems even though they controlled both chambers.

 

You are yet another one that is clueless as to how the stock market works. The stock market reacts to what is happening in the economy. It reacts to decision the gov't makes, mostly from the Fed. When Jerome Powell speaks, you can literally watch the markets move immediately based on what he is saying. So when inflation is becoming dangerously high, the stock market reacts and reacts to the fed increasing rates because that will slow down the economy.

So the markets are not wanting government "help" as you claim, but rather the gov't to make good decisions that will help the economy which in turns helps the stock market. The stock market is a sign of how the economy is doing, and right now it's bad.