Aren’t O’Reilly’s opinions occasionally used as the basis for Fox’s news reporting in a quite-obviously coordinated effort? O’Reilly says “Trump should challenge Democrats on excessive wheelchair-ramp spending”, the pundits present this as “people are saying Trump should challenge Democrats on excessive wheelchair-ramp spending”, and the news reporters eventually say “Democrats have so far failed to comment on challenges to excessive wheelchair-ramp spending”.
In other words, the “opinion” parts of Fox and the “news” parts of Fox are not operating independently, so if the former is based on lies and exaggeration, the latter will also be affected.
Assuming you meant “doesn’t” there, you may be correct in what he presents, he does not present facts, but opinions, but Fox does care that the viewership takes his opinions as fact.
Thanks for the primer on the SDMB. I’ve only been around for a year or so now. :rolleyes:
When I quote general knowledge (with which even Bricker agrees), you can come up with all the straw men you want about how I’m not properly supporting a point. It doesn’t matter.
Tellyawhat. When Shodan actually substantiates his knowledge about ‘the base,’ I’ll give you a cite. Until then, point your straw men somewhere else.
Philosophical (or legal) burden of proof have nothing to do with the rules of debate.
But fine. Then I say that Shodan’s implication that he knows the ‘base’s’ attitude concerning Garland is wrong. Now I’ve said ‘no,’ so he has a burden of proof.
If you dont think that the “Base” isnt reasonably represented by their own elected representatives, then I cant help you. Perfect example of goalpost moving.
That’s ridiculously overly simplistic. “The base” is generally meant to mean the folks solidly in support of the party. But it’s not just “the base” that votes in elections, so our elected officials may or may not be representative of “the base”, depending on the particular circumstances of that election. Even if a given elected official is pretty well aligned with “the base”, there is no guarantee that he or she will be perfectly align with “the base”-- that is aligned on all issues. And then further, you are looking at a handful of Senators. “The base” in one state may not align with “the base” in another state.
I can understand why a short-cut is attractive, but in the debate game you don’t get to use them. If you can’t back up your claim, then don’t make it.
Worth noting, too, that the elected officials most likely to support nominees from the other party tend to be those with the most crossover appeal and least aligned with “the base”.
Yeah, I’m sorry but Garland was a “compromise nominee”. That means he’s more or less acceptable to Republican politicians but not necessarily to the “base”. 95% of the base probably never heard of him before last year let alone found him acceptable.
RFRA didn’t amend the First Amendment, and you know it. It interprets federal statutory and administrative law. It does not apply, for example, to the states.
I don’t see your point. You said that some corporations have rights that others don’t, namely the right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs. To support that, you point to language that suggests that publicly traded corporations are unlikely to have religious beliefs. That is (I gather you’re saying), “persons” with religious beliefs have extra rights in the free exercise thereof.
Politicians often need to establish more moderate personas than the more hardline base would support. Elected officials will often trend towards more centrist positions than their base would prefer.
But that, still, is not goalpost moving, although it does suggest that you never understood the initial claim.
And of course, your second paragraph ignores the fact that Shodan’s comment did not arise as original argument, but in response to a claim that the base’s attitude was favorable towards Garland.
You cannot transform the burden of proof by denying his denial.
Can you explain where, and how, you studied debate?