Summations Only

Not that it would ever make any difference, because at the end of the day GOP senators will just go ahead and vote against the truth.For example, in the impeachment trial a number of GOP senators (eg, John Kennedy from Louisiana) admitted that the Democrats had made their case and admitted that Trump obviously did commit those crimes, but at the end of the day all but one of them voted against the truth and for acquittal.Now within the past few days I heard that Barr is proceeding with his "investigating the investigators" sham. Whether he can actually prove his conspiracy theory or even can bring it to that point doesn't matter, but the goal is to create the mere appearance of wrong-doing. The same as what Trump was trying to do when he was pressuring Pres. Zelensky to merely announce publically on TV an investigation of Biden -- there was never any expectation of any actual investigation, since all Trump wanted was the public image that announcement would give him against Biden.Personally, in the upcoming Trump Crimes Commission(s), I want to see a ground rule that Trump and his convicted cronies be required to pay all legal and investigation expenses.

I think Trump's a buffoon, too.But this could just as easily be written as:

quote:

---

All countries are constantly oscillating between fighting the virus and reopening the country, and these two simple points explain why:

• If the country reopens more people will get sick and more people will die, killing many people.
• If the country does not reopen the economy will tank, many will go without money/food and an increase in things like riots/theft, killing many people.

---

So - which should we do?Destroy many lives by letting the virus run rampant?
or
Destroy many lives by letting those unable to get government support perish?I think all countries are fighting this same battle, and all are coming to the same conclusion:
-the measures in place must be held for as long as possible (according to economic conditions.)
-as the economy demands it (before too many die from inability to obtain money/food)... they must re-open the economy, slowly
-try to play a balance as much as possible between opening up the economy and keeping the virus-related-issues as minimized as possibleThere will be deaths.
Many from the virus.
Many from families unable to get food/money from government support (have you seen the line outside government buildings lately??)The idea is to attempt to minimize both as best as possible for everyone... so that the largest number of people can survive through this.Choosing "the virus is the most important thing! We mush keep the economy shut off for years until this is taken care of!!" is just as silly, and deadly, as "the economy is the most important thing! We must open the economy fully tomorrow and let the virus run rampant!!"It must be a combination of both - because there is no answer to this where "everyone lives" and "everyone is safe" - there is simply no country, anywhere, that is in a position to do this.If you read behind the political bullshit - you can see that this is exactly what all countries are doing, as well...
All countries have a plan to "open up the economy soon.. with a very careful throttle... not all at once... relaxing restrictions in a very controlled manner."Not all countries have Trump as a leader.
So why are they all planning the same (basic) thing?Because they have to.For finer points - I think you're absolutely correct. Trump can certainly be doing "better."
But you don't seem to be going for "better" - you seem to be going for the extreme position on the other side (keeping everything shut at all costs until the virus is fully eradicated.) This isn't possible/safe in itself - and the economy needs a plan for re-opening, slowly as such a solution is (in a practical sense) too far away to be helpful.Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

I agree. It will have to be a combination of both. Indeed. If we cause a Great Depression with 30+% unemployment, our financial system will likely be the next great bubble to implode. One cannot simply create two trillion dollars out of thin air and then follow it up with another 400 billion stimulus relief package. The conspiracy theorist in me suggests that some leaders know darn well what is going to happen. The real question is if we are obligated to save the global economy at the possible cost of a few lost lives. Where is the cutoff point?Edited by Phat, : added comment

Cutoff point? How about one? You want to volunteer?

Are you saying then that if even one life were saved it would be worth trashing the entire global economy?

Again, will you volunteer to be dead for the sake of the economy?

if it meant that my sacriifice would save the global economy then yes.I wouldnt just do it to save the whales tho

How many US soldiers died during the Vietnam War?How many US citizens died in the last two months that we know were covid-19 deaths?

Your voluntary sacrifice wouldn't even be noticed by those collecting the rent. The bigger problem is that neither will the sacrifices of the thousands more that will be expected to die without any such choice.

Ars Technica reports that the head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority has been moved sideways into a lesser role.The man, Rick Bright alleges that this is because he did his job in promoting measures known to be effective over others, such as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (which now appear to be ineffective despite the anecdotal reports - and they have dangerous side effects). Legal action has begun.Replacing a key official at a time of crisis is always a questionable move. If it was done because he opposed one of Trump’s pet ideas, it’s another sign of the dysfunction in the a Trump administration.

You get to a point with Trump where you entirely expect deep and ingrained stupidity - but then he lowers the bar yet further.I mean, ingesting disinfectant is bad enough - and I presume it’s the same in the States as it is here, that there are warning signs on the bottles telling you not to do it and to take your baby to A&E if they accidentally do it. But injecting it into the blood stream ???I await with resigned depression the first report of someone giving it a go.

I've suggested on Facebook that perhaps Trump is working on an insanity defense for the inevitable Trump Crimes Commission proceedings.

I think it's a brilliant idea and needs to be tested. The genius only needs to test it on himself to become an international hero and go down in history. I'll send him a bottle. Will a litre be enough?