Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3936 of 4573 (876391)
05-18-2020 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3930 by marc9000
05-17-2020 5:09 PM


Re: Maybe a little planning is called for?
marc9000 writes:
marc9000 writes:
Reopening the economy isn't only good for his reelection, the country's survival depends on it.
Of course. How and how fast?
No one knows, decisions have to be made day to day, by dozens of people, Trump, governors, the task force etc.
This is the right answer, except for where you say that no one knows. We of course don't know what specific actions to take in advance, but you make clear that we do know the process we have to follow, one involving many decisions by many people reacting as circumstances evolve. In a general sense we can say that wherever the contagion ebbs we can continue reopening, and where it waxes we have to shut things down more.
But it's more complicated than that because any plan has to incorporate the fact that people are mobile. A person from a coronavrius-free county out in the Illinois countryside (e.g., Knox County, 0 cases, 0 deaths) can travel to Chicago, walk around without a mask, then go back home and attend the town picnic the following weekend. These kinds of vectors complicate attempts at faster reopenings in those counties that are little affected.
marc9000 writes:
I know the left wants it closed as long as possible,...
You're making things up again. I'm sure everyone with a sense of humanity wants the country reopened as safely and as quickly as possible.
You're accusing me of making things up a lot lately, but what I'm doing is stating my political point of view.
In that case you have a factually baseless political point of view, one the right has invented in order to cast aspersions at the other side rather than to accurately communicate their opponent's positions. It's a point of view the right wants their constituents to accept because it will increase division and hatred between the two sides and make mutual understanding unlikely. It's harder to hate the other side when you only believe true things about them.
When the news media launched into their Trump attacks at the beginning of all this,...
What you call attacks are just the news media reporting on what Trump was doing right out in the open.
...their sense of humanity as usual, takes a back seat to "GET TRUMP OUT OF OFFICE ASAP".
Honest reporting by the news media should be admired while Trump's disregard for human life should be despised. You and millions of others have a blind spot the size of Kansas when it comes to Trump. It's a puzzlement.
At the beginning it was "oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy, maybe we can use THIS to get him, since all our past efforts have failed so miserably."
The actual reaction of most people on the left to Trump's many shenanigans was a feeling of disbelief. The specifics of that feeling varied according to what Trump did. Sometimes it would be, "I can't believe he said something so racist," other times, "I can't believe he said something so ignorant," other times, "I can't believe he said something so misogynistic," other times, "I can't believe he said something so xenophobic," other times, "I can't believe he did something so impeachable," and so forth.
You're making things up again.
Look at how Trump is yanking you around. When he closed the country, which was the right thing to do even though belated, you thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and claimed it demonstrated how much Trump cared about people.
WHERE DID I SAY THAT? I just double checked my previous posts, not there, not even close. Now it's clear who is making things up.
In Message 3908 you were just commenting that Obama didn't shut down the country in 2009 but Trump did. That appeared to be saying that Trump's a better president than Obama because he was willing to shut down the country in the face of a pandemic.
But since you object then I must have misinterpreted you. Are you saying Trump was wrong to shut down the country?
Concerning made up stuff, the reason you end up introducing so much made up stuff is because you use an approach guaranteed to fixate on false information. You either get an idea or hear something from a right wing outlet, then you seek confirmation on the Internet where one can literally find anything being said, and when you find someone somewhere saying what you want to hear then that confirms it for you, regardless of source or factual support or consistency with other information or even whether it makes any sense.
The big false belief of the right, which also makes no sense, is that liberals are evil purveyors of lies trying to fill the country with criminal illegal immigrants, put as many people on welfare as possible, hamstring the national defense, send jobs overseas, promote a false climate crisis, and stifle business, and that's not even a complete list. It would be nice if the politicians could have an honest debate, but any attempt quickly devolves into accusations.
Liberals, independents, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, communists and those of all other political persuasions are just people. You have to stop demonizing those you disagree with. Instead seek out facts and discuss those.
Now two months later where nothing has changed regarding testing, contact tracing or vaccines Trump wants to reopen the country, and you think this, too, is the greatest thing since sliced bread. How is the danger of again releasing the pandemic any less now than in March? What is changing your mind besides that it's Trump's latest whim?
In March, it still wasn't clear if this was going to spiral into something as bad as what happened in 1918,...
This would be incorrect. By March it had already spiraled into a pandemic in China and was spinning out of control in Italy and Spain. On January 23 and 28 Trump was warned of the pandemic threat in intelligence briefings, and more frequently during February.
It's more important to open the economy now than it was in March because the length of the shutdown is having increasingly worse effects on the economy.
This is a good point. The longer the economy is shut down the worse it will get and the more difficult the recovery, and therefore the more urgent it becomes to reopen the economy. At some point it must overwhelm the desire to save lives, perhaps has even reached that point already. This is important for those in charge to discuss, as opposed to playing blame games like whether to call it the China Virus or making false declarations like that the virus will go away without a vaccine, and so forth.
It's not possible to follow this chain of aspersion and illogic except for the last bit, which should make you happy since you believe the House bill will eventually push people toward Trump.
I never said the House bill would push people towards Trump, until AFTER the U.S. was completely wrecked and turned into a communist country.
I'm pretty sure your "until AFTER" is covered by my "eventually."
I said "the House wants three more trillion to try to keep as many people idle as possible until November." To print and borrow more money, to be frittered away on drugs and beer and lottery tickets by the idle, calculated by the Democrats to be gone by about November, hoping for a depression rivaling or worse than what we had in 1934. Though they know that in the 30's, the people decided to stay the course with the same president, rather than risk a change to someone else who could mess things up even more. They no doubt think their control of the mainstream media could make a difference now.
You're sort of all over the place here. I'll just comment that none of this has any factual support.
marc9000 writes:
As you don't seem to care about children of the unemployed going hungry, about families going bankrupt, about small business owners losing everything, about people losing their life savings.
Are you forgetting the House bill you seem so dead set against?
Temporary band aids can't replace the normal economic activity of the voluntary exchange of products and services.
Nobody said that it did, but shouldn't the government be helping people in need while the economy is restarting?
You seem ignorant of a great deal, and you're making things up again. Public health is not an invention of modern Democrats. Public health goes way back. See, for example, the Public Health Act of 1848. How could you not know that public health has been around for a long time? Are you just saying whatever is expedient that pops into your head?
The Public Health Act of 1848 happened in England, not the U.S. Government involvement in public health has not been around for a long time in the U.S.
Whoops, I had multiple webpages open. I meant United States Public Health Service - Wikipedia, its roots tracing back to around 1800, and its modern beginnings tracing back to 1889. The Surgeon General job goes back to 1870.
Sorry, Marc, public health goes way, way back. It is not an invention of modern Democrats. Where did you ever pick up such a weird idea? Here's a 1918 quarantine notice from a state board of health:
As I've told you many times, I don't watch TV news:
Yes that's painfully obvious, that really is one of the reasons I post here, so you have at least some clue on what's going on in mainstream America, so you won't be quite so shocked at some starting points for NY Times and WaPo tirades that you do monitor.
Now you're making no sense. You were pushing ABC World News tonight, which if it's touting the same news as its webpage at ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News, Headlines & Videos - ABC News then it's saying pretty much the same thing as the New York Times and Washington Post.
And are you truly condemning people who don't watch TV news? Are you nuts? One can absorb the written word far faster and in much greater detail than the spoken word. In reading print (at home) and audio (in the car) books, I'd estimate I get through a written book in about half the time of an audio book.
What does it matter where you get your news, anyway, as long as its a legitimate news outlet? "Barr says criminal probe of Obama, Biden unlikely", "China announces aid package at WHO conference", "Trump names new DEA head," they're all reporting the same thing.
If when I cite the New York Times or Washington Post you find errors of fact you let me know right away. Stop making unsupported and unspecified claims of bias and error.
There should never be a time when the only way people can figure out what your argument is is to visit a link or watch a video. Use your words. Your own words.
Going with false accusations again, I see. The link I cited calls it an opinion piece. I myself called it an opinion piece. I said the data it cited were preliminary. You'd be better served finding facts supporting your position instead of repeatedly making unfounded personal attacks.
But you didn't use your words. Your own words. The forum rules make no reference to opinion pieces.
You're making no sense, so I'll just repeat my point. The Forum Guidelines say to make points in your own words and to use links as references. The Forum Guidelines have been around longer than you've been here. Please follow them.
If you check the Forum Guidelines it says nothing about the length of the link, nor is there any hotness criteria. Again, bring the information into the thread and make your argument. Links are for reference, not for you to hand out reading and viewing assignments.
Like you did in Message 3901?
Yes, precisely like I did in Message 3901. The post was informational. I provided a link and briefly described it's content. Here that message in its entirety:
quote:
Opinion | America’s True Covid Toll Already Exceeds 100,000 - The New York Times is a New York Times opinion piece that explains how the current 83,000 dead is an undercount. Its count derives from comparisons with deaths over the same period in prior years, i.e., excess deaths. The data and results are preliminary.
We could discuss how they derived their numbers in as much detail as anyone's interests dictate. If you'd like to do that then I'd be happy to bring more detail into the thread so we could discuss it, though that discussion might be better suited for the Coronavirus and Pandemics thread.
But that's the end of my argument on that.
It would be nice to see you give up your other baseless arguments, too.
I showed a print link just for you that you didn't address, here it is again. It showed, in print form, how Attkisson described how, among other things, her boss told her not to upset their corrupt business interests.
Where in the article does the word "corrupt" appear? Did you maybe mean to link to Ex-CBS reporter’s book reveals how liberal media protects Obama? At least a form of the word "corrupt" appears in that article. If that's the one, though, then it doesn't contain any reference to "corrupt business interests." Are you perhaps thinking of where it refers to "corporate partners?"
I'm asking these clarifications because you brought no information from the article into the thread, at least none I could track down. That's one of the reasons for that rule in the Forum Guidelines, that it can frequently be difficult to figure what part of a link supports the argument of the person who cited it. But the main reason for that rule is to prevent people from doing link dumps or linking to articles they don't understand or trying to debate by link.
A good argument can be made that there is no unbiased news coverage anymore, it's all politicized.
Every time you've been asked to support your contentions about biased news coverage you've failed. You're welcome to try again.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3930 by marc9000, posted 05-17-2020 5:09 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3955 by marc9000, posted 05-24-2020 9:32 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3937 of 4573 (876394)
05-18-2020 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3931 by marc9000
05-17-2020 5:41 PM


Re: Maybe a little planning is called for?
marc9000 writes:
marc9000 writes:
And you believe a NY Times opinion piece is less biased than is RedState?
I never said anything like that, but now that you bring it up why don't we compare the number of Pulitzers each has won.
I'd be terrified to do that, since there's evidence that the awarding of Pulitzers is heavily liberally biased.
Honest reporting and commentary gets rewarded, but the point of my question was how you're judging the credibility of RedState. It's not even a news outlet, just a blog. The Internet has far more crap than quality. If you want a portion of my time point me at known quality and accuracy.
Are you arguing against trying to prevent any deaths, or only coronavirus deaths.
All deaths.
You're arguing against trying to prevent all deaths? Are you nuts?
There is a ripple effect that goes all through the economy that can hinder many things that contribute to all deaths. Unemployment / business destruction can lead to more suicides, supply chains can be disrupted that serve hospitals. It goes on and on, when the economy is even partially closed, in violation of the first amendment.
This is mostly unintelligible, but I'd love to see it explained how shutting down businesses in the name of public health violates the First Amendment.
It is usually stated, or implied when questionable intrusions on the Constitution happen, that the founders couldn't possibly have foreseen the complications / circumstances of this ever complex society of today. The problem is, the founders knew plenty about the possibilities of viruses and pandemics,...
I'd love to see it explained how the founders knew about viruses more than a hundred years before they were discovered.
...yet nowhere in the founding documents is anything stated concerning alterations to the Constitution concerning them.
So you think federal, state and local governments are acting unconstitutionally when they take measures to protect public health? I'd love to see this explained, too.
Without prophylactic measures, including the closing of some businesses, the health care system will be overwhelmed resulting in both coronavirus deaths and collateral deaths due to unavailability of sufficient health care resources. Deaths would exceed at least a couple million.
That can be projected both ways, the mandated closing of some businesses for a long period of time, resulting eventually in a depression rivaling the 1930's could increase numbers of deaths in many ways, suicide, civil unrest as only two of many examples.
You could argue it, but not successfully. According to Suicide and the Economy - The Atlantic, every 1 percent increase in unemployment causes a 1 percent increase in the number of suicides. If the unemployment rate rises 30% it would cause around 15,000 more deaths. The novel coronavirus has already killed 90,000.
I'm curious about one thing. Why do you use the TDR acronym for Trump derangement syndrome - Wikipedia?
TDR indicates a change from when most U.S. citizens, while politically divided, cared about the good of the country.
That doesn't answer the question. Why do you use the TDR acronym for Trump derangement syndrome - Wikipedia.
Now a significant number of Democrats are much more focused on Trump than they are the good of the country.
I think their focus on Trump is because of how bad he is for the country.
I re-read some of your opening posts of this thread from 3+ years ago, and they just don't seem nearly as vitriolic as your posts now.
I think the change is in urgency, not vitriol.
Now that Trump's had time to show what he can do, decrease government regulation, grow and preside over a really good economy, until recently at least.
It is true that Trump has decreased government regulation, but at the expense of employees, the environment and the public coffers. And we had a good economy for six straight years going into the Trump presidency.
I could elaborate more on TDR,...
Just telling us what the letters of your acronym stand for is all that's asked.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3931 by marc9000, posted 05-17-2020 5:41 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3956 by marc9000, posted 05-24-2020 10:04 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3941 of 4573 (876448)
05-20-2020 9:35 AM


Trump Doubles Down on Hydroxychloroquine
Trump just can't stand being contradicted or shown wrong, so now he's doubling down on hydroxychloroquine just because of the mounting evidence of its dangers and inefficacy. It's as bad as his sharpie-modified weather map.
First, it seems very unlikely that Trump is taking hydroxychloroquine. It's much more likely that it's his cockeyed way of doubling down on his original claim of how safe it is, that he's reacting to news about how it is not safe. It's possible there's another, "It was obvious I was joking," moment in our future. On the other hand, he's an impulsive guy - maybe the covid-19 cases among White House staff freaked him out.
Second, while the headline states that hydroxychloroquine has not been proven to prevent covid-19, that's not the relevant point. Prevention was never a medical claim about hydroxychloroquine. It's for relief of symptoms for those already infected.
Third, while there is evidence that hydroxychloroquine can provide relief of symptoms from SARS and MERS, there is little evidence that the same is true of covid-19. Initial studies have varied, some showing faster recoveries, some no benefit, and some increased mortality. This last is causing the FDA to consider removing it from its "compassionate use" classification.
Here's a little more hydroxychloroquine information.
The FDA approved emergency use (also known as compassionate use) for treatment of covid-19, not prevention, because it was thought possible that it might be helpful against symptoms in the same way it can be helpful against MERS and SARS, and that it's anti-autoimmune characteristics might help against cytokine storm responses where the body's own autoimmune system is revved into overdrive and attacks the very body it was intended to protect.
Hydroxychloroqine's approved use is for treatment of malaria and lupus. Malaria is caused by a parasite. Lupus is an autoimmune disease. Neither are viral. Study results of its use against the novel coronavirus vary, some finding faster recovery from symptoms, some finding no benefit, others finding increased mortality.
Hydroxychloroquine has mild antiviral characteristics against the novel coronavirus in vitro, but there is no evidence it is preventative in the human body. It is early days yet and it is not impossible that such evidence might yet emerge, but its dangerous side effects involving the heart can cause death. This is a drug that you take while under a hospital or a doctor's care because you have a condition such as lupus and malaria where its positive effects outweigh its negative. This is not true for the coronavirus.
People might find this link helpful: Access to this page has been denied.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 3942 by JonF, posted 05-20-2020 9:48 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3952 of 4573 (876589)
05-23-2020 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3947 by JonF
05-21-2020 7:26 PM


Re: Bait and switch
This is surprising. I read an article way well over a month ago about three approaches to cleaning masks, including the vapor phase hydrogen peroxide approach, and all methods had the problem that the masks could only endure a few cleaning cycles at most. I remember the article having actual pictures of the masks after three or four cycles. One approach left the masks a sodden mess. I figured, "That's the end of that, too bad."
And they all had the problem of greatly reducing the electrostatic properties of N95 masks, which is how they're able to trap tiny particles.
But no, the federal government funneled money to one of these businesses, and I think it would surprise no one if one or more of the business's owners has friends in the Trump administration.
Here at home we have a few N95 masks that we cycle through. We use one, then let it sit a few days to let possible live virus die before using it again. We don't go out a lot so our masks see little use, but it adds up and after a couple months our masks are still in great shape. My retired doctor friend who volunteered and has been resourced to the testing effort also uses this approach in his personal life. For testing he says they're always given new stuff (masks, booties, gloves) and freshly washed stuff (scrubs, face shield).
My wife got yelled at for not wearing a mask by someone while walking on a hiking trail yesterday. There seem to be varying opinions about whether vigorous walking is exercise or not. Most of the hiking trails around here are still closed, but not all of them. Hiking trails average maybe 6-8 feet wide? And they often narrow to just a few feet. Seems like maintaining a safe distance would often not be possible and that masks should be worn. But if you're the vigorous type of walker then a mask would be a breathing hinderance, so maybe they should close the rest of the trails. The streets around here are plenty wide for walking without a mask.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : face mask => face shield

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3947 by JonF, posted 05-21-2020 7:26 PM JonF has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 3958 of 4573 (876674)
05-25-2020 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 3953 by marc9000
05-24-2020 8:16 PM


Re: Maybe a little planning is called for?
marc9000 writes:
But being busy with other things can be perceived as weakness, and it seems to me that a person who is heavily involved in working and paying taxes and not drawing any kind of assistance would have a perspective of how the world works that would be noted by those who are more idle for whatever reason.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to be the easiest way to tell who knows how the world works and how it doesn't. Ask anyone the question, "Is the possibility of infection reduced by wearing a mask when out among people where social distancing cannot be maintained?" The correct answer to this question is obvious. Anyone who answers incorrectly does not know how at least one extremely important aspect of the world works.
Many more Republicans than Democrats give the incorrect answer to this question. The way people answer tends to divide along political lines, not whether they're employed or retired or on night shift or independently wealthy. For too many people what they believe about the real world is governed by their political beliefs or by which politicians they trust, and this kind of thinking is much more dominant in conservative than liberal circles. Do you think the idiot holding this sign is a conservative or a liberal (he was wise to make the sign big enough to hide behind):
My conservative views are very mainstream,...
To whatever degree this is true, the world imposes reality upon you regardless of political views.
Liberalism? Grow the government. Re-distribute earnings, "get even" with successful people. Jealousy, and that's an important term. So much compassion for the lower middle class in the U.S. today, but it's seldom mentioned that practically all U.S. citizens live like kings today compared to average people of 100 years ago. Those people didn't have jealousy problems, because the lifestyles of others weren't thrown in their faces like it is in today's technological age.
Another fact-free paragraph. It tells us a great deal about you and nothing about liberalism.
The reason Trump, (and to a lesser extent, Reagan) are hated so much today is because they've proven that limiting government unleashes prosperity for most citizens, whether they're well off or not.
Trump and Reagan are hated because they showed the way to wealth and prosperity? Really? Can you name a single person who hates Trump and/or Reagan because they made them better off but did it the "wrong way" by limiting government?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clarify last sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3953 by marc9000, posted 05-24-2020 8:16 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3959 of 4573 (876676)
05-25-2020 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3954 by marc9000
05-24-2020 8:28 PM


Re: Correct actions
marc9000 writes:
So by sending out hundreds of tweets in January, many in response to the impeachment circus, that means he wasn't distracted at all? Not very good logic.
You're right, the straw man you just invented is very poor logic. The actual argument that you insisted on misrepresenting was that if Trump had time to send thousands of tweets then he had time to address the viral threat.
Well, you have to give me credit for providing two links to back up my claims without making bare assertions, like the forum rule states. Whereas, you made bare assertions contradicting them with no supporting evidence.
You require links for common knowledge and recent widely heralded current events? Interesting. If you really need them then sure, just ask, but it's common knowledge and common sense that cloth masks are safe, and the law affecting Medicare compensation for covid-19 patients was part of the CARES act that passed in March.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3954 by marc9000, posted 05-24-2020 8:28 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3961 of 4573 (876684)
05-25-2020 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3955 by marc9000
05-24-2020 9:32 PM


Re: Maybe a little planning is called for?
marc9000 writes:
Percy writes:
You're making things up again. I'm sure everyone with a sense of humanity wants the country reopened as safely and as quickly as possible.
...
You're replying to what I said two messages ago? You already replied to this. Anyway, replying to your second response:
But those with a sense of Democrat loyalty, mostly atheists, mostly Trump haters,...
Let me reflect this back to you, but inverted so you can see how absurd and biased it sounds:
quote:
But those with a sense of Republican loyalty, mostly religious fanatics, mostly Obama haters,...
You'll come across more neutrally if you drop the emotionally charged and politicized accusations.
...know that keeping the country as restricted as possible keeps churches closed, and many churches are on thin financial ground. These restrictions also keep Trump from holding his (very successful) political rallies. This pandemic has been politicized much more by Democrats than Republicans.
This makes it seem like you think liberals are more likely than conservatives to accept the recommendations of science because it hurts churches and keeps Trump from holding his highly effective political rallies. That's very paranoid.
It's a point of view the right wants their constituents to accept because it will increase division and hatred between the two sides and make mutual understanding unlikely. It's harder to hate the other side when you only believe true things about them.
So you're accusing Republicans of "increasing division and hatred" more than Democrats? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one,...
Yes, we will have to disagree on that, because what you said is definitely not what I said. I responded to your accusation that the left wants to keep the country closed as long as possible, saying that I'm sure everyone with a sense of humanity wants the country reopened as safely and as quickly as possible. Why don't you respond to what I actually said instead of making things up. Again.
"NO, I"M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG", is what I always get from those on the left.
I don't know how to apply your smilie modifier, but I'd encourage you to emphasize fact-based arguments over name-calling and accusations.
What you call attacks are just the news media reporting on what Trump was doing right out in the open.
It's well documented that a huge percentage of mainstream journalists are very liberal, and vote for very liberal candidates.
This isn't true. Truth has neither a liberal nor conservative bias. Calling out lies made by someone of one political view has nothing to do with one's own political view, not if one is being honest. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace recently called out Trump's new press secretary Keyleigh McEnany for making false accusations against journalists who asked tough questions. Is Chris Wallace a liberal now?
The story begins, "A majority of American journalists identify themselves as political independents although among those who choose a side Democrats outnumber Republicans four to one, according to a new study of the media conducted by two Indiana University professors."
Also, you're drawing a false equivalence, that "Republican or Democrat (choose one)" equals "unable to conduct objective reporting." Each news story must be assessed on its own merits.
The actual reaction of most people on the left to Trump's many shenanigans was a feeling of disbelief. The specifics of that feeling varied according to what Trump did. Sometimes it would be, "I can't believe he said something so racist," other times, "I can't believe he said something so ignorant," other times, "I can't believe he said something so misogynistic," other times, "I can't believe he said something so xenophobic," other times, "I can't believe he did something so impeachable," and so forth.
Meanwhile, the economy is (was) good, and that's what people who work and pay taxes care most about.
Of course the economy is of primary importance to most people, but that doesn't erase Trump's racist, ignorant, misogynistic, xenophobic and crooked behavior.
Putting so much emphasis on Trump's words and personality is a clear sign that there is little knowledge or appreciation for the effort required to sustain the current U.S. society.
You mean the economy that Obama rebuilt and sustained for six years without being racist, ignorant, misogynistic, xenophobic and crooked?
Those on the left just seem to think the U.S. economy just coasts along, with no real effort involved.
You're making stuff up again.
Though I've seen little indication of it, I hope those on the left learned at least a little something recently - that it doesn't take much of a glitch, a little hoarding and panic buying, to leave some of the aisles in food stores bare of things like bath tissue for weeks on end, until suppliers can get a handle on it. The things so many take for granted don't happen automatically.
Do even you have any idea how this ties into your argument that the Trump economy means we should ignore everything else he does?
Are you saying Trump was wrong to shut down the country?
As it worked out, yes.
If that means what I think it means, are you nuts? The alternative was 2-3 million dead.
Trump, like most people, had no idea that the left would use it as a political attack.
The right thing to do for the country does not suddenly become the wrong thing to do just because it works against you politically. You're basically arguing that Trump should have sacrificed 2-3 million people in order to avoid being hurt politically.
And your reasoning is false, anyway, for two reasons. First, any political advantage the pandemic provides the Democrats stems from Trump's delayed, slow and ineffective response (there's still no federally driven effort on testing and contact tracing), and from his constant bumbling from the podium at the daily briefings (paraphrasing, "We have it under control," "Less than 60,000 deaths," "Hydroxychloroquine," "Bleach, disinfectant and light"). It doesn't stem from the shutdown's impact on the economy because Democrats have been largely in favor of the shutdown. And second, there would have been considerable political fallout from 2-3 million dead anyway.
That they would make every effort to keep it closed as long as possible to get the country to 1930's levels of depression or worse, to help achieve their political goals. Many liberals are passionate about keeping the economy closed as long as possible.
You are making things up again.
COVID-related arson believed cause of church fire in Mississippi - ABC News
quote:
Bet you stay at home now you hypokrits.
That's what a sign left at the scene of the fire. Not a representative of all liberals of course, but it is an indicator of strong feelings from the left concerning the re-opening of the economy, and churches.
I'm sure everyone from all positions on the political spectrum condemns the burning of churches.
Concerning made up stuff, the reason you end up introducing so much made up stuff is because you use an approach guaranteed to fixate on false information. You either get an idea or hear something from a right wing outlet, then you seek confirmation on the Internet where one can literally find anything being said, and when you find someone somewhere saying what you want to hear then that confirms it for you, regardless of source or factual support or consistency with other information or even whether it makes any sense.
All you need to do is replace "right wing outlet", with "left wing outlet", and you've described the left very well.
No, Marc, you can't dismiss it by making up more stuff. It was you who presented fictional assertions that wearing masks presented health risks. Your information came from a right-wing website that happened to write what you wanted to believe anyway. You didn't, and still don't, have any facts supporting this.
The big false belief of the right, which also makes no sense, is that liberals are evil purveyors of lies trying to fill the country with criminal illegal immigrants, put as many people on welfare as possible, hamstring the national defense, send jobs overseas, promote a false climate crisis, and stifle business, and that's not even a complete list. It would be nice if the politicians could have an honest debate, but any attempt quickly devolves into accusations.
That all makes perfect sense, because there is evidence for it. It goes along perfectly with growing the government at all costs.
No, Marc, none of it makes sense, because it is all made up. It's what you want to believe, not what the facts say. Instead of engaging in honest and fact-driven debate, it's easier to defeat the other side if you can get constituencies to distrust them by making up and disseminating ugly facts about them. This is the course you have chosen.
marc9000 writes:
In March, it still wasn't clear if this was going to spiral into something as bad as what happened in 1918,...
This would be incorrect. By March it had already spiraled into a pandemic in China and was spinning out of control in Italy and Spain. On January 23 and 28 Trump was warned of the pandemic threat in intelligence briefings, and more frequently during February.
During February, exactly when De Blasio and many other Democrats were downplaying the threat, ready to pounce if Trump took any action on it?
De Blasio, NYC Officials Downplayed COVID-19 Threat After Trump Restricted Travel To China. Here Are 5 Examples | The Daily Caller
So you're argument is that Trump was correct in delaying the shutdown of the country, despite that he was privy to information about the growing worldwide pandemic that was not available to mayors and governors and that he could have called them to Washington to brief them about, because it would have cost him politically? That seems like a strong argument that Trump is incompetent both managerially and politically.
This is important for those in charge to discuss, as opposed to playing blame games like whether to call it the China Virus or making false declarations like that the virus will go away without a vaccine, and so forth.
Calling it the China Virus is important, since that's where it came from.
Calling it the China virus is fine if geographic identification is the goal, but it's not. Trump is playing a political blame game. He's not calling it the China virus because it came out of China but because he wants to blame China. He both takes up and drops the "China virus" label according to whether he's angry with China that day or not.
It's a good basic truth to work with, in helping determine how to keep something like it from happening again.
No one's denying the history. SARS came out of China. Most novel strains of the annual flu virus come out of eastern Asia. The first cases of SARS-CoV-2 were in China, and science may eventually conclude it originated there, too. The geographic source is one thing, fault is another.
And maybe it was China's fault, but not because it originated in China, and certainly not because it was developed or escaped from a lab in China, but because China hid information about the initial outbreak.
marc9000 writes:
Temporary band aids can't replace the normal economic activity of the voluntary exchange of products and services.
Nobody said that it did, but shouldn't the government be helping people in need while the economy is restarting?
I don't consider the government "helping", when all it is doing is REDISTRIBUTING. "Help" involves giving from the "helper", not taking from others and redistributing. U.S. foundings and supporting quotes from its founders shows that they understood this.
The name you give it doesn't matter. What matters is that because of the loss of jobs more and more people are finding they can't buy food, pay their rent or mortgage, make their car payments, pay their utility bills, pay for medical insurance or medical care, and so forth. Shouldn't the government be helping them while the economy is recovering?
Sorry, Marc, public health goes way, way back. It is not an invention of modern Democrats. Where did you ever pick up such a weird idea? Here's a 1918 quarantine notice from a state board of health:
But what doesn't go way back is today's desire by the left to involve the government in unprecedented ways, like free health care for all, the destruction of some businesses in the name of health care, etc.
Now you're making stuff up again. You didn't say anything about free health care or the impact of health insurance requirements on business. You said that the idea of public health as a responsibility of government was an invention of modern Democrats. That was dead wrong and remains dead wrong.
Again, if you choose not to recognize the liberal bias in today's mainstream news reporting, I have nothing more to say on it.
You make this claim about news from the mainstream media over and over again but are never able to support it. Here are few New York Times news headlines from right now. Describe for us the liberal bias:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3955 by marc9000, posted 05-24-2020 9:32 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3962 of 4573 (876691)
05-25-2020 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 3956 by marc9000
05-24-2020 10:04 PM


Re: Maybe a little planning is called for?
marc9000 writes:
Honest reporting and commentary gets rewarded, but the point of my question was how you're judging the credibility of RedState. It's not even a news outlet, just a blog. The Internet has far more crap than quality. If you want a portion of my time point me at known quality and accuracy.
Like the NY Times and Washington Post? Known by whom?
Choose whatever source you like, Marc, as long as it has a reputation for quality and accuracy.
marc9000 writes:
There is a ripple effect that goes all through the economy that can hinder many things that contribute to all deaths. Unemployment / business destruction can lead to more suicides, supply chains can be disrupted that serve hospitals. It goes on and on, when the economy is even partially closed, in violation of the first amendment.
This is mostly unintelligible, but I'd love to see it explained how shutting down businesses in the name of public health violates the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I've bolded the relevant phrase. Interesting to me how we don't see much reference to "separation of church and state" these days, now that we have "state" issuing orders that churches have to close.
You're making stuff up again. No laws were passed by Congress regarding anything in the first amendment, and no churches were ordered to close.
What's true is that all non-essential businesses, organizations and public facilities were ordered to close, and reopening plans specify which can open by how much according to a timeline. There's no religious discrimination, and there's been very little restraint exerted on protest gatherings.
I'd love to see it explained how the founders knew about viruses more than a hundred years before they were discovered.
There was the black death of 1348, the great plague of 1665, as only two examples.
Gee, the science books will have to be rewritten, viruses were actually discovered hundreds of years ago.
Marc, get a clue. Mankind has been plagued by viruses throughout his time on this Earth, but we only discovered their existence a little over a hundred years ago.
The founders seemed to think they knew enough about history and human nature to set up a new type of government for a society. It's claimed by historians that they were educated men, I think it's safe to say they knew plenty about contagious diseases, and it's clear they made no provisions for special government takeovers if they happen.
Now you're changing your story. You didn't just claim the founders knew about contagious diseases. You claimed they also knew about viruses: "The founders knew plenty about the possibilities of viruses and pandemics..."
So you think federal, state and local governments are acting unconstitutionally when they take measures to protect public health? I'd love to see this explained, too.
When it takes away a clearly defined constitutional right, (to peaceably assemble), when it drastically re-distributes earnings, closes businesses, yes I think it's unconstitutional.
Is restricting gatherings to slow a pandemic a legitimate use of government power? In circumstances of this general nature the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is.
On a narrower plane, when the Board of Health closes a restaurant for violation of health regulations, is that a legitimate use of government power? Of course.
About social programs (you called it redistributing earnings), you'll have to explain how that's unconstitutional.
marc9000 writes:
That can be projected both ways, the mandated closing of some businesses for a long period of time, resulting eventually in a depression rivaling the 1930's could increase numbers of deaths in many ways, suicide, civil unrest as only two of many examples.
You could argue it, but not successfully. According to Suicide and the Economy, every 1 percent increase in unemployment causes a 1 percent increase in the number of suicides. If the unemployment rate rises 30% it would cause around 15,000 more deaths. The novel coronavirus has already killed 90,000.
It could be argued very successfully if all the other death potential, including more than just suicide, is taken into consideration.
Basically you're saying, "I'm not going to actually argue it, I'm just going to assert that if I did argue it I would win." I urge you to go ahead and argue it. Concerning civil unrest, no one was killed in the 1968 Democratic Convention riots. 13 were killed in the 1968 Washington riots. 34 were killed in the Watts riots. Just what kind of civil unrest are you imagining that is going to kill hundreds of thousands of people?
And what are these other causes that you are imagining will kill hundreds of thousands of people? You don't mention any, you just return to the excess deaths from unemployment argument that I just explained:
quote:
These are facts based on past experience, not models. If unemployment hits 32 percent, some 77,000 Americans are likely to die from suicide and drug overdoses as a result of layoffs. Deaths of despair.
Then add the predictable deaths from alcohol abuse caused by unemployment. Health economist Michael French from the University of Miami found a significant association between job loss and binge drinking and alcoholism.
The impact of layoffs goes beyond suicide, drug overdosing and drinking, however. Overall, the death rate for an unemployed person is 63 percent higher than for someone with a job, according to findings in the journal Social Science & Medicine.
We must count the deaths from shutdowns as well as from coronavirus
Yes, Marc, we know unemployment causes excess mortality, I had just said that and you quoted it. Repeating similar information doesn't add anything.
The key concern is how you are going to get to hundreds of thousands of deaths? Let's do a simple calculation using simple ballpark numbers. Not real numbers, just ballpark, just to get a general idea for whether large scale unemployment can cause hundreds of thousands of deaths . Let's say the mortality rate for employed people is .1% and for unemployed people is .163% (this mortality rate is way high, but .1% is a nice round number to start with). If full employment is 170 million then there will be 170,000 deaths. If unemployment rises to the point where half of them lose their jobs then 85 million will be exposed to the higher mortality rate of .163%, and the other 85 million to the original rate of .1%. The total deaths in this case will be 224,000, an increase of 54,000. You still haven't reached the number of deaths that this pandemic is eventually going to cause in a year, I'm guessing around 170,000 (that *is* a guess, though an informed one, but I didn't even do a back-of-the-envelope calculation).
And don't forget, my 170,000 estimate is *with* the shutdown. Without the shutdown and with no mitigation the number of deaths would be 2-3 million. You're a couple orders of magnitude away from that.
Now remember my .1% approximation was way too high. The actual mortality rate for the 18-65 age group is probably something in the neighborhood of about .035% (informed guestimate). That brings the excess deaths down from 54,000 to about 19,000, much further from the 2-3 million covid-19 deaths in a year from no shutdown and no mitigation.
And we haven't even taken into account the fact that the suicide rate drops during recessions. There's no comparison. Drastic measures to fight the pandemic cannot cause anywhere near the number of deaths that the actual pandemic causes.
And then there are the economic costs. If a human life is worth $10 million, then it is worth $20 or $30 trillion to save two or three million lives.
It is true that Trump has decreased government regulation, but at the expense of employees, the environment and the public coffers. And we had a good economy for six straight years going into the Trump presidency.
The Obama economy wasn't in the same league as the Trump economy. The Obama GDP growth rate was much weaker than Trumps - 1.5 to 2.1 as opposed to Trump's 2.9 to 3.1. Obama's "those jobs aren't coming back", and "you didn't build that", are a stark contrast to what Trump has said and done.
You're making stuff up again. Here's a bar graph of real GDP growth from 1990 through 2019 from • Real GDP growth rate by year in the U.S. 2021 | Statista. The growth in the Obama years was roughly the same as in Trump's, and Obama had to fix the 2008 financial collapse:
marc9000 writes:
I could elaborate more on TDR,...
Just telling us what the letters of your acronym stand for is all that's asked.
Trump Derangement Syndrome, best defined as simply a knee-jerk opposition to ANYTHING he says or does, no matter how the country could be affected by that opposition.
You're still not answering the question. This isn't a big deal, it doesn't really matter, I'm just curious how you arrived at your acronym. How do you get TDR from Trump Derangement Syndrome? What does the "R" in TDR stand for? Everybody else uses the TDS acronym.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3956 by marc9000, posted 05-24-2020 10:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 3966 of 4573 (876741)
05-27-2020 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 3964 by JonF
05-26-2020 7:31 PM


Re: Twitter attaches a fact check to Trump tweets
I was about to post about this but you beat me to it.
Trump is very upset that Twitter has slapped a fact-check on this tweet, saying it is based on "fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post." But the facts support nothing Trump says. Trump's effectiveness in promulgating lies is the energetic use he makes of the presidential bully pulpit and Twitter. His lies get exposure when he issues them, when his gullible base hears and spreads them, and when the mainstream media repeats them.
There is little evidence of mail-in ballot fraud. The only recent example of any significance that I'm aware of was by a Republican operative in North Carolina's Ninth Congressional District in the 2018 election. The White House has a list from the Heritage Foundation of all election fraud cases across the United States that it could find: A Sampling of Election Fraud Cases from Across the Country.
It's a paltry list. If 120 million people vote across the county, 1071 proven instances of voter fraud is .0009%. But it's even less, because their list seems to include all elections going back as far as 2002 and maybe even further. If you say that an average of 120 million people vote every two years then that's a total of 10 elections or 600 million votes. Out of that many votes they were above to scour the country and find 1071 instances of voter fraud, which is .00009%. By comparison, .03% of Americans have died from covid-19, more than two orders of magnitude more. Trump would be far better served by putting his efforts into addressing the pandemic instead of voter fraud - death is forever, voter fraud not so much.
But that's why Trump wants to stop putting so much effort into this absurd manic testing. From his perspective all they're good for is making him look bad, and making him look good is all that's important. If we stop all this testing and all this statistic gathering the pandemic will look much better than it currently does.
But I didn't intend to drift into the covid-19 lane, let me get back on course and return to Twitter fact checking. Twitter should also slap a fact check on Trump's tweets about Joe Scarborough, a former Congressman. Lori Klausutis, an aide to Joe Scarborough, was found dead in his Florida office in 2001. The coroner ruled the death an accident due to a fall hitting her head due to fainting from an undiagnosed heart condition. Scarborough was in Washington at the time, but Trump has been promoting a conspiracy theory that it was murder and Scarborough was responsible:
There is zero evidence of murder or any crime. The family of Lori Klausutis has formerly requested that Trump end this campaign about Lori that is causing the family so much pain, but these pleas are, of course, falling on deaf ears. Twitter should slap a fact check on these tweets, too, but they won't because Trump is a president who wields power callously, indiscriminately, abusively. It took him a couple years to put the people he needed in place and to understand how to handle the reins, but now he commits multiple abuses of power a day.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3964 by JonF, posted 05-26-2020 7:31 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3967 by JonF, posted 05-27-2020 8:18 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3969 of 4573 (876829)
05-29-2020 8:13 AM


Twitter Flags Another Trump Tweet, This Time for Glorifying Violence
Twitter has flagged another Trump tweet, this one for glorifying violence:
It is the second of this pair of tweets that got flagged. The Twitter notice doesn't appear when you call the tweet up through their API, which is what happens here in the background when you include a tweet in a message. You can see the warming on Donald Trump's Twitter Page, and I quote it here:
quote:
This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.
On Trump's Twitter page you must click on the warning to see the tweet.
One hopes that it isn't cliche to say that with great power comes great responsibility. Trump doesn't know what the saying even means, doesn't understand that with 80 million followers comes a profound responsibility for truth and accuracy and sound judgment. Zuckerberg of Facebook believes current law absolves his company of any responsibility. Only Dorsey of Twitter seems to think his platform shouldn't serve as a means to spread lies, false and sometimes dangerous information, and political propaganda.
When Joe Blow with his 200 followers dangerously encourages people to take hydroychloroquine the impact is minimal because he has few followers and they probably already have a measure of his credibility, but when Donald Trump with all the power of the presidency and its bully pulpit blasts a tweet to his 80 million followers it has the potential to cause much damage and mayhem. Since Donald Trump won't rein himself in, and the Republicans who want to ride the Trump horse until the ride runs out certainly won't, others must do it for him.
And as I've said before, the mainstream media does the most to spread Trump lies and propaganda just by reporting what he says. The common format for their stories is to trumpet Trump's lie, like "Trump says mail-in ballots a fraud," and then in paragraph 10 say, "There is no evidence that mail-in ballots lead to electoral fraud to any meaningful degree."
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3970 of 4573 (876933)
05-30-2020 1:12 PM


Taylor Swift Speaks Out
Normally apolitical Taylor Swift has posted about Trump on Twitter:
I don't know if Taylor Swift is an informed voice or not. I distrust celebrities because they tend to take advantage of their fame in entertainment to make pronouncements about things they know nothing about. But during times like this we need all voices.
My claim to fame: I went to the same college as Taylor Swift's father, we graduated the same year, and it's possible I met him once.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 3971 of 4573 (877046)
06-02-2020 2:57 PM


George Will Speaks Out
Conservative columnist George F. Will just came out with his most damning ever column about Trump: Trump must be removed. So must his congressional enablers. Required reading. Some excerpts:
quote:
This unraveling presidency began with the Crybaby-in-Chief banging his spoon on his highchair tray to protest a photograph a photograph showing that his inauguration crowd the day before had been smaller than the one four years previous. Since then, this weak person’s idea of a strong person, this chest-pounding advertisement of his own gnawing insecurities, this low-rent Lear raging on his Twitter-heath has proven that the phrase malignant buffoon is not an oxymoron.
...
The person voters hired in 2016 to take care that the laws be faithfully executed stood on July 28, 2017, in front of uniformed police and urged them please don’t be too nice when handling suspected offenders. His hope was fulfilled for 8 minutes and 46 seconds on Minneapolis pavement.
...
The measures necessary for restoration of national equilibrium are many and will be protracted far beyond his removal. One such measure must be the removal of those in Congress who, unlike the sycophantic mediocrities who cosset him in the White House, will not disappear magically, as Eric Trump said the coronavirus would. Voters must dispatch his congressional enablers, especially the senators who still gambol around his ankles with a canine hunger for petting.
...
We cannot know all the measures necessary to restore the nation’s domestic health and international standing, but we know the first step: Senate Republicans must be routed, as condign punishment for their Vichyite collaboration,...
...
In 2016, the Republican Party gave its principal nomination to a vulgarian and then toiled to elect him. And to stock Congress with invertebrates whose unswerving abjectness has enabled his institutional vandalism, who have voiced no serious objections to his Niagara of lies,...
...
Those who think our unhinged president’s recent mania about a murder two decades ago that never happened represents his moral nadir have missed the lesson of his life: There is no such thing as rock bottom. So, assume that the worst is yet to come.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 3972 by Coragyps, posted 06-02-2020 3:09 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3973 of 4573 (877049)
06-02-2020 3:18 PM


Wow wow wow wow wow! Minnesota Governor Hits It Out Of The Park!
The news conference is ongoing at this moment: Minnesota governor Tim Walz holds news conference on protests
I will update this message when there's a video of the entire speech, and hopefully there will also be a transcript.
AbE: Here is the video:
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add video.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 3979 of 4573 (877065)
06-03-2020 7:06 AM


Trump Declares War On US Citizens
Trump has begun sending American troops in to war against American citizens. In the words of Trump toady and Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper, the troops must "dominate the battlespace." See Trump wants to crush Black Lives Matter with a law that fought segregation.
Trump was proven amazingly resourceful and creative with demonstrations of power. Like a king from his castle he emerged from the White House Monday night to walk to a church he does not attend and hold up a Bible whose principles he does not hold while government agents attacked peaceful protestors to clear his path and General Barr looked on. It was Nixonian in its grotesqueness.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3980 of 4573 (877073)
06-03-2020 11:19 AM


Police Out of Control in Trump's America
This is what Trump celebrates:
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024