Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
189 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, WookieeB (3 members, 186 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,412 Year: 7,160/23,288 Month: 1,066/1,214 Week: 78/303 Day: 39/39 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4163
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3916 of 3962 (876272)
05-16-2020 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 3914 by Percy
05-16-2020 10:09 AM


Re: Trump Promotes Misinformation on Early Vaccine Availability
First, when Trump markets his TRUMP brand vaccine (with his signature on each vial so that you will know to praise him for it (reference to the checks that were unnecessarily delayed to put his name on them)), where will he find enough snake oil to produce all the doses needed? Or will he just use fake snake oil?

I also noticed his promise to make TRUMP™ vaccine available shortly after the election. Like in 2016 with his promised "best healthcare insurance ever" (and will only cost you $18 per month) that he would bring out after the election. Like in 2016 with his tax returns. Like in 2016 with all his promises of solutions to a wide range of problems (including serious international relations problems), but he wasn't going to tell us anything about what those solutions might be until after the election. Not until after the election, and not even then.

Nothing but even more TRUMP™ vaporware.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3914 by Percy, posted 05-16-2020 10:09 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 3917 by Coragyps, posted 05-16-2020 10:54 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5495
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 3917 of 3962 (876274)
05-16-2020 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 3916 by dwise1
05-16-2020 10:33 AM


Re: Trump Promotes Misinformation on Early Vaccine Availability
I think we can get him a good deal on crude oil if snake oil is in short supply...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3916 by dwise1, posted 05-16-2020 10:33 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32506
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 3918 of 3962 (876275)
05-16-2020 10:55 AM


Yet another Inspector General purged.
And today yet another Inspector General is out to be replaced by one of Pence's stooges. Seems he was looking into possible misbehavior by one or both of the Pompeos as well as a firing based on a person's political position.

quote:
Last year a report by Linick's office found there was evidence to support allegations that the termination of an employee in the Secretary of State's office was made "after significant discussion concerning the employee’s perceived political views" as well as the worker's "perceived national origin."

quote:
House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot L. Engel, D-New York, said in a statement Friday that he learned Linick "had opened an investigation into Secretary [Mike] Pompeo."

A Democrat aide told NBC news the inspector general "was looking into the Secretary's misuse of a political appointee at the Department to perform personal tasks for himself and Mrs. Pompeo."

Pompeo is married to Susan Pompeo, who's been known to travel with the Secretary of State and was listed as "Special Assistant to the Secretary of State" at a security conference in Germany earlier this year.



My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19788
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 3919 of 3962 (876280)
05-16-2020 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 3915 by NosyNed
05-16-2020 10:13 AM


Re: Stupid to try
NosyNed writes:

Trump has a big reason for faking the death count.

So he will be stupid enough to try.

I actually believe this is part of Trump's brilliance, that he knows he can convince sufficient numbers of people of anything. His inauguration crowd is just the first of many examples. Most rational people would think that almost no one would be convinced that Trump's inauguration crowd was the biggest in history, but they would be wrong. Probably around 44% of the country believe it. Check out This is what Trump voters said when asked to compare his inauguration crowd with Obama’s, an article from 2017. Even when confronted with stark photographic evidence right before their eyes at the very moment the question was asked, most Trump voters identified the photo with fewer people as having more.

I think Trump will be able to easily convince many that the mortality rate is overstated, that the virus is far less serious than the Democrats claim, and that the Democrats are trying to overstate the mortality rate for political reasons to win an election. If there are 100,000 deaths by the election (I'm choosing a round number for convenience, not making a projection), then if each dead person was known to a hundred people that would be 10 million people who know someone who died from the coronavirus, and 320 million who know no one who died. Most Trump voters, especially since they're concentrated in less population dense regions, will know no one who died. They'll be easily convinced that all the fuss was over nothing.

Now look at the number of cases. Let's say there are 2 million infection cases by the election (again, choosing a round number for convenience). If each infected person was known to a hundred people then that would be 200 million who knew someone infected. The odds of knowing an infected person are in the neighborhood of 60%, less in less population dense regions. Most Trump voters will know zero or one infected person. They'll again be easily convinced that all the fuss was over nothing.

And some people are arguing that they're right. Even if we completely open and the virus kills a million people, that's only .3% of the country. Most people would still not know a single person who died, and the economy could begin recovering. These people somehow find a way to balance an equation between money and death.

--Percy

PS: I know I wasn't being properly statistical when producing those numbers, but I think ballpark figures are sufficient to make the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3915 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2020 10:13 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3920 by jar, posted 05-16-2020 11:49 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32506
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 3920 of 3962 (876281)
05-16-2020 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3919 by Percy
05-16-2020 11:40 AM


Re: Stupid to try
The numbers really can be explained away. Even if the worst projections for Covid-19 actually happened the percentage changes in deaths per 1000 people will be only a percent or at most two. In reality the increasing deaths simply from our aging population and our for profit based health care will simply swamp the additional Covid-19 related numbers.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3919 by Percy, posted 05-16-2020 11:40 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19788
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 3921 of 3962 (876289)
05-16-2020 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3908 by marc9000
05-15-2020 9:41 PM


Re: Maybe a little planning is called for?
marc9000 writes:

You are living in your own dreamworld. I think you still lack a way to reliably identify what is actually true about the real world.

I think I do better on a liberal forum, outnumbered by about 30 to 1, than you would on a conservative forum outnumbered in about the same way.

What would be the criteria? If it's your preferred approach of making stuff up then you're quite right, I wouldn't fare well.

If it was anywhere near 50/50 here, you'd have taken a pretty good beating for denying something you clearly did only a few messages ago.

People who have the facts stick with the facts. People who don't make up accusations.

Reopening the economy isn't only good for his reelection, the country's survival depends on it.

Of course. How and how fast?

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.

...the House wants three more trillion to try to keep as many people idle as possible until November.

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. 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?

You need to find a consistent perspective. If it's safe to open the country now, then since nothing has changed since March it was safe to keep the country open back then. But if it was truly too dangerous to keep the country open in March, then it is still too dangerous to reopen it now. You need to pick a consistent point of view.

There is one thing that has changed since March: people are wearing masks now. Is this sufficient to keep the virus sufficiently at bay? There's no way to be certain. That's why, now that we've flattened the curve with the shutdown, that it is possible to cautiously and slowly reopen the country. While that happens those adversely affected need assistance from the government, if not the recent House bill then something like it.

Sink the ship to drown the captain. Some, but not all of them, realize they're on the same ship. Their plan? - swim over to the nearby communist ship, get yanked on board by the arrogant, armed agents, and collect their little tidbits of free stuff. Won't take them long to wish they were back on the Trump ship.

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.

You don't really seem to care about people taking ill and dying, only about making up a set of "facts" that leads to Trump's reelection.

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?

The solution we should all be seeking is one of balance where people aren't forced back to work in an unsafe environment out of economic necessity.

With each day that goes by during this shutdown, more business owners reach the point of no return, that if everything opened back up tomorrow, their former lifestyle is completely through. Do you have no understanding at all for the enthusiasm some people, restaurant owners as one example, have for their chosen lifestyles?

Again, we must seek balance between safety and economics.

marc9000 writes:

Percy writes:

Public health is a private sector responsibility now?

marc9000 writes:

Now?? Yes, just like it was in 1918, 1968, and 2009.

Percy writes:

Why are you wallowing in error like this? Public health is a public responsibility. It's in the name.

But the name isn't anywhere in the Constitution. It was nowhere to be found in 1918, 1968, or 2009 in any talking points. It's a brand new talking point invented by today's Democrat party, almost exclusively used as a weapon against Trump. Businesses weren't closed by the Obama administration in 2009.

You seems 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?

You're straw manning now. No one said the entire course was reversed.

Muir said Trump "reversed course". He didn't specify that he reversed only part of the entire course. It's naturally taken by Muir's viewers, especially his targets, the ones who are only casually interested in politics, that he reversed the entire course of all he was doing concerning the virus outbreak.

That really makes sense to even you?

You are terribly confused. When you mentioned Muir I said, "Only if you describe what you're talking about can it be discussed," and you said, "I'm talking about what your link referenced, Trump's decision to delay the winding down of the Corona Virus Task Force, based on input from his credentialed advisors." I never mentioned Muir, and my links don't mention Muir. Here they are again. If you'd care to try commenting intelligently about this Trump same-day 180 then please go ahead, but try to keep straight that it has nothing to do with Muir's report which I never saw. As I've told you many times, I don't watch TV news:


Most of the reason for his "ping ponging", is the constant changing going on with others who make decisions, he isn't a dictator, the political process involving lots of others make a lot of the decisions. As one example, the Michigan governor recently ruled that the state must remain locked down, but that states supreme court overruled her.

No one thinks Michigan is an example of Trump ping-ponging and course reversals. Trump is as inconstant as the moon. What he says and does is driven by his desire to dominate the news cycle and to benefit himself personally, not by what is best for the country

Mainstream news anchors haven't changed.

It's been a gradual change. But from the 60's to today, it's very stark. The difference between those like Chet Huntley and David Brinkley versus Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper is night and day.

You accused modern news anchors of lying: "But prominent news anchors lying is a pretty new thing." I was responding to that claim when I said they haven't changed. News anchors weren't liars then or now. What's changed is the growth of a right wing echo chamber that denies facts.

As I've posted to many people many times, I'm not going to watch a video without a strong reason. Video's are an extremely slow way to communicate information unless they're very visual. I can read far faster than a video, so please summarize the information from the video you think important and provide the video as a reference, just as the Forum Guidelines say you're supposed to do.

That's exactly what I did.

That's exactly what you didn't do, provide any information summary. Or do you think this is an information summary:

quote:
But prominent news anchors lying is a pretty new thing. And I'm not the only one who thinks it's a SERIOUS problem.

Aw, that's cute.

Look, Marc, get a clue. We don't do debate by link here. Make your point using the information from your video link, then provide the link as a reference. I'm not going to watch your video unless you give me some information from it that I think I need to see for myself.

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.

It wasn't as picture perfect a way to follow that one forum guideline as can be done, but you have to admit, it's a much better job than you did with Message 3901. (well I take that back, you probably won't admit it)

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.

That video is only 5:20 long, it had a lot of information. And it was quite visual, Sharyl is pretty hot.

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.

No, as I said, it would consist equally of Republicans and Democrats. There would never be a controlling party concerning what the committee would do.

Good luck with that, and it's still politicizing news coverage. An independent press is a cornerstone of liberty.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3908 by marc9000, posted 05-15-2020 9:41 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3930 by marc9000, posted 05-17-2020 5:09 PM Percy has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16186
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 3922 of 3962 (876310)
05-17-2020 2:01 AM


The Financial Times weighs in
Inside Trump’s coronavirus meltdown

This article is free to read, and scathing.

The main problem, of course is Trump.

Again and again, the story that emerged is of a president who ignored increasingly urgent intelligence warnings from January, dismisses anyone who claims to know more than him and trusts no one outside a tiny coterie, led by his daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner – the property developer who Trump has empowered to sideline the best-funded disaster response bureaucracy in the world.

But it’s not just that, there’s also Trump’s relentless pursuit of self-interest. Preparing for the pandemic was set aside to “avoid panicking the markets”. The markets slid anyway.

Greg Gonsalves of Yale is quoted as saying:

“It is as though we knew for a fact that 9/11 was going to happen for months, did nothing to prepare for it and then shrugged a few days later and said, ‘Oh well, there’s not much we can do about it,’...
“Trump could have prevented mass deaths, and he didn’t”

It also goes into the hydroxychloroquine business. Trump chose to trust Fox News anchors over the experts, disrupting government efforts, all for a drug that does more to harm than help.

There is the chilling statement:

Scientists across Washington are terrified of saying anything that contradicts Trump

That’s very bad news for America.

In the conclusion the article points out that everyone agrees that Trump is mentally imbalanced - even his supporters. Can America really stand the hurts that another four years would cause?

Edited by PaulK, : Fix tag

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link at beginning. There was a space after the "=" which made it not work.


  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16186
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 3923 of 3962 (876314)
05-17-2020 4:55 AM


Trump shows his dictatorial tendencies

So, it’s illegal for the “radical left” (i.e. centrists) to run companies now?

Makes me think of Revelation 13:16-17


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19788
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 3924 of 3962 (876321)
05-17-2020 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 3909 by marc9000
05-15-2020 10:02 PM


Re: Maybe a little planning is called for?
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.

And I didn't "believe" a NYT opinion piece. I cited Opinion | America’s True Covid Toll Already Exceeds 100,000 because it mentioned the preliminary results of a study to obtain more accurate mortality figures.

It's a fact that everybody dies.

Are you arguing against trying to prevent any deaths, or only coronavirus deaths.

No matter what happens with coronavirus, its death count will get nowhere near the commonly accepted deaths that happen every year in the U.S.

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.

99% of coronavirus victims recover from the disease.

If by recover you mean not die then 99% is probably pretty close to the mark. But not everyone who survives fully recovers. Some suffer permanent disability such as damaged lungs or kidneys, or a lost limb.

There was nothing wrong with curtailing many businesses for a week or two until a basic handle could be gotten on what this virus consisted of.

The plan was for closing things down (two weeks would not have been long enough) while we ramped up a federally organized and coordinated testing and contact tracing effort. We did close things down, but the federal government abandoned the states and left them to create 50 separate testing and contact tracing efforts. For this reason, as we open things up we're just as vulnerable as we were back in March. Mitigating factors are the degree to which people continue wearing masks, and rising temperatures since "Each additional 1.8-degree temperature increase above that level was associated with an additional 3.1 percent reduction in the virus’s reproduction number..." (Summer weather could help fight coronavirus spread but won’t halt the pandemic.

We're far beyond that now. Now it's a dangerous political game - the fault of one political party with TDR.

The pandemic as we're experiencing it here in the United States is primarily the fault of a single person who has coopted the Republican Party, turned its congressmen into lackeys, is damaging and corrupting our Democratic institutions, and is destroying respect for the U.S. throughout the world.

I'm curious about one thing. Why do you use the TDR acronym for Trump derangement syndrome - Wikipedia?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3909 by marc9000, posted 05-15-2020 10:02 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3925 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2020 11:40 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 3931 by marc9000, posted 05-17-2020 5:41 PM Percy has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 3925 of 3962 (876327)
05-17-2020 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 3924 by Percy
05-17-2020 10:10 AM


rolling shutdowns.
The plan was for closing things down (two weeks would not have been long enough) while we ramped up a federally organized and coordinated testing and contact tracing effort. We did close things down, but the federal government abandoned the states and left them to create 50 separate testing and contact tracing efforts. For this reason, as we open things up we're just as vulnerable as we were back in March. Mitigating factors are the degree to which people continue wearing masks, and rising temperatures since "Each additional 1.8-degree temperature increase above that level was associated with an additional 3.1 percent reduction in the virus’s reproduction number..." (Summer weather could help fight coronavirus spread but won’t halt the pandemic.

Curiously I wonder if we could have rolling shutdowns as an opening option ... if we had sufficient testing and contact tracking ability ...

as shutdowns of 2 weeks should clear anyone self isolated as not infected, and thus able to replace workers who then self isolate for 2 weeks. Each cycle you remove and test people with symptoms and track who they contacted.

Just a thought

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3924 by Percy, posted 05-17-2020 10:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 3940 by Stile, posted 05-19-2020 2:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 3926 of 3962 (876349)
05-17-2020 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3911 by kjsimons
05-15-2020 10:21 PM


Re: Maybe a little planning is called for?
Well we are currently at almost 90000 deaths from Covid-19 in about 4 months that won't have occurred at this point without the virus. Yes everyone dies eventually but this is accelerating deaths.

That is true, but there's really no doubt that the same would be happening under any president. In these times of "blame the president for everything", it's sometimes good to insert a reminder that the virus is not Trump's fault.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3911 by kjsimons, posted 05-15-2020 10:21 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3927 by ringo, posted 05-17-2020 3:35 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 3929 by JonF, posted 05-17-2020 5:06 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 3932 by Percy, posted 05-17-2020 7:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18100
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 3927 of 3962 (876351)
05-17-2020 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3926 by marc9000
05-17-2020 3:22 PM


Re: Maybe a little planning is called for?
marc9000 writes:

In these times of "blame the president for everything"....


The buck used to stop at the President's desk. Not any more?

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3926 by marc9000, posted 05-17-2020 3:22 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 3928 of 3962 (876352)
05-17-2020 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3912 by NosyNed
05-16-2020 12:52 AM


Re: Correct actions
You seem to be making the mistake of treating each of the different epidemic and pandemic diseases the same. At least that's one mistake.

We know that a person who has no symptoms can infect others who may then die of covid.

And I believe the same was true in 1918, 1969, and 2009, when we had different presidents, and much lower levels of anger from one political party.

This is one of the things that makes this a bigger problem than other diseases. You may feel that endangering others lives if fine. Many, in fact I'll bet the overwhelming majority, do not feel the same way.

That could be, largely because they don't know, (haven't had reported to them) the fact that some credentialed people have evidence that shows that mask wearing can be dangerous to the wearer's health.

quote:
Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask. This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications.

Much more associated reading here.

You might think that when I myself go out to food stores etc. these days that are filled with people wearing masks that I proudly and defiantly go in without one, but I don't. I don't have any proper medical masks yet (though my niece has told me she'll make me some) but I have a box of dust masks in my garage, and I wear one of them, just to fit in and try to make everyone happy.

Since you are so irresponsible you can't be trusted to make your own decisions so your freedom to do so will have to be taken away.

The above is proof that no one person in government, or no one government agency, can claim to know what's best for each person of all variations of health. People need to have the liberty to access whatever information they see fit that applies to their life, and make their own decisions.

What incentives does anyone have for faking the death count?

quote:
Medicare pays for inpatient hospital stays using a diagnosis-related group (DRG) payment system. The hospital assigns a code to a patient at the time of discharge, based mainly on the patient’s main diagnosis and treatment given.

Medicare then pays the hospital a prescribed amount of money — regardless of what it actually cost the hospital to provide the care. The amount can vary in different parts of the country to account for labor costs and other factors.


Fact-check: Do hospitals get paid more to list patients as having coronavirus?

(this is not a conservative link - most of this description tries to downplay the significance of the monetary incentives hospitals can have. How successful they were in downplaying it is up to the reader. To me, they weren't very successful.)

The US's is high because of mistakes made that other countries didn't make.

Could an unprecedented, partisan impeachment circus in January have been one of those mistakes?

Edited by Admin, : Fix first link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3912 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2020 12:52 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3933 by Percy, posted 05-17-2020 9:04 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 3934 by DrJones*, posted 05-17-2020 9:34 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6073
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 3929 of 3962 (876354)
05-17-2020 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3926 by marc9000
05-17-2020 3:22 PM


Re: Maybe a little planning is called for?
The same would not happen under any other President. Any other President wouldn't have wasted 70 days by denying and belittling the danger when he could have been preparing. Any other President wouldn't have fired the entire group dedicated to preparing for and then managing a pandemic. Any other President wouldn't have cut back our team in China. Any other President would have restocked the strategic stockpile (Obama tried but Moscow Mitch wouldn't let him have the money). Any other President would have used the incredible expertise of the military to move and distribute supplies. Any other President wouldn't have abdicated all responsibility. Any other President wouldn't have let the pandemic be a gold mine for profiteers. Any other President would have been a leader!

There's. more.

ABE We all know that Trump isn't responsible for the virus. He is 100% responsible for the the scope of the damage in the US.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3926 by marc9000, posted 05-17-2020 3:22 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 3930 of 3962 (876355)
05-17-2020 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3921 by Percy
05-16-2020 2:27 PM


Re: Maybe a little planning is called for?
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.

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. When the news media launched into their Trump attacks at the beginning of all this, their sense of humanity as usual, takes a back seat to "GET TRUMP OUT OF OFFICE ASAP". 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.

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.

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, or even the bubonic plague of Europe from the 1300's and 1600's. Now we know this isn't going to be comparable. The curve has flattened since March. Back then they sent that hospital ship to New York. It left a week or two later, it wasn't needed. 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.

marc9000 writes:

Sink the ship to drown the captain. Some, but not all of them, realize they're on the same ship. Their plan? - swim over to the nearby communist ship, get yanked on board by the arrogant, armed agents, and collect their little tidbits of free stuff. Won't take them long to wish they were back on the Trump ship.

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 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.

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.

You seems 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.

You are terribly confused. When you mentioned Muir I said, "Only if you describe what you're talking about can it be discussed," and you said, "I'm talking about what your link referenced, Trump's decision to delay the winding down of the Corona Virus Task Force, based on input from his credentialed advisors." I never mentioned Muir, and my links don't mention Muir. Here they are again. If you'd care to try commenting intelligently about this Trump same-day 180 then please go ahead, but try to keep straight that it has nothing to do with Muir's report which I never saw.

Yes I wasn't slow and careful enough for you, your links used the common Democrat talking point from on high - "reversal", what I mainly noticed in one premier half-hour news report of the day, Muir's.

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.

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.

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? Okay, you're the boss. But that's the end of my argument on that. 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.

marc9000 writes:

No, as I said, it would consist equally of Republicans and Democrats. There would never be a controlling party concerning what the committee would do.

Good luck with that, and it's still politicizing news coverage. An independent press is a cornerstone of liberty.

A good argument can be made that there is no unbiased news coverage anymore, it's all politicized. But there is hope, there was a movement years ago to get Limbaugh off the air, and it didn't work. Now, in addition to more and more interest in conservative talk radio shows than ever before, there seems to be more interest in conservative news show start ups, like Newsmax.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3921 by Percy, posted 05-16-2020 2:27 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3936 by Percy, posted 05-18-2020 4:48 PM marc9000 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020