Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
182 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, jar (3 members, 179 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,411 Year: 7,159/23,288 Month: 1,065/1,214 Week: 77/303 Day: 38/39 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1150
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 3931 of 3962 (876356)
05-17-2020 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3924 by Percy
05-17-2020 10:10 AM


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.

I'd be terrified to do that, since there's evidence that the awarding of Pulitzers is heavily liberally biased.

quote:
Would the Pulitzer committee consider a prize for a “news” organization bankrolled by the conservative Koch brothers? Of course not. But by recognizing ProPublica, the committee is essentially rewarding the left side of the political spectrum.

ProPublica’s main backers are billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler. The couple has pledged $10 million a year to the organization. Such a big-ticket annual contribution fits right in with the Sandlers’ extensive support for Democratic candidates, left-wing advocacy campaigns, and PACs such as Moveon.org, which raises money for progressive office-seekers.


Credibility Of Pulitzer Prize Takes A Hit By Rewarding ProPublica’s Liberal Bias

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

All deaths. 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. 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, yet nowhere in the founding documents is anything stated concerning alterations to the Constitution concerning them.

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.

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. Now a significant number of Democrats are much more focused on Trump than they are the good of 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. 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.

I think I remember seeing or hearing about one of the late-night clowns (Maher maybe?) saying he'd take an economic downturn / depression, to see Trump get removed from office. There's a lot of anger and despair in the Democrat party, obviously because they weren't able to come up with a JFK, Bill Clinton, or even Obama, to challenge Trump in the 2020 election. I suspect that the big money handlers of the Democrat party - Soros, Gates, Steyer, Bloomberg, etc, are very frustrated over the Biden roadblock. All their money can't buy him out, he has the desire to be the nominee, and he has the delegates. But take heart, I honestly suspect that Biden just might have an "accident" this summer. The Clintons could become advisors for this project, several people have gotten dead around them in recent decades.

I could elaborate more on TDR, but I'm out of time for now. Gonna be a busy week, (I'm an essential worker) but maybe I'll be back in a week or so, if there's anything else of substance to respond to here.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3937 by Percy, posted 05-18-2020 5:31 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 3939 by Phat, posted 05-18-2020 10:20 PM marc9000 has responded

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


(2)
Message 3932 of 3962 (876357)
05-17-2020 7:30 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", it's sometimes good to insert a reminder that the virus is not Trump's fault.

That reminder is just a sideways way of making a false assertion. No one blames the virus on Trump. It would make as much sense to blame the Chinese.

Trump is responsible for the ongoing bungling of the viral threat. He is not actually competent to manage anything, only of avoiding responsibility, deflecting blame and turning the full bully pulpit on anyone insufficiently fawning.

--Percy


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

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


Message 3933 of 3962 (876359)
05-17-2020 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3928 by marc9000
05-17-2020 3:50 PM


Re: Correct actions
marc9000 writes:

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 would be incorrect. Those pandemics were all caused by flu viruses that have obvious symptoms. The novel coronavirus is not a flu virus. The symptoms are different and can be absent.

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.

Cloth masks? No, there's no evidence of adverse health effects using cloth masks. N95 respirator masks shouldn't be worn by people with health issues, but otherwise they're fine, with only possible minor effects after wearing for a long time. But how many people are wearing N95 masks? They're still not available at the retail level, though Defense Procurement Act administrator Peter Navarro was on the Sunday morning programs today touting the Trump administration's great success with PPE.

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.

You're just reconfirming what people had already concluded, that you don't understand how dangerous this virus is and how important it is to wear a mask, for your own safety and that of all the people around you, including those you know and love.

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.

This reflects no comprehension of public health. Stopping a pandemic requires greatly reduced social interaction as well as protecting people from each other's exhalations and other sources of viral exposure. The individual right to freedom stops at society's greater right to be free from threat. This has long been recognized. Public health departments have been ordering quarantines for a long, long time, well over a century.

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.)

Your information is incorrect. Hospital charges to Medicare for a coronavirus stay can vary widely depending upon length of stay and services provided. A 20% surcharge was passed by Congress and signed by Trump because of the extra costs of dealing with the extreme contagiousness of the virus, such as the constant sanitizing, the complete change of PPE required when moving from a coronavirus area to a non-coronavirus area, and so forth.

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?

So you're saying that had Trump not been distracted by the impeachment that he would have begun addressing the pandemic back in January when he should have? How many times did Trump tweet in January? He sent 125 tweets on January 22 alone.

Congratulations on making it through another post without saying anything true or correct.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3928 by marc9000, posted 05-17-2020 3:50 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3954 by marc9000, posted 05-24-2020 8:28 PM Percy has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2096
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 3934 of 3962 (876360)
05-17-2020 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 3928 by marc9000
05-17-2020 3:50 PM


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

I don't know why you think "trump is bad at his job" is that much of defense, but I guess that's the kind of thinking you have when you're afflicted with tdss.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3928 by marc9000, posted 05-17-2020 3:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 3935 of 3962 (876374)
05-18-2020 12:01 PM


Trump Supporters Think in Terms of Conspiracy Theories
For Trump supporters everything is a conspiracy theory. There's the Deep State conspiracy, the Fake News conspiracy, the Russia Hoax conspiracy, the Ukrainian conspiracy, the impeachment conspiracy, the Michael Flynn conspiracy, the Roger Stone conspiracy, the Obamagate conspiracy, and now, if you can believe it, the coronavirus conspiracy.

According to Eric Trump, the coronavirus is a Democratic hoax.

As the election season heats up we can expect to see an unending stream of conspiracy theory accusations, not because there's any truth to them, but because Donald Trump thinks in terms of conspiracy theories. Look at all the conspiracy theories he's floated over the years. Obama was not an natural born American but was born in Kenya. Climate change is a conspiracy theory. The Obama administration conspired to wiretap the phones at Trump tower. The Democrats conspired to have millions of illegal immigrants vote for Clinton in order to deny Trump a popular vote victory. The death toll in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane Maria was faked. Windmills cause cancer. The Ukraine has Hillary Clinton's missing emails. It never ends.

Unfortunately, what also never ends is the gullibility of Trump supporters. It seems their appetite for baseless conspiracy theories never ends, and their desire for fact-based information never begins.

--Percy


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


Message 3936 of 3962 (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 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 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 responded

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

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


Message 3937 of 3962 (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, 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 responded

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

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


(1)
Message 3938 of 3962 (876396)
05-18-2020 5:49 PM


I think this makes sense. He argues that even fundamental rights such as free speech can be suspended in a sufficiently dire situation.

Peter James

I can’t copy anything but the entire text.


  
Phat
Member
Posts: 13920
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 3939 of 3962 (876401)
05-18-2020 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3931 by marc9000
05-17-2020 5:41 PM


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

Gonna be a busy week, (I'm an essential worker) but maybe I'll be back in a week or so if there's anything else of substance to respond to here.

Really? I too am an essential worker. But I have a question for you, marc. I see you arguing with Percy and enjoy reading the exchange. As a conservative, what would be your basic definitions for what is a liberal and what is a conservative?

“The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.”Calvin Coolidge
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

- You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott
I Have Strong Arguments Which I Cant Say To You~CG

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3953 by marc9000, posted 05-24-2020 8:16 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3943
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 3940 of 3962 (876424)
05-19-2020 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3925 by RAZD
05-17-2020 11:40 AM


Re: rolling shutdowns.
RAZD writes:

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

One good thing is so many countries taking so many varied approaches

What they did in the beginning...
What they're doing during the "re-opening" phase...

This sort of virus, in this technological anyone/everyone travelling age, is unprecedented.

But, eventually (a year or two from now?) we will be able to compare varying strategies.

It will be interesting to compare tactics like Sweden (basically - don't shut down anything at all, even in the beginning) - to tactics like some of the hard-core communist countries with harsh/strict punishments on breaking curfew/shut-downs.

Are the COVID-19 deaths significantly similar in the end?
If so - then more should follow tactics like Sweden and lessen the damage caused by the economic shutdowns.

Are the COVID-19 deaths higher, but a harsh economic shutdown causes economic deaths on it's own?
If so - then more should follow tactics that balance the two as much as possible.

Are the COVID-19 deaths significantly lower and economic damage is negligible?
If so - then more should shut down harshly and for longer.

These are questions that do not have answers yet (they won't have answers for at least another year or two.)
-Anyone pushing for one over the other with blatant disregard that one of the other "non-favourites" could quite possibly be better - is pushing a personal bias, not looking at reality in order to help the most people through a difficult situation.

It is difficult to make the "best decision possible" in an unprecedented event (and it's easily arguable that if anyone does make the best decision - it was mostly lucky.)
-Due to this, it's hard to blame anyone in charge for any decisions that were made
-sure, some are against "COVID-19 doctor recommendations"
-but COVID-19 doctor's do not understand how the economic shutdown, and other health-realated shutdowns (new cancer patients are being delayed treatment...) will also be killing some and how to balance such factors into the equation to make the "best decision."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3925 by RAZD, posted 05-17-2020 11:40 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 3941 of 3962 (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: Can Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine Treat Coronavirus (COVID-19)? - GoodRx

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 3942 by JonF, posted 05-20-2020 9:48 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 3942 of 3962 (876449)
05-20-2020 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 3941 by Percy
05-20-2020 9:35 AM


Re: Trump Doubles Down on Hydroxychloroquine
Some have speculated that his doct is giving him a placebo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3941 by Percy, posted 05-20-2020 9:35 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 3943 by vimesey, posted 05-20-2020 10:07 AM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 3944 by dwise1, posted 05-20-2020 12:41 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1094
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 3943 of 3962 (876452)
05-20-2020 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 3942 by JonF
05-20-2020 9:48 AM


Re: Trump Doubles Down on Hydroxychloroquine
That pesky Hippocratic Oath...

Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3942 by JonF, posted 05-20-2020 9:48 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4163
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3944 of 3962 (876461)
05-20-2020 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3942 by JonF
05-20-2020 9:48 AM


Re: Trump Doubles Down on Hydroxychloroquine
Some have speculated that his doct is giving him a placebo.

Then Doc could have just called it that and Trump would none the wiser. As I reported in Message 1205 (Humour VIII) on 26 Apr 20, from Al Franken's reading of Trump's latest tweets about a new drug that he had heard about (which I had to paraphrase from memory):

DWise1 writes:

Trump tweets about a new surefire cure for corona virus that he has just learned about. This is a drug that has been around for many decades and has been in more clinical trials than any other drug. And in those tries it has proven to cure all diseases. Whatever ails you, this cures it.

Its name is placebo. And it is very effective. It is so effective that they even have a name for how very effective it is: placebo effect.

Fauci approves of it. Birx approves of it. Fauci gave Trump a placebo tablet. The tablet tasted a bit sweet. Fauci told Trump that now he is immune to corona virus and to demonstrate the effectiveness of placebo Trump should go to a major hospital and personally visit all the COVID-19 patients and shake their hands. Trump thinks that is a very good idea and is making arrangements for that visit. Pence also thinks that it is a very good idea and wants to help make the arrangements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3942 by JonF, posted 05-20-2020 9:48 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3945 by PaulK, posted 05-20-2020 12:51 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

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


Message 3945 of 3962 (876463)
05-20-2020 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3944 by dwise1
05-20-2020 12:41 PM


Re: Trump Doubles Down on Hydroxychloroquine
The doctor probably signed the paper because Trump insisted on it. If Trump is actually taking anything the doctor might have given Trump a placebo, but there is no way to say. But have no doubt, this is driven by Trump not medicine.

From what I remember Trump’s doctors (and this one is an osteopath!) tend to cave in to Trump’s demands,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3944 by dwise1, posted 05-20-2020 12:41 PM dwise1 has not yet 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