GG

In looking up some Wuhan stories, I ran across this gem from the friggin Guardian. This is your future, ACA

It's not hard to dig up the definition of fascism.

I continue to be amazed at immediate condemnations of any positive observations of the Wuhan virus by the officials. HCQ? Trump talking point, it can't work. Infections dropping significantly? Wait until the second wave. Hospitalizations falling? Yeah, but what about this county in NW Iowa? ICU capacity at all time low in the pandemic? Nothing to see here. Deaths falling? Are you cheering that grandma died? Asymptomatic transmissions are rare? Because no one has bothered to formally study the obvious observation, it can't be true. Viral loads have weakened? Because no one has bothered to formally study the obvious observation, it can't be true. Virtually no evidence of outdoor transmissions? Stay away from the beach. Do you want to kill grandma? PS - Now I see the media cheering that there were a handful of positive cases at Tesla's factory. No mention whether they were symptomatic or how serious the cases were.

They're not at the highest 7 day averages. The hospitalizations ticked up, but are still below March. ICUs are nowhere near the peak.

The virus isn't over, but the crisis is.

Highly unlikely it's a "new guy"

Incendiary speech is not free speech. But you know that Combo

If I recall correctly, one of the few permanent bannings from this forum was for posting lynching images. No reason not to invoke that again.

Are you comparing him to a character who killed a homophobic racist? You're not good at this.

But look at the bottom graph. Covid is not the lead use of ICU capacity in Texas. This thing is done.

Too late. It's in the book.

Hospitalizations were the limiting resource when too much of the virus & treatment wasn't known. Now that the treatments are improving you're seeing less hospitalizations turn into ICUs and less ICUs turning into deaths. Does it surprise you that any positive developments are never mentioned when discussing this "second" wave? I 'm not going to accuse you of pumping up the scary stories about the Texas medical system running red. That was the big story starting last week, right. But why weren't those stories accompanied by the status of ICU bed capacity and the very low death rate from those hospitalizations? Seems like that should be the bold type of the headlines - Texas cases are going up, more people require hospitalizations, but very few progress to ICU, and even fewer die! Why show graphs that are consistently solidly green, when you can show selected days of a less important statistic that is red?

Motive is a huge factor in whether the 2nd degree murder conviction sticks. Remember, there's a lot of criticism that the case got harder to prove with the upgraded charges. If they knew each other and Chauvin held a grudge, 2nd degree will stick.

Then by this standard, if two people get into an argument and one shoots the other, then pointing out that the argument led to the shooting is excusing the shooter? Is that what you are saying? Nobody is excusing Chauvin's actions. The new information could provide the motive for WHY he used grossly unnecessary force

If there was a previous history between the two, it would provide a more clear motive for the grossly unnecessary use of force. No different than in determining intent in every other murder case. Nobody ever excuses a murderer for knowing his victims. In most cases, it's used to impose a harsher sentence.

I'm sure the same courtesy will be applied to the intent off a simple 4 word slogan behind the MAGA acronym?

Again, it is not up to us to provide an explanation of what the slogans mean. The words are pretty clear - Disband the Police and Defund the Police. I do not see anything that says, Reform the Police or Disband the Police Unions.

. But it was good enough to use models, which may not provide an accurate representation, to close down the world and keep it closed?

Then it's up to the movement to come up with coherent proposals behind the catchy slogans, wouldn't you think? Don't criticize us for questioning the goals of a ruddeless movement.

In my time on this board, it's a consistent truism that the conservative side here is far less likely to toe the line of the party leaders. There's far more diversity of opinion across the right than the straight parroting of the DNC talking points of the day. Reforming the police unions (and all public service unions) is not something that the majority would oppose. But for most people sitting on the sidelines of this mess are watching with intense interest as this movement can't even get its goals aligned.

I'm trying to interpret what the words mean. But don't listen to me, listen to the movement's leaders. Words matter. Not only when a conservative says something.

Thanks for confirming that words only matter when they are applied to conservatives? What else should people assume when the slogans are "disband the police" and "defund the police?" I'm guess that "Take administrative action to disband the police union and add more cops on the beat" doesn't have the same ring to it, or are you not in step with the leaders of the movement whose public goal is most certainly disbanding the police departments?

The latest scuttlebut on the fixed income market is whether the banks will remain healthy enough to support the heavily indebted companies through year-end. Right now, companies have plenty of cash because most borrowed as much as they could at the start of the pandemic. That cash will probably run out by the end of the year for weaker companies, depending on the resumption of economic activity. Corporate defaults are fully correlated to availability of funding from their lenders in a classic circular formula. Right now, banks are flush with cash and are still supporting their clients. That support will start to separate across industries and companies that are not likely to survive post pandemic. The good news on all that is that the corporate default expectations by the banks are probably going to be more optimistic.

I think it was CNN.

Why can't it be both?