SectionC3

How much is "much"? 10%? 25%? 50%? Or more? Does the weight of the data (e.g., more than 50%) support your position?

Actually I think the people in Corona might have been on to my miracle cure before I discovered it. Yesterday I was doing a little weeding and I realized that, although not a lot of people know this, Roundup knocks out weeds in minutes. So, I thought, why not try it on COVID-19? I figure that since Roundup does a tremendous number on weeds, surely it would be interesting to check its efficacy with respect to COVID-19. Bottom line: whacking the virus with a little Roundup could be our path to victory over this invisible enemy. If there is a way to do something like that by injection inside, then we could be days away from getting out of this mess. Name calling is a sign of defeat.

Trump himself has a fundamental misunderstanding of “exoneration.” It’s no surprise this G guy doesn’t get it, either. They’re just the latest hoax. Nothing to worry about there.

Nah I had other stuff to do. But I’m back for a bit to see what nonsense you’re going to come up with today. Also, I hope be able to reveal my secret plan to eradicate the virus later tonight. I’ve been working on it all day. Stay tuned. This friggin guy and Kim Jong Un are like two peas in a pod. A couple of fat narcissists who haven’t heard the word no in way too long who are disliked by a majority of the population they rule.

More mean comments like that and you’re going to get yourself on a list.

Name calling is not nice. https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/04/george-conway-lincoln-project-trump-coronavirus-destroy-america-video/

Just checking in. It's May, and apparently the virus is still here. In other news, I just saw this greatest hits list. Enjoy! https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/495839-aprils-dumbest-and-most-dangerous-coronavirus-declarations

More fake logic. You confuse "audience" with "sole intended recipient" (which, in this case, was a dubious proposition).

Fake logic. If you meant to speak only to me, you would have private messaged me. Instead you published your comments to -- and therefore spoke to -- the "public." I appreciate you acknowledging your familiarity with the private message function; your knowledge of that tool further suggests that your refusal to use it in this context was intentional. Carry on.

You assume the veracity of your theories in the first instance. I'm not sure that it's possible to disprove something that isn't provable. Copying the libs to own the libs. Nice.

Hoax. If you meant only to reply to me, then you should have used a private message function available through this site. The "others" are those who read your post. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

This is why we have a washed up psycho list. I enjoy the give and take with guys like Chef Jim and SoCal Deek. But I can only handle so much nonsense sometimes. Holy cow.

Hoax. I haven't made the claim constantly. Hoax. You're trying to deceive others.

Agreed. Spending time in Tempe instead of in Madison? Stoo-pid. Struggling to articulate why she wanted the job? Inexcusable. Failing to take the "temperature" of the Rust Belt? Completely inexcusable. And failing to give the campaign of the Libertarian candidate a boost? Political malpractice.

Where did Kemp say "defeat"? Not in the last comment. Maybe it was said somewhere else and I didn't back read. Kemp's point is, and this has been beaten to death, that the President failed with respect to addressing and containing the virus. No reasonable person expected the cases to be at "zero" in March. But nobody expected this chaos, either.

I don't know if she would have been a horrible president -- I guess none of us will ever know -- but I made a "Prada and pearls" comment a few days ago in a different thread that fits the bill here. Middle America could not relate to her, and she lost her way with respect to relating to Middle America. Trump at least gave Middle America lip service in the campaign, and it's why he's the President today.

I am of the view that Hillary lost more than Trump won. We probably part ways on the degree of Trump's intelligence (I think he "gets" people pretty well, but that his narcissism overwhelms his better judgment), but there's no dispute that it takes some brains to get to the White House.

I actually agree with a lot of this. I think Trump is a dope, but he still was smart enough to get himself elected President of the United States. I used to say the same thing about George W. Bush. Nobody would accuse him of being the brightest light on the tree, but he managed to win the White House. That has to count for something.

The last sentence could be ripped from The Onion.

Thanks for chiming in. I was going to add something about 1 million cases being a lot worse than, say 15 soon to be zero cases, and that 62,000 deaths is pretty surprising given the statement that we were to have zero cases of this thing about six weeks ago. Those statements, of course, reflect a lack of seriousness in the federal response. I'm sure that the reply will be something to the effect of "China! The WHO didn't have a bead on this for a few weeks! Obama! Cuomo! Governors! Lamestream media! OAN says you're wrong! Actually, the Easter Bunny spread a lot of coronavirus on April 12! And Trump said he's not accountable!" The bottom line is that a lot of people dropped the ball here. Including and especially the White House. This isn't to say that there wouldn't have been a pandemic with better federal leadership. It's just to say that the casual, inconsistent response almost certainly exacerbated the horror of this situation.

Hoax. I don't use disparagement as a substitute for a merits-based response.

You just won the Internet. I laughed out loud. Really loud.

You can sue anyone you want for whatever you want. The big issue is whether you can win the lawsuit. (And, of course, don't conflate "culpable" with "liable.") The thumbnail sketch is that in his instance you would lose because the state acted in a governmental capacity, not a proprietary capacity, and you would need to show that the state owed you a special duty of care. Here that's not happening. So if you want to sue, go nuts. Just don't harbor any delusion that you might actually win. Third and very short is back. Good to see you! I guess she doesn't like it when someone exposes her hoaxes. Sad!

Indeed. One unlikeable person who's actually accomplished something on his own and an equally unlikable person who hasn't done anything notable on his own.

Maybe you're right about that. But let's not pass the buck here. There's a principle in the law that there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident or event. Even assuming (probably very safely), for the sake of argument, the the Chinese government bears responsibility for part of this mess, I struggle to see how it's unfair to say that the ineptitude of our own federal administration has not also contributed to the current predicament. Bottom line: fault here isn't an either or proposition. Surely the Chinese government bears responsibility for what has happened. But the fact that one government or one actor bears responsibility doesn't mean that another actor cannot also be culpable.