SectionC3

Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument. Enough of that already. You forgot to mention the obstructionist Democrats in the Senate who would have denied cloture. So it's all the fault of Schumer, and China, and maybe the fake news media, like the RINO Wall Street Journal. /end sarcasm

You say "admit," implying (without basis in fact) that the WHO had something to hide. I say "confirm," based on my view that the scientists at the WHO tried to reach an evidence-based conclusion. In any event, that semantical point aside, let's assume that the WHO dropped the ball on identifying human-to-human transmission of the virus in China, and didn't properly recognize that type of spread until 1/21/2020. At that point we can all acknowledge that there was evidence of human-to-human spread of the virus. The CDC reached a similar, perhaps more grounded conclusion about 10 days later, and Trump banned travel from China to the US at approximately the same time. Still, though, Trump took no other timely, significant measures to protect this country from the virus. In point of fact, the outbreak in the New York City area probably can be traced to spread from Europe, an area with respect to which Trump took only late protective measures. Indeed, the bottom line remains that the WHO indicated that human-to-human spread was possible on or about 1/20. And weeks later Trump still derided the danger posed by the virus, suggesting that it would "disappear"" in warmer weather and characterizing it as a "hoax." And it took approximately six weeks before Trump took meaningful domestic measures to combat the virus. That delay surely contributed to the limited availability of testing with which this country still struggles, in spite of the president's lie that "anyone who wants a test can get one." Today we know that it hasn't disappeared in warmer areas, and that it's not a hoax. So, if you're going to blame the WHO for not recognizing the danger of the virus quickly enough, what's your excuse for Trump's inaction even after the likelihood of human-to-human transmission was identified? Surely you'll deem this fake news, but I'll post the links anyhow. I welcome a fact-based response. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-response.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-who-funding.html Fake news. Not a lot of people know this, mostly because there are so many nasty, terrible reporters in the mainstream media, but we're doing a great job. The economy's in shambles, and we have near Depression-level unemployment numbers, but that's all the fault of the Democrats because the virus is a hoax or something like that. Anyhow, things would be a lot worse if Hillary or a Democrat or a RINO or somebody besides Trump was in charge. How come it's only COVID-19 that became a problem, when there were 18 other COVIDs that could have caused a pandemic? It's because Trump beat down all of the other COVIDs, and would have done the same with this one if it wasn't for the impeachment hoax, or golfing, or Twitter, that distracted him. /end sarcasm

Yeah I’m dumb. That’s it. Name calling your way out of losing an argument isn’t going to work. Try watching the video link I posted earlier.

Actually you asked what the WHO did w/r/t the virus. I responded that a warning was issued on 1/7, and that the genetic sequence was issued on 1/12. Then, among other things, you seized upon the fact that I did not refer to another action taken by the WHO on 1/21 as reflective of your pint that I had somehow “lied.” Even using your twisted logic, the president should have known, through the WHO, of the issue re: the virus no later than 1/21. And yet he proceeded to pass the issue off as a hoax and dream it away weeks later. Finally, you mentioned that I had made false statements (plural). I’m still curious what those are. I’ll take your inability to identify those statements as proof that there were no falsities. And I’ll take your parachute out of the conversation based on your lack of desire to respond to these invented “lies” as a reflection of your admission that you can’t hang intellectually, took your ball, and went home a sore loser rather than admit defeat. have a nice night and stay healthy. With respect on your statement on prosecutors, respectfully, you’re wrong. Prosecutors don’t exonerate; that much is true. But prosecutors can no bill based on the absence of legally sufficient evidence. Mueller easily could have done that. He consciously refused to do so. on the rest of the Russia issue, surely there was some flawed reporting. But there is something to the story as a whole. The gist of the mueller report was that team trump was to inept to collude. So the media might have had parts of the story wrong, but parts too were correct. On the anonymous sources issue, with respect that’s how reporting works. Look at watergate. That doesn’t happen without anonymous sources. Sometimes reporters get played. But that’s part of how it works.

I'll try to stop back later, but the "dishonest actors" thing is something I take issue with. Bad reporting? Perhaps. Too trusting? Perhaps also tru. But just to get to the first point re: WMD, the fundamental problem was that the government (looking at you, Dick Cheney) sold a bill of goods about some yellow cake uranium nonsense. The media trusted the government, and frankly got it wrong. But the media doesn't bear primary responsibility for that. It rested with the government. Now, when the media challenges the government (watch the Trump pressers every evening), the response is that mistrust of the government somehow is problematic (those who challenge the president's views are cast as "bad reporters," or "nasty," or "terrible," or, even in the case of the WSJ, "fake news"). So I see the "dishonest actors" point as sort of trying to have things both ways. On "Russia" and its aftermath, I simply and respectfully disagree. The Mueller report (which I read) could have taken a position on legal sufficiency to exonerate the president (e.g., concluding that there is legally insufficient evidence to support an obstruction charge). The fact that Mueller refused to so conclude speaks volumes. It definitely contradicts the president's lie about "exoneration." And from my perspective it supports the public skepticism with respect to his response to the investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election.

January 21, 2020. Long before the "disappear" and "hoax" comments. Any time you're ready to respond to my other points on the merits let me know.

I answered. Even posted a link, which described the warning issued by the WHO on January 7 and the publication of relevant genetic sequencing information on January 12. Then I pointed out that, in the weeks that followed, Trump attempted to wish the virus away (it will just "disappear," he said) and characterized it as a "hoax." Rather than respond on the merits, you resorted to a falsity (indicating that I had somehow "lie[d]," without specifying how I had misspoken or attempted to mislead) and a pejorative (characterizing me as "a shitposter" not "worthy of [even the] wasting of time"). Demonizing the opponent when defeated on the merits is a common Trump tactic. You tried hard to apply it here. Unfortunately you have failed. If you have time to try to take apart my other "lies," I'll be around later. If not, have a nice day and stay healthy.

I don't know. I find it hard to believe that the media is lying when I look at clips of TRUMP'S OWN WORDS. Perhaps we can politely disagree on the context of those words. But viewing the "hoax" comment in context, I stand on my position.

I agree with you on the last point. I'll add on the fake news point that I view the "hoax" comments vastly differently from you. Sadly, the numbers Trump referenced in the context of characterizing the virus as a hoax now are nearly true - we're probably going to reach 30,000 deaths nationwide over the next few days. Those interested can judge for themselves: https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-speech-kag-rally-north-charleston-south-carolina-february-28-2020.

So you admit Trump is a "tax and spend" president. Good. I assume you'll also acknowledge that he pursued his policies while, as he was the titular head of the organization, the Republican Party controlled the House and the Senate. I further assume that you'll admit that Trump signed the largest single economic relief bill in United States history in response to the pandemic, only weeks after saying that the virus would simply "disappear," and was nothing more than the Democrats' "new hoax." And somehow, in spite of all of those points, as well as the fiscal irresponsibility I previously detailed with respect to the imposition of the Trump tariff taxes on the middle class and the Trump tax giveaway to the rich, you'll maintain that Trump is a fiscal conservative. That. Makes. Perfect. Sense.

update: still no data or article to support your tax and spend theories. But plenty of time to invent ways to try to blame Nancy Pelosi for the president's irresponsible financial policies. Cool picture. Got a response on the merits?

That's a $350 billion (with a "B") dollar program, right? Perhaps instead of focusing on a tiny slice of that spending package, and ignoring the Trump tax and spend policies of the past 3.5 years, we should focus on the issue whether the package itself would have been necessary had the President of the United States (the one who claims to have "absolute authority") proactively addressed the pandemic.

I'm not going to click on the link, but I might suggest that you read the part about the president's veto power if it's in there.

That's the ticket. "RINOs." Got it. So the "RINOs," Pelosi, and Schumer are responsible for the irresponsible spending. Makes perfect sense. I had to edit the post because I missed the corollary to the theory: there are so many RINOs that a presidential veto of all of this irresponsible spending would be overridden, so naturally the president doesn't bother to exercise his veto power with respect to such issues and instead will focus on eliminating the RINO source of the problem. Now I think I've covered all of the bases. One more thing: still no study or data to support your "tax and spend" conservatism points.

Typical Trumper response. Ignore the balance of the points, and instead attempt to undermine through distraction. I'll let the WHO answer your question: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/15/835179442/we-alerted-the-world-to-coronavirus-on-jan-5-who-says-in-response-to-u-s. I'll add that important measure taken by the WHO (alerting the international community to the concern in early January 2020, and publishing the genetic sequence of the virus approximately one week later) occurred approximately one month before the President of the United States attempted to wish the virus away, suggesting that it would just "disappear," and characterized the virus as a political hoax. The bottom line is that while the WHO warned the world of the dangers of coronavirus, the President of the United States deluded himself and attempted to delude the public into ignoring the problem. I suspect that most would not believe that unemployment numbers prompted by the pandemic, the likes of which have not been seen since the Great Depression, are a hoax. Perhaps we should ask ourselves if those numbers would be as high as they are had the person with "absolute authority" in this country, I don't know, respected the threat and pushed for the development of an aggressive testing program, and similarly pushed the scientific community to begin drug therapies for the virus. That sort of was the point of the WHO publishing the genetic sequence of the virus. In any event, I'm all ears if you have a response on the merits to the litany of other criticisms I raised with respect to the president's mishandling of the pandemic. This is rich. Got a study to support your point? If not, when exactly will the "spending now . . . generate income in the future?" And, more importantly, will the "spending now," which frankly has occurred inversely through the reduction in receivables by the US Treasury occasioned by the Trump tax cuts for the rich, generate enough income to pay for itself in the future? The data thus far says that the tax and spend approach of the president (who, not that you need the civics lesson, must approve the "Pelosi" spending to which you refer given that Republicans control the Senate, and that Democrats only control the House) has not worked: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/789540931/2-years-later-trump-tax-cuts-have-failed-to-deliver-on-gops-promises. I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you refer to "Schumer" spending, since Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, control the Senate. That said, my understanding of fiscal conservatism is that it involves things like low taxes for all and balanced budgets. Not tariffs, tax giveaways to the top 2%, and massive deficit spending.

"[W]ould be the very definition of a schittshow?" With respect, what's going on right now is nuts. Bananas. Do you watch the President's press conferences? One day he's saying that he takes no responsibility for the pandemic response. The next day he claims absolute authority. His cavalier approach to the truth is beyond anything that I could have comprehended before this presidency. Don't agree with him? You're fake news. Or nasty. Or a bad reporter. Or a liar. It doesn't matter if you're the New York Times or even the Wall Street Journal. I wrote that paragraph before I even read your "whataboutism" point with respect to China, navigating the podium, and her foundation. I don't much care for Hillary Clinton, but what you said . . . it has no basis in truth, logic, or reason. It's rank speculation and willfully ignorant of the atrocious job that this president has done with respect to the pandemic response. The Boston Globe said it better than I ever could: Trump is "epically outmatched" by the pandemic. We see it live every day in these bonkers pressers from the White House. We see it when Jared Kushner is put in charge, acts like a moron in front of a microphone, and then is sidelined. We see it when Peter Navarro, a smart person but one uneducated in matters of this nature, fights an experienced, accomplished virologist with respect to the loosening of social distancing restrictions. We see it when COVID testing remains a significant impediment to pandemic control and economic awakening, despite the fact that the president said a month ago that "anyone who wants a test can have one." We see it in old news clips in which the president tried to wish the virus away and deemed it a political hoax. We see it when the president blows the dog whistle to blame Obama and China for the problem without acknowledging his own missteps. We see it with the ridiculous attempt to pin this mess on the WHO. And, most sadly, we see it in the so-called "fake news" reports of ER docs, nurses, and families affected by this crisis.

Got some facts? Or a link?

It's the biggest (and maybe the only) "hoax" of the Trump presidency. I can't comprehend how fiscal conservatives could have supported this administration even before the coronavirus. They're free traders; he instituted a bunch of new taxes through his tariff program. The deficit was growing rapidly and was out of control even before coronavirus. And now, with this giveaway . . . I received a little over $3,000 for nothing. If that's not socialism (and this is coming from a true blue, union Democrat) I don't know what is. With respect to the religious conservatives, I get that Trump gave them two Supreme Court judges who might give them a shot at overturning Roe. (Ultimately I suspect that Roberts won't go along with it, but that's a conversation for another day.) The moral compromises that must be drawn to support this president, however, . . . I find stunning. There's no other way to put it. And as for the constitutional conservatives, if this week's nugget about "absolute authority" doesn't put you over the edge then nothing will. The national emergency declaration to support wall construction was legal nonsense, but that pales with respect to this man's patent misunderstanding of the document that he purports to love. It amazes me that the "rule of law" crowd sticks by this guy after the Mueller report (read it, I did, refused to make a determination with respect to legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting obstruction charges), the wall fiasco, and now this nonsense about absolute power. *** One more point: Even Matt Drudge is turning on this guy. The intellectual conservatives know that this president is off the rails. He might be a nationalist, and he is a narcissist, but he is definitely not a conservative.

The recession is here. Hopefully it doesn't turn into a depression. None of knows (or at least none of us has been willing to say) the extent to which the Pegulas are leveraged. I wonder whether it's not so much debt load or cash flow that is a problem, but a hit to the investment portfolio caused by the coronavirus downturn. Assuming they're into the energy sector (an assumption, to be sure, but not an altogether unreasonable one), they could have taken huge losses in the last two months. By way of example, I bought a small amount of VDE after Iran seized a couple of oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. That investment is down about 50% as of today. It's probably just as bad for domestic energy holdings as well. In any event, the layoffs on the hockey side of things aren't a great sign for a new stadium (not that I want one because I prefer a renovated New Era). The dynamic on the state side obviously has changed as a result of the pandemic, and it looks like the amount of private money might have dwindled as well as a result of recent events.

I'm bored so I'll take a case at your candidate. Dennis Lauscha? NFL experience, also runs a successful small-market winter sports team, and has experience with special events (e.g., NCAA post-season events, all-star games, etc.).

Good for you. Thanks for your service and for donating your plasma. We're all in this together, and you have more than done your part. The crowd thing is going to be interesting. The theory here is that the in-stadium crowds help viewership. I wonder if nets pipe in crowd noise and try to use a little VR effect to "paste" fans into backgrounds.

No doubt. Would the telereview still constitute a physical? Or would that simply be a review of medical records? I'm not a doctor, so this might be off-base, but I'm wondering whether ROM, strength tests, etc., would be relevant to measuring recovery and would be necessary for a complete and contemporaneous evaluatioun of the subject. I suppose (and correct me if I'm wrong) that there might be an indicator of automatic failure based on imaging (avascular necrosis would show upon an x-ray, right?). But I just . . . it sounds like BS to me that this guy underwent a physical given the current circumstances.

I'm curious as to when those physicals were conducted. (Or, better put, if those physicals actually were conducted, given the pandemic.)

It's all about winning. Win and you're relevant. Win and you're noticed. It doesn't matter if you play in Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay, Kansas City, or any other midwestern, small market.

I hate to say it but at this point I agree with him. The problem is the peak in New York City will be followed by growth in other places, e.g., New Orleans, Boston, Detroit, etc. Hopefully the summer kills this thing off, but right now I have my doubts that we're closer to the end than to the beginning.