Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - rightleft22

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 32
So in the past 3 days, we've seen at least 4 instances of high profile Republicans or Republican groups broadcast easily verifiable lies in support of their election efforts:
  • The Trump campaign cut out a 3 second clip of Biden paraphrasing Trump and Pence, but attributing the words to Biden.  Biden, in a longer response said "Trump and Pence [are claiming] quote 'you won't be safe in Joe Biden's America', unquote".  Yet the Trump campaign put out a video of only the "you won't be safe in Joe Biden's America" portion
  • Trump retweeted a white supremacist's tweet showing a several-year-old video of a serial subway crazy person pushing people into trains, and claiming it was BLM.
  • Steve Scalise tweeted a video that had been manipulated to resequence and add words in an interview between Biden and Ady Barkan, a progressive activist who suffers from ALS and who uses a computer generated voice to communicate.
  • And of course Dan Scavino with his fake Biden sleeping video.
Do so many Republicans believe that getting caught lying is less damaging to themselves than the effect on their opponents of putting out dishonest propaganda?  Are they simply oblivious? Are americans simply so polarized that they will cheer on liars just because they are on the same 'team'?

As an aside, maybe the perceived 'bias' against conservatives is actually earned responses. Sure, Trump has been lying and dishonest for the past 5 years, but maybe it is a more general Republican issue?

Fox and the social media echo chambers are the only place many Republicans get their information from where the statements are amplified so they don't see any information that might make them question things. Confirmation bias. And yes Democrats do the same thing although there isn't a single primary news source they depend on.   

Nor will Trump followers see the contrition between the LAW and ORDER President offering up excesses for Rittenhouse
Tacitly approving white militia vigilantism. It would be a different case and outcome if the militia waving guns around were black.


I guess war it will be. If you cannot see that Rittenhouse was operating within the constraints of the law, there is no hope for you.

Rittenhouse also did attempt to avoid the situation, but certain people didn't want to let him run away.

So its within the law to have a armed militia on the streets out after curfew and that that armed militia can be made up of kids? How could that go wrong.
And if their are no laws about militias acting in this way maybe a real Law and Order guy might want to address that.
Be careful what you wish for. Lets see how Trump and you respond when its a black militia out patrolling?

Rittenhouse had no businesses being in the city out after curfew.. Oh but the curfew law only applied to black protesters which as the police chief explained had they obeyed Rittenhouse wouldn't have had anyone to fight with. 

Nor will Trump followers see the contrition between the LAW and ORDER President offering up excesses for Rittenhouse
Tacitly approving white militia vigilantism. It would be a different case and outcome if the militia waving guns around were black.

The few bad apples in the police do not represent the Police on as a whole (even though holding those bad apples accountable is really difficult)  = no systemic racism
While those who riot represent the protest movement as a whole.

The issue is systemic exactly because the contradictions on how the rules are applied are not acknowledged.

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 31, 2020, 05:40:37 PM »
Under the 'defund the police'  recommendation that the police are not the first/primary respondents for such domestic calls it is unlikely that the result would have been seven shots into someones back. Such a solution is worth looking into.

I wouldn't count on that, and it is something someone pointed out elsewhere. It lines up roughly with memory, but not going to go digging for stats right now.

For officers shot/killed in the line of duty, 1 in 4 happen while responding to domestic disputes.
Another 1 in 4 die while responding to roadside vehicle stops.

Jacob Blake turned a Domestic Dispute into one which involves a motor-vehicle....

Edit: 2 September 2019
The two most dangerous encounters that law enforcement will become involved with during their careers are traffic stops and domestic violence incidents. These two incidents may become extremely volatile and can escalate rapidly to a life-threatening situation any moment. However, there are two different types of mindsets, as well as safe guards at the officer’s disposal to implement during these two very different encounters.

I think you make my point. Police responding to domestic calls are dangerous and one would think require special training. A officer coming to the door armed and representing the possibility of getting arrested has a probably of inflaming the situation where people aren't thinking rational. At least looking into a different approach is reasonable. IMO

The question to investigate is whether someone responding to a domestic call unarmed and trained to deal with such situations (backed up by police) would have been able to defuse the situation or at least assess the situation.
If a arrest needed to be made the assessment could have been made as to where and when the arrest could be made safely.

Ie just as the police decided not to confront and arrest the white militia kid right away although if he was black that would likely have ended differently.

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 31, 2020, 04:22:30 PM »
In defense of the Police who responded to Blake, all we know is that they were called because he was stealing someone's keys and there was a warrant out for his arrest. Then he goes to get into a car with kids in it. We know now that those were his kids and his car but the officers on the scene could have thought he was stealing a car and kidnapping the kids (custody issues can get ugly). And if two cops are called to a residence to stop someone from stealing keys and watch him drive off in a stolen car with 3 kidnapped kids in the back seat then I think we would all be justifiably outraged by the ineptness of the officers on the scene. Guns should have never been needed on that day but once the officer was facing the prospect of him driving off the situation gets really murky morally (without hindsight knowledge of the situation). With better training and police response the situation would have never gotten to that point.

The issue with regards to systemic racism that the scenario like the one involving Jacob results in the police resorting to lethal force more often when the individual is black.
You can equivocate all you want about the details but the question as if this would have happens to a white man under the exact same conditions remains valid - especially as one observes the same police department handling of white and black protesters.

Under the 'defund the police'  recommendation that the police are not the first/primary respondents for such domestic calls it is unlikely that the result would have been seven shots into someones back. Such a solution is worth looking into. 

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 28, 2020, 01:14:27 PM »
I'm tired of the equivocations.

The police were sloppy and this sloppiness happens more often when a black person is involved. If we want it to stop this kind of thing we have to stop doing the same old things that aren't working.

And when the "Law and Order" Trump Republican Party does not send a strong message against Joe Citizen white militia (any militia's) taking the law into their own hands. they are hypocrites blind to their own shadow actively creating what they fear and project onto the DNC.

And when the "Law and Order" Trump Republican Party only gives lip service to addressing issues with policing that does no make them a Law and Order party.

When those enforcement actions shift from trained personnel to Joe Citizen, things will trend towards getting worse exponentially more quickly.

As some of my more conservative associates on Facebook posted back when "Defund the police" first started trending. "In a place without police, most crimes will come with a more immediate death penalty." And Rittenhouse just demonstrated the validity of that statement. Just like the Seattle CHAZ/CHOP did as well.

And who is responsible for allowing the police enforcement to shift to Joe Citizen in this case. If I were to buy into what I heard in the RNC convention I might pick up a gun as well. Disgusting.

Your equating "Defund the police" = No police - is not what the majority of the people want with regards to addressing police issues mean when they use the term 'defund the police' Of course that dons't suit the "Law and order' narrative. But anyone who thinks "Defending the police" would = no police is a fool.

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 28, 2020, 12:39:41 PM »
Depends on context, you're still comparing apples and oranges. Rittenhouse was trying to surrender himself to the police rather than the angry mob-- not a threat.

Jacob Blake was resisting attempts to be detained, not following directions, and introducing new unknown variables into the mix--escalating the situation.

True however I think it still fair to include how the police allowed and encouraged the presence of the militia. No way they act the same way if it was a black militia. 
I would argue then that the police in the case procedure differs with regards to race. 

Rittenhouse does seem to have a valid "in fear for my life"

Rittenhouse should never have been allowed to be in the situation. 

He and his 'brothers' are responsible in if not actual creating the conditions exasperating them to which they might 'gear for their lives"
By defending Rittenhouse in this way a segment of the population is supporting the idea handing over of policing to such 'militias' and this is not the DNC making the streets unsafe its the GOP

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 28, 2020, 11:02:29 AM »
This is all assuming the knife was actually present at the shooting and not planted after the fact.

We've obsessed over Blake's record; what's the record of the shooter, his accomplices, and other members of their group with access to the scene?

Jacob Blake himself has said he had a knife with him from reporting I've heard.
The police claim that Blake admitted to having a knife in his possession.  Fixed that for you.

Based on what I've seen of how the police have handled situations involving the the white "militia" I think its fair to ask the question if they would have handled the situation with Jacob diffidently had he been white and claimed to have a knife in his possession.

What is the truth about Kyle Rittenhouse?

That he is a 17 year old boy
That he belonged to a 'militia'' that had no businesses to be on the streets very much responsible for creating what they fear.
That the police once again showed poor judgment is condoning the 'militia' presence. Had the militia been black that would not have been the case.

What is the truth is the America is loosing its mind

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 28, 2020, 09:45:59 AM »
I'm still waiting to hear why it was better to follow him with a gun drawn instead of tackling him on his slow walk.

It was sloppy policing in a difficult situation.

General Comments / Re: RNC
« on: August 28, 2020, 09:40:39 AM »
The most irresponsible negative dangerous convention... 
Shame on the RNC

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 27, 2020, 10:27:30 AM »
All the checks and balances fall to the wayside. To watch so many agencies cave to pressure....

Can't think of other examples of things going badly when a 'leader' thinks they are a expert at anything and interferes... and then latter have it all come back to bite them and the country they 'lead' in the butt

General Comments / Re: RNC
« on: August 27, 2020, 10:21:37 AM »
Donald Trump has called for himself and his challenger Joe Biden to submit to a drug test before their first presidential debate in September.
I think the Donald might want to add his son to the list of who should be tested

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 26, 2020, 05:03:51 PM »
That said statistically this happens to black people with a higher probability so had Jacob been white the probability that the situation ended in the use of lethal force would be less. At least that's what the numbers tell us.   And its the numbers that suggest a systemic problem.

From memory in the past year there have multiple "officer involved shootings" in my own county in past year. One involved a tribal member(fun times that one), but the other occasions all involved white guys. Sounds about right for a town that is 90%+ white. I think one of them resulted in a death, but it was a white dude so...

In your town 90% white, 10% minority.  With three incidences 10% of the population represents 33% of the incidences. Responsible to ask the question why. Are the minorities more likely to behave badly? Are they being over policed? If so how might over policing play into how minorities respond to police? Or is just that white people better people? 

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 26, 2020, 04:11:51 PM »

According to the audio obtained by Madison365, someone called police to report that Blake was at her home and wasn’t supposed to be, and that he had taken her keys and was refusing to give them back. A dispatcher relayed this message to patrol officers at about 5:11 pm Sunday.

About 30 seconds later, she let patrol officers know that there was “an alert at this address for a 99 for this subject,” apparently to indicate that a warrant had been issued for Blake’s arrest. Court records indicate a warrant was issued on three charges — two misdemeanors and one G-class felony — on July 7. Court records indicate no previous criminal charges in the state of Wisconsin.

So what the police knew prior to arrival was that they were looking for a male suspect who had just trespassed, has stolen some property(the caller's keys), and that there was a warrant out for his arrest(although they likely didn't know what the warrant was for--can't rule out their use of a computer in the squad car to look him up though).

Edit to add: the audio of the police dispatch exchanges are available at the link above)

I don't think the issue is that the police didn't have grounds to detain or arrest Jacob but more how they went about it. They look sloppy.
I guess the race question is if they would have gone to lethal force if Jacob was white. Even those involved won't be able to answer that for sure.

That said statistically this happens to black people with a higher probability so had Jacob been white the probability that the situation ended in the use of lethal force would be less. At least that's what the numbers tell us.   And its the numbers that suggest a systemic problem.

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 25, 2020, 11:25:13 AM »
I don't like the outcome here, but as a society we need to understand having every police officer armed means that any active physical resistance to the police is likely going to end with you getting shot. Because to them every physical altercation is a life and death struggle and since they know they have a gun they can't treat it differently.

The problem is that under stress most people don't act rationally.  We hope that the police are trained to respond and not react to such stress. Watching how the officer fired his weapon it dons't appear hes fully in control and with all the people around their lucky no one else what hit. 

It is scary. such statements are irresponsible.

The GOP doesn't plan to release a policy platform for 2020 one wonders what is it that the GOP holds dear? I am convinced that many followers of Trump, Trumpism have lost sight of what they are fighting for and are aiming for.

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: August 25, 2020, 10:40:59 AM »
Neither do I or many of my conservative relatives who are disgusted with what Trump has done to the GOP.  The Party has left me and become the Party of Trump.  I would call him the RINO now.

Eh, I'm remembering 2014 and Mitch McConnell in particular talking about destroying the Tea Party. Where even he was talking about "Scorched earth" against his own side. So in a number of respects, I'm inclined to suspect this is a continuation of a fight that has been ongoing within the GOP since 2010.

I remember hearing something about that as well and if true I can only conclude that Mcconnell has failed and that the tea party has become even more embedded. How else could you explain tea party part 2 - Qanon?

To be fair I also don't recolonize the new far left as being liberal - The difference being the debate between the various factions within the DNC is still ongoing and visible.

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: August 25, 2020, 09:25:20 AM »
Not sure why that comes as a surprise, since in 2016 the entire RNC was fighting against Trump getting elected. That anyone in the party ever supported him was only a fallback position due to lack of choice once he had won.

Begs the question of integrity.
I can't help wonder how Trump became the best the GOP could do, Trump as a Leader, and Trump as what he represents with regards to conservatism? I wonder if many of those who 'just fell in line' due to lack of choice or whatever have lost sight of the future they hope to work towards. I can't help but wonder if the GOP has lost sight of who and what they are. It is no surprise to me that something like Qanon is starting to take hold in the GOP when its leaderships act's so irresponsibly in their response to such movements.

I don't recognize this new conservatism of the GOP

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 24, 2020, 04:16:04 PM »
Oh your having a possible heart attack. Let me help you by restricting your air flow.. opp's sorry but not my fault you were going to die of a heart attack anyway... my restricting your airway for 8 min had nothing to do with anything.

I want you on my jury if I'm ever accused of cause the death of someone

But if a cop were having a heart attack and a citizen kneeled on his neck for 8 minutes... COP KILLER!

Different rules for different folks

General Comments / Re: Who Pledges Their Lives and Fortune to Trump
« on: August 24, 2020, 03:35:14 PM »
The problem with a statement like  "If I lose you cheated" is that it dons't require any proof when a loyal factions of followers accept the statement at face value without question or concern.
That same loyal faction would have a fit if a opponent made the same claim, stacking it as undermining democracy (or the game) which it is, but that they can't see or admit when its their guy making the claim.

The question they also reflects back on the Democrats as well. Even though the polling doesn't reflect the possibility at this time. If Trump wins both the Popular Vote and the EC in November. Are the Democrats going to accept that result?

How about an EC win without the popular vote? Will Democrats accept that result or are they going to start screaming about Trump cheating and rioting in the streets?

Its a question but not the one being asked. Nor does it address the problem of how to respond to such a statement as 'If i lose = you cheated"  A statement that made from anyone would be troubling regardless. So yes in that regards it does apply to democrats especially if it was Biden that made that statement.

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 24, 2020, 03:14:30 PM »
It's nice to pretend that Floyd just happened to die of a heart attack while a cop kneeled on his neck for seven minutes while Floyd gasped that he couldn't breathe.  But just because the cop didn't know his dangerous behavior might exasperate an existing condition, and he didn't know the guy wasn't lying when he said he couldn't breathe, doesn't mean he wasn't responsible for murdering the guy.  Floyd wouldn't have died then if he wasn't chocked.

That was the ME said.

The body cam footage of the full encounter is available online. He was saying he couldn't breath long before he ever was placed on the ground, something that the bodycam footage clearly shows he asked for.

So you're saying he was being asphyxiated from a knee being placed on his neck before anybody had even touched it? Seems to me he was suffering from a heart attack about the time they started trying to place him in the police cruiser. The heart attack was a consequence of anything Chauvin did, it was already happening.

What they failed to recognize was that Floyd was in medical distress and render appropriate aid.

Not just failing to render appropriate aid but exasperating the situation by kneeling on his neck.

Oh your having a possible heart attack. Let me help you by restricting your air flow.. opp's sorry but not my fault you were going to die of a heart attack anyway... my restricting your airway for 8 min had nothing to do with anything.

I want you on my jury if I'm ever accused of cause the death of someone

General Comments / Re: Jacob Blake
« on: August 24, 2020, 03:08:24 PM »
I like to think that when I'm in a stressful situation that I will respond intelligibility however a few very resent examples has shown me that there is a real likelihood that I won't were instead I found reacting in ways that make things worse.

As I watch Jacob in the video I see myself in him reacting to a situation badly instead of responding to it and the very real dangers the situation presented.
I also see myself in the cops and faced with the same problem, how do I not make the situation worse.

Both failed.

I don't see racist cops here just cop's that have been trained to overly rely on the gun.   

I suspect that if this has happened in other western countries Jacob would not have been shot.

General Comments / Re: Who Pledges Their Lives and Fortune to Trump
« on: August 24, 2020, 02:16:25 PM »
The problem with a statement like  "If I lose you cheated" is that it dons't require any proof when a loyal factions of followers accept the statement at face value without question or concern.
That same loyal faction would have a fit if a opponent made the same claim, stacking it as undermining democracy (or the game) which it is, but that they can't see or admit when its their guy making the claim.

It is no wonder that something like Qanon is gaining acceptance when our ability to make reasoned argument has been eroded. When a lake of proof is proof all dialog ends.

General Comments / Re: Who Pledges Their Lives and Fortune to Trump
« on: August 24, 2020, 01:52:21 PM »
At a recent rally in Oshkosh, WI, Trump warned his followers:

We have to win the election. We can’t play games. Go out and vote. Do those beautiful absentee ballots, or just make sure your vote gets counted. Make sure because the only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged. ... Remember that. It’s the only way we’re going to lose this election, so we have to be very careful.

"The only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged."  Trump is right now behind in the polls.  If those polls are correct (and there are a lot of people who are trying their best to make them as accurate as they can), then he will legitimately lose come November.  But if he's convinced himself that he can't lose without the election being rigged, he will call upon his supporters to rise up and defend him and the country (in that order ;) ).

So, I'm curious.  Who's with him?  Who here will rise up and risk their liberty, lives and livelihood to defend Donald Trump's presidency if he is declared the loser in the election?  Who will stand by him in his hour of need?  Because he's already told you that the only way he can lose is if the election is rigged.  And then you are his only hope.

So who's with him?

Interesting how the dialog has digressed into poll numbers and associating the question to the "Trump wants to be a dictator for life" diversion.

No one has directly answered the question but that's  not the troubling part here.  The troubling part is the rhetoric itself. The reasoning behind anyone arguing that "If I lose its because you cheated."  No need to proof or facts just if I lose you cheated. 
It is a argument that isn't a argument and undermines the process of playing the game in the first place.
Similar to those people making the lack of proof is proof type of arguments.

No one on this forum would have gotten away with makings such non arguments in the past but here were are defending a President that does just that - Shame

We are undermining ourselves and instead of addressing the real issue of a President actually making a claim that unless he win's the system  we bobble around playing the useful idiots.

General Comments / Re: Official Party Platforms
« on: August 22, 2020, 08:56:57 PM »
After the Democrat Virtual Convention, the main takeaway from many observers is how dark the message was. Most speeches were attacks on Trump. As Obama said, "Donald Trump hasn’t grown into the job, because he can’t, and the consequences of that failure are severe: 170,000 Americans dead. Millions of jobs gone. Those at the top taking more than ever. Our worst impulses unleashed, our proud reputation around the world badly diminished, and our democratic institutions threatened like never before.”

You can't see your own shadow.

You don't get to comment on a "dark message" defined as calling out people and "saying it as it is" while your man is nothing but a negative name calling fear monger-er. 
This is the ends your support of a man that is not qualified to lead, leads to. darkness and negativity.

In the ends justify the means in GoP politics I wonder if you have forgotten which ends your actually aiming for. 

Good luck as the GOP begins embracing Qanon where evidence = conspiracy and no evidence = quilt.
Talk about people supporting a "something' that can't see there own shadow. A Organization that has a foundation built on un-vetted anonymous secret sources and that claims to be afraid of secrete shadow organizations. They are the thing they fear.   
 How could that go wrong.

A better question to me, is why do you ignore the significant problems that the government has imposed on the post office and the significant changes in reality in your question?

I'm not sure if that's the better question but you make a important point and assumption.

The assumption is that msquared is not concerned about the significant problems that the post office has.
The question is if the best way to deal with those issues is privatization?

And all this talk of Election fraud and which side is doing what. Where is your evidence?

General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: August 20, 2020, 04:47:07 PM »
But it smells, and it smells bad and deeply troubling in a long line of things that are troubling.

When do we say enough

General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: August 20, 2020, 04:26:07 PM »
Wow.  So in their continuing effort to hijack citizens' ability to vote, Trump's Postmaster Bagman Louis DeJoy' Postal Service forbids employees from signing absentee ballots as witnesses while working.

In a nationwide rule change that went unnoticed this summer, the U.S. Postal Service has forbidden employees from signing absentee ballots as witnesses while on duty. The change could make it more difficult for Alaskans, particularly rural residents, to vote by mail.

It's bizarre how so many of the USPS changes recently either have the direct effect of impeding the ability to vote, or just coincidentally have that side effect.

Sounds bad, but shouldn't have any practical impact. From the Alaska voter website, which is the state mentioned in the article:

In the current pandemic, there are few situations where an official is reasonably accessible. If it isn’t easy for you to get to an authorized official, your ballot can be witnessed by anyone over the age of 18. The division just received confirmation from the USPS that postal employees are prohibited from serving as witnesses in their official capacity while on duty, due in part to the potential operational impacts.

Now, I'm not sure how they officially define "easy". It seems it would apply in the rural areas the article indicates where postal employees are the only reasonable option.

It may not have any impact however this missing with the post office is very much bad and should be troubling across the political spectrum.

Sadly the strongest voices on this site which should be coming out against this type of thing remain silent. The ends justify the means... but they have forgotten which ends they are aiming for.

“I’ve heard that these are people (QAnon) that love our country, I don’t really know anything about it other than they do supposedly like me.”

A reporter pressed him “It is this belief that you are secretly saving the world from this Satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals,” she said. “Does that sound like something that you are behind?”

“Well, I haven’t heard that, but is that supposed to be a bad thing or a good thing?”
“If I can help save the world from problems I’m willing to do it — I’m willing to put myself out there,”

Trump is appears likes anyone that likes him, endorsing movements he know admits to knowing nothing about. But hey they like him so all good. 

General Comments / Re: Cops should beware lying about millionaires
« on: August 20, 2020, 03:26:21 PM »
I've seen the video. There is no IF

Strickland can be seen using his arm to stop Ujiri in an apparent effort to ensure he had security credentials. As Ujiri reachs for those credentials Strickland can be seen shoving Ujiri before the two appear to exchange words. Strickland then shoves Ujiri a second time, at which point Ujiri retaliates by pushing Strickland back

General Comments / Re: Cops should beware lying about millionaires
« on: August 20, 2020, 10:00:10 AM »
You're joking, but this is actually a very good example of how the problems in policing are systemic and widespread, and not just a racism problem. Racism may be a part of it, but part of why it's a bit problematic that BLM specifically has the monopoly on demanding police reforms is that the police are generally abusive, and many people have been victimized by them, including apparently rich dudes. I mean, that this could happen at all, no less to a renounced millionaire, shows a disgusting blemish in the police system. If racism is a part of it then that's bad, but only equally bad with just...being bad.

Did Masai Ujiri renounced himself as a millionaire or was the a Freudian slip :)

Trying to parse this.
If racism is part of it then that's bad but only equally bad... because the police also treat people that aren't black badly... some of the times... even if disproportional.  Equality for all, black white, rich poor, only that isn't how it is.

Statistically it is unlikely had Ujiri been a well dressed white rich man and not a well dressed black rich man that he would have been shoved not just once but twice.
It is unlikely had Ujiri been poor that the cop would have taken a chance to sue him. That the cop thought he might get away with it suggests a stupidity and someone totally unconsciousness of himself.  The stupidity and unconsciousness stinks of a racist bias of the cop

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 18, 2020, 03:26:40 PM »
Is covid-19 still as much of a danger as it was when it first broke out?
I'm watching the numbers and even thought the active cases continue to clime the death rate is falling.

I understand that measuring the success of preventative measures is difficult. You tend not to notice until you drop them. Still I'm finding it harder not wonder...

Naw, he'll just issue an Executive Order declaring that it's legal for him to be President as long as he wants.  That'll cover him until the Supreme Court one day gets around to seeing the case, and then he can ignore the Supremes if he still feels up to it.

I mean, what are they going to do?  Impeach him?  ;D

If only you were joking...

We think such things could never happen in the US but if the last few years have shown the strongest voices that might have insure such things don't happen are remaining silent. So one wonders

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 17, 2020, 05:55:47 PM »
Or you start having herd immunity orgies that last at least 14 days.

In my younger days I happened on a nude beach and learned a important lesson. The majority of people who will take there cloths off are not the people you want to see naked. I suspect the same goes for orgies. I'm out. :)

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 17, 2020, 05:36:04 PM »

We know enough about the covid19 to say that the risk to healthy young people is low.
The important question the young person needs to ask themselves then is how likely they might be to spread covid19 within and without their bubble if they might have got infected after their encounter. (or other risky behavior) 
If they take risks for themselves that's one thing, however if they then take no mitigation actions to prevent spreading Covid19 to others they are in my opinion morally in the wrong. 

Its similar to travel, go ahead and travel but when you return self isolate and or get tested.
I disagree: it's the inverse HIV hypothesis - it's not just that you're sleeping with all of your partners' partners, it's that all of your friends' friends are breathing your viruses.  So no, the risk is not just to the people in your bubble, but also the reality is that you are putting all of your friends' bubble people at risk as well.

I think you missed the part where I stated 'within and without their bubble' When you add a person to your 'bubble' (for sexual contact or otherwise)

My point was that each person must be honest about the risk. Not just for themselves but others. Those within and those without their bubble.
I would expect different stagnates to mitigate risk for either case. For example I'm a player and just can't keep it in my pants.  I need to let my bubble know or keep that bubble very small. I must also engage in all the social distancing requirements when around anyone outside my bubble. If I can't do that then I should not be sleeping around.

I agree that were not talking about this issue - the issue being about personal responsibility with regards to the calculation of risk not just to ourselves but to others. 

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 17, 2020, 04:40:53 PM »
The campus thing got me thinking, and I have to wonder how much of the virus transmission is purely due to sexual dalliances or relationships forming. The one thing I haven't really heard addressed here or elsewhere is the issue of how one is supposed to date during COVID times. Meeting someone in a bar - requires a bar. It also requires flirting...but with masks...and 2 meters apart? And how do you go about taking someone back to your place? Is it a return to the 80's where you show someone your 'card' (in this case a neg covid test) before sleeping with them? And what about people who are now dating, and sort of forming a two-person bubble, but then there's the issue of everyone each of them comes into contact with, and then whatever each one has they are sharing in spades due to fluid transmission. So the risks of bubble contamination are probably exponentially higher when sleeping with someone. And this doesn't even get us started on random sex or one night stands or whatever.

Say what you want for or against masks, but what on earth can manage the issues involved with people who voluntarily share fluids? I very much doubt too many Americans would tolerate actually remaining celibate until a vaccine is discovered.

We know enough about the covid19 to say that the risk to healthy young people is low.
The important question the young person needs to ask themselves then is how likely they might be to spread covid19 within and without their bubble if they might have got infected after their encounter. (or other risky behavior) 
If they take risks for themselves that's one thing, however if they then take no mitigation actions to prevent spreading Covid19 to others they are in my opinion morally in the wrong. 

Its similar to travel, go ahead and travel but when you return self isolate and or get tested.

If classism is at the heart of it then the rich wouldn't want the poor around regardless of their skin color, and would take concerted efforts to keep anyone down who is already down

I would argue that the rich don't want any poor around and use the tool of discrimination justified by racist reasoning to distract the 'useful idiots' - the poor and middle classes of all races - from effectively dealing with the problem. Its a win win for the rich who do not care about the color of the poor only that they the keep their distance.

Watched how the poor and middle class successful protested and kill Seattle plan to tax Amazon for support of affordable housing. A issue Amazon rich mangers exacerbated by driving up the cost of homes. So much so that even those with full time half descent jobs were homeless. Though the lack of affordable hosing affected more Black people proportionately it also affected negatively many of those who protested and killed the plan. Even if they didn't realize it. Much of the reasoning for their protests were based on racist reasoning.   

The people with money want to protect what they have, and want something for their buck, and those without it want to change the system. Those with control over the money supply want it to benefit their interests, and those with huge capital want it to leverage policy into their own monopolistic or oligarchic enrichment. You can classify all of this under D for duh. Rich people don't want poor people messing up their neighborhood, a headline you can find in any age going back to Ancient Rome I'm sure.

True the people with money want to protect what they have and have the power to create policy with is often discriminatory against those without wealth and or power. The justifications for such policy is what is often racist, (racist ideas didn't create policy so much as policy creates racist ideas.) The racist the problem becomes systemic as the reasoning becomes embedded in our thinking.
i.e. Black people moving into a neighborhood lowers property values. (black people = crime). You can't say that now now its adding low cost housing to a community = lower property values and may people think = Black.

I might argue that the 'class protecting their interests have in the past successful uses racist reasoning to defend their actions and distract the 'useful idiot' from realizing that the discrimination doesn't just hurt Black people but the poor 'lower class' as well. Allowing such racist reasoning no matter how well hidden behind the words we use to become systemic.  So separating the debate on class and racism become difficult because its been a tool of classism to distract

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 11, 2020, 04:46:31 PM »

They have only 500 new cases per day, and about 10 deaths per day. They have achieved phase 4 of their reopening plan. This is not "full reopening", they are still keeping people out of indoor dining. Sports still have no fans in attendance. Businesses in violation get shut down after three warnings - including not following outdoor dining.

Part of that is because NYC has 'partial herd immunity', antibody surveys suggest 20-25% of NYC might have been exposed (though I suspect that is probably a significant overestimate - their testing method is highly susceptible to oversampling those most likely to have caught it - because they are more frequently out and about) and the people most likely to spread tend to be those most likely to get it early.  I'm sure their measures have been effective is slowing the spread, but I think their current numbers are also benefiting from their early mistakes.

So if that is accurate we should start to see the 'herd immunity' affect starting to show in Florida and California within the next few... weeks?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 10, 2020, 02:36:49 PM »
If we aren’t willing to take this action, millions more cases with many more deaths are likely before a vaccine might be available. In addition, the economic recovery will be much slower, with far more business failures and high unemployment for the next year or two. The path of the virus will determine the path of the economy. There won’t be a robust economic recovery until we get control of the virus.

If we do this aggressively, the testing and tracing capacity we’ve built will support reopening the economy as other countries have done, allow children to go back to school and citizens to vote in person in November. All of this will lead to a stronger, faster economic recovery, moving people from unemployment to work.

How bad would the virus have to be for it to have a greater impact on the recovery then the impact of a shutdown? Where is the tipping point? How do you separate the two measurements - impact of covid-19 to recovery and impact of shutdowns on recovery?
How do we define/measure successful control of the virus?  The number of active cases are going up yet the death rate remains static is that control?

Part of the issue is that most people don't know anyone that has gone through the negative experience of having covid19 or losing a loved one to it. However many know people who have experienced the pain due to the economic cost of prevention.
At this moment in time one could argue that more people have suffered and perhaps even died (if we were measuring that) due to the lock-down then due the virus.

I work at a job were the better I do it, prevent defects from being released, the more likely my job will eventually be viewed as an unnecessary expense. Inevitably I will be asked to justify the position by measuring the cost of prevention.  I have failed more times then succeeded because we tend to forget the cost of pain when we stop feeling it and cross the tipping point where its the cost of prevention that is viewed as being painful.

So even though I know the value of prevention and the difficulty of measuring something that prevention stops from happening…. As I watch the covid19 numbers I am finding it more and more difficult not to ask the question to justify the cost of prevention

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: August 10, 2020, 01:24:11 PM »
Neel Kaskari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, called for a nationwide economic shutdown for up to six weeks to get the coronavirus pandemic under control

"The next six months could make what we have experienced so far seem like just a warm-up to a greater catastrophe. With many schools and colleges starting, stores and businesses reopening, and the beginning of the indoor heating season, new case numbers will grow quickly," Kashkari wrote in a New York Times op-ed with Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

The problem with the statement is the 'could make' while not address the economic impact of such a six week national shutdown that 'could make' the over all impact on people lives worse then the virus. This is not a either or problem but one that requires people to behave reasonably and as if they are 'their brothers keeper' as well.

General Comments / Re: Is Our Partisanship a Threat to Our Democracy?
« on: August 10, 2020, 11:40:24 AM »
Partisan politics obstructs rational and critical thinking.

 “Research has shown parts of the brain tasked with processing critical thinking and reasoning, literally going dark to avoid the unpleasantness of discommoding political information.”
In his book, “The Political Brain,” Drew Westen describes how the brains of partisans “‘reason’ [their] way to the desired conclusions,” adopting faulty thinking in order to “turn off the spigot of unpleasant emotion.” What’s more, the brain actually goes out of its way to reward this biased and self-contradictory “reasoning,” content to curate pleasing, bias-conforming information.
Loyalty to a political party often trumps reason and logic:
•   Tendency to recognize that stereotypes aren’t accurate within our own group, but we’re still inclined to generalize about our adversaries
•   To remain loyal, we overly simplify issues instead of giving ample consideration to points from both sides
•   Tendency to justify and rationalize when it’s “our guy”
•   Failure to recognize that the labels don’t really fit the political parties
•   Reliance on party’s ‘reputation’ rather than impartially evaluating its actions

Interesting 20% of the population are consistently conservative or liberal yet dominate political landscape. It is the failure of critical thinking that distorts that reality into the "Us verses the Other" divisions.  Meaning that its likely that the majority of us play the role of the 'useful idiot' when it comes to politics.

These protests have a "violent core" attached to it that have been from present from the start, and the presence of the Feds simply provided them a target to focus their attention on, rather actually escalate the violence in and of themselves...

The Portland protests aren't about Black Lives Matter, and never really have been, although many of its participants like to think they were. The Portland Protests are all about waging psychological warfare.

This exemplifies what is pissing us off, Deamon.

First you talk about the "violent core," which by implication is a minority of the protesters.  (If it were a majority, it wouldn't be a "core" now, would it? ;) )

Then you make a blanket statement that "the Portland protests aren't about..." based on what this core minority does.

This is what we mean when we say that you are blaming the entire protest on the actions of a minority.  Suddenly the intentions of everyone outside of the "violent core" is subsumed by this "core."

Have you ever considered that the protests are really all about Black Lives Matters and justice for all Americans, not just the ones that look right, and it is this "violent core" that is exploiting it to wage their psychological warfare against the will of the majority? ;)

I would add that we have tendency to define a group based on the actions of a few or make the bad apple argument. Which way be decide to defend or define a group tells us more about ourselves then the group or issue.

Take those who lean toward the 'Law and Order' argument. Often in this case the protesters are defined by the actions of the few while the police are left off the hook and not being defined by the "few bad apples". (I've done this many times myself without realizing the contradiction in my arguments)

Ibram X makes a pretty good argument that when it comes to race Blacks are more often defined by the actions of a individuals which may be at the heart of a lot of racist policies.  Need to defend a policy that discriminates? Define the group by the actions of a few individuals.  Its a interesting observations. In this context the The Portland protests discussions are very much about race issues.

His inability and even more his refusal to engage with issues that threaten him personally, is a significant problem.

His own people have let slip that bringing anything Russia-related to him is basically unacceptable; think about that - people in the president's orbit will not provide him information concerning a significant competitor of the USA, one that is possibly, even likely, targeting the country's armed forces, thereby completely impeding the country's ability to defend itself and to defend its own troops.

In the same way, Trump is seemingly incapable of providing leadership in controlling the pandemic, because he sees the virus as being a weapon used against his re-election chance, even though actually addressing the pandemic and reducing infection rates would benefit him in the medium term.

His psychology and reasoning abilities are not well suited for leadership

Trumps comment on the Lebanon blast shows lack of judgment. True he was just repeating what he was told and one imagines the selected individuals he listened to for that information. But it was irresponsible as a leader to make such statements when the answer wasn't known.  One wonders if or how this information crossed his desk?  I would bet his sources where his online conspiracy go to's and not a official briefing.
So yeah how he said what he said not wrong int that he wasn't saying it as a fact but speculation. Just another example of poor leadership intelligence.

The problem or a problem is Trumps inability to communicate complex ideas and the interview expecting that he can.

Trump is implying that if a issue does not cross his desk but comes up he is not responsible to looking into it.  That's a problem of leadership
His explanation that intelligence on the issue was week and so not something he can address with Russia is valid.
The next question should have been. Will There be further investigation? 
Instead Trump rambles about what does and does not  'crosses his desk' confusing the issue with a leadership question.

And when trump talks about the methods of measurement of covid data he dons't or can't talk about the nuances of measurements and why things might be measured multiple ways.
One suspect Trump or the ones feeding him information chose the measurement of Active covid cases - death ratio for no other reason then that that Trump would like those number better.
It is a valid measurement as is the measurement of population - death measurement. Both provide info but in context. Trump isn't' capable of explaining context so it all gets muddled and we are left to unscramble what the he "means".

And then their all his 'facts' based on the old he heard someone had this or that experience but for which he seldom has a name for that someone or them.

General Comments / Re: covid-19 outside the US
« on: July 30, 2020, 01:24:34 PM »
What if we had that attitude about Measles, Smallpox, and Polio?

I don't think you can compare Covid-19 with the above issues.
Every virus has its unique characteristic and covid appears to be similar to the Spanish flu if less deadly.

The Spanish flu is reported to have cause the deaths of 50 million people in a three year time frame and then 'disappeared' (actually it can be traced as being part of other viruses just not as deadly for those that survived) so the Deamon may be correct in that Covid-19 will go the same way.

I guess its possible but it seems to me that the AntiFa label is being used as a bogyman distraction so unless you have clear facts on AntiFa membership and actions I'm not convinced by your reasoning.  I admit I know nothing about Antifa

That it's been getting attention in here since 2016, that's not fully our fault. Coverage of AntiFa activities in Portland was largely constrained to either local press or right-wing media, with it sometimes getting national/international attention as seen with the BBC report in 2019. At this point, if you're oblivious about AntiFa it's because you prefer to be, and no amount of evidence any of us present you is likely to be worth the effort. So you're on your own.

I also don't think we should be using the label to distract from the very real issues and concerns behind the protest. Of course such distractions have work quite well in the past and I suspect they will work now in order to keep the status quo.

The presumes a false choice dichotomy. It's almost as if you believe Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Reform is incapable of running on a different track than condemning the rioters in Portland and elsewhere. I reject that premise completely.

I can condemn the people trying to destroy/damage the Federal Building in Portland while working towards police reforms. Although it's pointless during an election year on the Federal Level as while the Republicans would love to make reforms happen, the Dems won't meet them halfway as they don't want to "give Trump that victory" so the only "compromise" they'll accept are poison pill offerings to the Republicans.

I agree its a false choice dichotomy yet history has shown that when it comes to such protests the tactic of distracting by focus on the 'law breakers' works to maintaining the status quo.

As for "the Republicans would love to make reforms happen" I see no evidence of that.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 32