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 - noel c.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]
“Italy banned travel from China the same day as the US did. Didn't seem too effective to me, so forgive me if I don't applaud Trump's wonderful move.”

Good ex post facto rationalization there Drake. So you think that it was purposeless? What would your reaction be today if Trump had not banned travel?

“Brazil was already on a trajectory at that time, and had more reported cases than China did at the corresponding time. Plus was being led by a guy who was downplaying the virus.”

You missed my point. Brazil had a history of effective of disease outbreak management, which is why I cited the article. Additionally, in case is eluded your notice; Brazilians are South Americans. Mesh that observation with the “racism” narrative.

“Iran on that date had fewer cases than Italy, but no Italian travel ban. I find it hard to believe that more Chinese were travelling to Iran than Europe, though it isn't easy to verify.“

“Trump's travel bans were inconsistent and did not correlate to the science. Meanwhile, at the same time he declared the ban, he was talking about how it was all going to blow over and cases would be zero soon.“

Per CDC report, January 30th, Trump was in good company :

“We understand that this may be concerning, but based on what we know now, we still believe the immediate risk to the American public is low.”

“The science”, by which I think you mean *data*, were in a nascent stage of development. It actually still is, however; what is fairly undisputed is the source of the problem, and the left failed utterly to respond “scientifically”.


“I never really had a problem with Trump's travel ban... “

Could you take the next logical step, in the name of science, and support his decision to enforce a travel ban against China?

“After China, Trump banned travel from Iran for no apparent reason.”

Other than, perhaps, COVID-19 cases exploded in frequency in both Italy, and Iran, due to their frequent contact with Chinese nationals.

“Of course, if it hadn't taken an additional 11 days to impose a similar ban on Europe, NY might have been better off.”

Possibly, so you agree that Trump’s travel bans are scientifically justified?

“It took until 29 May to block Brazil, which is wild considering how lax they were there. It seems like he was working down his hit list.“

Perhaps, or you could check the data.

“It is all moot, now that the US has dispersed far more all on our own. Maybe we should have had a travel ban from South Dakota.“

Sounds like you’re channeling uncle Joe.


February 1st, 2020, the day after Trump imposed a travel ban on people entering the United States after spending two or more weeks in China, Crazy Uncle Joe made this statement. :

 "We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science — not Donald Trump's record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency."

Was it an application of “science” to berate Trump for, properly, identifying Wuhan, China, as the source and active dispersal agent of COVID -19? The CCP had restricted travel from Wuhan to the rest of China, on January 23rd, but not outbound flights to the rest of the world. Should in-the-know critics feel justified in interpreting this as “Trumps fault”?

How soon they forget. :

“Maybe what you describe might be a good strategy, or even just a strategy, but attributing it to this administration is a complete work of wishful thinking, and absent any evidence.”

Donald, you might recall that brilliant geopolitical military strategist, Barry, claimed during a presidential candidate debate that the United State’s possession of SSBNs, “Boomers”, was an effective check on Russian blue-water naval aspirations. Apparently, we were supposed to launch ICBMs upon Russia if they did not behave. Fast forward another four years of Obama foreign policy, the Russian hypersonic re-entry missiles, and a nuclear powered cruise missile, was touted publicly by Putin in March of 2018 as a counter to U.S. naval dominance. How is that for a lack of strategic appraisal and foresight? (As Madeline Albright eventually agreed)

Under Trump we are rapidly responding to the challenge.:

Does that constitute a sufficient level of the “evidence” that you were looking for? Power projection is, ultimately, a function of economic prosperity, or lack thereof. Given that the Russian navy is unable to equip/field a single aircraft carrier, without burning it up in port, I think Trump’s economic sanctions have been manifestly effective as a “good strategy”.

“Because there must be a valid reason for his complete submission to Russian foreign policy, right?   That his complete abdication of US security is really a strategic and moreover a silent  and non-reciprocal realignment with Russia in order to counterweight Chinese... what - economic imperialism?  Do you really think that stupid is better than the more obvious stupid?“

This is the type of bombast that makes the left look deranged. Would you like to debate the relative economic impacts of Barry sanctions versus Trump economic sanctions against Russia?

If you are looking for genuine servile stupidity, in the guise of a Russian “reset”, check out the sale of 11.5% of U.S. uranium resources transferred by the Barry cabal to JSC Atomredmetzoloto, which remained at 11% a year following Putin’s annexation of the Crimea, and a year prior to Trump’s tenure. Their stake in the U.S. nuclear mining industry fell to 5.9% under Trump as of September 2017. “Complete submission to Russian foreign policy“ to be sure.

“And the BS about mail in voting is the latest. Trump and McEnany both voted via mail, as did many others, and if they're getting scared now they should probably be introduced to the idea of projection.  Given what R''s have done in regards to civil rights voting actions I'm really not surprised they'd got so held up when someone suggests we make it easier for the common person to vote.”

Have you ever applied for an absentee mail-in ballot?

Such requests are tied to a name on an existing voter roll, associated to a specific address, and the deadline to mail it in expires prior to an election date. You may be too young to remember when the Al Gore attempted to exclude military ballots. :

Given that there is a disproportionate minority representation in the U.S. military, how does that square with your proletarian babble?

When ballots are mailed directly to a home address, using dated voter roles, this is what you get. :

Does that clarify the issue for you?

If wide-spread voter fraud is your objective, then the Democratic proposal is a perfect solution. If a typical Democratic voter is too lazy to request a mail-in ballot, which statistics tend to support, they are probably too uninformed to cast a thoughtful vote, which should satisfy your complaint unless uninformed voting is also a Democratic objective. I feel for the Democratic establishment, but a better course would seem to be cultivation of a responsible platform capable of attracting responsible supporters.

The rant continues, and where is Grant?

Nothing being said in this thread is going to prevent the re-election of Donald J. Trump in two months. This will happen despite broad spectrum efforts employing every dirty political trick an out-of-control House can conceive, our ensconced bureaucratic leviathan can dictate through regulatory fiat, and executive department holdovers can sabotage from within the administration itself. Even with the complicity of federal court judges, aided occasionally by Bush appointees like John Roberts, and Rosemary M. Collyer, the left has failed to halt a steady stream of Trump victories in both foreign, and domestic policies.

In a second term Trump will employ the Administrative Procedure Act, as recently interpreted by the SCOTUS, with devastating results for any future attempts at reversing his executive orders via systematic reconstitution of the federal judiciary. The left has screwed itself... ironically through the instrumentality of one of their own. Trump is a mud-monster born of New York politics, and ethics. Karma sucks.

Everyone, including the Donald, was surprised by the results of 2016. Nobody can claim that they did not see an approach of the 2020 reckoning.

Grant, I will ask you again; how can this phenomenon be explained?

So Grant,

Having chronicled Trump’s Clintonisms, and given your apparent appreciation for the frustration experienced by an aghast conservative electorate during 1993-2001, what will be your analysis of Trump’s 2020 re-election?

General Comments / Re: Lock him up!
« on: May 27, 2017, 02:37:27 PM »

"I agree the reporter initiated the interaction, but initiation and escalation are two different things." ...

I am inferring that Montana's election result indicates voters were not particularly moved by Gianforte's over-reaction, and it might be useful to put invasively persistent reporters on notice that their job does not indemnify them from the consequences of breaching common standards of civility.

The Guardian reporter's effete response, captured on audio recording, sounds like the posturing of a practiced victim. I probably would have broken more than his glasses, but then I have never been inclined to seek political office. Gianforte's apologetic acceptance of a misdemeanor assault charge seems a fair price to pay for education of the news media, in my opinion.

 On a semantic level; how would you distinguish aggressive "initiation" from "escalation"? Why would shoving a recorder into someone's face not be both initiation, and escalation?

General Comments / Re: The real motivation for ACA repeal
« on: May 21, 2017, 11:09:47 PM »
I found a good British movie a few weeks ago. :

General Comments / Re: The real motivation for ACA repeal
« on: May 21, 2017, 10:47:08 PM »
The conservative motive behind elimination of the UCA is not elimination of the UCA. Obamanomics made failure of Obamacare inevitable from the starting gate, and he knew it. Only the politically enthralled believed otherwise. These are the same people who bought into the lie that their insurance rates would drop by $2,500/year, and that they could keep their doctors. This was Barry's quest-for-immortality equivalent of P.T. Barnum's Cardiff Giant.

It is the shell without a marble. The real game-changer lay in the expansion of Medicaid/Medicare, and the path to "victory" from both political poles lies in exposing, or concealing, the structural defect of "free" healthcare. :

How Uncle Sam Divvies Up $100 of Your Taxes - The Wall Street Journal

Once a population becomes convinced that "health" is an entitlement, the Nanny State has arrived.

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 22, 2016, 02:08:03 PM »
"... they chose the clown." ...

If you are genuinely against the populist Trump, it would be unwise to be quite so dismissive at this stage. He is about to deliver a sucker-punch that will leave you eating those words.

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 22, 2016, 09:17:39 AM »

"One wonders why all of the things Trump was accused of for which there was ample and obvious evidence didn't prevent people from voting for him." ...

Yes, that was baffling to just about everyone who votes with any regularity.

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 22, 2016, 06:33:11 AM »

Trumps emails are not subject to FOIA petitions because, as private records, they are not "the People's property", and are not required to be preserved under Federal law. Hillary's work emails, during her term as SOS, do not belong to her. Further, the lives of ground intelligence assets were put at risk by Hillary's reckless handling of information classified top secret by other agencies, who were  the only entities entitled to place such classifications on the material which Hillary routinely instructed her staff to cut-and-paste sans the classification heading.

Having said that, Trump is not inclined to transparency. Whether his business practices carry over into public office remains to be seen, but he would have been foolish to behave as a public employee while engaged in private enterprise.

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 21, 2016, 11:26:52 AM »

Your questions imply that Hillary's mishandling of classified information was not only someone else's bad judgement, but exculpatory.

I think Comey made a mistake not indicting her last July.

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 21, 2016, 09:16:30 AM »

- Why do you think Comey needed a warrant to make an announcement?

- What precident is need to honor his commitment to the House investigation committee to inform them of evidentiary developments?

- Hillary cost Hillary the election.

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 20, 2016, 09:46:13 PM »

Hillary witheld her emails for three years. For two of those years she had been given "20 days" to forward her work product to a secure government account. On March 5, 2015, her emails are subpoenaed by Trey Gowdey, chair of the House Benghazi Investigation Committee. May 22, 2015, 300 redacted emails are released by the State Department. On June 30, 2015 the State Department released 1,925 more of Hillary's redacted emails, and July 30, 2015 this happens again. On August 22, 2015 classified emails continue to leak out when it is discovered that the server itself had been scrubbed, and turned over to the Justice Department. The FBI is confident it can recover the emails in a matter of "months" until it is discovered that Hillary has used "Bleach-bit" to ensure they cannot be recovered by God himself. (We are now up to more than 31,000 emails, all this for Chelsea's wedding, and Hillary's yoga classes ;).)

Three weeks before the election James Comey has 650,000 emails dropped in his lap from Anthony Weiner's shared computer, and you say the FBI director could have resolved the content question in "48 hours".

Do you have even an inkling of how partisan this sounds? Why do you think young Democrats had such a hard time voting for her in the general election?

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 20, 2016, 02:16:20 PM »
"But to make it more frightening for the Democrats consider this: Those congressional districts that if used to decide EC votes(as happens in Maine and Nebraska) would have given Romney the Presidency in 2012?" ...

... And it looks like Romney is going to be the next Secretary of State.

Romney under 'active consideration' for Secretary of State: Pence - Reuters

The 2020/2024 election cycles will constitute the perfect storm for old-school liberalism. It has me wondering who will donn the Bernie mantle... perhaps the wannabe Cherokee?

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 20, 2016, 11:58:19 AM »

"I don't see the political forum returning to 'normal' for a long time, but it has to happen eventually."...

What is "normal" in politics, and why must it return?

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 20, 2016, 01:59:22 AM »

"Amazing how the rhetoric flips upside down when the Republicans are in charge." ...

No, not amazing. Call it karma.

Both the Democratic, and Republican, parties are headed for transformational reorientation.

Barry may have assumed the task of reconstituting the Democratic Party, but he is beating the wind. His party no longer exists, and I expect that the Bernie movement will energize the wreckage of what remains for 2020. The conservative faction of the Republican Party will have its Supreme Court for, at least, a generation, however; populism has found a permanent place in the Republican tent that will make it look a lot like the Democratic Party of the pre-Johnson era.

Whatever we as a nation end up being after the next four years, "The baton has been passed to a new generation."

It is a paradox that the catalyst for change was two septuagenarians.

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 19, 2016, 03:02:12 PM »

"Are you suggesting that Obama may have also broken the law by being negligent about handling classified data over a server he knew, or should have known, was not secure?" ...


I heard yesterday that Trump settled his "university" lawsuit for $25,000,000. How much would you like to bet that Donald, without admitting guilt, persuaded the complainants to sign an agreement to remain silent as a condition of the settlement?

He may have just cleansed himself of a counterattack potential in preparation for "draining the swamp", and if he wants to destroy his political opponents... his first few months in office is the time to do it.

Trump is a skilled predator, and the current love-fest between mister outgoing and mister incoming is just too surreal to be genuine. People like Obama, Clinton, Podesta, Holder, Comey, et al. have cause to be concerned that their lives are facing disruption on a grand scale.

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 19, 2016, 01:52:41 PM »

Can you restate your reason?

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 19, 2016, 01:24:49 PM »

On Woodward:

"The fact that Hillary laid out her plans in an open dinner meeting hardly seems like clandestine collusion, although there have been incidents where certain reporters clearly seem to have violated ethics. I don't think I'm ready to make the stretch that what some reporters did was coordinated and supported by their organizations as a whole." ...

Wall Street was on Hillary's paid speaking itinerary, and she was loathe to treat it as either "open", or non-collusive. Again, but for Wikileaks, the principled Bernie followers would have been left to speculation regarding the depth of Ms. Clinton's double dealings.

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 19, 2016, 09:57:46 AM »

" 'The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness,' he said. The FBI 'clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense.' " ...

Did you know that Barry corresponded with Hillary on that unsecured server under a pseudonym?

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 19, 2016, 09:53:06 AM »

Yes, both Sanders, and  Clinton.

You think there was not a coordinated effort to stomp out Sanders by Clinton operatives in the media?

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 19, 2016, 01:29:59 AM »

"I think coverage is neither fair nor nefarious. I think that it is unlikely that leadership at a network gets in a room and says 'who are we going to get elected today?' I also think that journalists have always tried to synthesize facts into a coherent narrative - that's why they call it a story." ...

... I did not mean to ignore your post, I simply reject the premise that news organizations are passive observers in search of "stories", which seems to be what you are implying. There was a time when network news anchors were skillful at subordinating personal political views. Wikileaks proved conclusively that news "correspondents" did collude with the Clinton campaign.

It is pretty obvious that The National Enquirer did the same for Trump... I will not comment on the journalistic quality. :o

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 18, 2016, 11:56:47 PM »

"... there is no one 'media'. Thus, 'the media' can't do anything or have any preferences."

Can the "electorate" do something, or have a preference, even though there is no one "elector"?

"But those who were liberals probably had no real preference, because they were all pretty bad, from a liberal's perspective. :)  Carson, Perry, Huckabee, Trump, Cruz--they all turned my stomach, one just as bad as the other.  I can't imagine that 'the media' would settle on any one of them as the best.  Maybe Kasich, Rubio or Bush, if they had to choose."

I am suggesting something a little more cynical. Who, among the original seventeen candidate Republican lineup, would be the most useful as a foil against the other sixteen? I understand that the candidates mentioned are equally reprehensible to you. They were also more viable in the general election... especially, as you point out, Carly Fiorina. With her poll numbers rising against Trump, who then stood at 32%, why did Paul Solotaroff of Rolling Stone decide to take a comment made about Fiorina's face in the isolation of Trump's 757, and give it world-wide air play? Was it an attack on Trump, or denigration of Mrs. Fiorina via surrogate? Solotaroff characterized Trump a few days later as an "extraordinarily shrewd predator". I think Solotaroff appreciates the corrosive nature of dangling ad hominem. His time at the Yale School of Drama appears to have cultivated some sophisticated predatory rhetoric in his own right, but not much in the way of professional journalistic discipline.

"The very things that would make him the most likely to lose would be the things that would make him most likely not to be nominated."

Not in a field where three of the four outsiders (Carson, Fiorina, and Cruz) were competing for the same voters while Reagan Democrats consolidated under Trump.

"If they saw him as being a horrid candidate, why would they think the Republicans wouldn't notice those things?"

They knew conservatives had identified Trump for what he was without their help.

The objective was intra-party fratricide, leaving the single ideologically-void candidate standing.

"Why would they discuss how he is a bully if they thought it would 'turn on' the Republicans?"

Because the Yellow Dog, and Rust-Belt, Reagan Democrats needed to be brought in line. Bill Clinton understood this very well.

" 'The media' may have had its preferences, and may have hoped that Trump was the one candidate who would lose, but by showing Trump to be the clown that he is, they could not have expected him to win the nomination because of it.  If they believed Trump wasn't good enough to win the election, he shouldn't have been good enough to win the nomination."

No, one condition does not logically follow the other. Every election cycle there is a candidate good enough to win their parties nomination, yet lose the general election.

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 18, 2016, 01:08:20 AM »

Possibly I misunderstood you. Are you saying that, collectively, American journalism had no preference on the outcome of the Republican primary... that as a group they are apolitical except when marginalizing an committed socialist in favor of a faux-socialist allied with Wallstreet?

I noticed in school that certain majors attracted a predictable social-change mindset in disproportion to the student body norm. These included law, education, and journalism. Does that comport with your experience?

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 17, 2016, 05:18:48 PM »

I would still like WS to respond, but since you are engaging me; Who do you think the aggregate news establishment wanted to win the Republican primary, and why?

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 17, 2016, 03:58:37 PM »

Do you believe the "media" had any preference regarding the outcome of the Republican primary?

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 17, 2016, 06:30:21 AM »
Jason is right.

Hillary's "deplorables" put a big finger in the eyes of the media who shared essentially the same public trust rating that she did.

News outlets knew exactly what they were doing, because polls are the bread and butter of political maneuver in a modern campaign... the media just outsmarted itself by half.

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 16, 2016, 05:44:53 AM »
Hello... it's been awhile.

I cannot spend much time here, but had to stop by to see how everyone was weathering the storm. Ornery should provide an excellent barometer of the Trump trauma, and I must admit... you all seem to be doing fine. In reading through most of the posts, I noticed something almost entirely missing from this thread that Cherry has lightly touched upon; the reaction of liberal "journalists" to a reality show that is now the United States Presidency.

During the primary season I was struck by the unified effort of news outlets to saddle the Republican Party with a nominee who voted for John Kerry in 2004, called Bush II a conspirator in 911, and accused "W" of orchestrating a WMD deception to facilitate the vendetta execution of Saddam. There is more, but you see the pattern?

The Democratic Party salivated at the prospect of a Trump candidacy, and candidly, he is probably the only one of the original seventeen Republican contenders that should have lost to Ms. Rodham. A worse nominee than Donald can hardly be imagined with a single exception; "Hillary". Ongoing congressional investigations into the Clinton email security breach, foundation scam, and Benghazi fiasco will in my opinion ultimately lead to criminal charges, and conviction of more than just the Clintons. It is all part of the national disgust surrounding self-styled D.C. elites who have made an art of feeding at the public trough.

I have two questions directed to any Democratic Party loyalists willing to answer:

- Is it a mistake for contemporary professional journalists to play the game of kingmaker?

- I understand how conservatives ended up with Donald, but how/why did liberals end up with Hillary?

Cherry, you are beating a tiny drum,  but don't give up hope that every bad thing Trump does can be blamed on Obama. You could get lucky.

Al, if Donald follows Barry's template he has at least four years before he must take responsibility for anything that goes bad during his tenure. Wasn't it WJC who said Obama needed to start acting like he was responsible for the result of his policies, including the "craziest thing he had ever seen... Obamacare."

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]