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 - Wayward Son

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 36
And for a new low in Presidential ads: the Trump campaign says that Biden is literally a zombie.

Yeah, I know, it's supposed to be funny.  I'm sure Donald and all Republicans would be rolling on the floor if Biden put out an ad saying Trump was a pedophile (wink-wink, just kidding).  ;D  And I guess it was inevitable that he would call Biden a monster after calling Harris one.  At least he specified what kind of monster this time. :) 

How anyone can have any respect for this jerk is beyond me.  ::)

As has been pointed out a nauseating amount of times, every nation in the Western world wanted that guy fired. The prosecutor was corrupt. It would have been far easier to bribe him directly than set up some convoluted scheme.

On the contrary. The prosecutor who replaced him was known to be crooked. Please explain how Biden had any authority to do what he did.

Biden has admitted on videotape he forced then-Ukraine President Poroshenko to fire Shokin in March 2016 by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees. But Biden has steadfastly denied Shokin’s firing was due to the Burisma case. Instead, Biden said, he and other Western leaders believed Shokin was ineffective as a corruption fighter.

Shokin, however, has alleged in a court affidavit he was told he was fired because he refused to stand down his investigation of alleged corruption by Burisma and after he planned to call Hunter Biden as a witness to question him about millions of dollars in payments his American firm received from the Ukraine gas company.

Shokin has also disputed Democrats' claims he was fired because he was incompetent or corrupt, producing among other pieces of evidence a letter from the U.S. State Department in summer 2015 that praised his anti-corruption plan as Ukraine’s chief prosecutor.

OMG!  You mean the guy that almost every Western nation wanted out because he was corrupt proved them all wrong, simply by filing a court affidavit!  And proved he wasn't corrupt by displaying an old letter from the State Department about his plan to fight corruption!  In one fell stroke of the pen, he disproved half of Europe!  Amazing!  ;D

Of course, for there to be legal proceeding, some sort of crime would have had to occur.

What crime is it that either Biden is supposed to have committed?

You're just upset because things tilted in the Republicans favor the last time district borders were drawn in numerous states.

Deamon, enough with this mealy-mouthed horsesh*t.  >:(

Either defend gerrymandering and tell us how it is good and just and right to configure districts to minimize the influence of your opposition, or condemn gerrymandering as an un-American practice that disenfranchises voters and undermines democracy, like the Democrats have been arguing for the past few years.  But don't give us this, "well, your side does it too, so we've justified in doing it ourselves" crap.

Republicans and Conservatives love to say that they have integrity, morality, honesty and responsibility (unlike the "other guys").  Well, you show none of those things when you excuse your moral failings on the "other guys."  You just show you are lazy, irresponsible children who want to place the blame on anyone but themselves, just like your President.

For years now I've listen to you guys hypocritically blame your moral failings on Obama, Pelosi, or any Democrat you can find.  We says White Supremacists are dangerous, you scream "Antifa is worse!"  We say the Trump tax cut is increasing the deficit, you scream, "you never cared about the deficit!"  We point out that 17 women accused Trump of sexually harassing them, or worse, and you scream, "Biden was accused of rape once!"  As if any of those things justify the other.

I know you guys love to justify yourselves by blaming Democrats for the same behavior.  But stop lying to yourselves.  You don't justify an action by saying the Democrats do the same.  You only show you don't have the courage to admit to yourself that you love to do that thing.  If you don't like something, discuss ways to stop it or fix it.  If you do like something, defend it.  But blaming it on your adversaries?  That just shows you can't defend or justify it, but don't want to give it up.

Stop being wusses.  >:(

You expect the hard-disk to be “forged“?

I'm sure the hard-disk is quite legitimate.

It's the information on it that I suspect is forged.  ;D

The Comey letter cost Hillary 3 percentage points.  Nationally, she lost with about 2 percentage more votes. :)

So the polls were accurate (as much as you could expect) at the time.  The electoral college just happen to break Trump's way.

One should also note that, from Donald's link, that Trump had a 28.6% chance of winning back then--a bit better than 1 in 4.  And anyone who played D&D would know that 1 in 4 ain't bad odds.

Currently, FiveThirtyEight gives the Donald about 1 in 11 odds of winning.

Your internet-fu is very weak, Lambert.

Try searching for "pizzagate."

Look at these images.  These people apparently very much believe what QAnon says.  What do you think they believe?

You may not know anything about them (although there seems to be quite a bit written about them, but that doesn't mean believers aren't out there and vehemently believe something. :)

The most effective Trump commercials are simply showing Biden lying to us. That one with him bullying a reporter saying he was so much smarter than him, and then "proved it" by saying he was the top award-winning student with a full-paid scholarship, top of the class honors, and three degrees. Then the ad cuts to MSM reporters saying he was on a half-scholarship, was in the bottom of the class, no honors, and only one degree. Biden said he would put his brilliance up against that bullied reporter. He did and failed.

Yep, I can see all these undecided voters immediately turning to Trump, who has never bullied or denigrated a reporter, or lied about his past accomplishments, in the last 3 3/4 years he's been in office.

Or is it the last 3 3/4 months?

The last 3 3/4 days?


I can't remember now.  ;D

There is plenty of time prior to the election to verify correspondence by Hunter’s attorney, and to perform a forensic analysis of the hard drive.

What will be your position on Uncle Joe’s viability as a presidential candidate if the allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

And what will you do when it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt?  What will you do when it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a forgery only intended to try to fool people like you into believing a lie, like the whole Obama birth certificate scandal?  What will you do then, noel? :)

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: October 19, 2020, 04:15:01 PM »
The Republican Party does not kow tow to Trump.

Really?  Why don't you quote the Republican Party platform for this year?  Come on, it won't take long.  I can summarize it in one line: "Whatever Trump wants it to be."  ;D

Isn't it amazing that the party that 25% of Americans belong to is in 100% in agreement with Trump on...everything! They don't even need to spell out what they believe anymore.  It's just Trump.  Republicans believe in Trump!  If you don't believe in Trump, you're not a Republican.  If Trump doesn't believe in white supremacy, then Republicans don't believe in it either.  If he does, then Republicans do, too.  If Trump doesn't believe the deficit is growing too large, neither does the Republican Party.  If he does believe it is, then Republicans do, too!  The Republican Party believes in evolution, just like Trump does.  It believes in supporting our troops like Trump does.  It believes in cutting Social Security and eliminating protection for pre-existing conditions just like Trump does.  Caging children and separating them from their parents is part of the Republican platform.  Protecting the environment is exactly what Trump wants.  And their plan for replacing the ACA is exactly Trump's plan! 

Tell me, Lambert, how does a party, whose members are the more intelligent then most Americans, who are more independent than most Americans, who are the more independent thinkers of the country, how does that party end up being in total lockstep with a man who can't even think of any white supremacist organizations off the top of his head after living in this country his entire life?  A man who can't remember knowing a woman he slept with and paid $130,000 to keep quiet about it?  A man who had a private investigator find proof that Obama wasn't an American citizen and then suddenly discovered he was wrong?  A man who passes on idiotic conspiracy theories?  How did this man epitomize the Republican Party?

Now tell me again how the Republican Party isn't kowtowing to Trump, unlike those horrible Democrats who kowtow to Biden.  ;D

Now, every time the Left commits a crime, we expect them to somehow be allowed to get away with it. We expect the same thing with Biden over the Hunter laptop.

I'm on the side of truth and justice.  And from what I've seen so far, "Hunter's laptop" is another Conservative lie.  Apparently, it isn't ever a good forgery.  This is just another  faux scandal like Obama's birth certificate or the whole Benghazi B.S.  (Four years Republicans have been in control--two years in total control of the Presidency and Congress.  And in all that time they never got around to charging Hillary with any of those horrible felonies.  Why is that?  Is it because Republicans are impotent clowns who can't punish criminals?  Is it because they are so stupid that they don't know how to charge criminal with crimes?  Or is it because they never had enough evidence to actually charge anyone with anything, and they just like repeating an obvious lie that Hillary, et al, are all criminals?)(I vote for the last explanation. :) )

This I can say, though.  The Left has a better chance of being charged and convicted of crimes under a Democratic Administration than under your Republican clowns.  ;D  After all, at least Democrats have been trying to charge people for crimes!  ;D

FiveThirtyEight's overall Presidential forecast has Trump winning in only 12 percent of the scenarios, down from 13 yesterday.

FiveThirtyEight has Biden up by 8 in Michigan.  I think that's been pretty static for a while, but there hasn't been a lot of quality state level polls yet.

Electoral also has him up by 8 points, with about 54% of the predicted vote.

I guess in a few months we'll see if the Democratic Congress decides to impeach Biden, or follow the Republican lead and decide it's no big deal.  ;D

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: October 18, 2020, 09:22:21 AM »
Yeah, Chris was being unfair to Ted.  What did he expect?  The entire Republican party kowtows to Trump.  The entire party won't say a bad word about him, because they know he'll attack him and turn a mob against him.  Just look that this shameful display, where his followers chant "LOCK HER UP" about Governor Whitman, a woman who the Trump's own FBI says was threatened with kidnapping or worse for trying to save people's lives?  Have you ever seen a more shameful display in your life?

The entire Republican party has handed over their values, their morals, their entire ideology to his adulterer, liar, con-man and braggart.  Why would Chris expect Ted to have any more integrity than ever single Republican voter in this nation?

It certainly wasn't fair.

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 16, 2020, 06:30:07 PM »
...This I gotta see.  Please provide a link, Lambert.

Oh, yes, and how did that algorithm do in the last Presidential election? ;)

It is the Helnut Norpoth Model which has been accurate in almost all the Presidential elections in the last century.

It is explained here:

I wonder about his methodology.

“It’s all about primary elections, which are real electoral contests and the votes are counted and tabulated,” he said. “I also use real numbers, such as the results of previous elections, which indicate whether the pendulum is swinging away from or toward the White House party. This is something that also relies on real election results and not any kind of an opinion poll.”

As I recall, some of the states cancelled their primaries on the grounds that Trump would win, anyway, which would take away data points from his algorithm and weaken it.

I also doubt any algorithm that simplifies elections that much.  The opinions of large groups of people vary too wildly to be predictable from any single source.

But one can't argue with a person's faith.  If you believe this is an indisputable source, so be it.  You've been wrong before, and this time I think you'll be wrong again.  But we'll see. :)

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 16, 2020, 04:58:10 PM »
The predictions known for accuracy based on algorithms that have been successful say Trump will win is a 91% certainty.

This I gotta see.  Please provide a link, Lambert.  ;D

Oh, yes, and how did that algorithm do in the last Presidential election? ;)

I liked how someone pointed out that Trump has bragged more, and far more loudly, about passing a dementia test than Obama did about winning the Nobel Prize.  ;D

General Comments / Re: How to save the country
« on: October 16, 2020, 12:13:54 PM »
Noel, your Wikipedia quote glosses over how few judicial nominations were processed in the last two years of Obama's presidency.

Per this Brookings Institute article, 53 Court of Appeals nominations were approved in Obama's first 6 years in office.  In his last two year, 2 nominations were approved.  And those two names had been submitted in November 2014, only being approved in January of 2018.

250 district court nominations were approved in the first 6 year.  In the last two year, 18 were approved.

Perhaps "hundreds" of nominations is a bit of an exaggeration.  But one can certainly say that almost all of Obama's nominations were blocked in the last two years of his presidency.

What about the people who have fathers, husbands, or children kill themselves as a consequence of the mental health fallouts from the loss of their jobs and livelihoods? Or the people who are now finding themselves victims of domestic abuse because their significant other is coming apart mentally because their life has been destroyed by the Coid19 shutdowns? It might not kill them, but it's going to significantly damage their lives in a number of other ways. Plenty of statistics out there to back up the inconvenient fact that both domestic abuse and suicide increases as economic conditions worsen for people...

It suddenly occurred to me this morning that, instead of trying to choose between killing people from COVID-19 or killing them because of mental health issues caused by economic shutdown, we should try to save as many people as we can.  Mental health and suicide have become major issues even before the pandemic and the resulting depression.  Why don't we increase funding for mental health initiatives that help people cope with the stresses?

This would have the added benefit of also helping those coping with the stresses of losing loved ones to COVID.

We keeping talking about this problem as if it were an either/or scenario.  Either we let people die of COVID, or we let people die from the mental health problems from fighting COVID.  Let's work on mitigating the ill effects of both instead.

General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: October 14, 2020, 04:17:03 PM »
If the theory about the very active solar cycles we've just gone through holds valid, we're likely still bleeding off "excess heat" accumulated from those cycles and it could take awhile for any real cooling effect to be detected. Depending on how active solar cycle 25 is against the historical sunspot cycles, we'll see if we continue to warm or start to cool. If SC is appreciably below the historical average and we're still warming in 10 years time, the Solar Cycle theory is effectively busted. But if it is merely "average" or more active than that, then it continues to be disputed until we're on the tail end of a below-average solar cycle.

But if increasing temperatures are tied to sunspot cycles, that should be evident from the historical record, right?  We should see temperatures decreasing during sunspot activity, then rising when they are reduced, even if there is a time delay.  Is there a detectable correlation?

But it still doesn't answer the question of how much cloud-induced sunspots adds or subtracts from the increased temperatures from increased CO2 in the atmosphere.  Or the problem that sunspots come and go, but CO2 remains in the atmosphere for up to 1000 years or more. It's nice we get a break from higher temperatures for 12 years or so, but then it will come roaring back, won't it? ;)

General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: October 14, 2020, 12:36:47 PM »
...So what makes you believe clouds will compensate for increased heat trapped by CO2?  Where is your data?  Where are your models?

Or is it just a WAG? ;)

In 2008, Scientists noted the absence of sun spots:

Now it is 2020 and the sun spots have been gone all this time.

OK.  How much did the lack of sun spots affect our global climate.  How much did their lack add to the heating from CO2, or conversely, how much did it temporarily alleviate the temperature increase from CO2?  What do your models indicate?

And what about the 12 years before the reduction of sunspots?  Was there no effect then?  How about the 12 years before that?  And the 12 years before that?  And the 12 years before that? Etc.

Global temperatures have been climbing for quite a while now.  Far longer than this reduction in sunspots.

You may want to check this post:

I take it that that chart which indicates a general cooling trend in the past 8000 years means that we're not seeing as much warning from CO2 and other greenhouse gases increase as we should.  So what should we expect if this trend turns around?  How much worse is it going to be?  What do the models indicate?

General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: October 13, 2020, 05:29:02 PM »
The sunspots have been missing for over a decade - and are now just entering a new solar cycle. During the long absence of sunspots, the formation of clouds was greatly affected, which was one of the greatest datapoints of climatology.

So what makes you believe clouds will compensate for increased heat trapped by CO2?  Where is your data?  Where are your models?

Or is it just a WAG? ;)

I'm highly dubious of the 1.5 million dead claim on the "let it run" scenario at this stage. Too many instances of "community spread" where the person who spread it was never able to be identified, which says there are a legion of Covid19 cases out there which were never "confirmed cases" to work against that 2% mortality rate number, although that number is still slowly ticking downward as the current testing regime slowly whittles away on the initial 110 thousand deaths which happened in the first 2 million confirmed cases, as opposed to the 110 thousand deaths that have happened during the subsequent 5.7 million confirmed cases (yes, I know that still works out to just under 2%), but we're still having plenty of instances of the asymptomatic spreader going on, so the cohort of the Covid19 infected seems to be far larger than what the testing is finding even now.

The first number I found for Covid-19 death rate is around 0.6 %, which is much less than 2%.  However, that still means that if 80% of our 331 million people have to get infected, we can expect a bit over 1.5 million dead.

That would be about what we lose each year to the top 4 leading causes of death--heart disease, cancer, accidents and chronic lower respiratory disease--combined.

That would be more than the total number of American soldiers who have died in our wars.  All of our wars.

Yes, a vaccine would help get immunity without the large number of deaths.  But you have to keep the number of infections down until a vaccine is found, manufactured and distributed.  Which means to continue what we're doing.

If all of the trials fail, we're probably going to have to move into a "suck it up" mode anyway, we're simply not going to be able to lock things down sufficiently to properly eradicate Covid19 from our general population at this stage and the economic toll(with result impacts on mental health) is already getting to be plenty bad in its own right.

While the impact on mental health from economic hardship is not insignificant, I would ask you a simple question:  which of these would have the greater impact on your mental health?  Finding out your father lost his job and means of livelihood, or finding out your father died?  Losing your job and means of livelihood, or dying?  Which would you prefer for your father or yourself?  Which would you prefer for your family?  Which is worse?

Older Generations had to contend with losing loved ones to pnemonia, typhus, measels, mumps, rubella, typhoid, smallpox, and polio... And even the spanish flu 100 years ago. It isn't ideal, but it is something that the people who live through it will find ways to cope with.

We all cope with what we cannot control.  This we can control, or at least control better, as other countries have shown.

And what do you think the older generations did when there was an outbreak of typhus, yellow fever, small pox, measles, or polio?  People who got it were immediately quarantined.  No questions, no "you don't have the right," none of this nonsense.  Read up on Typhoid Mary.  Public health trumps individual rights.

When there was an outbreak of these diseases, do you think the older generation said, "Oh, well, we'll just wait until herd immunity takes care of it?"  No, they quarantined everyone who had them.  They shut down businesses like swimming pools and movie theaters.  They did everything they could.

Covid-19 spreads from those who don't show, or have not yet shown, symptoms.  So just quarantining the sick won't work.  In that respect, this is worse than most of those diseases.  You don't think the older generation would have done everything that they could?

So why didn't Trump mention his bone spurs when he was walking down that ramp so slowly?  In fact, why don't we hear about his bone spurs in his medical reports?

AFAIK, bone spurs don't go away.  You have them for life.  Did he misplace his?  :D

I have never heard Biden talk about his Asthma Either.  What's your point?

The point is that Biden's doctor's report mentions that he had asthma.

Trump's doctor's reports never mentions any bone spurs.  Like he never had them.  And he never mentions it when he's trying to explain why he walking slowly down a ramp, for instance. ;)

Trump is a liar.  He lied to get out of Viet Nam.  He didn't want to fight, and his father got a doctor to lie to get him out.  How can someone say there is no possibility at all, absolutely none, that Trump may have the slightest bit of contempt for those who couldn't get out of serving when he went to so much trouble to get out?  What would you call people who weren't smart enough or worldly enough to get out of risking their lives when they didn't have to?  Something like...losers and suckers? :) ;)

our “scientific” solution is fantasy informed by ex post facto pontification. The option left to the United States is herd immunity in conjunction with a vaccine that must be at least 75% effective according to a 237-page report from the National Academy of Medicine, published October 2. Alternatively, we could go through the same process of viral mutation that rendered the 1918 H1N1 influenza A virus into our present seasonal flu.

I've heard that we need to have about 80% of people infected before heard immunity kicks in.

Either way, you're talking about 1.5 to 2 million Americans DEAD from those infected.  That is your preferred plan?  ::)

How much hardship will that cause?  How much depression?  How much stress?  How many families will lose their breadwinners forever?

You guys keep waving the specter of deaths from economic hardship around, but you never quantify it.  You never consider the deaths from emotional hardship, and the economic hardship that comes with people dying.

It's hard to know which way would result in fewer deaths.  But one way we do know how to count the corpses. :(

General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: October 12, 2020, 05:26:46 PM »
And now Nature magazine speaks out about how Trump has damaged science in our nation.  :o

General Comments / Re: But yeah, Antifa is the real threat
« on: October 08, 2020, 05:33:48 PM »
Or are you just trying to pretend that a group that specializes in intimidating and terrorizing citizens without power and who can not effectively fight back is less of a threat to our country than a group of morons trying to engage in a political assassination?

And are you trying to pretend that conspiring political assassinations is not intimidating?  That guys marching with shields and clubs is not intimidating?  That standing in front of government buildings brandishing assault rifles is not intimidating?  That the people murdered each year by right-wing morons is somehow not intimidating??

Well, you're doing a poor job of it, let me tell you. :)

So why didn't Trump mention his bone spurs when he was walking down that ramp so slowly?  In fact, why don't we hear about his bone spurs in his medical reports?

AFAIK, bone spurs don't go away.  You have them for life.  Did he misplace his?  :D

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: October 08, 2020, 05:22:30 PM »
I find it ironic you would take this position given that the entire DNC mantra once Bernie dropped out of the primary was "you have to support us to stop Trump." The argument was literally to put their morals aside (for those who hated Hillary) in order to combine to defeat the enemy. So if you want to talk about using any means to secure power, look no further than your own party.

I'm disappointed, Fenring, that you utterly missed the point.

Government officials are given power to use in governing, not in advancing their particular political party or their families bank accounts.

Party officials are given power to win elections for their party.  In what way would trying to encourage people to vote for your party, even if it meant not voting for their first choice, be a misuse of the power they were given?  ???

In terms of using power in office to influence the future of you, your followers, and your party, isn't that literally what both parties do as a matter of course? I don't see why it should be suddenly seen as abhorrent when it's Trump doing it.

It's abhorrent when either side, or anyone, does it.  What is even a greater abhorrence is when people start to believe that it is the way it should be. That it is "business as usual," or, even worse, "of course, we want them to do it" for whatever reason.   >:(

When elected officials use their power to govern to enrich themselves and/or their parties/followers, then good governance becomes secondary.  As does fairness, democracy, justice and the rule of law.  When that goes out the window, so does the part of our country that makes it great.  You might as well move to Russia then.  :'(

And Lord knows, they were far more egregious than Trump.

Well, General Bonespurs is mainly to point out how this patriotic American got out of going to fight in Viet Nam by having a doctor say he had bone spurs--something that every veteran greatly admires him for.  ::)

And need I, a Liberal, have to explain again to you, a supposed Conservative, why a captured soldier should be considered a war hero, regardless of his performance as a soldier nor what he said about Trump supporters?  ;D  (This is what Trump has done to the Republican party.  It is now the official platform of Republicans that McCain was not a war hero!  ::) )

But my main point was really that Trump has given me license to call him whatever I want.  Because he calls his opponents anything he wants, even "a monster."  :o  Which is something that neither Clinton nor especially Obama ever indulged in.  So in that respect, neither of them were "far more egregious than Trump" by any stretch of the imagination.

That's "Cadet" Bonespurs.  "Cadet"

And it was probably all he could do not to observe that she was "bleeding out of her... whatever".

You think Trump would settle for anything less than "General?"  As far as he's concerned, he's the one and only twenty-star General of the U.S.A. :)


“What I do understand is:
1.  People do not want to go out and do business-as-usual because there is still a dangerous pandemic out there.  So no amount of cheerleading or macho posturing is going to affect the behavior of a large segment of the U.S. population while the pandemic still rages.  (Remember, people were isolating before state and local governments starting calling for a shut-down.)“

Let me guess, you have never been self-employed?

What does that have to do with the fact that retail sales were dropping before shut-down orders were given?  What does that have to do with the fact that people won't just start acting like everything is normal because some blow-hard in the White House assures them that everything is OK?  Do you think people are that stupid??

“2.  So the only way to get the economy back up to speed is to control this virus.“

Is this statement supposed to be contingent upon #1?

It logically follows.

“3.  On Monday, there were fewer new cases of Covid-19 in New Zealand, Viet Nam, Taiwan, Thailand, and Australia, combined, than there were in the White House alone.  (See 4:50 min. into the program.)“

What program are you talking about?

The one I linked to.

“While you right-wingers think you can get the economy going if you just sacrifice your grandmother (or Herman Cain), the truth is you'll end up sacrificing both if you don't get Covid under control.”

If we begin to experience a shortage of hospital beds, then dumb statements like that could at least pass as black humor. However, the last part is interesting. I’ll bite; how does WS propose to “get COVID under control”? Please be specific, and be prepared to support your premises.

I suggest we follow the way countries like Australia have controlled the pandemic.  A strict, nation-wide lockdown for a month.  No longer tolerate the bogus "we have a Constitutional right not to wear masks" BS.  Essential service personnel follow strict safety protocols.  Get the spread of this disease under control as much as we can.  Then ease up restrictions as the science dictates.

Then energetic contact tracing.  Find out from whom people got the virus and who they possibly gave it to.  Put those people in quarantine.  Make sure the pockets that are left don't take off again.  Then we'll be like Australia and Taiwan, where there are hardly any cases.

Once we've reached that, people will flock to the streets and resume their lives.  Because it would be safe.  The desire for personal safety is what has shut down the economy.  Bring that back, and we can start the economic recovery in earnest.

Don't, and we won't.

"This monster that was on stage with Mike Pence, who destroyed her last night by the way, but this monster, she says no no there won’t be fracking, everything she said is a lie." - President of the United States Donald J. Trump, referring to VP candidate Kamala Harris, on Fox Business, this morning.

In case anyone objects to me referring to him as General Bonespurs.  He has no qualms, common sense or decency.  He deserves all the contempt we can muster.  It's time to remove this embarrassment from the White House and show the world what this country really stands for.  Not this bully with no self-control.

So, who has no shame and would like to defend Trump's remarks?  ;D

1.  I don't see how the line you quoted from me relates to Radcliff's pages.  Did you cut the right quote?  ???

2.  Hey, sacrificing old people isn't a left-wing talking point.  I've heard it from at least one right-wing pundit.  So don't blame the messenger. :)

3.  If you think the only irrational insults come from the left-wing, you ain't been around, man!  Who was that Fox newswoman who wasn't sufficiently right-wing, and someone photoshopped a picture of her daughter being gassed in a gas chamber?  ::)  If that ain't sick, I don't know what is.  The Right has more than enough sickies to counterbalance those on the Left.

What most of you lefties have lost sight of is the original goal of “flattening the curve” to keep hospital beds open. That objective has been met, and exceeded, even following some histrionic demands from people like  Andrew Cuomo, who left a Trump-ordered hospital ship 90% vacant while sitting in New York Harbor to receive afflicted New Yorkers. Anyone who does not understand what animates Trump’s leadership style at this point just doesn’t want to know. The COVID-19 epidemic is as much an economic, as medical crisis, and his actions support that understanding.

What I do understand is:

1.  People do not want to go out and do business-as-usual because there is still a dangerous pandemic out there.  So no amount of cheerleading or macho posturing is going to affect the behavior of a large segment of the U.S. population while the pandemic still rages.  (Remember, people were isolating before state and local governments starting calling for a shut-down.)
2.  So the only way to get the economy back up to speed is to control this virus.
3.  On Monday, there were fewer new cases of Covid-19 in New Zealand, Viet Nam, Taiwan, Thailand, and Australia, combined, than there were in the White House alone.  (See 4:50 min. into the program.)

While you right-wingers think you can get the economy going if you just sacrifice your grandmother (or Herman Cain), the truth is you'll end up sacrificing both if you don't get Covid under control.


General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: October 07, 2020, 03:33:23 PM »
Which is interesting - he is taking upon himself, in this election cycle, the role of Russia/Wikileaks.

Is there any reason why a President should not use true information he has access to in order to help his election chances? A smear or propaganda, I would agree would be troubling for a President to do. But do you think there is anything untoward in a President releasing factual documents in the hopes they will aid his election chances?

I'm starting to realize that a good portion of the country believes that winning an election means you have carte blanche to use your position in any way you deem fit.  You can use information only you have, given for other purposes, to influence an election or make money.  You can use the power you are given to run the government to reward your followers and punish your opponent.  That the information and power given to you to do your job is also given to you enrich yourself and your followers.  And that this is perfectly acceptable, if not expected. :(

This "winner take all and use it to keep in power" attitude is that of dictatorships and other repressive governments.  Because once a faction gains power, they must use it keep power, because losing power means losing money and resources for your faction and possibly never gaining it back.  So keeping in power is the only goal.

And thus democracy dies. :( 

It will be interesting to see if Trump can keep standing through the debate. :)

Did you see him when he came back from the hospital?  My wife pointed out that, when he put his face mask in his pocket, he grimaced from pain.  Then you could see him, swaying slightly, his face screwed up trying to keep it neutral.  He was in pain.  He was having a hard time just standing there.  Trump is still very sick.  (Feeling better than he did 20 years ago my @ss! ;D) Which means he has a pretty good chance of having a severe relapse before the debate.

No one should go near Trump for the next couple of weeks.  He's a carrier.  He's liable to infect everyone around.  I doubt Biden will get anywhere near Trump.  Unlike Trump, he's smart enough not to risk his life over some stupid macho desire to show how tough he is.

Calling him "Basement Biden" just shows why he would be a better president than Trump.  He has a lot more common sense.  :)

General Comments / Re: October Surprise
« on: October 06, 2020, 05:49:06 PM »
Of course, Trump isn't even waiting for a few bad apples to show up.  He's already insisting that mail in ballots will cause a fraudulent election.

So I'm just trying to find out how that could be done.  If anyone's even figured out how it could be done.  How it could make a big enough difference to change the election outcome.

General Comments / Re: October Surprise
« on: October 06, 2020, 04:38:13 PM »
Could someone pick one of those "Democrat controlled states" where you believe they can "stuff the ballot box" and explain just how that could be effectively done?

For instance, I don't see how that could be done in California (although you gotta wonder who would bother? :) )

Please be specific, in how each of the safeguards the state has enacted to prevent voter fraud would be avoided.

Because right now, it all sounds like a bunch of B.S. to me. :)

General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: October 06, 2020, 03:11:28 PM »
Except, Fenring, the basis of global warming IS simple and established science.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Greenhouse gases keep the Earth at a temperate temperature (unlike, say, the Moon).  CO2 levels are increasing.  Increased concentrations of a greenhouse gas trap more heat in the atmosphere.  Therefore, increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere should increase global temperatures.

The only complexities are whether there is some other mechanism (or mechanisms) that counteract this.

Do higher temperatures cause more clouds to form?  Do the clouds reflect into space more radiation than they reflect back to Earth?  How much heat does the oceans absorb?  How much does that slow down atmospheric heating?  How much heat can the oceans absorb?  How does particulates in the atmosphere affect global temperatures?  Etc.  These all make the models complex and difficult to perfect.  Not to mention the chaotic nature of climate.

But notice, none of those factors disprove global warming.  They only make it harder to determine if there are other factors counteracting CO2 rise or not.  But CO2 is trapping more heat, regardless of any other factor.  It is a forcing of the climate, not some oddity that may happen because of some weird interaction of the various heat transfers.  It is like a pot on a burner and turning up the heat.  Exactly how and how quickly the pot will warm up is complex, but it will warm up unless there is something to counteract it.

So saying "this stuff is too complex to the current claims to be believed" is inaccurate.  The stuff is too complex for the current claims to be disbelieved.  It is too complex for anyone to say with any authority that something is counteracting global warming.  Everything we looked at so far hasn't done the trick.  And any alternative explanations for why we see warming is just additional heat to the increase from CO2.

It's just an excuse.  The basics of the science is solid.  The inability to have a good model that shows that it isn't happening is the problem for the deniers, not the science.

Of course, maybe it was these Proud Boys that President Trump was referring to.  He said he didn't know who these guys were.  I'm sure he'd be proud to tell them to "stand back and stand by" for him, don't you?  :D  (Although I do wonder what he was planning for them to do...  ;) )

...Stand by for what?  A sign from God?  Or a sign from Trump?  (Or am I being redundant to Trumpists? ;) )

Has anyone mention that the Proud Boys is NOT a White Supremist organization, and has actually spoken out against them? Why would Trump be expected to know about them? And more importantly, why did Chris Wallace and Biden even bring them up?

If Trump knew nothing about them, why did he asked them to "stand by?"  Why does he want their support, if he knows nothing about them?  And why doesn't he know about a major organization in the U.S. that advocates violence?  Don't you think the President should have at least a passing awareness of such an organization?  Or do you prefer your Presidents to make their decisions in ignorance?

And have you verified that they are not a white supremist organization?  Have you verified that none of their members are white supremacists?  Have you verified that they don't spout white supremacists rhetoric?  Wouldn't it be odd if there are a number of white supremacists who are members and friends of the Proud Boys when the Proud Boys speak out so forcefully against white supremacists??  Do you think the Proud Boys stand with other anti-white supremacist organizations like the NAACP?

General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: October 04, 2020, 01:55:34 AM »
It has been two days now, and I've heard no one in the MSM minus Fox News or NewsMax comment of Biden's lie about Hunter receiving $3.5 Million from the wife of the former mayor of Moscow. That official government report confirmed it, but Biden said it was debunked. If the moderators of debates, and MSM won't focus, now that Trump is in Walter Reed, who will hold Biden's feet to the fire?

Apparently you. :)

And USA Today, which reported on Oct. 1:

According to a footnote in the Senate report, the source of the allegation of the Moscow transaction is "Confidential Document 6," which it says is on file with the committees. It does not elaborate.

The allegation does not provide any additional detail, including whether the alleged transaction was legal. ...

[T]he [Democratic] response said. "The information in the documents cited by the Republicans has not been verified, and we are not aware of any other Congressional committee ever releasing this sort of information in this manner.

"Any credible investigation would have sought the underlying financial records at issue and spoken to the involved parties," they continued. "At Chairman Johnson’s request, HSGAC authorized 46 subpoenas across four business meetings related to his current investigations, none of which sought information that could substantiate or verify the information in these documents."

Regarding the specific Moscow allegation, Alison Green, spokesperson for the minority on the Homeland Security Committee, and Keith Chu, spokesperson for the minority on the Finance Committee, issued a joint statement that said, "Democratic staff has reviewed all known information on file with the Committees, however, including the confidential document cited by the Republicans, and are aware of no information in the Committees’ possession showing Hunter Biden had any financial interest in this entity or transaction."

USA TODAY asked a spokesperson for the Republican majority for a comment but did not get an immediate response.

Hunter Biden's lawyer, George Mesires, told CNN that his client was not an owner of the firm, Rosemont Seneca Thornton.

“Hunter Biden had no interest in and was not a ‘co-founder’ of Rosemont Seneca Thornton, so the claim that he was paid $3.5 million is false,” Mesires told CNN.

And perhaps Newsweek, which wrote on Sept. 23:

The report does not allege that there was anything illegal about these transactions. However, the document demonstrates that Hunter Biden had a series of financial entanglements with foreign officials and business people associated with adversarial governments. Notably, President Donald Trump and his company the Trump Organization have widespread business interests around the world, several of which have been connected by reports to alleged money laundering and potentially nefarious activities.

And how about PolitiFact, who reported after the debate:

We asked Republican Senate staffers if they could show proof that Biden had a stake in Rosemont Seneca Thornton, and they also declined to respond.

The Senate report cites a Oct. 9, 2019, Financial Times story that says Hunter Biden was a co-founder, but the reporters don’t say in the story how they substantiated that — no source is cited. An email query to the Washington-based reporter on the story went unanswered.

Regardless, the Republican report doesn’t fully support Trump’s claim, because it never shows that Biden got the full $3.5 million.

So while I wouldn't say the report is "debunked," the contention of the report is certainly not adequately documented to be proven, and lacks enough support to make it credible.  The silence from those who have in info when asked for proof is significant.

Since this appears to be a piece of FAKE NEWS, I'm surprised you want the MSM to report it.  I thought that was one of your criticisms of the MSM.  ???

General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: October 02, 2020, 05:33:42 PM »
My guess is that the next debate/town hall was going to be Trump's main opportunity to re-connect with those segments of the voting population that he scared away with his first debate performance...

There was no scaring away. Since Biden interrupted first, and then failed to go effectively nose-to-nose, which was his plan, that whole drama is laid at his feet, not Trump's. The perception of being too hot is another matter. Once you recognized that Biden had no push-back, you can feel pity for him, but not award him leadership accolades for starting a fight, losing it, then whining about it.

Nice try, but no one buys it.

If Trump was just responding to Biden, why did he interrupt Chris Wallace?  Why couldn't Chris ask him a prepared question? 

When you factor in Trump interrupting Fox News host Chris Wallace, then it's obvious it wasn't Joe he was responding to.  He wanted to bully everyone in sight.

...your defense of Trump is that he's an idiot, who tells people he has no idea who they are to "stand by?"

Don't lie by omission, he said for all groups to to "Stand back, and stand by." We know who AntiFa, BLM, and Occupy Wall Street are because of all the damage they've done, and the protection the Democrats have afforded them.

Stand by for what?  A sign from God?  Or a sign from Trump?  (Or am I being redundant to Trumpists? ;) )

"Stand by" means be ready to jump in and join the fight.  Just ask the Proud Boys, who already are selling T-shirts with the message on it.

So you think he was telling AntiFa to "stand by" and be ready to join the fight?  Even you don't believe that. :)

So he must have meant the groups they were talking about, right?  White supremacists.  Nazis.  Aryan Nation.  KKK.  And their ilk.  Those are the only groups he would reasonably call to "stand back and stand by."  Because no other groups would rush to his aid.

No lying by omission.  He said what he said to the people he said it to.  No matter how you try to twist his words into something acceptable.

Regardless of their label, Trump directly told them to "stand by."

Do you feel good about having such people ready to jump at the President's word?  :o

In fact, deosn't this mean that Trump just deputized the Proud Boys??  ???

Actually, Trump said he did not know who they were, but that they should "stand back and stand by." The response was for all to stay out of riots in general. He did know who AntiFa is, and why not jump all over Biden's response to that?

OK, so your defense of Trump is that he's an idiot, who tells people he has no idea who they are to "stand by?"  ;D

I mean, if someone asked him about NAMBLA and he said, "fine people, they support me, I love them," would you forgive him so readily when he said, "oh, I didn't know who they were?"  ::)

General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: September 30, 2020, 05:11:35 PM »
Or for plagiarism, over and over again?

Who is Biden plagiarizing?  I certainly hope you don't mean himself, by recycling speeches.  Because as any writer can tell you, you can't plagiarize yourself. :)

Name names, please.

General Comments / Re: Town halls and debates 2020
« on: September 30, 2020, 01:39:32 PM »
Fenring is right.  The RNC is not to blame for Trump becoming their candidate.  At least, until this year, when the RNC is so totally in Trump's pocket they didn't even bother to come up with a platform other than "Whatever Trump says."  ;D

No, the full, entire, complete responsibility for electing Trump goes to every single person who voted, and will vote, for him.  At this point, the only reason to vote for him is because you firmly believe that the other major candidate would be much, much worse.  And after last night's performance of interruptions, out-and-out lies, and bullying, how anyone would believe Biden is much, much worse is beyond me.

In this case, "weakness" of a candidate is not an excuse, since Trump is a dumpster fire that will burn this country if supported.  If he is re-elected, his voters have no excuse this time.  They are completely responsible for whatever Trump does next.

Regardless of their label, Trump directly told them to "stand by."

Do you feel good about having such people ready to jump at the President's word?  :o

In fact, deosn't this mean that Trump just deputized the Proud Boys??  ???

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 36