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 ... 32
General Comments / Re: The CHAZ
« on: June 11, 2020, 07:06:14 PM »

So it all comes down to the percentage of people armed? Talk about rationalizing things. “The group I like has at least one less gun so it’s cool!” :o

So you think there was only one less gun?  The FACT that one group had close to 100% armed people vs. another group that had probably less than 10 percent (or less) armed means NOTHING to you?  Seriously, who is really rationalizing, Crunch?

Although the technical term is "projection." :D

And Crunch, when are you going to start tough-talking about what they should have done to the Bundy clan?  They should have been stooped IMMEDIATELY, right?  C'mon, let's hear it, Crunch!  Tell us how Obama was a wimp for not sending in the tanks, regardless of the casualties.  That's what you believe, isn't it?

I mean, how can a bunch of nearly unarmed "domestic terrorists" be any better than a bunch of heavily-armed ones, right? :)
Shouldn’t we start with the Whiskey Rebellion? If we’re gonna go historical to completely unrelated things, I say go all the way back.

I believe you’re having some kind of mental disconnect, that’s what I believe. But you can create any strawman you like.

No, it's no mental disconnect.  I, like most of members of this board, can see right through you, and know that you will criticize anything the other team does and never looked at how your own team may have done the same or worse.  And, as usual, all you can do is attack me for showing what you are and say that I'm having a "mental disconnect" or "TDS."  Because if you actually thought about what I was saying for a moment, you'd have to admit to being the hypocrite that you are.  That for you, mostly-armed conservatives taking over a park is just fine, but mostly-unarmed liberals requires the harshest response.

You are as pathetic as the President you helped elect.

General Comments / Re: The CHAZ
« on: June 11, 2020, 06:06:57 PM »
What percentage of the Bundy clan and supporters were armed with pistols, rifles and such?  Approximately.

What percentage of the CHAZ group is armed with pistols, rifles, and such?  Approximately.

That's the difference.  One group came in with the overt threat of shooting anyone who tried to move them.  An armed occupation.  The other took over through sheer numbers, and came to an agreement with the local government (although, apparently, not with the Federal government).  A popular occupation.

And Crunch, when are you going to start tough-talking about what they should have done to the Bundy clan?  They should have been stooped IMMEDIATELY, right?  C'mon, let's hear it, Crunch!  Tell us how Obama was a wimp for not sending in the tanks, regardless of the casualties.  That's what you believe, isn't it?

I mean, how can a bunch of nearly unarmed "domestic terrorists" be any better than a bunch of heavily-armed ones, right? :)

General Comments / Re: The CHAZ
« on: June 11, 2020, 11:02:43 AM »
I see that Trump is taking this very seriously.

Radical Left Governor
 and the Mayor of Seattle are being taunted and played at a level that our great Country has never seen before. Take back your city NOW. If you don’t do it, I will. This is not a game. These ugly Anarchists must be stooped IMMEDIATELY. MOVE FAST!

Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan responded appropriately:

Make us all safe. Go back to your bunker.

You can tell she's just quaking in her boots about what General Bonespurs might do! :D

When a bunch of heavily-armed anarchists took over a government facility a few years back, I didn't hear you or Trump calling for them to be stopped immediately.  Because, of course, they were white.  And conservative.  And supported by Trump's base.

So, relax.  This will resolve itself soon enough.  A bunch of peace-niks who don't even believe in money won't hold that area too long.  A little patience and hopefully they can resolve this peacefully. 

General Comments / Re: Defund the police
« on: June 09, 2020, 06:00:49 PM »
To that effect, the old man has to move forward, he should have returned home, but in any event he is not entitled to maintain his space in that circumstance.  Now the police should have arrested him instead of pushing him.  The way they've used this tactic historically has been to be a violent moving wall triggering a mob to panic, flee and disperse.  That's heavy handed.  The alternative would be what?  To zip tie, arrest and leave a pile of hogtied protestors behind themselves.  Is that what should occur?

Resolve for me how the police enforce the law, without causing the harm.  I agree beating the crowd and old men into submission is unacceptable, but I think you have to agree that non-compliance and preventing the police from clearing the street is also unacceptable.  So what's the solution?

So you're telling us, Seriati, that you can't think of a single way the police could have moved a 75-year-old man off the streets without shoving him to the ground and possibly killing him?

If you had to move a old man off your driveway, you couldn't have done better?  You couldn't have asked him, one last time, to move?  You couldn't have put your shield lightly against him and pushed gently?  You couldn't have moved around him and have some cop behind you take care of him?  Poked him gently with your baton?  Take him by the arm and lead him forward?

No, the only thing you could have thought of was shoving him with you shield and hope he was spry enough not to fall on the concrete and crack his head open, or break a hip, or any of the other things that make people panic when they see a septuagenarian fall.

But, of course, it would be his fault, wouldn't it, because he didn't obey a lawful order of a policeman.  And, as we all know, the penalty for not obeying the lawful order of the police is death.  Because regardless of the infraction, if you don't obey a police officer, he has the right to injure or kill you.

And you wonder why people are protesting on the streets.

"Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment. @OANN  I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?"

How can anyone support this a$$ with a clear conscience anymore?

General Comments / Re: Defund the police
« on: June 08, 2020, 11:28:00 AM »
John Oliver had a good segment last night talking about police reform and the need for it.  (Caution: strong language at times.)  He defined defunding the police as firing all of a city's policemen and having them re-apply for their jobs.  That way you could review each officer's record all at once.

Seemed like a reasonable idea to me if there is a strongly suspected institutional problem with a force.

He also points out that in instances where the police have gone on strike, those cities have no burned.  So an apocalypse is unlikely.

Like Tara Reade?

Why don't we start a thread comparing Biden's sexual accusers with Trump's.  Compare the quality of the accusations side-by-side.  I think that would be very enlightening, don't you? ;)

If you don't dominate, you're wasting your time. They're going to run over you. You are going to look like a bunch of jerks. You have to dominate.

Perfect deescalation advice from the president.  ::)

It’s been 7 nights of escalating violence. The soft, loving, approach is only encouraging the rioters. Establishing law and order is the exact right thing to do before more are killed.

Well it's way less people than got killed by the regular flu. But sure, take the same approach as the Chinese communist party did against violent protestors in Hong Kong.

How ironic, Crunch.  That is precisely how we feel about your post here. :D

So in that context, he likely did have access to venues where if he wanted to, he probably could do exactly that. But that's a far cry from being able to walk down a public street and grab a random woman "by the pussy." Or an admission that he ever actually did so, just that he was aware of having the ability. (And likely knowing people who did just that -- like Mr. Lolita Express, and one of his frequent passengers PotUS#42)

Since he doesn't grab women by the pussy on the street I guess it's not so bad then, maybe not worth holding it against him.  Let's ask the 25 women who have claimed he sexually harassed them or the undressed teenage girls in the competition changing rooms how they feel about his sexual empowerment.  He didn't do anything to them on the street, either.

So it's ok to tell a lie about someone so long as they've (probably) done other bad things? They're bad anyhow, so who cares? You should not be standing up for lies, even against men you despise.

Except it wasn't really a lie, Fenring.  Aris' exact quote is:

This from the same guy who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy.

He said nothing about "being able to walk down a public street and grab a random woman."  So that part is an exaggeration, at least as far as Aris' statement goes.

And don't forget, many if not most men who believe that "women want it" are exaggerating to themselves, too.  A majority of the time women who "want it" only tolerate it, for a variety of reasons.  The men who brag about the women "wanting it" are just lying to themselves to justify their boorish behavior.

So when Trump brags about being aware of having the ability to grab women by the p*ssy, it is doubtless because he is an egotistical a**hole who believes that it is his right and privilege as a rich male to have women want him to touch them in their intimate places, just for fun.  I mean, would you accept your minister saying something like that? ;)

Just because he may not believe he can touch any woman at any time there doesn't make him that much less of a pig.  And doesn't make Aris' statement a lie.

General Comments / Re: pardon me
« on: May 08, 2020, 04:48:23 PM »
Wouldn't "total exoneration" mean that there were nothing to the charges?  That he wasn't actually guilty of the crimes he plead guilty to?  That he didn't actually lie to the FBI?

Because as someone reminded me recently, he was fired by Trump at the time because he lied to Vice President Pence.

So unless you believe Trump and his Administration are a bunch of total loons who didn't realize that Flint didn't lie to them, but was telling everyone the truth all this time, then I think "total exoneration" is off the table. :)

This looks more like Trump asking his lap dog Burr to pardon Flint for him, so as to send a message to every other person in the government that, if you go against Trump, you will be punished, but if you support him, nothing bad will ultimate happen to you.  Which is one of the best ways to corrupt a government and a society, since it doesn't leave a paper trail.

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 08, 2020, 04:37:59 PM »
It's the right thing, and the honest thing, to do if you really care about women.

A funny admonition from a man who does the opposite of caring about women. :)

I mean, why call for us to care about women when you support a candidate who is, by all measures, worse to women?  One who cheated on his wife and bragged about the great sex he had with his mistress?  One who paid a porn star to be quiet about having sex with her while he was married?  One who has been accused of raping 15 women?  One who bragged about grabbing women's p**ssies?  This is the candidate you endorse because you "care about women???"

No, that's the candidate you endorse when you think that women are playthings for men. :)

Now, I can understand if you were trying to defend Joe Biden in this situation.  After all, there is less evidence to believe this happened than with the accusations against Kavanaugh or Donald J. Trump.  But don't try to put a guilt trip on liberals for not supporting Tara Reade enough, especially when Tara herself said that she would vote for Biden (IIRC).

Because you have no moral standing to do so, considering your allegiances.

The bottom line is that even the question about disinfectants used within the body shows Trump's level of ignorance.  He obviously has no idea how disinfectants like alcohol kill bacteria and viruses (or he would have known how stupid that question was), and he has so little faith and belief in medical professionals (or such an overinflated ego) that he thinks he can come up with an obvious idea that none of them had considered.

It just demonstrates that the man if an utter fool.

"When will all of the 'reporters' who have received Noble Prizes for their work on Russia, Russia, Russia, only to have been proven totally wrong (and, in fact, it was the other side who committed the crimes) be turning back their cherished 'Nobles' so that they can be given to the REAL REPORTERS & JOURNALISTS who got it right."

Deleted tweet of our Very Sane Genius President, Donald Trump--a "genius" who doesn't know the difference between the Nobel Prize and a Noble Prize. :)  And didn't realize that there is no Nobel Prize for journalism.

I liked this breakdown of Trump's latest comments:

"Trump did what he always does: he played a single-person game of telephone, in which somebody gave him information, he processed it, and it came out of his mouth in a completely different (and bizarre) way. That doesn't mean he was recommending actually injecting Clorox, people.

This is half the crazy stuff that exits his face: somebody said something mostly-reasonable, he interpreted in a bumper sticker fashion removed from the substance..."

This demonstrates what is wrong with Republicans and the Republican Party these days.

Seriati quotes a guy who basically states that President Donald Trump cannot properly process information, and comes out with "crazy stuff" after hearing something.  That Trump really, truly does not understand what he heard and the implications of it.  And Seriati is fine with that.  He (and the person he quoted) blames the media for making a big deal out of the fact that the President of the United States doesn't understand the substance of what he heard.

If Obama had said anything similar, Republicans would have been slavering at the mouth in outrage.

But you guys have become so corrupted, so inured to the outrageousness of this man, that you don't even realize how utterly incompetent he is.  You don't even realize when you admit it.  You blame everyone else--the media, Liberals, TDS, Never-Trumpers--and not the man who is actually responsible for the BS that comes out of Donald's mouth.  You would rather pretend that someone else is to blame.

This entire thread was started so you could confront, unspun and uninterpreted, the actual words of Donald Trump himself, and see how often they are incorrect, illogical, untrue, and out-and-out lies.  But you don't look at those words, do you?  You always look somewhere else, at someone else, to either explain away the words, or blame someone else for him looking bad.

This is what the party of Personal Responsibility has become.  A party looking for anyone else to blame.

This is what the party of Reason and Logic has become.  A party that ignores what is plain and obvious to even the most casual observer.

This is what the Grand Old Party has become.  Trump's apologists.

I don't expect you guys to hear what I'm saying.  You don't have the ears for it anymore.  You are holding on so tightly to Trump that you refuse to even consider that he is a terrible President, a terrible leader, and a terrible person who never should have gotten this job in the first place.  You have become so blinded by partisanship that you can't see reality anymore.

But just do one thing, if you can.  Do this one thing every time Trump says something.

Just image how you would feel if Barak Obama has said precisely the same thing.

And consider why that might feel a bit different than what you feel about Trump.

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 24, 2020, 04:59:05 PM »
Just another example of cognitive bias where the right cannot admit that Russia interfered with the US election, because that could be used to call into question Trump's legitimacy, and by such refusal, the right must refuse to respond to foreign threats against US democracy.

I've never heard anyone on the right claim that Russia wasn't actively trying to and/or succeeding with interfering with the election. Maybe we have a different definition of the right.

"First of all, I want no help from any country, and I haven't been given help from any country,” Trump told reporters Tuesday...

"China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!"
Tweet from Donald Trump, January 24, 2020.

"Just had a long and very good conversation by phone with President Xi of China. He is strong, sharp and powerfully focused on leading the counterattack on the Coronavirus. He feels they are doing very well, even building hospitals in a matter of only days."
Tweet from Donald Trump, February 7, 2020.

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 14, 2020, 06:58:22 PM »
Developing @CBSNews obtains April 2 letter responding to @SenRonJohnson and @ChuckGrassley over four key footnotes IG Horowitz FISA report. Three declassified with minimal redactions, and fourth footnote blacked out citing “unique and significant concerns. Specifically, footnote 350 FBI effort to verify Steele Dossier “The (redacted) stated that it did not have high confidence in this subset of Steele’s reporting and ASSESSED that the referenced subset was part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate US foreign relations”

They knew the Steele Dossier was false, went with it anyway.

Am I reading your quote wrong, but doesn't it say that someone thought that some of the Steele's report was part of a disinformation campaign?  Not that the entire dossier was false.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: April 01, 2020, 02:36:54 AM »
If everyone got it. You are part of the problem, you know that?

How so?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 31, 2020, 06:04:48 PM »
0.66% - yeah, that's not great but it's a hell of a lot lower than we've been told over and over and over. And it's the elderly that skew it that high. So that's what we're literally wrecking the economy over.

Yeah, that's only--what?--6.6 times higher death rate than the flu.  Why, if everyone got it, that's only a mere 2.6 million people.  Mass graves, like they're digging in Italy, can handle them easily.

We'd hardly notice it. *roll eyes*

General Comments / Re: Who’s got it?
« on: March 30, 2020, 02:07:50 AM »
Heard on the radio this morning of a death in San Diego.  A 25-year-old man.  No prior conditions.

This isn't just an old person's disease, or one that only kills those already sick.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 27, 2020, 04:14:18 PM »
In 1937, during the Great Depression, at least 40,000 Americans took their own lives that year and again in 1938. That two-year span, suicide rates spiked to its highest recorded level ever: more than 150 per 1 million annually. You want to do it again?

There's a brutal calculus at work here. We may keep it under 10,000 COIVD related deaths this year only to see more than that ultimately succumb to the despair of a shattered economy and take their own lives. Not to mention all the livelihoods that are being lost now whose impact won't be fully measured for years.

That is a concern, but consider this: left unchecked, do suicide rates rise exponentially? ;)

The potential deaths from Covid-19 are greater than despair-related suicides.

And how many suicides would be expected from having a large number of loved-ones die?

Definitely not these days.

I think the larger question is the long term damage we're willing to absorb to mitigate the estimated/modeled deaths (e.g. 50% unemployment, financial collapse, etc.).

There is also the physical damage to consider.  Some of those who survive the disease will no longer be 100%.  Scarring of lung tissue will occur in some people.

Not to mention time off to take care of sick children, parents, friends and relatives.

Do those who advocate just letting people catch it consider those implications, too?

Someone needs to remind Prager of what old George Patton said: "No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.”

Expecting people to die for our economy makes just as much sense.

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 25, 2020, 11:14:02 AM »
Patrick did not say all seniors were willing to die. Patrick said he would be willing to take that risk. He said to be smart about it (do I need to unpack that for you, can you guys be that deep in the TDS fever?) and let the 70+ team make the call about their own health (their body, their choice, right?).

Except it isn't only him that he is risking.

Having the disease means he can spread it to others.  So unless he isolates himself from his friends and family, he will most likely give it to one of them.  And if he does isolate himself...well, that kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it? ;)

Remember, from the latest I've heard, you can be contagious without symptoms.  So if he isolate himself when he feels sick, it is too late.

Second, spreading the disease means more people will die.  Because social distancing is not preventing everyone from getting it.  It is preventing our medical infrastructure from being overwhelmed.  Right now, hospitals and first responders do not have enough protective equipment to insulate them from the virus.  Nurses are using used surgical masks because they don't have replacements.  There are a limited number of respirators for those who are acutely ill.  Hospital beds are limited.  And if nurses and doctors get the disease because of lack of protective gears, they will be even more limited.  All which adds up to higher casualty rates than need be.  And not just retirees.  They just have the highest rate of death.  Every age group has people dying it in.

What happens to the economy when workers die, or have permanent lung scarring from the disease, because they couldn't get proper treatment because of triage?  What happens to their lives, because Patrick decided he was willing to risk his life and infect them?

Patrick is an idiot.  He doesn't understand the implications of what he is advocating, and he is putting everyone at risk because of it. 

General Comments / Re: Who’s got it?
« on: March 23, 2020, 08:54:42 PM »
One case confirmed at my work, with another rumored.

They closed the building and are disinfecting it.  No one allowed in for a day or two.  Everyone working from home.

General Comments / Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« on: March 13, 2020, 04:50:31 PM »
So for me, every single promise he made was true. Maybe your provider sucks, ever think of that? Maybe not relying on a single anecdote to make a global pronouncement would be a good idea.

Except it isn't anecdotal.  Review my link to  No insurance company said they were doing anything special about Covid-19, except not charging for the test.

And so what if it is anecdotal?  Trump said that "the leaders of health insurance industry who have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments, extend insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing."  Even one exception proves the lie.

Sounds like you have an exceptional insurer.  Do you ever pay co-pays at all?

You will be OK. Might want to stop watching CNN and MSNBC for a while.

Sorry.  Don't like the taste of koolaide. ;)  :D

It will come back. It's like you have no historical awareness beyond the last few weeks.

Oh, I know it will come back, although depending on how bad it is, I might retire first.  :'(

But for people who aren't options traders--like the vast majority of us--this is not a good thing.  It would behoove Trump to remember that when he talks about stuff.

Have you actually read what you quoted? I think they're messing with you and you didn't get the joke.

The stock market shooting up and down like this is an options trader's wet dream.

I'm glad you and Trump and having such a good time.  Good luck in riding the waves and making lots and lots of money as $11 trillion disappears from the market!

The rest of us have 401Ks.  :'(

That is the goal here.

No, it's what we've been warning you guys about for years now.  He isn't in control.  He's just lucky.  And one day, his luck will run out.

That day may have come. :(

General Comments / Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« on: March 13, 2020, 11:54:08 AM »
Well, looks like it’s out of control now. It’ll take drastic action to protect us.

First, copy Italy and lock it all down. Trump has to do it. Anything less simply won’t work. Total lockdown nationwide. Has to happen.

Second, we gotta postpone the election. It’s too dangerous to campaign, it’s too dangerous to have crowds go to the polls. The only fair thing, the right thing, is to push the election until it’s safe to hold it. Maybe next year, restart the primaries. Trump must postpone the election to save America.

Some of you may object but you have to consider the POTENTIAL. Once you account for the POTENTIAL, I’m sure all of you will agree that this must happen.

You can almost hear Bill Maher saying it:

"I nailed it.  I told you Trump wouldn't leave the Presidency." ;)

General Comments / Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« on: March 13, 2020, 11:52:04 AM »
...Wayward cites to a detailed response to a single line in a speech (which may or may not be actually correct), even though a speech is of necessity short and wouldn't cover all of those points...

I'm sorry, Seriati, but what part of Trump's line was a completely and entirely untrue did you miss?

Earlier this week, I met with the leaders of health insurance industry who have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments, extend insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing.

There is simply not a single point in that sentence that is true, except maybe him meeting with leaders of the health insurance industry.

According to my insurer, we still have copayments for treatment.

According to my insurer, there is no "extension" of coverage to anything Covid-19 related.  If it was covered before, it is still covered.  If it wasn't, you're SOL.

According to my insurer, they still only cover costs among preferred providers (which is mainly in-house).  If there are any unusual charges, like by some outside doctor or outside lab, you will still get charged extra, even if it wasn't your decision to use them.

Every single promise he made was false.  How much more detail do you need?

And these are the things most people were concerned about.  While knowing how much money he intends to loan small businesses to keep them afloat is good in the long term (in knowing they will still have jobs once this crisis is over), that's not their immediate concern.  Whether they will go bankrupt in the meantime is more pressing.

Trump told them not to worry.  They're covered.

It ain't true.

So why should they, or us, trust anything this man says when he can't get a few simple facts correct about a subject that most people consider really important?

He can't even get his own travel ban right.  ::)

Just FYI:

(T)he stock market had yet another lousy day, with the Dow Jones dropping 1,868 points. That would be the fourth time since Feb. 27 that the Index has exceeded pre-2020 record for a one-day loss (−1,175.21 points on Feb. 5, 2018). At the close of business Thursday, the Dow was at 21,200.62. On the day that Donald Trump took office, it was at 19,732.40. So, most of the growth that he crowed about on Twitter has evaporated. In fact, if we account for inflation, it has entirely evaporated. The $11.5 trillion that market gained after Jan. 20, 2017, is now all gone.

So if the stock market doesn't make a fast recovery (which is still a possibility), Trump's proudly-touted economic success "is now all gone."

General Comments / Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« on: March 12, 2020, 02:31:32 PM »
Earlier this week, I met with the leaders of health insurance industry who have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments, extend insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing.

That's from Trump's speech last night.  It needs some amendment, though.

No, they did not say they will cover co-pays for treatment. And Trump’s statement about surprise medical billing is questionable.

As Vice President Mike Pence stated more accurately, the insurers agreed to cover coronavirus testing with no cost sharing — so no co-pays or deductibles. That assurance applies to tests that can confirm or rule out the virus, and doesn’t extend to treatment or to other tests that the patient’s doctor may order. Consumers should check with their insurance company because policies may vary on this. They should not count on the president’s word.

What’s more, in the process of diagnosing COVID-19, other tests may be ordered. Insurers have not pledged to waive cost-sharing for those. Co-pays and deductibles may apply for imaging tests such as X-rays or CT scans of the chest, for example, and hospital stays are also subject to cost-sharing.

Federal programs including Medicare, Medicaid, children’s health insurance and “Obamacare” all cover the coronavirus tests. Of particular importance, clinical diagnostic tests are covered under Medicare with no cost-sharing, a longstanding policy. However, cost-sharing may apply for other tests, such as imaging.

When people get sick from the coronavirus, there currently is no antiviral treatment that can cure the disease. Instead, the current treatment is geared to relieving patients’ symptoms and helping them to recover. For those who are very sick, that can involve using machinery to help them breathe. Insurers cover such treatment based on the terms of the individual’s health plan, including any applicable deductibles and co-pays.

As for “surprise billing,” that’s not something insurers can waive because they’re not the ones who do it. Doctors and hospitals generally spring those surprises.

Overall, says Karen Pollitz of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation: “We don’t have a rule yet that says all insurers must do ‘x,’ so flip your insurance card over and call the 800 number.”

So insurers have agreed to make the test free.  The rest is pure fantasy.

Nice to know the President's on top of this.  ::)

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 12, 2020, 01:32:53 PM »
Except for one thing: it's not a natural system, and the candidates do not emerge at random from the gene pool or whatever. They are often or even usually groomed for the role and propped up by powerful parties. Sometimes the parties might be ok with one a short list of possibilities, and sometimes they are deadset on one person, as was the case with Hillary in 2016. Because the system does not randomly generate candidates, therefore your schema fails; they are produced with certain criteria in mind to the extent that they're groomed and supported, which may include electibility, but will also include bolstering and perpetuating the current power structures. It's an exercise in improvement - for them. Unless you're on a board of directors or have lots of stock in their companies, the so-called improvement isn't for you.

Why don't you state outright that there are some mysterious people that selects, grooms and supports the candidates?  Because you might have to name names of who these people are? ;)

There were--what?--20 candidates for the Democratic nomination this round.  Were they all groomed by these people?  If not, then why didn't voters get input on who was the best candidate?

Besides, you are assuming that voters have no influence on who these mysterious people pick.  You forget that, other than perpetuation the current power structure, they have other criteria.

1.  Getting their person elected.  If their selected candidates always lose, it don't do them a bit a good.  They need their person in power to wield that power in their favor.  For that, they need the help of voters.

2.  Keeping the party popular.  Do you believe these people select the Green Party candidates?  The Peace and Freedom Party candidates?  It would be a waste of time and resources to do so, since such candidates never come close to winning.  Similarly, if they select candidates that alienate members of the Democratic or Republican parties, then those parties will become the next Green or Peace and Freedom party, and their back to square one.  So it behooves them to keep their selections popular, at least within the party.

There are doubtlessly other criteria, all based on the fact that we, the people, get to vote for who we want.  Ultimately any candidate they select has to get the OK from the voters.  Which means that we, the voters, do have a say.  We have influence whether these people like it or not.

That's not to say that I, as an individual voter, have a huge say in the initial selection of candidates.  I'm only one voice.  There are millions of other voices, with different values, priorities and criteria.  And those with money have a greater voice than those without (since, as the Supreme Court said, money is speech  ::) ).  So my voice is almost infinitesimal in the overall scheme of things.

But that does not make it insignificant.  As long as I vote, and as long as I vote for the candidate that is the best (or even just better) among those who are running, I do have an influence.  Me, and everyone who thinks like me.  Such a group has influence.

Just look at how much Bernie has changed the Democratic party.  Look at the party platform from 2016.  You can pick out the lines that Bernie's running for the Presidency added to the platform--lines that those "perpetuating the current power structures" doubtlessly didn't like, and didn't appear in the Republican party platform.  Bernie has pushed the Democratic party to the left.  So even though Bernie did not win in 2016, and probably won't in 2020, he definitely influenced Hillary and the Democratic candidate this year.  And if the Bernie voters keep up the pressure, they will keep those lines in the 2024 platform, the 2028 platform and the 2032 platform, if not adding even more lines.

But for the ones that didn't vote for Hillary, what influence did they have for the past four years?  If they don't vote for the Democratic candidate this year, what influence will they have, even if that candidate wins?  The Democrats will realize that, since they won't get those Bernie voters even if they add those lines to the platform, they really don't need them.  It won't help them get into power.  So they don't count.

Why do you think Bernie's ideas and values don't appear in the Republican platform? ;)

So, yeah, votes do count.  And so, voting for the lesser evil pushes it toward lesser evil, even if it is only a small push.  But it is a push nevertheless.  And over time, with a lot of small pushes from a lot of people, it will influence the parties, who they nominate, and what they stand for.  But only if the party sees that it will.  Not voting for the party means it doesn't matter whether they listen to you or not.  They don't get any closer to what they want (to win power).  So they might as well just ignore you anyway.

Voting for the lesser evil moves a party in the direction you want.  Maybe only infinitesimally, but movement nevertheless.

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 12, 2020, 12:26:18 PM »
WS, this argument cannot possibly hold water since the quality of American presidents has clearly been on the decline since...I dunno, Kennedy. We could argue about whether Reagan or Clinton rose above that, but there have been some serious duds since then. I don't know how you could back up this idea that insisting on voting for only establishment candidates somehow makes the country better. If you want your voice to be heard, make it heard. If you'll eat whatever you're fed then don't complain about the results.

That is probably because there is no universally agreed value for each candidate.  One man's +4 is another man's -7.

It also requires a certain amount of feedback to create actual progress with the candidates.  If your vote has no effect on the system, then the candidates you get will be random.

But, of course, your vote does have an effect, albeit a tiny one.

Nevertheless, for any one person's individual determination of the worth of Presidential candidates, it is mathematically true that voting for the lesser of two evils helps improve the candidates over the long run, and helps prevent worse candidates over the short run.

Also, you're working from a very small data set if you're only counting Presidents since Clinton. ;)

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 12, 2020, 10:45:18 AM »
Sorry, Drake.  Mathematics says you're wrong.  If you choose the lesser of two evils, you eventually get better Presidents, assuming the candidates are not equal.

If you choose randomly, you will not change the average.

And if you choose the greater, you will get worse Presidents.

Do the math.

Not choosing is similar to a random choice.  So you gotta ask yourself a question: do you want better Presidents (even if it is a slow rise), the same kind of Presidents, or worse Presidents?

And as I say to those who won't vote for Biden if Bernie loses:  which President do you prefer to work with the next four years?  Once that is sympathetic to your goals, or one who is dismissive or actively trying to crush your goals? ;)

General Comments / Re: Trump Response to Covid-19
« on: March 11, 2020, 06:35:18 PM »
No, orange man stupid.  :D

You going to the next rally?  ;)

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 11, 2020, 03:37:15 PM »
You hold yourself superior to others who have seen and heard the same things but come away with a different judgement.

No, I don't hold myself superior.  But I won't be told something that I've seen with my own eyes isn't true just on someone else's word.  That's called gaslighting, and you're no Charles Boyer. :)

You say you've seen something different that I haven't because I watch different media?  Fine.  Show me what you've seen.  Then I can judge for myself.  That's all I ask.

But don't say I'm holding myself superior because you've come away with a different judgement.  :P

Funny, no one here claimed gravitas for Trump - but he certainly does show more leadership capacity than any other dozen people you might put forward.

My apologies.  When you said:

What is revelatory, is how such things vanish just as instantly, when the researchers realize they don't have the desired effect. (i.e. - like when "gravitas" appeared everywhere, but disappeared the next day when the public realized the opponent had more gravitas than the Dems' golden child.)

I assumed you were referring to Donald Trump as "the opponent."  My mistake.

No. Not going to fall into that trap. You know darn well that he has given great speeches and been roundly praised for them. If you want an example - go look at this year's State of the Union Address which Pelosi tore up on camera. Great speech.

All that shows is that he's still competent enough to read what's on a piece of paper. :)  That's why I specified extemporaneous speeches and interviews.  Unscripted speeches reveal his cognitive abilities better than words that someone else doubtlessly has reviewed and polished.  That's why I linked interviews.

Which is ultimately what this thread is about, isn't it?  Not policies, not politics, not what they believe, but the cognitive ability of our Presidential contenders.  Crunch is trying to scare us into believing that Biden has lost much of his.  I'm pointing out that, by the same standard, Trump may have lost much of his.  Look at his old interviews.  Look at his latest interviews.  Is he as sharp as he used to be?  If we're worried about Biden's mental capacity, shouldn't we be just as concerned about Trump's?  Or are there different scales for Democrats and Republicans?

When November comes, we will be voting for either one (assuming Biden gets the nomination) or the other.  So it behooves us, if we are concerned about the mental acuity of our candidates, to examine and compare them to each other.  Because barring any acts of God, it'll be one or the other.

General Comments / Trump Response to Covid-19
« on: March 11, 2020, 02:17:49 PM »
I think this deserves it's own thread, apart from what we know about the virus and the proper responses to it.  One on how well Trump and his Administration are reacting to it.

So far, so bad.

I was reading his article on Trump ignoring his own CDC's advice on how to not spread the virus.

At the Pentagon, top military brass have been begun “social distancing” to avoid spreading disease. At the Capitol, legislators have been encouraged to forgo hand shakes and flash the “Star Trek” Vulcan greeting instead.

But at the White House, President Donald Trump is flouting his own government’s advice on how to stay safe. He continues to shake hands with supporters and visitors, hold large events and minimize the threat posed by a coronavirus outbreak that has infected more than 115,000 people and killed over 4,000 worldwide...

“I think it’s beholden upon our leaders to follow the public health recommendations that the CDC, the government, public health are recommending and to emulate those practices,” said Dr. Jason Farley, a nurse epidemiologist and professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing. He said that it sends “mixed messaging to the public” when recommendations aren’t heeded.

When it comes to Trump, he added, “There’s nothing special about being the president of the United States that protects you from a virus like this unless you’re following the practices recommended for every 70-year-old.”

Trump has repeatedly played down the risk, both to the public and himself, even as he claims that his administration is “taking this unbelievably seriously.”

“It will go away. Just stay calm,” Trump told reporters Tuesday. “Everybody has to be vigilant and has to be careful. But be calm. It’s really working out. And a lot of good things are going to happen.”

When it comes to Trump’s continued glad-handing, Vice President Mike Pence said Tuesday that’s unlikely to change despite going against the administration’s “broad recommendation” for other Americans.

“In our line of work, you shake hands when someone wants to shake your hand,” he said. “And I expect the president will continue to do that. I’ll continue to do it...”

Trump, at 73, is considered at higher risk, although his press secretary said Monday he “remains in excellent health...”

Overall, the CDC has suggested that workplaces encourage employees to stop shaking hands, use videoconferences for meetings when possible and hold meetings in well-ventilated spaces if meetings are necessary.

That hasn’t happened at the White House, where Trump, a self-professed “germophobe,” sat shoulder-to-shoulder Tuesday with aides and health insurance executives, traveled to Capitol Hill for a Senate lunch and awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom at a well-attended ceremony, where he also shook hands with those in the front row.

On Monday, Trump was spotted shaking hands with supporters on a tarmac in Florida. And on Thursday, he’s set to travel to the West Coast, where he’ll attend fundraisers and the annual gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas.

All that, despite the fact that Trump has already had personal contact with several individuals known to have been exposed to the virus. They include Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, who traveled aboard Air Force One with the president on Monday and found out midflight that he was among a handful of GOP lawmakers who were exposed to a person who tested positive for the virus after last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference...

Lawrence Gostin, a public heath expert and professor at Georgetown University, said he believed it would be appropriate to implement enhanced screening at the White House to keep the president and Cabinet safe.

“This is no different than being protected by a bullet from the Secret Service,” he said. “Not only should they be following general health advice we give to the public, they should be following much more rigorously ... because we can’t be in a political crisis at the same time we’re in a public health crisis...”

On Capitol Hill, Democratic lawmakers were barred from helping themselves to a breakfast buffet or touching serving utensils, and told to avoid kissing, hugging and shaking hands.

But not Trump — a pattern that Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, said appeared motivated by Trump’s desire to protect the economy in an election year.

“Right or wrong, the president’s decided he wants to minimize the economic impact of this pandemic. ... He’s trying to do everything he can to protect the economy by saying, ‘It will be over,’ ‘It’s not that bad,’ ‘Feel free to go places,’” Blendon said. While much uncertainly remains, “if it turns out to be more serious, the president’s contributing to people not protecting themselves.”

“The president should be keeping us safe. He shouldn’t be amplifying the risk,” added Gostin of Georgetown University.

“The message should be: Let’s have social distancing, let’s avoid the usual cultural symbols of shaking hands, let’s separate from one another and avoid either contracting or transmitting a very dangerous infection,” Gostin said. “And it’s baffling to me that the president, who should be the model of good behavior, is modeling exactly the opposite.”

In so many ways, it would be much easier for Trump to follow the CDC guidelines than the rest of us.  You gotta wonder why he is ignoring them. :(

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 11, 2020, 01:25:59 PM »
You gave vague, hand-waving examples of Trump's presentation skills and "gravitas."  Nothing specific.  No particular speech that would demonstrate those skills.

I've seen his presentation skills, unedited.  I've watched a couple of live news conferences, for as long as I could stand it.  I went to one of his rallies during the presidential race back in 2015.  He's a lousy speaker.  He rambles.  He goes off on weird tangents half-way through sentences.  He often doesn't complete his thoughts.  He is crude, mocking, a bully.

None of this indicates "gravitas."  None of this shows any great presentation skills.

Now compare that to some of his interviews from back in the 80's or 90's.  Here, Donald Trump explaining to Larry King why he didn't want to be President from 1987.  Or this unaired Rona Barret interview from 1980.  Or any of these interviews from the 1980s.  Show me a current extemporaneous speech or interview that is as coherent, focused and mature as any of these.  Provide a link so I can see it myself.

If he is such a great presenter and has such "gravitas," it should only take you a couple of minutes to find one that demonstrates your contention.  It's not like you'd have to sift through ten, twelve or twenty speeches and interviews to find one, since you are already familiar with his speeches and he is such a good presenter. :)

That is why I suggested to silence the TV and read out loud his words.  I did that when he spoke to the press after the Charlottesville rally and it's aftermath.  It was painful in my own voice.  To paraphrase Harrison Ford, you can hear his speech, but you sure can't read it!  ::)

So until you can provide a specific example of how Trump is still pretty much on top of his game as far as public speaking goes, don't feed me any line about his great presentation and  his "gravitas."  I haven't seen it.  And if you can't show me an example, I see no reason to believe it is true.

And if you can't, then we can move on to discussing how badly he has degenerated since his heyday. ;)

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: March 11, 2020, 10:49:48 AM »
My wife and I are in the high-risk groups, but it's up to us to take precautions for ourselves.  Since almost everyone (99.8%) under 50 who get the disease will recover within 1-2 weeks (at most) I'm of the opinion that extraordinary measures should be reserved for people who aren't able to take those precautions.  Keep the schools open, let fans attend concerts and games, have fun at parties, just don't lick the punch bowl or sneeze on the salad bar.

The problem with this is that those in the high-risk groups interact with those under 50.  Are you going to quarantine yourselves from your children and grandchildren?  Or (if you don't have them), require those who do to do so?  How about those at grocery stores, pharmacies, and workplaces?  If everywhere is a hot-bed of Covid-19, those over 50 will have to isolate themselves for their own safety.

The other problem is with medical capacity.  Allowing the virus to spread uncontrollably can overwhelm the emergency ICUs for those who require help to recover.  P.Z. Myers has a nice graphic which illustrates this.  Allowing an uncontrolled spread of the virus guarantees a higher death rate simply because we don't have unlimited medical equipment and medicines for the worst cases.  Herd immunity is also important in controlling this disease.

And exactly how are you going to prevent those 5 - 9 year-olds from sneezing on the salad bar, much less the old codger who thinks it's all a bunch of hooey? ;)

Until we get an effective vaccine, we should use every tool available.

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 10, 2020, 06:41:42 PM »
With Trump, if you see him on an anti-Trump network, you will only see something pejorative, If they can't skew the real clip, they just won't show anything, and then paraphrase something else completely diametrically opposed to what he meant or said.

Fine.  Show me something from a non-anti-Trump network.  Show me some extemporaneous speech where he is coherent and shows "gravitas." Show me an example where he "turn(s) a phrase that makes the expensive rhetoric the Democrats create through focus groups and think tanks look pale."

Show me.

Because I'm from Missouri.  I'd like to see it for myself.

General Comments / Re: Economics and Covid-19
« on: March 10, 2020, 06:07:29 PM »
The last I heard, the White House told the CDC not to release their recommendation that the elderly and physically fragile avoid flying on commercial flights.

Sounds more like they were trying to protect the airlines at the possible cost of a few of the passengers.  ::)

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 10, 2020, 05:02:54 PM »

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 10, 2020, 04:59:33 PM »
As for Trump declining in his presentation skills, one must be on another planet to think that. He can turn a phrase that makes the expensive rhetoric the Democrats create through focus groups and think tanks look pale.

Could you link an interview that demonstrates that?  Because all the ones that I've heard, he sounds disjointed, unfocused, and not on top of things.

And the main reason his words vanish instantly is because they are replaced by another set of words that must be analyzed and explained.

And please, especially, provide some examples of Trump's "gravitas." :)

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 10, 2020, 04:14:15 PM »
But over the past few months, he genuinely looks to be in real cognitive decline. The kind of stuff where if it was your parent or grandparent, you might not demand they see someone right away, but it's obvious to everyone in the room that something is not entirely right anymore.

Well, I haven't seen it yet.  Of course, I've been listening to Trump for the last three years. :)

Seriously, have you listened to Donald when he's talking off the cuff, like at that news conference for the Corona virus?  As an experiment, try turning off the sound on your TV and reading his words out loud.  It's painful.

Then compare it to his interviews from the 1980s or 1990s.  He has definitely declined significantly over that period.  He's not entirely right anymore, either. :(

General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 10, 2020, 12:22:41 PM »
Really?  Do ALL the people who know and work with Trump say he is a good man?  Aren't there a few who disagree? ;)

General Comments / Re: Trump's fake census
« on: March 09, 2020, 06:48:19 PM »

I don't doubt you know what the Democrats are saying, although I suspect that it is filtered through Fox, Brietbart, etc., which edit the messages to only the stuff they want you to hear.  But I still don't believe you know what they are thinking.

I believe your interpretation of their thoughts and motivations are highly colored by your personal biases.  That you ascribe motivations to them that they typically do not have.

And as far as logical fallacies--I find that you engage in them as much, if not more, than most members of this board.  Ad hominems, false dilemmas, straw man arguments, and slippery slope arguments come immediately to mind.  I used to point some of these out, until I realized that you did not appear to care.

I would also not say that "very nearly every post" of mine has logical fallacies and appeals to emotion.  I recall several times when you accused me of logical fallacies and I disputed them (quite well, if I say to myself :) ).  While I do try to appeal to people's sense of fairness and justice, I believe those are the logical outcomes of my reasoned statements.  I wouldn't call them overly emotional, except for the emotion of "righteous wrath."

So once again I would ask you to open your mind and consider that you don't know as much as you believe.  The motivations you ascribe to Liberals and Democrats are far, far from their true motivations.  See if you can see it from their point of view.  And I would ask that you look twice at my posts and see if there aren't fairly logical arguments to them.  I bet you would find much to think about if you did so.

And even if you don't find the logic compelling, please do not resort to dismissal and name-calling (e.g. TDS).  It's not going to help me be less illogical and emotional.  It will only piss me off and make me dismiss you.

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