We gotta talk about Uncle Joe

[Crunch]

Bernie's out. It appears that Trump will be running unopposed.

That's why this shutdown needs to go at least another few months:

Dr. Zeke Emanuel, an adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on the coronavirus, said this week that Americans could be dealing with strict social distancing measures to combat the coronavirus for 18 months ...

The only way to beat Trump at this point is to destroy as much of the US economy as possible, keep it down, and make people as fearful as possible. The Biden team knows, the MSM knows it.

[yossarian22c]

Bernie's out. It appears that Trump will be running unopposed.

That's why this shutdown needs to go at least another few months:

Dr. Zeke Emanuel, an adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on the coronavirus, said this week that Americans could be dealing with strict social distancing measures to combat the coronavirus for 18 months ...

The only way to beat Trump at this point is to destroy as much of the US economy as possible, keep it down, and make people as fearful as possible. The Biden team knows, the MSM knows it.

You think a million graves is a small price to pay for a Trump second term?

If he can't beat Biden under any conditions he deserves to lose.

[Crunch]

Hey, does anyone think the media is gonna mention Stormy Daniels or any accusations about Trump and other women? LMAO, no way. He’s totally insulated from the biggest thing anti-Trump people go on about. It’s an amazing thing to watch the Democrats do this.

But, isn’t Avenatti still in? Maybe he could be the candidate CNN so loved ....

[wmLambert]

Hey, does anyone think the media is gonna mention Stormy Daniels or any accusations about Trump and other women? LMAO, no way. He’s totally insulated from the biggest thing anti-Trump people go on about. It’s an amazing thing to watch the Democrats do this.

But, isn’t Avenatti still in? Maybe he could be the candidate CNN so loved ....

With the Dems, nothing is ruled out. The think tanks and focus groups are as busy right now, as all the medical researchers looking for Coronavirus cures. One thing is for certain. When they decide the most effective attack to use, it will be launched with all guns blazing. It will appear in all talk shows, and every media shill will pass it along unvetted.

The main thing that stopped this in past actions, has been mistiming. The "gravitas" attack was thwarted when the polls showed that the public thought it was the Dem candidate who lacked it. It got shut down overnight, and no one commented upon it. Many October Surprises have been set off too early, so their efficacy drained away before voting began. With Avenatti in handcuffs, the fanciful bimbo eruption is probably not a good idea.

My fortune-telling is that the economy will start to rebuild as the Viral attack lessens.

[Crunch]

Anyone see Trump’s ad on Biden and China?  Holy crap, it’s easily the most devastating political ad I’ve ever seen.

[yossarian22c]

With the Dems, nothing is ruled out. The think tanks and focus groups are as busy right now, as all the medical researchers looking for Coronavirus cures. One thing is for certain. When they decide the most effective attack to use, it will be launched with all guns blazing. It will appear in all talk shows, and every media shill will pass it along unvetted.

Can I pre-conspiracy theory for you?

Clinton operatives secretly infect Joe with corona virus hoping he'll die so she can be drafted at the convention and run against Trump and his failed covid 19 response.

Can I copyright conspiracy theories? When the right wing conspiracy nuts go crazy for it I could make some money on it?

[ScottF]

That's actually not bad but would probably be a bit more on the nose if Bernie had contracted CV.

[Seriati]

You think a million graves is a small price to pay for a Trump second term?

If he can't beat Biden under any conditions he deserves to lose.

I think, Biden's argument that travel restrictions were racist and the left's over reliance on the administrative state means that we'd have had a million more deaths easily, under Biden (or Clinton for that matter).

So, please answer you own question, is a million more deaths a small price to get rid of Trump?

[yossarian22c]

You think a million graves is a small price to pay for a Trump second term?

If he can't beat Biden under any conditions he deserves to lose.

I think, Biden's argument that travel restrictions were racist and the left's over reliance on the administrative state means that we'd have had a million more deaths easily, under Biden (or Clinton for that matter).

So, please answer you own question, is a million more deaths a small price to get rid of Trump?

Are you claiming Trump's response was quick, effective, and limited the spread of the virus in the USA? That he responded better than other countries and better than Biden or Clinton would have? If so, just put forth which of his actions were effective and we can discuss.

Currently the US has about 1/4 of the world's total number of confirmed infections. With that said its a little hard to claim that the China travel ban and the much later European one was a highly effective virus containment strategy. I'm not making the case the travel bans were bad policy, but whatever time they bought us in delaying outbreaks was squandered.

[Seriati]

Are you claiming Trump's response was quick, effective, and limited the spread of the virus in the USA?

Yes.  Travel ban is the single best thing we could have done.  And he fought to get it against overwhelming media and left pressure, so any argument that it should have been bigger (it should have) has to be weighed against the fact the left wouldn't have done it.

That he responded better than other countries and better than Biden or Clinton would have?

Yes.  Biden literally called the ban racist for weeks and only in the last month had his campaign claim he always supported the travel ban.  He's literally a liar trying to take credit for Trump's effective actions that he opposed and never would have implemented.

Clinton and Biden are fully establishment, they had no ability to override the deep state or willingness to do so, so we'd still be waiting for the FDA to develop a test if they were in charge.  The media would be covering for them and repeating endlessly that the government is doing all it can (or criticizing Republicans for being disloyal for pushing for a different plan), while our death rate would be at least a factor of ten greater and we'd be further from a cure.

Now, you can count on both Biden and Clinton to have acted to seize large portions of the private sector on an "emergency" basis that helps no one and permanently increases the authority of the government.

Currently the US has about 1/4 of the world's total number of confirmed infections.

Yes.  It's disease the communicability of which no one understood fully, in large part because the Chinese and international authorities lied about person to person transmission through late January.  The US leads the world - now, thanks to the Trump admin steamrolling the FDA/CDC - in testing.

With that said its a little hard to claim that the China travel ban and the much later European one was a highly effective virus containment strategy. I'm not making the case the travel bans were bad policy, but whatever time they bought us in delaying outbreaks was squandered.

I see.  So the single only effective measure - international social distancing - was not really effective.  That's just a sad claim that if it were anyone other than Trump would never get made.  Given what we knew at the time, it was practically visionary.  The left - based on what they "knew" at the time - couldn't even envision a purpose for it other than racism. 

Again the "squandering" of time was literally using the time to push the FDA and CDC in accord with the existing rules there - established and reinforced heavily over time by Democrats - to develop effective tests and start working on vaccines.  There is absolutely no question that Clinton and Biden would have continued to support the CDC/FDA process (much like a pro football coach making the safe choice to punt it away at the end of the game and "rely on the defense to get the ball back").  It's fool proof from their view, no one can criticize them for "relying on the experts" and any fault can be laid on the agency - who is largely a group of anonymous power brokers who won't personally feel any consequences.

And the media would wrap it all up with a positive bow for them and find someway to blame it on Republicans in government somewhere.

And you dodged the question, is it worth a million deaths to stop Trump being reelected?

[Crunch]

You think a million graves is a small price to pay for a Trump second term?

If he can't beat Biden under any conditions he deserves to lose.

I think, Biden's argument that travel restrictions were racist and the left's over reliance on the administrative state means that we'd have had a million more deaths easily, under Biden (or Clinton for that matter).

So, please answer you own question, is a million more deaths a small price to get rid of Trump?

Are you claiming Trump's response was quick, effective, and limited the spread of the virus in the USA? That he responded better than other countries and better than Biden or Clinton would have? If so, just put forth which of his actions were effective and we can discuss.

Currently the US has about 1/4 of the world's total number of confirmed infections. With that said its a little hard to claim that the China travel ban and the much later European one was a highly effective virus containment strategy. I'm not making the case the travel bans were bad policy, but whatever time they bought us in delaying outbreaks was squandered.

First, let's talk about the results. From 2.2 million projected dead to 60,000. A 97.3% reduction, projected saving of over 2.1 million lives. Deaths per 1M - 52. Compare to Spain, 339. Italy, 302. France, 187. UK, 118. Of the top hardest-hit countries, only Germany does better at 32.  That's pretty damned effective.

Now, was it quick? Trump implemented the travel ban in January - extraordinarily early and it included quarantines. So much so, that Pelosi and democrats wanted a bill to overturn the order. All this during a time China and the WHO were actively engaging in a disinformation campaign to slow the US response. Under the circumstances, it's incredible how fast Trump moved on this.

Limiting the spread. Has the curve flattened? Yes, many of the models are being revised downward by orders of magnitude. It's still gonna spread but we're very far past the "healthcare system will collapse by" date and it looks like we'll never get there.

Was it a perfect response, probably not. But it's pretty damn good. Well, except for the looming Great Depression. That's gonna suck.

[yossarian22c]

...
Clinton and Biden are fully establishment, they had no ability to override the deep state or willingness to do so, so we'd still be waiting for the FDA to develop a test if they were in charge.  The media would be covering for them and repeating endlessly that the government is doing all it can (or criticizing Republicans for being disloyal for pushing for a different plan), while our death rate would be at least a factor of ten greater and we'd be further from a cure.
...

Let's compare this to Obama under H1N1.

“He said the test was going to take at least six months to review, but we couldn’t wait that long,” Sharfstein, now a vice dean of public health at Johns Hopkins University, told The Seattle Times.

Within 48 hours, Sharfstein and a team of FDA lawyers found a way to get tests out quickly through an existing FDA process called “Emergency Use Authorization.” The novel use of the “EUA,” a process typically aimed to give the FDA some oversight over unapproved medical devices needed for emergencies, marked the first time it was tapped for a public health diagnostic test.

So the Obama admin literally developed a way to get tests out quickly with EUA's. The Trump admin didn't have to bulldoze bureaucracy, they just needed to get it to work quickly to get the EUA's out to labs who had working tests.

They failed to do this even as the CDC test was having problems.

I'm sure you'll find someone else in the government to blame for this, Trump's the anti-Truman the buck always stops somewhere else.

[TheDeamon]

Currently the US has about 1/4 of the world's total number of confirmed infections. With that said its a little hard to claim that the China travel ban and the much later European one was a highly effective virus containment strategy. I'm not making the case the travel bans were bad policy, but whatever time they bought us in delaying outbreaks was squandered.

1/4 of the confirmed cases likely has more to do with testing have ramped up in the United States considerably while other parts of the world either can't test effectively at all(Iran, much of the 3rd world), or are having comparable challenges to what the US dealt with early on, but lack the resources the US has for scaling their testing rapidly.

[Crunch]

Currently the US has about 1/4 of the world's total number of confirmed infections.

Currently, the US has tested more people than the rest of the world combined. That has a bit of an impact on this "statistic".

[TheDeamon]

It also ignores the matter that some countries(China) are probably not reporting their own numbers honestly.

[Seriati]

Let's compare this to Obama under H1N1.

Okay, but I can see you're going to leave out a bunch of things that are relevant to such a comparison.  The Seattle Times piece you cited too, has not been reposted 10's of thousands of times.

“He said the test was going to take at least six months to review, but we couldn’t wait that long,” Sharfstein, now a vice dean of public health at Johns Hopkins University, told The Seattle Times.

Within 48 hours, Sharfstein and a team of FDA lawyers found a way to get tests out quickly through an existing FDA process called “Emergency Use Authorization.” The novel use of the “EUA,” a process typically aimed to give the FDA some oversight over unapproved medical devices needed for emergencies, marked the first time it was tapped for a public health diagnostic test.

So the Obama admin literally developed a way to get tests out quickly with EUA's.

Actually, not really.  If you look at what actually happened, they expedited getting the H1N1 strain into the existing flu tests.  The flu tests are produced every year (ie no ramp up), and the strains are iterations on a common theme, which means its effectively a question of tuning the existing production runs.

Here's the quote you skipped:

Just before the 2009 swine flu outbreak, the CDC had developed a “five target assay” to test for various influenza strains, receiving FDA approval to distribute the test kits under conditions that it first train lab workers to use them.

That training already had happened when the CDC submitted an emergency authorization application for swine flu. After the FDA quickly approved it, kits with the swine flu test began shipping on May 1, 2009. By September, more than 1 million tests were deployed to more than 120 local and state public health labs and 250 others worldwide.

“The test was already approved, so it was easy for the CDC to just swap in H1N1 as a strain in that test,” Sharfstein said. “We had surveillance out very quickly and other (commercial) tests soon followed.“

There was literally a massive commercial test kit for the flu.  The model was for the CDC develop the tests - with approvals taking up to a year (but no one cared for things like the flu) and the "emergency" was to incorporate the test for a novel strain of the flu more quickly.

Flu is not a novel virus.

The CDC first, and FDA only approving the CDC first on an emergency basis - despite the fact that testing kits could be designed at hundreds of labs around the world effectively was the "process" that caused this delay.  Even after the CDC screwed up the FDA initially tried to require third parties to pre-submit their emergency authorizations before moving forward on the tests.

Here's a more streamline summary https://www.rochesterfirst.com/news/national/us-slashes-testing-rules-to-speedup-coronavirus-screening/, that doesn't bury the info to the extent of the Seattle piece, which nonetheless is still a good read, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/single-point-of-failure-the-cdcs-past-successes-with-an-fda-process-set-the-table-for-coronavirus-testing-debacle/.

The Trump admin didn't have to bulldoze bureaucracy, they just needed to get it to work quickly to get the EUA's out to labs who had working tests.

Again that's a gross mischaracterization of what even the Seattle piece said.  The FDA controlled the process, and had no inclination to encourage a faster alternative until they got bulldozed (does not look like bad faith, just a belief in the goodness of how things have always been done).  After they got bulldozed   they granted approvals well beyond anything that was done before.  The Obama "emergency process" was to let the CDC switch out the strain of flu in an existing testing kit without a year long study (and the FDA imposed restrictions on those tests because of it), the Trump "emergency response" was to force the FDA to authorize state health departments to approve tests directly without an FDA submission, and to force the FDA to allow private actors to develop and implement their own tests and submit to the FDA afterwards, all of which is directly supplanting the CDC develops the test kits and commercial actors follow model.

And you forgot to mention that COVID-19 is a novel virus, which means test kits are built from the ground up, and it's a not a simple matter of switching out a flu strain in an existing kit (not to imply that's necessarily a simple matter - but it seems it was possible to do so almost immediately - which makes you wonder why the "process" requires a year in the ordinary case).  If the Swine Flu had not been able to leverage off kits as a flu virus that response would have looked disastrous.

They failed to do this even as the CDC test was having problems.

They failed to do what?  Seriously, you are being a hypocrite here.  One of the most common things you criticize about Trump is that he doesn't listen to the experts.  Here literally, the experts were telling him this is how it has to work, and your complaint is that he didn't stop listening to them sooner?

We already know that when it comes to treatment options, you're taking the exact opposite position.  Trump should be relying more on the experts telling him to delay and downplay. 

So which is it?  The FDA, CDC and medical weight is only a slow deliberative process for every step, with maximum governmental oversight and control.  Yet apparently, you think Trump is wrong both when he listens to them and when he forces them to move faster.

I'm sure you'll find someone else in the government to blame for this, Trump's the anti-Truman the buck always stops somewhere else.

It's not even clear you've articulated a basis to blame Trump.  What exactly did he do here that's got you bothered?   Honestly, project all you want, its the left for whom there is no event that is not Trump's fault no matter how it goes.

So please, tell me how he's at fault here for not overriding the bureaucracy and it's impeachable offenses every time he tries to direct other parts of the bureaucracy.

[cherrypoptart]

I like the insights into the sausage factory y'all provide. We just see the results but it's hard to know who to really blame without a lot more information and understanding of the whole process.

[Aris Katsaris]

Yes.  Biden literally called the ban racist for weeks

Can you give some citations here, preferably ones across a number of weeks?

Btw, the travel ban was a correct move, but as far as I can tell, it was indeed motivated by Trump's perpetual instinctive racism xenophobia and isolationism; same way that the Democrats' initial (erroneous) opposition to it (which as far as I can tell barely lasted a couple days) was motivated by their instinctive anti-racism, anti-xenophobia and anti-isolationism.

That in the case of a pandemic Trump's instinctive isolationism is the correct response was a happy accident for him -- if it's supposedly just a hoax (as he claimed) or no worse than a normal flu, there'd be no reason for a travel ban, would there now? So he did accidentally the right thing for all the wrong reasons.

Just today, the Trump campaign released an attack ad on Biden, which uses a photo of him with Gary Locke as evidence for Biden's suspicious ties with China. Gary Locke's an American citizen -- the incriminating evidence is that he's racially Asian rather than white, of course. It's hard to argue that this attack ad wasn't racist, when the only point against Gary Locke is his race.

[Crunch]

Btw, the travel ban was a correct move, but as far as I can tell, it was indeed motivated by Trump's perpetual instinctive racism xenophobia and isolationism; same way that the Democrats' initial (erroneous) opposition to it (which as far as I can tell barely lasted a couple days) was motivated by their instinctive anti-racism, anti-xenophobia and anti-isolationis

TDS on display.

[Aris Katsaris]

TDS on display.

Oh? Should I be charitable about Trump's motivations, when neither he nor you are ever charitable about his opponents' motivations?

The coronavirus hysteria is the latest liberal hoax, remember. Dozens of nations worldwide are in lockdown, their governments all doing this in an effort to harm their own economies, all just to hurt Trump. /s

[Crunch]

You don’t have to be charitable, but you should try reality

[Aris Katsaris]

You don’t have to be charitable, but you should try reality

The reality is that Trump gets the racist, xenophobe, and isolationist vote, because he'll always always do the racist/xenophobic/isolationist thing.

Here's another example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48982172

He claimed the women "originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe", before suggesting they "go back".

The tweet was directed at a group of four congresswomen of colour; three were born and raised in the US while the fourth moved to the US as a child.

Republican Party representatives kept quiet amid a wave of criticism.

The congresswomen - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, and Ilhan Omar, who came to the US as a refugee aged 12 - have all called the president racist, and have been backed by members of the Democratic Party.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx in New York, approximately 12 miles away from the Queens hospital where Mr Trump was born.

[wmLambert]

...Should I be charitable about Trump's motivations, when neither he nor you are ever charitable about his opponents' motivations?

Pure projection. Name an instance where your so-called evil motivations was not simply responding to disinformational attacks.

[Aris Katsaris]

...Should I be charitable about Trump's motivations, when neither he nor you are ever charitable about his opponents' motivations?

Pure projection. Name an instance where your so-called evil motivations was not simply responding to disinformational attacks.

Not exactly sure what you're asking (instance where Trump's motivations are seen, instance where he assigns evil motivations to others?)

Does this qualify?
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html

Among other things, supposedly, according to Trump, Obama had the Hawaii State Health Director murdered in a plane accident, to hide the fact that he was supposedly born in Kenya or something.

[wmLambert]

...Does this qualify?
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html

Among other things, supposedly, according to Trump, Obama had the Hawaii State Health Director murdered in a plane accident, to hide the fact that he was supposedly born in Kenya or something.

No, that does not count. The initial birther attacks against Obama came from Hillary's camp. Philip J. Berg filed case 08-cv- 04083 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to stop Obama from being nominated by the DNC as the Presidential candidate. He said, for Hillary, that Democratic Presidential Nominee Obama was not eligible to serve as President of the United States. Hillary, not Trump. Since then, the Hawaiian clerk did say the correct long form was never provided. Forensic evideence noted problems with the copies provide after the fact. Things like the type font not being available when the document was supposedly prepared. What is most important, however; is the simple fact that multiple States require each nominee to submit a stamped and embossed, long-form birth certificate before being placed onto the ballot. Wasn't done, but somehow he got on them. I guess mentioning such questions makes one a conspirator?

[wmLambert]

Biden can never be the flag carrier against Trump over China,

Biden stands up for China:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=Nv7yVCwv6NU&feature=emb_title

[Aris Katsaris]

...Does this qualify?
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html

Among other things, supposedly, according to Trump, Obama had the Hawaii State Health Director murdered in a plane accident, to hide the fact that he was supposedly born in Kenya or something.

No, that does not count. The initial birther attacks against Obama came from Hillary's camp. Philip J. Berg filed case 08-cv- 04083 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to stop Obama from being nominated by the DNC as the Presidential candidate. He said, for Hillary, that Democratic Presidential Nominee Obama was not eligible to serve as President of the United States. Hillary, not Trump. Since then, the Hawaiian clerk did say the correct long form was never provided. Forensic evideence noted problems with the copies provide after the fact. Things like the type font not being available when the document was supposedly prepared. What is most important, however; is the simple fact that multiple States require each nominee to submit a stamped and embossed, long-form birth certificate before being placed onto the ballot. Wasn't done, but somehow he got on them. I guess mentioning such questions makes one a conspirator?

What complete nonsense. And what completely unrelated irrelevant nonsense.

For starters, you try to imply that Philip J. Berg (a conspiracy theorist who was also a 9/11 truther who accused Bush of conspiring to bring down the Twin Towers) was working for the Hillary Clinton campaign, without producing any evidence to that fact. That Hillary began the birther claims is just one of the standard bull*censored* Trump later spewed, without the least bit of interest in what the truth of the matter is, or in backing up his claims. (Trump is a constant bull*censored*ter, he can tell every lie he wants, the truth is utterly irrelevant)

Secondly, even if Philip J. Berg had been working for the Hillary campaign (which he didn't), how does that have anything to do with reducing Trump's share of the guilt in later joining and becoming the chief proponent of that bull*censored*?

Thirdly, you completely ignored the thing I explcitly focused on, about how Trump went one step beyond anyone else, and insinuated that the Obama conspiracy extending to arranging a plane accident to murder a passenger in it. (and yet they couldn't make a properly good forgery it seems, though in other ways they were exceptionally competent as when they flew back in time to place a birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper)

Fourth, I won't bother rediscussing all the other birther nonsense you speak, I did that enough roughly 10 years ago. I will note however that I significantly doubt your supposed "simple fact that multiple States require each nominee to submit a stamped and embossed, long-form birth certificate before being placed onto the ballot.".

Can you provide a citation for that supposed fact? Then, if you do so (which I doubt), we'll have to discuss why George W. Bush never submitted one either.

[Crunch]

You don’t have to be charitable, but you should try reality

The reality is that Trump gets the racist, xenophobe, and isolationist vote, because he'll always always do the racist/xenophobic/isolationist thing.

Here's another example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48982172

He claimed the women "originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe", before suggesting they "go back".

The tweet was directed at a group of four congresswomen of colour; three were born and raised in the US while the fourth moved to the US as a child.

Republican Party representatives kept quiet amid a wave of criticism.

The congresswomen - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, and Ilhan Omar, who came to the US as a refugee aged 12 - have all called the president racist, and have been backed by members of the Democratic Party.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx in New York, approximately 12 miles away from the Queens hospital where Mr Trump was born.

He broke you.

[Aris Katsaris]

He broke you.

Pfft. You mean Trump?

Trump is nothing special, globally speaking, just a dime-a-dozen racist demagogue pandering to the far-right.

He's slightly worse than anyone Americans have had before in the presidency (in living memory at least), but he's nothing I've not seen before and nothing I won't see again. In Serbia there was Milosevic. Currently in Hungary there's Orban, and Bolsonaro in Brazil.

Such guys get into power on the basis of populist rhetoric, hurt their nations, and then they go away again.

[Crunch]

Using this doll, can you point to the place he bad orange man touched you?

[Aris Katsaris]

You're suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome-Syndrome, Crunch.

[Kasandra]

Drive-by's are dangerous.  Just perused the past few days of posts in a couple of threads.  I can't believe anyone here is still responding to Crunch.  Most people already ignore him, and those who like what he says are too far gone to convince otherwise. He spreads horse*censored*, cherry picks factoids as bad as Trump, insults anyone he doesn't agree with, attacks anything that goes against his "message" and probably has a quiet celebration after each time he posts.  Has anyone asked if he is ignoring the guidelines, hanging out with friends, going to work every day?  If he isn't a coward who won't live his principles he would.

Meanwhile, have to get back to reality...

[ScottF]

I tend to look for anything interesting in any given post, not just what I "like". That applies to crunch, you, whoever. For the record, opinions expressly stated in terms like "Trump's a racist" aren't all that interesting to me and I put them roughly in the same category of birther investigations. I realize you probably consider most of what you've typed as self-evident, but that doesn't mean you're not in the same confirmation-bias loop we all inhabit.

So for now I'll respond to whomever I think makes an interesting point, or where I think it's interesting to challenge. Sometimes I respond simply to poke someone, but I try and limit those. I guess you'll just have to trust all the posters here to have their big-boy pants on and figure out how/who they engage with.

[Fenring]

I agree with ScottF, that I tend to read all posts (even the silly ones) and look to find whether there's any content in them. That includes posts hailing Trump's brilliance, as well as those comparing him to Milosevic. Although between you and me the latter is far more of an extremist opinion than the former.

[Crunch]

You're suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome-Syndrome, Crunch.

You’re assigning motive with no basis in reality to things Trump does despite you agreeing with those actions. It’s pretty unhinged.

[Aris Katsaris]

I agree with ScottF, that I tend to read all posts (even the silly ones) and look to find whether there's any content in them. That includes posts hailing Trump's brilliance, as well as those comparing him to Milosevic. Although between you and me the latter is far more of an extremist opinion than the former.

I wonder how much you know about Milosevic's rise to power, and the tactics used, to become the popular charismatic face of the ethnic majority in a multiethnic country, and in telling his ethnic majority compatriots that they will never be ignored again, while bashing the media for their lies, and promising to return his country to greatness...

You’re assigning motive with no basis in reality to things Trump does despite you agreeing with those actions. It’s pretty unhinged.

You have it the other way around: If I assigned noble motivations to everyone whose actions I agreed with, or evil motivations to everyone whose actions I disagreed with, *that* would be pretty unhinged.

It's much more reasonable to realize that people can do things you agree with, and that doesn't make them necessarily good people -- or they can do things you disagree with and that doesn't make them necessarily evil people.

[TheDeamon]

I agree with ScottF, that I tend to read all posts (even the silly ones) and look to find whether there's any content in them. That includes posts hailing Trump's brilliance, as well as those comparing him to Milosevic. Although between you and me the latter is far more of an extremist opinion than the former.

I wonder how much you know about Milosevic's rise to power, and the tactics used, to become the popular charismatic face of the ethnic majority in a multiethnic country, and in telling his ethnic majority compatriots that they will never be ignored again, while bashing the media for their lies, and promising to return his country to greatness...

Funny thing, someone I served with in the Navy recently discovered #walkaway which caused me to follow up on some of what's been going on over there.

Those Trump Press Conferences? It wasn't Trump's handling of the conference which has been making many of the recent entries to #walkaway, rather it was their now having occasion to witness in real time how the press distorted what Trump said into something else entirely.

Trump may lie and distort things, but the Press is expected to hold a higher standard. Catching the press in perpetrating a lie "breaks the faith" that those people had in the outlets involved. After that, the media has effectively lost its ability to influence those people, as they know those outlets actively lie too.

[wmLambert]

...It wasn't Trump's handling of the conference which has been making many of the recent entries to #walkaway, rather it was their now having occasion to witness in real time how the press distorted what Trump said into something else entirely.

Trump may lie and distort things, but the Press is expected to hold a higher standard. Catching the press in perpetrating a lie "breaks the faith" that those people had in the outlets involved. After that, the media has effectively lost its ability to influence those people, as they know those outlets actively lie too.

Every time someone says, "Trump may lie and distort things," makes me think of Hannity's quip that journalism died in 2007. Do these people ever review the so-called Trump lies, and then come back later to apologize when they are subsequently proved true? Funnt they never use that same attitude with Adam Shiff.

[wmLambert]

...I won't bother rediscussing all the other birther nonsense you speak, I did that enough roughly 10 years ago.

You lost back then, too. Obama not only never submitted proper documentation for being put on the ballots, but was never transparent with any school documentation. That's on him. Not on Trump. It's also on the media for never pursuing it.

[Aris Katsaris]

You lost back then, too. Obama not only never submitted proper documentation for being put on the ballots, but was never transparent with any school documentation. That's on him. Not on Trump. It's also on the media for never pursuing it.

You've still not given me any citations, as I asked, indicating the laws supposedly demanding this "proper documentation" and whether George W. Bush provided the documentation you demand of Obama. I think you want Obama to jump through hoops that AFAIK no other president ever had to jump through.

Every time someone says, "Trump may lie and distort things," makes me think of Hannity's quip that journalism died in 2007. Do these people ever review the so-called Trump lies, and then come back later to apologize when they are subsequently proved true? Funnt they never use that same attitude with Adam Shiff.

Okay, let's start with a simple example. Trump claimed thousands of Muslims in New Jersey were cheering 9/11. Where's video evidence showing it happen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump

Here's the problem: As fact checker Glenn Kessler noted in August, whereas Clinton lies as much as the average politician, President Donald Trump's lying is "off the charts". No prominent politician in memory bests Trump for spouting spectacular, egregious, easily disproved lies. The birther claim. The vote fraud claim. The attendance at the inauguration claim. And on and on and on. Every fact checker—Kessler, Factcheck.org, Snopes.com, PolitiFact—finds a level of mendacity unequaled by any politician ever scrutinized. For instance, 70 percent of his campaign statements checked by PolitiFact were mostly false, totally false, or "pants on fire" false.[69]

Trump blatantly lies constantly, and he doesn't even care how easily disproven his lies are.

[Fenring]

I agree with ScottF, that I tend to read all posts (even the silly ones) and look to find whether there's any content in them. That includes posts hailing Trump's brilliance, as well as those comparing him to Milosevic. Although between you and me the latter is far more of an extremist opinion than the former.

I wonder how much you know about Milosevic's rise to power, and the tactics used, to become the popular charismatic face of the ethnic majority in a multiethnic country, and in telling his ethnic majority compatriots that they will never be ignored again, while bashing the media for their lies, and promising to return his country to greatness...

1) I don't suppose you're trying to say that anyone who doesn't like the media, and who appeals to the majority (i.e. the basic definition of modern politics)...is on a trajectory towards being a fascist dictator? By that logic you should be looking only to elect people who do not try to appeal to the majority, and who are not popular or charismatic. The "return to greatness" thing is roughly speaking standard now, as we're seen that precise type of campaign from both Obama and Trump now, and to whatever extent a candidate is running on "we can change things" they are going to use some variation of that; a status-quo company man will not. I hope you can see the downward spiral your logic takes here.

2) I also don't suppose you realize that two people can say similar words without actually being the same in all respects? And that's granting you fully that they said similar words, which I won't research to find out.

3) You are talking about a President in the U.S. This type of comment (and I've heard it many, many times now) seems to suppose that all it takes is a certain type of man and they can turn the U.S. into a totalitarian regime lickity split. I've read numerous social media comments literally suggesting that Trump will make himself dictator for life. I hope you (all of you) are aware of what sorts of differences there are in the USA versus historical countries sporting dictators such as you describe. I hope you don't think that Trump can dissolve the [Imperial] senate, announce "I AM THE SENATE", and then become emperor. I'll put that in the likelihood column along with him taking down three jedi masters with his lightsaber.

[Crunch]

I agree with ScottF, that I tend to read all posts (even the silly ones) and look to find whether there's any content in them. That includes posts hailing Trump's brilliance, as well as those comparing him to Milosevic. Although between you and me the latter is far more of an extremist opinion than the former.

I wonder how much you know about Milosevic's rise to power, and the tactics used, to become the popular charismatic face of the ethnic majority in a multiethnic country, and in telling his ethnic majority compatriots that they will never be ignored again, while bashing the media for their lies, and promising to return his country to greatness...

You’re assigning motive with no basis in reality to things Trump does despite you agreeing with those actions. It’s pretty unhinged.

You have it the other way around: If I assigned noble motivations to everyone whose actions I agreed with, or evil motivations to everyone whose actions I disagreed with, *that* would be pretty unhinged.

It's much more reasonable to realize that people can do things you agree with, and that doesn't make them necessarily good people -- or they can do things you disagree with and that doesn't make them necessarily evil people.

He broke you.

[TheDeamon]

Well, Scott Adams is predicting with the caveat of "if nothing major changes between now and November, which it will," that Trump's going to dominate the Dems this election cycle. Reagan level numbers, if not better.

Meanwhile, James Carville(DNC talking head on CNN) is predicting the Republicans would be destroyed if the election was held in the near future.

Interesting to see such completely diametric takes on what's currently going on.

[ScottF]

If the media is able to continue to bury the Tara Reade allegations (ie basically the opposite of what they did with Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford) then Biden might get some traction. That said, with his struggles to remember things like dates or where he is, Biden will be eviscerated in the debates.

[Crunch]

Well, Scott Adams is predicting with the caveat of "if nothing major changes between now and November, which it will," that Trump's going to dominate the Dems this election cycle. Reagan level numbers, if not better.

Meanwhile, James Carville(DNC talking head on CNN) is predicting the Republicans would be destroyed if the election was held in the near future.

Interesting to see such completely diametric takes on what's currently going on.

At this point, things are too chaotic to make any predictions. If China unleashes another bio-attack, anything can happen.

[yossarian22c]

Well, Scott Adams is predicting with the caveat of "if nothing major changes between now and November, which it will," that Trump's going to dominate the Dems this election cycle. Reagan level numbers, if not better.

Meanwhile, James Carville(DNC talking head on CNN) is predicting the Republicans would be destroyed if the election was held in the near future.

Interesting to see such completely diametric takes on what's currently going on.

At this point, things are too chaotic to make any predictions. If China unleashes another bio-attack, anything can happen.

Can you make up your mind? Is covid 19 a bio-weapon from China designed to destroy the west or is it nothing worse than the regular flu and we should all resume normal activities?

[LetterRip]

If the media is able to continue to bury the Tara Reade allegations (ie basically the opposite of what they did with Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford) then Biden might get some traction. That said, with his struggles to remember things like dates or where he is, Biden will be eviscerated in the debates.

The problem is that there isn't any collaborating evidence.  With Blasey-Ford, there was extensive collaborating evidence.  She had talked with a large number of people about it prior to Kavanaugh being nominated, including her psychiatrist, her husband, and a variety of friends and acquaintances.

https://www.fff.org/2018/10/09/christine-fords-corroborating-evidence/

With Tara Reade - there is only one claimed potential source for collaborating evidence - her freind Sarah - and she won't go on the record, nor apparently won't even talk with a number of media.  All other potential collaborating sources - a claimed complaint to the Senate personnel, telling various Senate staff have failed to produce any collaboration. Without any collaborating evidence it is irresponsible for news to report it.  Also she was a Biden supporter till 2017, then she began praising Putin in 2018, then she became a Sanders supporter, and then made the allegation once Sanders began losing.

[Seriati]

If the media is able to continue to bury the Tara Reade allegations (ie basically the opposite of what they did with Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford) then Biden might get some traction. That said, with his struggles to remember things like dates or where he is, Biden will be eviscerated in the debates.

The problem is that there isn't any collaborating evidence.  With Blasey-Ford, there was extensive collaborating evidence.  She had talked with a large number of people about it prior to Kavanaugh being nominated, including her psychiatrist, her husband, and a variety of friends and acquaintances.

OMG, what a lie.  There is in fact contemporaneous evidence that Reade told people, and multiple people she's told it to sense.  There is in fact absolutely no equivalent with Blasey-Ford, and we know for a fact when Blasey-Ford first told people years after the event, her version of the story then was less precise and inconsistent with her story she told later.  In fact, it's very characteristic of a developed account rather than a memory.

I have no idea if there is more to the Reade accusations - they haven't been remotely vetted at this point - and I'm consistent in my belief that the accused are entitled to defend themselves, but what you wrote is the single most self serving (politically) and disappointing thing I've seen you write.

You can not back track on this and be anything other than a partisan hack.

[Aris Katsaris]

1) I don't suppose you're trying to say that anyone who doesn't like the media, and who appeals to the majority (i.e. the basic definition of modern politics)...is on a trajectory towards being a fascist dictator?

Milosevic was never a dictator. He was elected into power, and he was removed from power via elections.

What I said was "Trump is nothing special, globally speaking, just a dime-a-dozen racist demagogue pandering to the far-right. He's slightly worse than anyone Americans have had before in the presidency (in living memory at least), but he's nothing I've not seen before and nothing I won't see again. In Serbia there was Milosevic. Currently in Hungary there's Orban, and Bolsonaro in Brazil. Such guys get into power on the basis of populist rhetoric, hurt their nations, and then they go away again."

Out of the three examples I mentioned (Milosevic, Bolsonaro, and Orban), Orban is actually the closest of the three to a fascist dictator.

By that logic you should be looking only to elect people who do not try to appeal to the majority, and who are not popular or charismatic.

There's a difference when the sort of "majority" you try to appeal to is the *ethnic majority* as opposed to those icky minorities who should supposedly "go back home" (even the people who were actually born in America, they should also "go back home" supposedly, as in the example I previously quoted and which nobody cared to respond to), and that's how you propose you will return to greatness...

Trump, like Milosevic, rode into power on the basis of exploiting and deepening racial/ethnic divisions. His chief rhetoric move was building a wall to keep the Mexicans out. He has kept up the fanning of ethnic and racial hatred since, all alongside making noises about how it's actually bad. Much like exactly what Milosevic did, and yet every measure Trump proposes, every reinterpretation of existing law is about nationalism, racism, isolationism, and exclusiveness.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-i-will-terminate-birthright-citizenship-for-babies-of-non-citizens
"We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States... with all of those benefits... It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end"

The "return to greatness" thing is roughly speaking standard now, as we're seen that precise type of campaign from both Obama and Trump now, and to whatever extent a candidate is running on "we can change things" they are going to use some variation of that; a status-quo company man will not. I hope you can see the downward spiral your logic takes here.

The past sucked. Speaking about a *return* to greatness, is standard reactionary rhetoric, it whitewashes the sins of the past. Which era's America was supposedly "great" that you should return to that greatness? Any time before the very recent present, gay people didn't have full marriage rights, for example.

I also don't suppose you realize that two people can say similar words without actually being the same in all respects

Yes, I didn't say that all the scumbags are identical in all the same respects. I compared their dime-a-dozen nationalist/racist demagoguery that panders to the far-right.

You are talking about a President in the U.S. This type of comment (and I've heard it many, many times now) seems to suppose that all it takes is a certain type of man and they can turn the U.S. into a totalitarian regime lickity split. I've read numerous social media comments literally suggesting that Trump will make himself dictator for life.

Since I said "Such guys get into power on the basis of populist rhetoric, hurt their nations, and then they go away again", no I certainly do NOT think Trump will turn the US into a totalitarian regime or become a dictator for life. He'll get his two terms (most likely) then he'll go away, after harming his nation.

That the U.S.A. has the two-term limit well established in your constitution and your custom too, is one of the reasons that Trump is ultimately bad but nothing special or very important. I worry more about Orban in Hungary than about Trump.

My only actual fear of Trump has actually been how his love of Russia and hatred of NATO might enable Russia's expansionism in Eastern Europe -- (as evidenced by how Trump tried to sabotage Montenegro's membership into NATO -- and he failed at that because of the near-unanimous opposition by the Congress).

He broke you.

It's the second time you repeat the same three words. If you want to indicate yourself a non-sapient Trump-bot, I'll be ignoring you from now on.

Can you make up your mind? Is covid 19 a bio-weapon from China designed to destroy the west or is it nothing worse than the regular flu and we should all resume normal activities?

Doublethink is crucial to people like Crunch, they can simultaneously think contradictory thoughts, abandoning them and reembracing them at will as convenient for whatever the rhetoric point of the moment requires.

[LetterRip]

OMG, what a lie.

I linked to the collaborating evidence.  It isn't a lie.

There is in fact contemporaneous evidence that Reade told people, and multiple people she's told it to sense.

Not that I'm aware of.  The only evidence we have of her telling people is during the campaign.  Prior to the campaign we don't have anyone willing to collaborate that she told anyone.

There is in fact absolutely no equivalent with Blasey-Ford, and we know for a fact when Blasey-Ford first told people years after the event, her version of the story then was less precise and inconsistent with her story she told later.  In fact, it's very characteristic of a developed account rather than a memory.

She told people many many years before Kavanaugh becoming politically relevant, even if it was 'years after the event'.  The collaborating evidence is for her belief that the event occurred, not that she accurately remembers the event (Ie she could be mistaken that it was Kavanaugh, but there is strong evidence she believed that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her long before he was involved in politics).

I have no idea if there is more to the Reade accusations - they haven't been remotely vetted at this point - and I'm consistent in my belief that the accused are entitled to defend themselves, but what you wrote is the single most self serving (politically) and disappointing thing I've seen you write.

Well you've completely misread what I wrote.  To date, there isn't as far as I'm aware, any collaborating evidence from individuals willing to go on record for Reade, and the claims of a personnel complaint and complaints to staff have been refuted rather than verified.  That was not the case with Blasey-Ford.