US Politics Thread

[calitennis127]

I think this Iran thing is a horrifically bad mistake.

Yes, horrifically bad. Look at how it turned out.

In Trump's simple mind he thinks this is the same as killing al Baghdadi.

Yeah, exactly. His mind is so simple. That's why he declared the coronavirus pandemic a "public health emergency" and implemented a travel ban on non-U.S. citizens coming from China on February 2nd while dimwits like yourself were obsessed with the completely inane impeachment narrative.

If I was a senior member of the Trump administration I would be very nervous tonight

Yes, you were so right. The Iranians started assassinating leaders all over the world. Good call on that one buddy.

 

[calitennis127]

The fact that you compare Bin Laden with Soleimani exposes your ignorance

you talk about US firepower. You do realise that Iran uses asymmetric warfare, it’s utterly irrelevant. For all we know they’ll just expose the pee tape. Keep deluding yourself

Yes, the Iranians also exposed the pee tape, which is so well-documented (as enlightened Western Europeans such as yourself have definitively proven, ahem). You really called that one Federberg. The Soleimani strike really did result in the Iranians releasing the pee tape. Great call. I have no idea how you saw that one coming.

 

[Federberg]

You realise that whole thing isn't over right? You really do transact in Trump's limited time frame. It must be great in your world. And it explains how you can overlook all the asinine comments you make. You just simply forget. What a great skill to have

 

[calitennis127]

You realise that whole thing isn't over right?

The immediate fallout from the Soleimani strike is over and none of the doomsday scenarios that so many people (such as Britbox) were predicting actually panned out. As for the long term? It is highly unlikely anything will result from the Soleimani strike because the Iranian regime has few cards to play. But you're just saying it's not over because you're holding out hope that something bad happens to make Trump look as silly as you do for what you predicted.

And it explains how you can overlook all the asinine comments you make. You just simply forget. What a great skill to have

Says the guy who is ticked off that I brought up his truly asinine comments from two months ago. Were you thinking of the long term when you said on JANUARY 3RD that if you were a senior member of the Trump administration you would be very afraid TONIGHT? Lol. That was a really long-term prediction, wasn't it? How long was the night? Is it still going on right now?

 

[Federberg]

The immediate fallout from the Soleimani strike is over and none of the doomsday scenarios that so many people (such as Britbox) were predicting actually panned out. As for the long term? It is highly unlikely anything will result from the Soleimani strike because the Iranian regime has few cards to play. But you're just saying it's not over because you're holding out hope that something bad happens to make Trump look as silly as you do for what you predicted.



Says the guy who is ticked off that I brought up his truly asinine comments from two months ago. Were you thinking of the long term when you said on JANUARY 3RD that if you were a senior member of the Trump administration you would be very afraid TONIGHT? Lol. That was a really long-term prediction, wasn't it? How long was the night? Is it still going on right now?

I'm not sure why you think a country with Iran's capabilities would have an immediate response without risking an escalation. I certainly don't think the Soleimani thing is over. It's quite clear that Iran has more immediate concerns right now, but if you think they won't try something in the future then good luck with that. I'm not sure I ever implied that they would be doing something right away. For now the pandemic is a more pressing concern for everyone. We'll revisit in the future. Who knows if Trump loses, which I suspect is their hope, then they might move on, but it's not really in their m.o to let that go. Keep hoping though. For once you and I will be hoping for the same, I'm just no optimistic

 

[calitennis127]

I'm not sure I ever implied that they would be doing something right away.

Lol.....how is this for an immediate prediction? "If I was a senior member of the Trump administration I would be very nervous tonight."

Those were your words on January 3rd. By "tonight," did you mean the next 5 years? How do you define "tonight"?

 

[calitennis127]

You realise that whole thing isn't over right? You really do transact in Trump's limited time frame.

The guy who just posted an article in The Atlantic by a former Bush administration official is talking about others having a "limited time frame" in their view of the Middle East. Wow. Lol.

And Western Europeans are more enlightened than Americans! Sure.

Who is the only one of the last three presidents to not wreck a Middle Eastern country? Trump. All he has done is bomb the shit out of ISIS (a problem created by the moronic Bush and Obama administrations) and then try to withdraw troops from Syria. But of course he has not gotten any credit for that from bigoted, small-minded, low-information critics like BwokenWooFace.

 

[Federberg]

Lol.....how is this for an immediate prediction? "If I was a senior member of the Trump administration I would be very nervous tonight."

Those were your words on January 3rd. By "tonight," did you mean the next 5 years? How do you define "tonight"?

You can be nervous about reprisals, particularly when as a senior official you could be a target. It doesn't mean it's immediate. In fact it's probably worse if you always have to look over your back. It's not my fault if nuance escapes you mate

 

[Federberg]

The guy who just posted an article in The Atlantic by a former Bush administration official is talking about others having a "limited time frame" in their view of the Middle East. Wow. Lol.

And Western Europeans are more enlightened than Americans! Sure.

Who is the only one of the last three presidents to not wreck a Middle Eastern country? Trump. All he has done is bomb the shit out of ISIS (a problem created by the moronic Bush and Obama administrations) and then try to withdraw troops from Syria. But of course he has not gotten any credit for that from bigoted, small-minded, low-information critics like BwokenWooFace.

I think that most of us non-Americans have actually approved of Trump's desire to get out of the Middle East so it's good that that's not directed at all of us There is a way to do that without causing instability that's just going to draw you back though. I don't recall either myself or @britbox applauding either Obama or Bush regarding their Middle Eastern policies. So......

As for The Atlantic article. What of it? It was an interesting article. Make of it what you will...

 

[britbox]

Good call Britbox. The Soleimani strike truly did result in World War III, just as the "coronavirus" will result in the deaths of 700 million people. It's only at about 7,000 right now but I'm sure it will get to 700 million in no time.

Didn't reel off any of those numbers. Try again.

 

[britbox]

Trump never called the virus itself a "hoax" dickhead. He called the Democrats' hyping of it a hoax, and he was absolutely right about that. Facebook even deleted a Politico article for making the claim that Trump called the virus a hoax because if you listen to what he actually said at the rally in question he never said that the virus itself was a hoax. So please, stop being such a lazy bum and try to be more precise with what you are claiming.

Second, while the Democrats were totally preoccupied with impeachment in late January guess who was 1) hyping the coronavirus and 2) taking action on it?

Answer to #1: Tucker Carlson of Fox News. Yes, big bad Fox News. In late January and early February Carlson repeatedly ran segments on the coronavirus when no one else in the American media was talking about it - i.e. none of the people that Tented or Moxie consider "respected" or "legitimate."

Answer to #2: President Donald Trump. He actually declared a "public health emergency" in response to the coronavirus on January 31st, while the retarded Democrats were pursuing impeachment and Federturd was getting hot and bothered over Lev Parnas. Do you know when the rally was that Trump called the coronavirus hype a "hoax"? Friday February 28th. It was in South Carolina one day before Biden's victory in the primary on Saturday February 29th.

So, once again, get your facts right dickhead. Trump declared a "public health emergency" while the Democrats were indulging in impeachment mania. And Fox News was the only major TV network in the U.S. with a nighttime anchor talking about the coronavirus on a regular basis in January.

I'm talking about the Corona situation not whether the specific virus ever existed, obviously. Well obvious to most...

So, smartarse... if Trump called it a Public Health Emergency on the 31st Jan, why was he calling the same situation a hoax a few weeks later?

As for the second part of your post...

You've spent posts and posts ridiculing this virus and that it was all a conspiracy of the Democrat media... now you're saying Fox were the people who called it while Democrats were in impeachment mania? You've just ridden roughshod over about two weeks of your own posts. Lol.

 

[britbox]

Here is a succinct and very sensible article from Heather MacDonald (a FEMALE scholar, which should get Moxie's attention!) on the wildly disproportionate response to coronavirus. It is a good rebuttal to hysterical alarmists like Britbox and Federberg, although it would probably fly over Bwoken's head.

Compared to what?
by Heather Mac Donald
On the misguided response to COVID-19.

Compared to what?

Heather Mac Donald on the misguided response to COVID-19.

newcriterion.com

Oh my God, "A scholar"... well drop everything right now and take heed of her words. Not only "a scholar" but the author of two books "The Diversity Delusion" and "The war on cops".

Why the hell did world governments not even think to ask for her advice on something as trivial as a global pandemic?

What were they all doing seeking the advice of world-renowned epidemiologists and virologists, while working with huge datasets to model outcomes?

What a complete waste of time. They should have just phoned Heather MacDonald, author of "The war on cops".

 

[Moxie]

Ohio cancelling their primary today brings up some interesting questions about how and when we vote here in the US, which has been coming up, anyway. In the short-term, we may have to go soon to an all mail-in ballot system, for the duration of the primaries. Which means that all votes post-marked by the proscribed date have to be counted, and we may not have results for a day or two, as in CA recently.

In the longer-term, here are some of my thoughts:

* I wish we had more standardization in terms of how we vote, i.e., methods, early voting and length of it.

* I don't think early voting should go on for a month. Many things can change in an election cycle, and lots of people regretted voting too early, this year. Now, that's on them, but I don't see why it has to drag out for a month. I think a week or 10 days should be maximum.

* Oregon has gone to all mail-in, which I don't completely agree with, either. I was discussing with a friend in Portland yesterday, who likes it. I still think there's something to be said for showing up publicly, with your neighbors, on election day, in a show of civic pride and obligation. Not a good idea at the moment, but I'd hate to lose it. That said, there is also a great amount of disenfranchisement that can happen, when it ends in long lines and people giving up, but that just has to get fixed.

* We need to assure that people believe that their vote is counted. Whether on the day, or via mail-in, I don't see why we can't get a receipt that says we voted. It may not be a perfect solution, but it's better than just hoping for the best.

 

[britbox]

The immediate fallout from the Soleimani strike is over and none of the doomsday scenarios that so many people (such as Britbox) were predicting actually panned out. As for the long term? It is highly unlikely anything will result from the Soleimani strike because the Iranian regime has few cards to play. But you're just saying it's not over because you're holding out hope that something bad happens to make Trump look as silly as you do for what you predicted.

The immediate fallout is over. Remind me what doomsday scenario I predicted? Good luck with that. I said it was a clusterfuck move. A huge one.

Were you expecting Iranians to put a fleet together and try to invade California? Me neither. I was expecting a bigger immediate response than they gave, which I admitted afterward.

What you fail to see, it that this isn't "over" - it's ongoing. Iran has proxies all around the world that can damage US interests, not to mention cyberattacks and a multitude of other ways of hurting the US.

You might recall the PanAm Lockerbie strike many years ago? The US blamed Libya, but everyone knows they were the junior partner in the exercise. It was Iranian revenge for you blowing one of their civilian flights out of the sky. The casualties were actually almost the same. You won't have heard of the original strike, because it was hardly reported in the western media.

But here is the thing... it didn't happen the day after.

 

[Moxie]

This is just unbelievable.....and Federberg perfectly represents the mindset of the American and Western European media. Instead of blaming China, they are focusing their ire on the American health system, which Johns Hopkins has rated as the best prepared in the world for a pandemic like this.

Also, what does it say about this pandemic (assuming that the likes of Federberg are right that there are hundreds of thousands who have the virus but not have been diagnosed yet) that people are going about their lives normally without even knowing they have it? Shouldn't they all be dropping dead with hives like the Black Plague is hitting them if it so bad?

The Johns Hopkins study needs a bit of context, which they provide here. This is a quote from them:
"National health security is fundamentally weak around the world," the 324-page report concludes. "No country is fully prepared for epidemics or pandemics, and every country has important gaps to address."

Not really a 5-star rating, and, as we have seen when it played out in practical terms, the US has done rather poorly. Trump de-funded the NSC directive agency that was charged with handling global pandemics. And then he said, "No one could have seen this coming." Well, actually some did, but they got neutered by his administration, and, when we most needed them, they weren't there, and that's why we don't have enough tests, enough equipment, and why the Fed's response has been "sluggish" to the crisis, to put it kindly.

 

[britbox]

Lol.....you really are a fucking moron, plus a parochial, narrow-minded bigot to boot. Apparently asking a simple question about mortality rate of a disease means engaging in "logical fallacies." Everything you criticize Americans for is projection on your part. You are a total bigot and know far less than you think you do. Every time you comment on the United States you demonstrate your total ignorance of a country that is foreign to you, and this case is no different.

As hopeless as you are, I'll take a moment to straighten you out, just a little bit.....the issue here is a matter of comparison. When you are hyping something as terrible or bad, you have to ask the simple question "compared to what?"

As of right now, there are not even 100 DEATHS in the United States from this stupid virus. Not even 100 in a country with a population near 330 million. And almost half of those deceased are people who were in a fucking nursing home in the state of Washington. If you listened to the media and stupid government officials, you would think 100,000 have died. As it is right now, NOT EVEN 100 in the United States have died.

Plus, there is this from a top official at Health and Human Services from Friday, March 6th:

"The best estimates now of the overall mortality rate for COVID-19 is somewhere between 0.1 percent and 1 percent." - Admiral Brett P. Giroir, M.D.

And then there is this information from the Surgeon General of the United States, Admiral Jerome Adams, who presented it at a recent White House news conference:

- The average age of death is 80
- People over the age of 60 are much more likely to develop complications from the virus and be hospitalized
- And, best of all: if you're a child or young adult, you're much more likely to die from the flu than from the coronavirus

THAT IS FROM THE SURGEON GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. Not my words, but his.

And our political leaders are idiotically shutting down the U.S./global economy over a virus with a mortality rate likely less than 1% (according to a top official at HHS) whose average death victim is 80 years old (according to the Surgeon General of the United States). This is the dumbest and most stupid thing I have ever witnessed. So naturally Bwoken Boy supports it. Entirely predictable.

Funnily enough, you quoted 2.3% earlier in a sneering tone, and I actually told you it would probably be less than that.

What you can't seem to get your head around, is that this is a numbers game... and the contagion rate is exponential. Look at ANY chart for any country. If you don't take measures to curtail that growth or flatten the rate of growth then you end up with a huge percentage infected.

Now, just empty your head of three things for a moment - Obama, swine flu, democrats. Ok, make it four... Washington Post.

The best worst-case scenario the UK has predicted is 80% infection.

The population of the UK is 67 million.

Mortality Rate: 1%.

1% of 80% of 67 million = 536,000 people.

----
First of all, I do not think there will be anything like that number because they are trying to mitigate the risk (+ it's a worst-case scenario). The real number will likely end up being far less.

The aim is to spread the rate of contagion out over a longer period, so they have a better chance of being able to treat more critical cases, bringing the death rate down significantly. i.e. They don't want everybody (the high-risk element) to become infected at once. It's called flattening the curve. Otherwise health services will get overrun and more people die because they can't get treatment.

However, if governments follow your line of thinking and just laugh this off, then you'll end up with a far more serious problem on your hands.

 

[britbox]

A reminder on this thread: as of this time, there are a paltry 33 deaths in the U.S. and 1,000 cases reported. That is absolutely nothing compared to what prior pandemics have caused. The coronavirus has a long way to go to even reach their level.

This hysteria ginned up by the New York Times and Washington Post is one of the dumbest things I have ever witnessed. It is causing totally unnecessary economic damage.

Just to clarify my last post and I'll use your figures and real figures to illustrate the point (I won't attribute random numbers to you, like you seem to do for other posters).

So, you posted this on Friday.

Those paltry 1,000 cases are now 6,468. They've multiplied by more than 6 times in 4 days.
Those paltry 33 deaths are now 109. They've multiplied by more than 3 times in 4 days.

Starting to get the picture?

 

[Moxie]

Trump never called the virus itself a "hoax" dickhead. He called the Democrats' hyping of it a hoax, and he was absolutely right about that. Facebook even deleted a Politico article for making the claim that Trump called the virus a hoax because if you listen to what he actually said at the rally in question he never said that the virus itself was a hoax. So please, stop being such a lazy bum and try to be more precise with what you are claiming.

Again, this needs some context. While it is more carefully read that Trump was trying to call out the Democrats for "politicizing" the outbreak of coronavirus, which is just his claim, let's be fair, he certainly didn't measure his words carefully. It very much reads/sounds as if he's calling the virus a hoax. This is what he said:
“Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus, you know that, right?” he said. “Coronavirus, they’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. They can’t even count their votes in Iowa.”

Then the president, who often dismissed special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation as a hoax, continued, “They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything. They tried it over and over. They’d been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning. They lost. It’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax.”

Now, if you reach all the way back to earlier in his stream-of-consciousness rant, you can extrapolate that he meant that the "politicizing" of the corona virus was a "hoax" perpetrated by Democrats, but look at what he said and how he said it. Firstly, it's rather a misuse of the word "hoax." He might have employed "spin," and he did say that they were politicizing it, but "hoax" really does imply a trick, a fabrication. By saying it, in whatever part of that speech, he still put it out there that the virus is a "hoax," as evidenced by the notion that he has plenty of loyal followers who now believe that it is.

So, by letter of his word, he didn't exactly call the virus a "hoax," but he sure as hell put it out there for his acolytes to munch on. So don't be so snide. It's not only the Democrats that grabbed onto that sentiment, it's the right, as well.

 

[calitennis127]

Jerry Falwell Jr calitennis127 claims that COVID-19 is a North Korean bioweapon intended to undermine the Trump presidency.

No, it's just a clear attempt by the major media in the United States to exploit a public health crisis in order to destroy a president they absolutely loathe. I fully stand by that assessment. Now what I do want to know, however, is what happened to the El Dude who is all about the numbers and the data? Isn't that the tennis version of El Dude? Where is he?

For that version of El Dude, I would like to share these numbers about the H1N1 pandemic in the United States from the CDC. They cover the period April 2009 to April 2010:

- 60.8 million Americans infected
- 274,304 Americans hospitalized
- 12,469 Americans dead

And, worldwide, the CDC estimates that up to 575,400 people died from H1N1 during the period April 2009 to April 2010.

Did the media viciously go after Obama during that time? Did CNN publicize every death as though the Queen of England had just passed away? We all know the answer to that. Obama was their god figure so they were completely casual and relaxed about those numbers.

But to you, El Dude, I have to ask: since you are all about the numbers, why are you neglecting the numbers about H1N1? Are they just too inconvenient for you?

 

[Moxie]

No, it's just a clear attempt by the major media in the United States to exploit a public health crisis in order to destroy a president they absolutely loathe. I fully stand by that assessment.

Sorry to drop in, and I'll let El Dude respond to the rest, but your notion that this current pandemic is about the media wanting to take down Trump is, frankly, crazy. Or sorry, US-centric in the extreme, and very like Trump's own version of seeing all world events as only revolving around him. You keep trying to minimize the potential of this virus to kill or impact many. Just because the ones who will die tend to be old, is that really OK with you? Have you not read anything about how heartbreaking things are in Italy, for family members and healthcare providers? How families can't be with the ill when they die? How they have to wait so long to get them even cremated? How they can only hope for a brief prayer over them by a priest, because no one can gather for a funeral? How in Sicily they defy isolation mandates to participate in funeral rituals that go deeper than a mere government mandate? How health care providers are having to decide who lives and who dies, because there isn't enough care to provide for all of them. Are you immune to this kind of pain?

And maybe you don't have an elder relation, but many of us do, and some of us are care-givers to them. We have to isolate, not for ourselves, but for the older ones that we care for. I think it has already been explained to you that the problem with COVID-19, as is different from flu, is that we have none of us any ammunity to it. That there is a good chance we'll all or most of us get some version of it. It won't be deadly for all or even most of us, but it could well be deadly for some that we love. The elderly and immuno-compromised. You may be willing to brush it off, to keep Trump in office, but most of us are not willing to take that chance with those we love for the sake of mere politics.