US Politics Thread

[Murat Baslamisli]

Lol! Now I'm worried you don't know it's a joke!

Ok, I really do not get offended easily but....

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

 

[calitennis127]

View attachment 3675

Exactly right murat…..Dr. Deborah Birx quite openly admitted at a WH press briefing this week that the coronavirus death toll is being overstated in the United States (or understated in other countries depending on how you look at it). But either way, deaths from other causes such as pneumonia are drastically down in the U.S. for 2020 as compared to prior years so that raises suspicions:


Feds classifying all coronavirus patient deaths as ‘COVID-19’ deaths, regardless of cause

The federal government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the coronavirus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that could have contributed to the loss of someone’s life.

Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force, said the federal government is continuing to count the suspected COVID-19 deaths, despite other nations doing the opposite.

“There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition, and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU [intensive care unit] and then have a heart or kidney problem,” she said during a Tuesday news briefing at the White House. “Some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death."

Feds classifying all coronavirus patient deaths as ‘COVID-19’ deaths, regardless of cause

The federal government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the coronavirus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that could have contributed to the loss of …

nypost.com

 

[calitennis127]

As to Biden, I do think he's a very ethical person

This lady disagrees. Do you still believe all women? Or was that just a 2018 thing?

Former staffer files criminal complaint against Joe Biden over 1993 sexual assault allegation

Former staffer files criminal complaint against Joe Biden over 1993 sexual assault allegation

Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer for Joe Biden, has formally accused the presumed Democratic nominee of committing sexual assault in 1993.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The Bernie people have a talking point which is "corporate Democrats." I won't say that's wrong, but this is also a way of dividing us. As to Biden, I do think he's a very ethical person, and can unite the party. Americans, in general, are moderate. What Sanders and Warren have done is bring enthusiasm to the progressive wing of the Democratic party. And Bernie is talking about still collecting delegates to get that voice heard. This is good.

Need to be careful when saying any politician is ethical. He indulged in blatant plagirism in his 1988 campaign. When you read from the wiki page it may not sound like a big deal for you. But, if you see the videos of Kinnock and Biden giving the same speech side by side, it will remind you the speeches of Melania and Michelle played side by side recently.

On top of it, Biden got an F in an university course for plagirism as well.

 

[Federberg]

This lady disagrees. Do you still believe all women? Or was that just a 2018 thing?

Former staffer files criminal complaint against Joe Biden over 1993 sexual assault allegation

Former staffer files criminal complaint against Joe Biden over 1993 sexual assault allegation

Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer for Joe Biden, has formally accused the presumed Democratic nominee of committing sexual assault in 1993.

www.businessinsider.com

Lol! Pot kettle??

 

[britbox]

Exactly right murat…..Dr. Deborah Birx quite openly admitted at a WH press briefing this week that the coronavirus death toll is being overstated in the United States (or understated in other countries depending on how you look at it). But either way, deaths from other causes such as pneumonia are drastically down in the U.S. for 2020 as compared to prior years so that raises suspicions:


Feds classifying all coronavirus patient deaths as ‘COVID-19’ deaths, regardless of cause

The federal government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the coronavirus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that could have contributed to the loss of someone’s life.

Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force, said the federal government is continuing to count the suspected COVID-19 deaths, despite other nations doing the opposite.

“There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition, and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU [intensive care unit] and then have a heart or kidney problem,” she said during a Tuesday news briefing at the White House. “Some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death."

Feds classifying all coronavirus patient deaths as ‘COVID-19’ deaths, regardless of cause

The federal government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with the coronavirus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that could have contributed to the loss of …

nypost.com

The data is interesting and I mentioned a while ago that net deaths over a yearly period will give us a lot of perspectives.

I was listening to an interview with Peter Hitchens, who probably sits more in your "business as usual" type of camp. I'm not sure how accurate these figures are (and neither is he) but he suggested that data revealed to him was that the UK mortality figure was up by around 1,000 per week when looking at comparative yearly data. That maps to a significantly lower figure than the 600-950 range of daily coronavirus UK victims.

Personally, I think we're realistically two years away from making quality data assessments.

 

[calitennis127]

The data is interesting and I mentioned a while ago that net deaths over a yearly period will give us a lot of perspectives.

I was listening to an interview with Peter Hitchens, who probably sits more in your "business as usual" type of camp. I'm not sure how accurate these figures are (and neither is he) but he suggested that data revealed to him was that the UK mortality figure was up by around 1,000 per week when looking at comparative yearly data. That maps to a significantly lower figure than the 600-950 range of daily coronavirus UK victims.

Personally, I think we're realistically two years away from making quality data assessments.

Well, the IMHE model (from the University of Washington) used by Dr. Fauci and the Trump administration has been a total flop.....the original estimate was at minimum 100,000 deaths and possibly up to 240,000 deaths, even with social distancing. Then the estimate was revised down to about 91,000 deaths, then 83,000 deaths, and now 60,000 deaths. Of course, many are saying that this is proof that social distancing is working, which may or may not be the case. But that's besides the point. The model said that 100,000 deaths was the bare minimum EVEN WITH social distancing.

The coronavirus was a tad more serious than I (and many others including left-wing outlets in early February) thought, but it's becoming clearer by the day that it's nowhere near as bad as was advertised a few weeks ago. Looking back I was about 80% correct.....the only place that has suffered to a remarkable degree has been New York City, and that's because of high population density and ill-prepared/incompetent Democratic leadership.

What has been interesting has been the rise in celebrity of former NYT reporter Alex Berenson in recent weeks. He has turned on his old friends and is the most outspoken critic of the shutdowns. He is even arguing that there is no evidence that the shutdowns work, since if you look at Sweden and Japan they have had more success than countries that have shut down. Have you looked at his tweets at all?

 

[calitennis127]

Lol! Pot kettle??

Trump never had criminal charges brought against him, just a bunch of women who randomly said in October 2016 that Trump touched them or something to that effect. But I was more so referring to the demonization of Kavanaugh.....in 2018 the most absurd charges were brought against him and Democrats were insisting that even asking "who? where? when?" questions was sexist. Now all of a sudden with Joe Biden they are being evenhanded jurors.

It's a joke. Their double standard is indefensible, so why are you trying to defend it?

 

[calitennis127]

Need to be careful when saying any politician is ethical. He indulged in blatant plagirism in his 1988 campaign. When you read from the wiki page it may not sound like a big deal for you. But, if you see the videos of Kinnock and Biden giving the same speech side by side, it will remind you the speeches of Melania and Michelle played side by side recently.

On top of it, Biden got an F in an university course for plagirism as well.

LOL.....but because he stood next to the Democratic cult leader Barack Obama for 8 years and smiled like a buffoon, Biden is a "very ethical person." Shameless plagiarism during a campaign, charges of sexual assault from someone who worked with him, and having a family get rich off his government service is completely "ethical."

Right.

 

[Federberg]

Trump never had criminal charges brought against him, just a bunch of women who randomly said in October 2016 that Trump touched them or something to that effect. But I was more so referring to the demonization of Kavanaugh.....in 2018 the most absurd charges were brought against him and Democrats were insisting that even asking "who? where? when?" questions was sexist. Now all of a sudden with Joe Biden they are being evenhanded jurors.

It's a joke. Their double standard is indefensible, so why are you trying to defend it?

lol! There are cases against him in court right now

And fyi... I don't recall defending him. I just find the irony delicious

 

[Moxie]

This lady disagrees. Do you still believe all women? Or was that just a 2018 thing?

Former staffer files criminal complaint against Joe Biden over 1993 sexual assault allegation

Former staffer files criminal complaint against Joe Biden over 1993 sexual assault allegation

Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer for Joe Biden, has formally accused the presumed Democratic nominee of committing sexual assault in 1993.

www.businessinsider.com

This is an example of you cluttering up a post with unnecessary editorializing and irrelevant (and erroneous) assumptions about people here.

 

[britbox]

Well, the IMHE model (from the University of Washington) used by Dr. Fauci and the Trump administration has been a total flop.....the original estimate was at minimum 100,000 deaths and possibly up to 240,000 deaths, even with social distancing. Then the estimate was revised down to about 91,000 deaths, then 83,000 deaths, and now 60,000 deaths. Of course, many are saying that this is proof that social distancing is working, which may or may not be the case. But that's besides the point. The model said that 100,000 deaths was the bare minimum EVEN WITH social distancing.

The coronavirus was a tad more serious than I (and many others including left-wing outlets in early February) thought, but it's becoming clearer by the day that it's nowhere near as bad as was advertised a few weeks ago. Looking back I was about 80% correct.....the only place that has suffered to a remarkable degree has been New York City, and that's because of high population density and ill-prepared/incompetent Democratic leadership.

What has been interesting has been the rise in celebrity of former NYT reporter Alex Berenson in recent weeks. He has turned on his old friends and is the most outspoken critic of the shutdowns. He is even arguing that there is no evidence that the shutdowns work, since if you look at Sweden and Japan they have had more success than countries that have shut down. Have you looked at his tweets at all?

I'd wait for this to play out in full before making too many assumptions. Other cities could explode with cases. Not to mention, there could be multiple waves of infection. I think it's safe to say, that this is an unpredictable moving target.

 

[Moxie]

Trump never had criminal charges brought against him, just a bunch of women who randomly said in October 2016 that Trump touched them or something to that effect. But I was more so referring to the demonization of Kavanaugh.....in 2018 the most absurd charges were brought against him and Democrats were insisting that even asking "who? where? when?" questions was sexist. Now all of a sudden with Joe Biden they are being evenhanded jurors.

It's a joke. Their double standard is indefensible, so why are you trying to defend it?

If you would have wanted us to read in Kavanaugh, you really needed to specify, don't ya think? Well, anyway, there is a rape case against Trump, from a then-13-year old. And all the instances of alleged unwanted touching, kissing, groping, peeping. And the paying off of a porn star, which is not just alleged. And the fact that Trump was on tape talking about grabbing women by the pussy, because you can. Sure, maybe some of it is coming after the fact because he became a serious political candidate, but are you really just willing to push it all off? You find an accuser of Biden, but does that make what Trump has done or said ok with you? We can get lost in the weeds of the back-and-forth on who did what, but does that make it all even and OK?

 

[Moxie]

A month after Trump declares a national emergency, this is how we're doing:



'Later in that March 13 press conference, when asked whether he took responsibility for the apparent lag in coronavirus testing in the United States, the president responded, "I don't take responsibility at all."'

I guess no one ever explained to Trump that when he became the President, 'the buck stops here.'

 

[calitennis127]

This is an example of you cluttering up a post with unnecessary editorializing and irrelevant (and erroneous) assumptions about people here.

I was responding directly to you claiming that Biden was a "very ethical person." How was I going off on an irrelevant tangent by bringing up this latest accusation against him? Surely you would be bringing this up if it was a Republican, just as you would care much more if one of Trump's close business associates was arrested for trying to defraud a Native American tribe of $60 million like the Biden pal Devon Archer was.

 

[calitennis127]

If you would have wanted us to read in Kavanaugh, you really needed to specify, don't ya think? Well, anyway, there is a rape case against Trump, from a then-13-year old.

Apparently at a sex party of Jeffrey Epstein. Personally I don't buy that the incident occurred.

Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl

A civil suit against Donald Trump alleging he raped a 13-year-old girl was dismissed in California in May 2016, refiled in New York in June 2016, and dropped again in November 2016.

www.snopes.com

And all the instances of alleged unwanted touching, kissing, groping, peeping.

None of that compares to Biden's history right on camera for everyone to see of "touching, kissing, groping, peeping." But oh yes, Moxie. Women are asexual nuns who never have an impure thought enter their mind at any time in their lives. They are simply trying to go about their lives to get degrees and jobs, but then voracious, wicked men come along and interrupt their noble pursuits with unwanted sexual advances. This is exactly what Donald Trump is a posterboy of.

Let all us all take a moment of silence for the asexual creatures known as women (except for the hundreds of thousands of them who flaunt their figures on Instagram, apparently with no sexual interest). Now hum and meditate....let it out. Good. Breathe.

And the paying off of a porn star, which is not just alleged.

Lol. An accusation coming from the party of Harvey Weinstein on this score is hilarious.

And the fact that Trump was on tape talking about grabbing women by the pussy, because you can. Sure, maybe some of it is coming after the fact because he became a serious political candidate, but are you really just willing to push it all off? You find an accuser of Biden, but does that make what Trump has done or said ok with you? We can get lost in the weeds of the back-and-forth on who did what, but does that make it all even and OK?

My opinion on this matter is, well, rather unique. In some ways, I sympathize with women for being mistreated by men (sexually and otherwise) because I have seen it occur. On the other hand, I don't think women are at all blameless. In fact, I see their entire perception of sexual encounters to be a function of their emotional disposition in a given moment in their lives. Perhaps because I am exceptionally handsome (!) I have seen how sexually assertive women can be if they establish any kind of positive vibe with a man. They can be just as aggressive as men in making sexual advances and engaging in "touching, kissing, groping, peeping." As far as whether this is "unwanted" or not in the case of a male approaching a female, this is hardly a matter of objective definitions because there are an endless array of questions that can be asked about the circumstances, such as:

- Did the woman on the receiving end of the advances really not want them in the moment? Or did she just say so afterward because she stopped liking the man?

- What if a woman gets mad at a man over something - such as breaking up, cheating, not following through with a promise, liking another woman? Then her sexual memories of that man are soured and what were enjoyable experiences in the moment become in her mind memories of a failed love. So then she refers to them in hindsight as "unwanted touching or kissing or groping."

- What are the possible motivations behind the accusations? They could be various.

We could go on and on and on with dozens of examples, but where I ultimately draw the line is with actual sexual assault and rape. There are laws on the books to prevent these crimes and there always have been. That's how it should be. But complaining about minor touching or kissing in social settings where the liquor is flowing and women are clearly showing an interest in men is completely disingenuous. It's not rational and all it amounts to is a fad. If you want men to adhere to a higher morality, then perhaps you should do more to praise your hero Richard Nixon, who by all accounts was the type of honorable man that you want in the world. He resisted hookers and was good to his wife. You should have more nice things to say about him.

P.S. At risk of sounding somewhat like a feminist, I will also say that I do find a great deal of sexual pursuit to be barbaric and I do think that men allow themselves very often to become too preoccupied with it. I can understand pursuing a really beautiful woman (e.g. a Latina news anchor or an exotic Asian) or being affectionate to your wife for moral reasons, but for the most part I just don't see how it is worth risking so many other things in life just to have sex with the average woman. The calculations don't add up. I also don't understand the appeal of sexual assault given that sexual encounters are far more enjoyable if the woman is emotionally engaged.

 

[Moxie]

Apparently at a sex party of Jeffrey Epstein. Personally I don't buy that the incident occurred.

Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl

A civil suit against Donald Trump alleging he raped a 13-year-old girl was dismissed in California in May 2016, refiled in New York in June 2016, and dropped again in November 2016.

www.snopes.com

Ok, even though we know that Jeffrey Epstein was a sex-offender, panderer of under-aged girls, and friend of Donald Trump, you've decided not to believe that. Fine.

None of that compares to Biden's history right on camera for everyone to see of "touching, kissing, groping, peeping." But oh yes, Moxie. Women are asexual nuns who never have an impure thought enter their mind at any time in their lives. They are simply trying to go about their lives to get degrees and jobs, but then voracious, wicked men come along and interrupt their noble pursuits with unwanted sexual advances. This is exactly what Donald Trump is a posterboy of.

Let all us all take a moment of silence for the asexual creatures known as women (except for the hundreds of thousands of them who flaunt their figures on Instagram, apparently with no sexual interest). Now hum and meditate....let it out. Good. Breathe.

Women's sexual desires has nothing to do with them being preyed upon. You really need to learn the distinction.

Lol. An accusation coming from the party of Harvey Weinstein on this score is hilarious.

There is not "party of Harvey Weinstein." And do you really want to make a parallel of that film mogul, and Donald Trump, President of the United States? Because Weinstein is going to prison for a long time.

My opinion on this matter is, well, rather unique. In some ways, I sympathize with women for being mistreated by men (sexually and otherwise) because I have seen it occur. On the other hand, I don't think women are at all blameless. In fact, I see their entire perception of sexual encounters to be a function of their emotional disposition in a given moment in their lives. Perhaps because I am exceptionally handsome (!) I have seen how sexually assertive women can be if they establish any kind of positive vibe with a man. They can be just as aggressive as men in making sexual advances and engaging in "touching, kissing, groping, peeping."

While I'm sure that it must be true that you're "exceptionally handsome," because who has ever said it when it isn't true, I'm pretty sure you're wrong that most women engage is "touching, kissing, groping or peepring" when it is unbidden. To do it as part of the game of sex is fun, but women are careful about their safety, and don't generally open up to that kind of fun without a willing partner. Men, however, do.

As far as whether this is "unwanted" or not in the case of a male approaching a female, this is hardly a matter of objective definitions because there are an endless array of questions that can be asked about the circumstances, such as:

- Did the woman on the receiving end of the advances really not want them in the moment? Or did she just say so afterward because she stopped liking the man?

- What if a woman gets mad at a man over something - such as breaking up, cheating, not following through with a promise, liking another woman? Then her sexual memories of that man are soured and what were enjoyable experiences in the moment become in her mind memories of a failed love. So then she refers to them in hindsight as "unwanted touching or kissing or groping."

- What are the possible motivations behind the accusations? They could be various.

We could go on and on and on with dozens of examples, but where I ultimately draw the line is with actual sexual assault and rape. There are laws on the books to prevent these crimes and there always have been. That's how it should be. But complaining about minor touching or kissing in social settings where the liquor is flowing and women are clearly showing an interest in men is completely disingenuous. It's not rational and all it amounts to is a fad. If you want men to adhere to a higher morality, then perhaps you should do more to praise your hero Richard Nixon, who by all accounts was the type of honorable man that you want in the world. He resisted hookers and was good to his wife. You should have more nice things to say about him.

There is always the possibility of revenge by a spurned lover in the he said/she said of accusations, or after-the-fact recriminations. And it's good of you to draw the line at actual sexual assault and rape. But I think you do understand that power disparities can be used to sexually coerce, and abuse in many ways that fall short of actual rape, but are demeaning and very hard on the lesser person in the equation. That's been a tool of power for millenia. Come on.

Sure, I think Richard Nixon was devoted to his wife. I think George W Bush was, too. If they simply lived in my community, I would admire them for that. The fact that they ran my country and I had other issues with them has nothing to do with them being good husbands.

P.S. At risk of sounding somewhat like a feminist, I will also say that I do find a great deal of sexual pursuit to be barbaric and I do think that men allow themselves very often to become too preoccupied with it. I can understand pursuing a really beautiful woman (e.g. a Latina news anchor or an exotic Asian) or being affectionate to your wife for moral reasons, but for the most part I just don't see how it is worth risking so many other things in life just to have sex with the average woman. The calculations don't add up. I also don't understand the appeal of sexual assault given that sexual encounters are far more enjoyable if the woman is emotionally engaged.

Don't worry...you don't sound like a feminist. You sound like a fetishist. "Latina news anchor or exotic Asian"?? Or a man who doesn't actually love women. ('Being affectionate to your wife for "moral reasons?" Risking having sex with an "average" woman?' This seems to lack understanding of deep and mutual love. What about Dick and Pat Nixon? What about George and Barbara Bush?) And if you don't understand that sexual assault has more to do with power than sexual pleasure, I can't explain it to you. It's not sex, it's abuse. It's not something most of us deeply comprehend, but we can grasp that that is the reason, at its core.

 

[Federberg]

Ok, even though we know that Jeffrey Epstein was a sex-offender, panderer of under-aged girls, and friend of Donald Trump, you've decided not to believe that. Fine.


Women's sexual desires has nothing to do with them being preyed upon. You really need to learn the distinction.



There is not "party of Harvey Weinstein." And do you really want to make a parallel of that film mogul, and Donald Trump, President of the United States? Because Weinstein is going to prison for a long time.



While I'm sure that it must be true that you're "exceptionally handsome," because who has ever said it when it isn't true, I'm pretty sure you're wrong that most women engage is "touching, kissing, groping or peepring" when it is unbidden. To do it as part of the game of sex is fun, but women are careful about their safety, and don't generally open up to that kind of fun without a willing partner. Men, however, do.

There is always the possibility of revenge by a spurned lover in the he said/she said of accusations, or after-the-fact recriminations. And it's good of you to draw the line at actual sexual assault and rape. But I think you do understand that power disparities can be used to sexually coerce, and abuse in many ways that fall short of actual rape, but are demeaning and very hard on the lesser person in the equation. That's been a tool of power for millenia. Come on.

Sure, I think Richard Nixon was devoted to his wife. I think George W Bush was, too. If they simply lived in my community, I would admire them for that. The fact that they ran my country and I had other issues with them has nothing to do with them being good husbands.

Don't worry...you don't sound like a feminist. You sound like a fetishist. "Latina news anchor or exotic Asian"?? Or a man who doesn't actually love women. ('Being affectionate to your wife for "moral reasons?" Risking having sex with an "average" woman?' This seems to lack understanding of deep and mutual love. What about Dick and Pat Nixon? What about George and Barbara Bush?) And if you don't understand that sexual assault has more to do with power than sexual pleasure, I can't explain it to you. It's not sex, it's abuse. It's not something most of us deeply comprehend, but we can grasp that that is the reason, at its core.

He has looks worthy for radio stardom I'm sure!

 

[Federberg]

To be honest Fberg, that article you just posted by Frum was far from fair and reasonable.

I never did ask... I'm interested to know what you felt was unfair or unreasonable in the article. Please elaborate