US Politics Thread

[calitennis127]

Fine, but then where does this nihilism get you? Should we all just go live off the grid because there is no one we can trust to care about the welfare of others and therefore we can't actually live in a civilized society? If all politicians are corrupt, and we're all patsies for believing them, then what do we have? What's your alternative solution?

He doesn't have a solution. He is simply an anti-American bigot (which is fine, since 99.9% of the human race is bigoted), so he is making it sound like America has a unique problem with political corruption. Now I will grant that he does have a point about American foreign policy in the Middle East being destructive and quite contemptible. But he attributes it to all the wrong causes. He thinks it's the result of American right-wing ideas mixed with nationalistic chauvinism.

The reality is that the American interventionism that Broken loathes is the result of left-wing political ideology that has reigned supreme in the United States since World War I. It's not "right-wing racists" who are at fault for the U.S. blunders in the Middle East. But he doesn't know enough about American political history to understand that.

 

[calitennis127]

Why do you always make claims like these that you have no idea about? How do you know that Alex Berenson has lost all of his old friends? Stop with the crazy editorials, please, and keep to the point. Thank you.

LOL.....have you seen all the Twitter feuds he has gotten into? And have you listened to any of his commentary? It is quite clear that he is in a feud with his former employer and all of its allies. It makes for great entertainment.

I don't think I read this at all in the way that you did. Just because we're less likely to catch the disease from surfaces than from aspirations in public certainly doesn't imply that going out in public is OK.

Berenson and Streeck beg to differ. You may want to also take note of this from the article:

Instead, claims Streeck, his study found that: "There is no significant risk of catching the disease when you go shopping. Severe outbreaks of the infection were always a result of people being closer together over a longer period of time."

And your article is about a town where a lot of people have the virus, but fewer have died from it. So what are the mitigating factors? That Heisberg residents have overall good health? That they are younger?

Those are all fair questions, but have you asked them in the other direction about deaths that have been reported as COVID or the hundreds of areas in the United States either unaffected or barely affected by the coronavirus?

We all know the answer to that one.

The fact is, just like the NYT, there is a huge part of you that wants this crisis to be bad so that you can use it as a political weapon against Trump. That's your prerogative, but I don't think there is any sense in you denying it at this point.

 

[Moxie]

Obviously what I meant is that they took the kind of approach that I advocated from the start. I have maintained from the beginning that we are talking about a policy (i.e. social distancing) that increasingly is having grave socioeconomic consequences. The question to me has always been whether the social and economic costs of the policy are worth it. As each day passes, I think the answer is more and more clear that it is no.

It seems that you forgot to respond to the point that Sweden's COVID-19 cases are on the rise, while all of its neighboring countries, who took more extreme measures earlier, have seen drops in their cases. So is it actually clear that the answer to your question is no? The economic cost/benefit will have to be weighed over time. But Sweden made a gamble, and perhaps they just delayed the inevitable. Or worse. Their neighbors are already seeing light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Moxie]

LOL.....have you seen all the Twitter feuds he has gotten into? And have you listened to any of his commentary? It is quite clear that he is in a feud with his former employer and all of its allies. It makes for great entertainment.

1. I'm not interested, and 2. his Twitter followers don't constitute "all of his old friends." There is a distinction, and I'm sure you can understand that.

Berenson and Streeck beg to differ. You may want to also take note of this from the article:

Instead, claims Streeck, his study found that: "There is no significant risk of catching the disease when you go shopping. Severe outbreaks of the infection were always a result of people being closer together over a longer period of time."

I noted this quote, but I was hoping this wasn't the point that you or Steeck was trying to make. If you actually mean that people being quarantined together, you are just wrong about that. Sure, if I'm quarantined with my husband and kids, and one of us has it, we're likely to all be infected. But if we don't go out, we don't infect other people. See how that works? Yes, one of us has to go the grocery store sometimes, and that's a danger, though in a lockdown, people are being cautious when they do. However, if we all go to school and work and the park and restaurants, it multiplies exponentially. I'm sure you understand this.

Those are all fair questions, but have you asked them in the other direction about deaths that have been reported as COVID or the hundreds of areas in the United States either unaffected or barely affected by the coronavirus?

We all know the answer to that one.

The fact is, just like the NYT, there is a huge part of you that wants this crisis to be bad so that you can use it as a political weapon against Trump. That's your prerogative, but I don't think there is any sense in you denying it at this point.

Fair questions, you say, glancingly. And yes, I have asked them in other directions, and about the US. We're the ones that were trying to get you to care about reasonable study when you and Trump were popping up with anecdotal solutions. This is just another anecdotal town. All interesting, but there are lots of things to be looked at.

As to me wanting this crisis to be bad because I hate Trump and want to see him go down? I do hate Trump. I think he's terrible for this country and we can't take 4 more years of him. But if you say ONE more time that I want this to be any worse than it already is for that reason, I will come through my computer and rip your heart out. You know where I live. People are suffering here, and not just from sickness. And it's going to get a lot worse. I'd like to go back to work, and I'd like to think there'll be an industry to go back to, but I'm not sure what shape it'll be in. Do I want this? I do not. But I do understand the difference between protecting a community and blithely going about my business. You do understand what the word "pandemic" means. So now, you can face facts, or you can keep trolling the internet for articles that make it look like you weren't completely wrong, or this isn't so bad.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Fine, but then where does this nihilism get you? Should we all just go live off the grid because there is no one we can trust to care about the welfare of others and therefore we can't actually live in a civilized society? If all politicians are corrupt, and we're all patsies for believing them, then what do we have? What's your alternative solution?

Go out and vote for Biden. I'm not saying you shouldn't. In fact, you should, given the alternative.

But maybe don't call him ethical when there's a plethora of evidence pointing to the contrary?

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's not my fault you only have a surface knowledge of the issues at hand. Let me give you a little dose of reality since your sources are completely misinforming you.

First, some images from American hospitals.....does this look like a healthcare system that is overrun with patients it can't treat? You can see yourself dancing around the 8-second mark:



And then this one.....this is clearly the scene from a horrific health environment:



And, for good measure, one more.....clearly signs of an existential health crisis that is impossible to describe:

Sometimes you do my work for me. Thanks for pointing out how stupid you are without my having to explain anything.

This post is legitimately someone with an IQ of 80 who has zero grasp over logic. No I swear I reached the stage where I'm not longer surprised by how incredibly dumb you are. This is amazing. For the first time I don't even have to explain why. Perfect.

 

[calitennis127]

Sometimes you do my work for me. Thanks for pointing out how stupid you are without my having to explain anything.

This post is legitimately someone with an IQ of 80 who has zero grasp over logic. No I swear I reached the stage where I'm not longer surprised by how incredibly dumb you are. This is amazing. For the first time I don't even have to explain why. Perfect.

They're called pieces to the puzzle shithead. My subsequent post cited an article concerning how deaths are being reported in New York City and another article about how the U.S.'s coronavirus coordinator (Dr. Deborah Birx) said last week that deaths are being counted as COVID-caused regardless of whether coronavirus can be proven to be the main cause of death. Did you say anything about those? No. They provide inconvenient information for your case so you simply ignore them and call them "stupid" and "low IQ" and "dumb." It's ironic that you insult Trump and Biden for having poor command over English when your vocabulary consists of 45 words - well, actually, 47 if you include "racist" and "lmao." You have the vocabulary of a 4th grade kid.

Did you say anything about the failed IMHE model? No, because you don't even know what that is.

Did you say anything about the failed Imperial College study in the UK? No, because you haven't even heard of it.

Likewise, have you cited a single U.S. foreign policy figure or a book to explain how the U.S. is defined by "genocidal war ideology"? No. Have you addressed why atheist Christopher Hitchens supported the war in Iraq? No.

You can't answer these questions because you know nothing about these topics. What's becoming clearer by the day with these conversations is that you are low-information and seething with hateful bigotry toward certain targets. My posts have gotten you to reveal your true colors: low knowledge level, rage at dissent, and pure hate. Ultimately that's your profile.

 

[calitennis127]

It seems that you forgot to respond to the point that Sweden's COVID-19 cases are on the rise, while all of its neighboring countries, who took more extreme measures earlier, have seen drops in their cases. So is it actually clear that the answer to your question is no? The economic cost/benefit will have to be weighed over time. But Sweden made a gamble, and perhaps they just delayed the inevitable. Or worse. Their neighbors are already seeing light at the end of the tunnel.

The numbers for Sweden are still miniscule. The question that apparently is over your head to grasp is whether devastating economies all over the world is worth it for a disease whose mortality rate looks lower and lower by the day, even with Democratic government officials in the United States clearly doing everything they can to amplify the death totals to discredit Trump.

Also, why are you comparing Sweden only to its immediate neighbors? If you look at Sweden in a global context, it is doing very well, as are Taiwan and Japan. I find it very ironic that the hardest-hit states in the United States are all under Democratic leadership where the do-gooding, controlling mentality that you have reigns supreme.

Let's face it.....hyping the coronavirus has become a partisan cause celebre for the left, just as Russophobia was from 2016 to 2018. In 2012, Obama was making Democrats like yourself giggle at his jokes about Romney being hysterically anti-Russian and not letting the Cold War go. Just 4 years later, those same Democrats were defining Russia as the most dangerous enemy imaginable and insisting that the Cold War never ended. The coronavirus hype is very similar, at least in this case there is at least a tiny bit of truth to their claims whereas in the Russian collusion case there was absolutely none.

 

[britbox]

The numbers for Sweden are still miniscule. The question that apparently is over your head to grasp is whether devastating economies all over the world is worth it for a disease whose mortality rate looks lower and lower by the day, even with Democratic government officials in the United States clearly doing everything they can to amplify the death totals to discredit Trump.

Also, why are you comparing Sweden only to its immediate neighbors? If you look at Sweden in a global context, it is doing very well, as are Taiwan and Japan. I find it very ironic that the hardest-hit states in the United States are all under Democratic leadership where the do-gooding, controlling mentality that you have reigns supreme.

Let's face it.....hyping the coronavirus has become a partisan cause celebre for the left, just as Russophobia was from 2016 to 2018. In 2012, Obama was making Democrats like yourself giggle at his jokes about Romney being hysterically anti-Russian and not letting the Cold War go. Just 4 years later, those same Democrats were defining Russia as the most dangerous enemy imaginable and insisting that the Cold War never ended. The coronavirus hype is very similar, at least in this case there is at least a tiny bit of truth to their claims whereas in the Russian collusion case there was absolutely none.

You're making the same mistake you did when this unfolded. You're jumping the gun. This has still got a way to play out.

 

[calitennis127]

You're making the same mistake you did when this unfolded. You're jumping the gun. This has still got a way to play out.

Have you seen the IMHE model revisions, or do you (like the Lebanese Elmer Fudd) not even know what the IMHE model is?

 

[britbox]

Have you seen the IMHE model revisions, or do you (like the Lebanese Elmer Fudd) not even know what the IMHE model is?

Well aware of it, thanks.

 

[calitennis127]

Well aware of it, thanks.

Good. The IMHE researchers are the ones who put their names and reputations to specific numbers, not me. And they're the ones who have implicitly admitted to being wrong by revising their model 3 times - going down with the projected deaths with each revision. First they went from 100,000-240,000 deaths down to roughly 91,000. Then they went down to roughly 83,000. And more recently they went down to 60,000.

In other words, as more data comes in, they are finding that the coronavirus is not nearly as deadly as someone like Moxie wants to believe it is. Of course, Moxie would never question her Democratic leaders in New York who are clearly being casual (I chose the nicest word possible for this) about inflating the COVID death totals by attributing any and all deaths to coronavirus.

 

[calitennis127]

Actually, the easier question to answer is what was fair and reasonable about it. Virtually nothing. Total trash.

I can't be bothered picking through it all, but here are a few highlights from the first quarter of it.



Not it isn't, when you take deaths per 1 million of population, it's far lower than many developed countries.



No, it isn't. The US wasn't prepared for a Pandemic of this nature before Trump. If it was, then why were all the states short of ventilators, protective equipment?

It's not a US-centric issue... no countries were prepared for this. South Korea was probably best prepared because they got caught with their pants down over MERS.



Not Trump's fault at all. He explicitly told the States not to do this and source ventilators through the Federal government.



Trump probably has zero control over international airports falling outside US jurisdiction. By the way, nearly all countries have called civilians to return home.



Trump didn't spend ten weeks insisting coronavirus was a harmless flu.



Not sure why closing a local beach, playground or similar facility would be the job of the President. What are mayors, local councils, governors paid to do? The centralized Federal advice was clear.



Barely worthy of a response. Is CNN's lying the responsibility of Joe Biden? No. It's the responsibility of CNN.



The guy can't have it both ways. You either shut down for health reasons or ride it out for economic reasons. He doesn't qualify his statement.



I wasn't aware Trump fired him



Like most of Europe. Maybe if the Chinese hadn't covered this up for weeks with a complicit WHO then the US and Europe would have been far better prepared to mitigate.


Reaching.



Jeb Bush? You can tell this guy was on the Bush Family payroll.

The whole article is utter trash. That was just a bit of it. I'd be here all day picking through it all. Just click on the author to view previous articles and you'll see the agenda straight away. Lame journalism - not worth reading twice.

Good rebuttal of Frum's article, btw.

 

[britbox]

Good. The IMHE researchers are the ones who put their names and reputations to specific numbers, not me. And they're the ones who have implicitly admitted to being wrong by revising their model 3 times - going down with the projected deaths with each revision. First they went from 100,000-240,000 deaths down to roughly 91,000. Then they went down to roughly 83,000. And more recently they went down to 60,000.

In other words, as more data comes in, they are finding that the coronavirus is not nearly as deadly as someone like Moxie wants to believe it is. Of course, Moxie would never question her Democratic leaders in New York who are clearly being casual about inflating the COVID death totals by attributing any and all deaths to coronavirus.

No you didn't put your name to those numbers. Congratulations. The numbers you put your name to were "33 paltry deaths" Is that month up yet, when we said we'd revisit the numbers?

 

[calitennis127]

No you didn't put your name to those numbers. Congratulations. The numbers you put your name to were "33 paltry deaths" Is that month up yet, when we said we'd revisit the numbers?

Yes, in the context of discussing whether it was worth shattering millions of livelihoods and jobs on the spot for a disease that appeared to have (and increasingly appears to have) a very low mortality rate. Why is this conversation about coronavirus totally in a vacuum for you, as though nothing else matters? Have you seen the ghastly unemployment numbers? Have you seen the stories about mental health and addiction problems soaring?

Tens of thousands of people die from drug overdoses, pneumonia, flu, suicide, car accidents, and heart disease every year and we don't put 20 million + people on unemployment in a matter of 4 weeks to stop it.

You may want to take note of this story from the Indianapolis Star: "Indiana's 211 hotline went from receiving roughly 1,000 calls a day regarding mental health — including suicidal ideation — to 25,000 calls a day. And calls to Indiana's addiction hotlines went from an average of 20 a week to 20 a day."

Do these people and their livelihoods in Indiana not matter? Or do the only people who matter are people in New York whose incompetent Democratic leaders were not prepared for the pandemic?

Indiana sees 'alarming' spike in mental health, addiction issues amid coronavirus

Indiana sees 'alarming' spike in mental health, addiction issues amid coronavirus

Indiana's 211 hotline went from receiving roughly 1,000 calls a day regarding mental health — including suicidal ideation — to 25,000 calls a day.

www.indystar.com

 

[britbox]

Yes, in the context of discussing whether it was worth shattering millions of livelihoods and jobs on the spot for a disease that appeared to have (and increasingly appears to have) a very low mortality rate. Why is this conversation about coronavirus totally in a vacuum for you, as though nothing else matters? Have you seen the ghastly unemployment numbers? Have you seen the stories about mental health and addiction problems soaring?

Tens of thousands of people die from drug overdoses, pneumonia, flu, suicide, car accidents, and heart disease every year and we don't put 20 million + people on unemployment in a matter of 4 weeks to stop it.

You may want to take note of this story from the Indianapolis Star: "Indiana's 211 hotline went from receiving roughly 1,000 calls a day regarding mental health — including suicidal ideation — to 25,000 calls a day. And calls to Indiana's addiction hotlines went from an average of 20 a week to 20 a day."

Do these people and their livelihoods in Indiana not matter? Or do the only people who matter are people in New York whose incompetent Democratic leaders were not prepared for the pandemic?

Indiana sees 'alarming' spike in mental health, addiction issues amid coronavirus

Indiana sees 'alarming' spike in mental health, addiction issues amid coronavirus

Indiana's 211 hotline went from receiving roughly 1,000 calls a day regarding mental health — including suicidal ideation — to 25,000 calls a day.

www.indystar.com

It's not a vacuum. I've already acknowledged there is an alternative argument based loosely on what you stated above.

That's not your "get out of jail" card though. If your original advice was followed, then every city in the US would have been on NY levels, probably two or three-fold.

 

[calitennis127]

It's not a vacuum. I've already acknowledged there is an alternative argument based loosely on what you stated above.

That's not your "get out of jail" card though. If your original advice was followed, then every city in the US would have been on NY levels, probably two or three-fold.

You mean the original advice of Dr. Fauci, who up until the end of February said that people did not need to make any changes to their daily routines?

What I advocated was localized rules and guidelines. Most of the shutdowns in most places across America are unnecessary. They are doing far more harm to society than good.

You may also want to take a look at what Alex Berenson has been posting on Twitter because he has been making a compelling case that there is no proof that the shutdowns are working in the ways that have been promised.

As for the viewing-things-in-a-vacuum issue, I do think you are downplaying the negative societal effects of these shutdowns. You acknowledge them when I bring the issue up but for the most part you are far more focused on the virus. If 50,000 people end up dying from drug overdoses and suicides in the coming months, you will just shrug your shoulders and say it was a small cost to pay for increasing the likelihood of your grandparents living by 0.00001%.

 

[britbox]

You mean the original advice of Dr. Fauci, who up until the end of February said that people did not need to make any changes to their daily routines?

What I advocated was localized rules and guidelines. Most of the shutdowns in most places across America are unnecessary. They are doing far more harm to society than good.

You may also want to take a look at what Alex Berenson has been posting on Twitter because he has been making a compelling case that there is no proof that the shutdowns are working in the ways that have been promised.

As for the viewing-things-in-a-vacuum issue, I do think you are downplaying the negative societal effects of these shutdowns. You acknowledge them when I bring the issue up but for the most part you are far more focused on the virus. If 50,000 people end up dying from drug overdoses and suicides in the coming months, you will just shrug your shoulders and say it was a small cost to pay for increasing the likelihood of your grandparents living by 0.00001%.

Dr Fauci is advising you? No, I'm going back to your original advice on the numbers, how ridiculous it was that those mass gatherings like Indian Wells, Business Conferences, the NBA season were cancelled. Not to mention, ridiculIng the contagion and death rates. I don't remember Dr Fauci posting on this forum.

I'm not downplaying the negative social or economic effects of lockdown. They are mammoth. Long lockdowns will destroy western civilization IMO.

But here is the thing... and I've advocated a short term long term lockdown on the basis that it buys time to understand more about the virus, flatten the curve and build up healthcare resources to deal with the problem.

There is always going to be a tipping point where the cost of the cure outweighs the cost of the virus.

But... it's a pragmatic cost too. Even if you were ultimately proved correct and 500,000 died indirectly from the economic shock when you totted up the numbers in 5-10 years time, you'd never be able to sell it to a public, if 200,000 were dying in real-time.

"We're not doing anything... but it's saving lives..." It just wouldn't wash (even if true), the government would collapse under the pressure.

 

[Moxie]

Good. The IMHE researchers are the ones who put their names and reputations to specific numbers, not me. And they're the ones who have implicitly admitted to being wrong by revising their model 3 times - going down with the projected deaths with each revision. First they went from 100,000-240,000 deaths down to roughly 91,000. Then they went down to roughly 83,000. And more recently they went down to 60,000.

In other words, as more data comes in, they are finding that the coronavirus is not nearly as deadly as someone like Moxie wants to believe it is. Of course, Moxie would never question her Democratic leaders in New York who are clearly being casual (I chose the nicest word possible for this) about inflating the COVID death totals by attributing any and all deaths to coronavirus.

Britbox and I were talking about the differences in the way deaths are attributed in some countries in Europe on the other thread. I think we can agree that it's going to take some time to sort out the real numbers in one country, much less globally. But if you look at raw numbers of deaths in NY in this period, it's much higher than normal. Here's an article on that. It's from that rag the NY Times, but I didn't have time to see what Alex Jones had to say on the subject, so it'll have to do.

"roughly 9,780 people have died of all causes over the past month in New York City, about 5,000 more than is typical."

Deaths in New York City Are More Than Double the Usual Total (Published 2020)

Deaths from all causes have surged, undermining arguments that coronavirus numbers have been overblown.

www.nytimes.com

 

[calitennis127]

Dr Fauci is advising you? No, I'm going back to your original advice on the numbers, how ridiculous it was that those mass gatherings like Indian Wells, Business Conferences, the NBA season were cancelled. Not to mention, ridiculIng the contagion and death rates. I don't remember Dr Fauci posting on this forum.

Where I will admit that I was off-the-mark is that I did not think the outbreak in NYC would be as bad as it was. That to me was unexpected. But it was also unexpected to the mayor of New York City, the governor of New York, and numerous health officials in New York City.

Outside of New York, however, what has occurred has been far closer to how I assessed things than how other people did.

I'm not downplaying the negative social or economic effects of lockdown. They are mammoth. Long lockdowns will destroy western civilization IMO.

But here is the thing... and I've advocated a short term long term lockdown on the basis that it buys time to understand more about the virus, flatten the curve and build up healthcare resources to deal with the problem.

There is always going to be a tipping point where the cost of the cure outweighs the cost of the virus.

But... it's a pragmatic cost too. Even if you were ultimately proved correct and 500,000 died indirectly from the economic shock when you totted up the numbers in 5-10 years time, you'd never be able to sell it to a public, if 200,000 were dying in real-time.

"We're not doing anything... but it's saving lives..." It just wouldn't wash (even if true), the government would collapse under the pressure.

All fair points that I can't disagree with.