US Politics Thread

[britbox]

This is too funny. You're trying to label me a Biden supporter? Ok...

And as for testing you're not seriously crediting Trump for States getting on with testing are you? Come on... You're better than that. But if that's how you're looking at it then it's clear where the disconnect is coming from.

Touche mate. I thought you'd bite on the Biden comment, just like I'm sure you expected me to bite on the "Trump supporter" moniker.

So, from my understanding, your view is that anything deemed a success is credited to the States, and anything that's deemed a failure is attributed to Trump, right?

 

[Federberg]

Touche mate. I thought you'd bite on the Biden comment, just like I'm sure you expected me to bite on the "Trump supporter" moniker.

So, from my understanding, your view is that anything deemed a success is credited to the States, and anything that's deemed a failure is attributed to Trump, right?

You're one of his primary defenders here mate. Truth is truth. I don't recall being particularly supportive of Biden. I have said that he stands a better chance than Bernie in the general. That's hardly an endorsement.

I credit the States for what they are doing. I'll credit Trump for what he does. Banning travel from China... good. Not banning other Asian countries that had cases at the same time? Not good. It was not a policy of mitigation, merely political opportunism. Advocating moving from the lockdown without any plan whatsoever to expand testing, implement tracing, and coordinate resources across State lines is on Trump. The States are literally forming coalitions to coordinate planning for exiting lockdowns shows that they are unable to rely on assistance from Federal government. But you tell me, what's the pass you're going to give Trump for all that?

Withdrawing funding from the WHO is one of the most colossally stupid things you can do during a pandemic. But I guess that's ok with you because no doubt you think that the WHO is kissing China's ass. Never mind the fact that the WHO has no choice to play nice with China given they are the primary producers of the medical equipment that is needed, and also one of their largest funders. Let's ignore the fact that Trump also kissed Xi's ass earlier on. It only became convenient for him to blame China when it was to his political advantage. And let's ignore the fact that there is no more efficient way to ensure that the pandemic in developing countries is best controlled by the WHO. I'm sure there'll be no risk of blow back if things go sideways in those countries. It'll have no impact whatsoever on the US... or maybe it will?

 

[britbox]

You're one of his primary defenders here mate. Truth is truth. I don't recall being particularly supportive of Biden. I have said that he stands a better chance than Bernie in the general. That's hardly an endorsement.

Not really mate. It might appear that way, because 99% of the board are fervently anti-Trump. That's fine. I'm not actually a big fan of Trump. However, I'm not a fan of ridiculously partisan reporting or views either. Like the garbage Frum article, you posted the other day. Are we supposed to just nod in approval when most of the article is clear partisan bullshit? For fear of being labeled a Trump fan? I'm neither, but the latter is preferable to the former.

The lack of bipartisanship for the common good pisses me off way more Trump... It's like watching a patient on the floor needing CPR with two idiots arguing about who will get the credit for saving him. In the meantime, the patient dies.

I credit the States for what they are doing. I'll credit Trump for what he does. Banning travel from China... good. Not banning other Asian countries that had cases at the same time? Not good. It was not a policy of mitigation, merely political opportunism. Advocating moving from the lockdown without any plan whatsoever to expand testing, implement tracing, and coordinate resources across State lines is on Trump. The States are literally forming coalitions to coordinate planning for exiting lockdowns shows that they are unable to rely on assistance from Federal government. But you tell me, what's the pass you're going to give Trump for all that?

Which Asian countries are you talking about? When Trump banned travel from China, which other countries should he have banned travel from?

Which States are saying they can't rely on assistance from Federal Government?

Withdrawing funding from the WHO is one of the most colossally stupid things you can do during a pandemic. But I guess that's ok with you because no doubt you think that the WHO is kissing China's ass. Never mind the fact that the WHO has no choice to play nice with China given they are the primary producers of the medical equipment that is needed, and also one of their largest funders. Let's ignore the fact that Trump also kissed Xi's ass earlier on. It only became convenient for him to blame China when it was to his political advantage. And let's ignore the fact that there is no more efficient way to ensure that the pandemic in developing countries is best controlled by the WHO. I'm sure there'll be no risk of blow back if things go sideways in those countries. It'll have no impact whatsoever on the US... or maybe it will?

To answer your question, no I don't think it's OK. Not the smartest move right now... I'd have waited until later and used other means to influence the WHO and used funding as leverage. However, there is little doubt the WHO leadership has been complicit in covering up for China.

The funny thing here is that you seem to think China only arrived in Trump's crosshairs during this virus outbreak... you know that isn't true. It stretches way back to when he was campaigning to be a Republican candidate.

 

[Federberg]

To answer your question, no I don't think it's OK. Not the smartest move right now... I'd have waited until later and used other means to influence the WHO and used funding as leverage. However, there is little doubt the WHO leadership has been complicit in covering up for China.

well we can largely agree on this! Although I'm not sure, given the exigencies that the WHO could have done anything differently.

 

[Federberg]

The funny thing here is that you seem to think China only arrived in Trump's crosshairs during this virus outbreak... you know that isn't true. It stretches way back to when he was campaigning to be a Republican candidate.

Mate he kisses Xi's ass when it's to his personal advantage and then attacks when it suits him. There is no clear policy there. And you know this

 

[Federberg]

Like the garbage Frum article, you posted the other day. Are we supposed to just nod in approval when most of the article is clear partisan bullshit?

There were some criticisms Frum made that were on point, and there were some that were unfair. Calling it partisan bullshit is stretching it to the extreme

 

[britbox]

Mate he kisses Xi's ass when it's to his personal advantage and then attacks when it suits him. There is no clear policy there. And you know this

Ha, no, that is the policy right there.

He'll kiss Xi's ass a little right now, because he needs the supply chain. You know he won't be kissing ass when it comes closer to the election, because the "Bad China" card will be at the centre of the campaign.

 

[Federberg]

Which Asian countries are you talking about? When Trump banned travel from China, which other countries should he have banned travel from?

Off the top of my head, South Korea and Hong Kong. Frankly at that time, there was a case for banning flights from Italy as the outbreak had spread there. Targeting China specifically either exhibited naivete or political expediency. Neither things of much use in a pandemic. And we now know that the intelligence services and even some of his top staffers were already warning of the dangers. But of course he knows better than everyone else

 

[Federberg]

Ha, no, that is the policy right there.

He'll kiss Xi's ass a little right now, because he needs the supply chain. You know he won't be kissing ass when it comes closer to the election, because the "Bad China" card will be at the centre of the campaign.

then you make my point for me. He is incompetent

 

[britbox]

Off the top of my head, South Korea and Hong Kong. Frankly at that time, there was a case for banning flights from Italy as the outbreak had spread there. Targeting China specifically either exhibited naivete or political expediency. Neither things of much use in a pandemic. And we now know that the intelligence services and even some of his top staffers were already warning of the dangers. But of course he knows better than everyone else

South Korea had 5 cases of Coronavirus with zero dead on 30 January. It went up to 11 on the 31st. Can you tell me with a straight face, that as US President, you'd have enforced a global travel ban on South Korea given those stats?

 

[Federberg]

South Korea had 5 cases of Coronavirus with zero dead on 30 January. It went up to 11 on the 31st. Can you tell me with a straight face, that as US President, you'd have enforced a global travel ban on South Korea given those stats?

I can tell you with a straight face that focussing on one country after the horse has already bolted is either an exercise in futility or political calculation. Any competent leader would have leveraged his experts to come up with a coherent plan. He didn't. He wasted a whole month doing nothing... .nothing. But I guess we should give him a pass for that too...

 

[britbox]

Off the top of my head, South Korea and Hong Kong. Frankly at that time, there was a case for banning flights from Italy as the outbreak had spread there. Targeting China specifically either exhibited naivete or political expediency. Neither things of much use in a pandemic. And we now know that the intelligence services and even some of his top staffers were already warning of the dangers. But of course he knows better than everyone else

On the 31 Jan, the first two cases of Coronavirus were discovered in Italy. You'd have banned international travel from Italy? All amazing thoughts in hindsight. HINDSIGHT being the operative word.

I'm lost here... help me out. There are 2 documented cases in Italy, 5 cases in South Korea on 31 Jan and yet Hong Kong researchers believe over 75,000 are infected with CVD in mainland China.

Even your friends at CNN reported it:

January 31, 2020 coronavirus news

More than 210 people are dead in China as the coronavirus spreads across the globe. Follow here for the latest.

edition.cnn.com

Pray tell, how you would you have reacted, given that data?

 

[britbox]

then you make my point for me. He is incompetent

It's probably a smart move. He'll likely get some level of supply and probably get re-elected.

 

[Federberg]

On the 31 Jan, the first two cases of Coronavirus were discovered in Italy. You'd have banned international travel from Italy? All amazing thoughts in hindsight. HINDSIGHT being the operative word.

I'm lost here... help me out. There are 2 documented cases in Italy, 5 cases in South Korea on 31 Jan and yet Hong Kong researchers believe over 75,000 are infected with CVD in mainland China.

Even your friends at CNN reported it:

January 31, 2020 coronavirus news

More than 210 people are dead in China as the coronavirus spreads across the globe. Follow here for the latest.

edition.cnn.com

Pray tell, how you would you have reacted, given that data?

My friends at CNN? Lol! These Cali type side remarks don't become you mate. You're made of sterner intellectual stuff than that...

Travel bans are ineffective and often counter-productive to be perfectly honest. There are studies that argue this point effectively. My point is very simple, so I'll state it clearly for you.... the ban was never going to work. It was ineffective and more of a PR stunt than a genuine attempt at mitigation. Nothing to do with hindsight at all. And by the way, after that ban, another 40,000 travellers still came in from China. That just reinforces the point that it was more of a PR stunt than an actual policy

 

[britbox]

My friends at CNN? Lol! These Cali type side remarks don't become you mate. You're made of sterner intellectual stuff than that...

Travel bans are ineffective and often counter-productive to be perfectly honest. There are studies that argue this point effectively. My point is very simple, so I'll state it clearly for you.... the ban was never going to work. It was ineffective and more of a PR stunt than a genuine attempt at mitigation. Nothing to do with hindsight at all. And by the way, after that ban, another 40,000 travellers still came in from China. That just reinforces the point that it was more of a PR stunt than an actual policy

You've just been posting about travel bans for South Korea, Italy and Hong Kong, which at the time of the Chinese travel ban had confirmed cases that you could count on one hand (at least if you were from Burnley)... yet, China, where the whole thing started and had far more cases, was opportunistic? You're not making any logical sense here.

 

[britbox]

I'll credit Trump for what he does. Banning travel from China... good.

Travel bans are ineffective and often counter-productive to be perfectly honest. There are studies that argue this point effectively. My point is very simple, so I'll state it clearly for you.... the ban was never going to work.

Which one of these views (both expressed in the last ten minutes) is the one you hold?

 

[Federberg]

You've just been posting about travel bans for South Korea, Italy and Hong Kong, which at the time of the Chinese travel ban had confirmed cases that you could count on one hand (at least if you were from Burnley)... yet, China, where the whole thing started and had far more cases, was opportunistic? You're not making any logical sense here.

or B... you're missing my point. Banning one country, even the source country when the outbreak has spread is futile. If you really want to go the banning route then logically the only way is to be absolute. I'm critiquing a policy not advocating it. I think you understand the nuance

 

[Federberg]

Which one of these views (both expressed in the last ten minutes) is the one you hold?

Lol! Look at the next sentence. The point I was trying to make is fairly clear, even if you're doing your best to deny it But if you insist I'll spell it out for you. Banning China is good, but not banning other countries with signs of infection at the same time is futile. The horse has already bolted

 

[britbox]

Lol! Look at the next sentence. The point I was trying to make is fairly clear, even if you're doing your best to deny it But if you insist I'll spell it out for you. Banning China is good, but not banning other countries with signs of infection at the same time is futile. The horse has already bolted

Fine, if that's your opinion. If you think banning travel from Italy (and by proxy) the entire European Union on the basis of 2 reported cases is the way to go, then own it. It might have been a good idea at the time with the benefit of hindsight. Without the benefit of hindsight, banning 300+ million entering your country based on 2 cases of a virus would have been gross stupidity.

 

[Federberg]

major internet issues here. So excuse the delayed responses....

Sigh... you seem to be wilfully trying to misunderstand me.

Banning STUPID!

But if you're going to do it.... do it EFFECTIVELY!

Jeepers! I try to find something.... anything to credit the orange buffoon, and this is what I get for my troubles