Living in the shadow of the corona virus

Where derailed topics go to ....live?
Locked
Damselbinder

Romney is a shining light of an example of a Republican. When being compared to Obama, he compares unfavourably. When compared to his colleagues in his party, he compares favourably. There is nothing hypocritical about that.

Of course Bolton's opinion matters. He was in a position of vantage with respect to knowing about Trump because he was in his inner circle.

As far as the American dream goes, it's a beautiful thing. I would point out all sorts of features of current Trumpian and more generally conservative policy that goes starkly AGAINST small-governmentism (like their attitude to abortion), but I imagine you'd just deny the reality of any example I used. So let me use a thought experiment, to demonstrate the problem with thinking governments need to be hands-off to preserve liberty and economic freedom and so on.


Imagine you're playing a game of Monopoly. Everyone starts out in the same place. The people who end up winning are probably the people who were better at the game. And, sure, they will have got lucky to some degree, but they had no greater chance of being lucky than anyone else. So when there are haves-and-have-nots at the end of the game, it's as fair as it could be.

Now imagine that a second group of people come in to play Monopoly using the same board. Except, now, the winners of the previous game get to decide where their properties and investments go. Perhaps one of the winners is charitable, and puts his property and wealth back into the general pot for anyone to be able to win again. Perhaps one of the winners sees that their child is a player in the next game, and gives them much of their property to give them an advantage. Perhaps they just keep their winnings to themselves, hoarding them, denying ANYONE the chance to get them.

I think it's fair to say that this second game is no longer a fair one. The hardest working, most skilled player no longer has a fair shot at winning. They COULD win if they're extremely intelligent and talented, and perhaps they do. But they were massively disadvantaged.

How can the second game be made as fair as the first? It's going to look like it needs some disinterested third party: some representative institution that can enforce fairness.

Something to think about.
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1770
Joined: 10 years ago

Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
Romney is a shining light of an example of a Republican. When being compared to Obama, he compares unfavourably. When compared to his colleagues in his party, he compares favourably. There is nothing hypocritical about that.

Of course Bolton's opinion matters. He was in a position of vantage with respect to knowing about Trump because he was in his inner circle.

As far as the American dream goes, it's a beautiful thing. I would point out all sorts of features of current Trumpian and more generally conservative policy that goes starkly AGAINST small-governmentism (like their attitude to abortion), but I imagine you'd just deny the reality of any example I used. So let me use a thought experiment, to demonstrate the problem with thinking governments need to be hands-off to preserve liberty and economic freedom and so on.


Imagine you're playing a game of Monopoly. Everyone starts out in the same place. The people who end up winning are probably the people who were better at the game. And, sure, they will have got lucky to some degree, but they had no greater chance of being lucky than anyone else. So when there are haves-and-have-nots at the end of the game, it's as fair as it could be.

Now imagine that a second group of people come in to play Monopoly using the same board. Except, now, the winners of the previous game get to decide where their properties and investments go. Perhaps one of the winners is charitable, and puts his property and wealth back into the general pot for anyone to be able to win again. Perhaps one of the winners sees that their child is a player in the next game, and gives them much of their property to give them an advantage. Perhaps they just keep their winnings to themselves, hoarding them, denying ANYONE the chance to get them.

I think it's fair to say that this second game is no longer a fair one. The hardest working, most skilled player no longer has a fair shot at winning. They COULD win if they're extremely intelligent and talented, and perhaps they do. But they were massively disadvantaged.

How can the second game be made as fair as the first? It's going to look like it needs some disinterested third party: some representative institution that can enforce fairness.

Something to think about.
Romney was a better choice than Obama. Smarter, more honest and knew the issues

Obama was the worst President in modern history.

He was wrong in almost every issue. From the Middle East, to energy independence to race relations. He had Sharpton to the White House
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago
Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
Romney is a shining light of an example of a Republican. When being compared to Obama, he compares unfavourably. When compared to his colleagues in his party, he compares favourably. There is nothing hypocritical about that.

Of course Bolton's opinion matters. He was in a position of vantage with respect to knowing about Trump because he was in his inner circle.

As far as the American dream goes, it's a beautiful thing. I would point out all sorts of features of current Trumpian and more generally conservative policy that goes starkly AGAINST small-governmentism (like their attitude to abortion), but I imagine you'd just deny the reality of any example I used. So let me use a thought experiment, to demonstrate the problem with thinking governments need to be hands-off to preserve liberty and economic freedom and so on.


Imagine you're playing a game of Monopoly. Everyone starts out in the same place. The people who end up winning are probably the people who were better at the game. And, sure, they will have got lucky to some degree, but they had no greater chance of being lucky than anyone else. So when there are haves-and-have-nots at the end of the game, it's as fair as it could be.

Now imagine that a second group of people come in to play Monopoly using the same board. Except, now, the winners of the previous game get to decide where their properties and investments go. Perhaps one of the winners is charitable, and puts his property and wealth back into the general pot for anyone to be able to win again. Perhaps one of the winners sees that their child is a player in the next game, and gives them much of their property to give them an advantage. Perhaps they just keep their winnings to themselves, hoarding them, denying ANYONE the chance to get them.

I think it's fair to say that this second game is no longer a fair one. The hardest working, most skilled player no longer has a fair shot at winning. They COULD win if they're extremely intelligent and talented, and perhaps they do. But they were massively disadvantaged.

How can the second game be made as fair as the first? It's going to look like it needs some disinterested third party: some representative institution that can enforce fairness.

Something to think about.
Romney was a better choice than Obama. Smarter, more honest and knew the issues

Obama was the worst President in modern history.

He was wrong in almost every issue. From the Middle East, to energy independence to race relations. He had Sharpton to the White House
I will always think of him fondly however for getting Bin Laden. In his campaign he promised that capturing Bin Laden was a top priority and he came through. Old Joe Biden incidentally was against the raid on the compound. What Obama did took guts. The U.S military invading a foreign country (Pakistan) and conducting a military operation to complete a somewhat risky mission to get the evil bastard largely responsible for 9/11. This mission very easily could have blew up in his face if it went wrong. Obama deserves credit for that decision to go in, it took balls.
Bert

bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
Romney was my governor here in MA and he sucked. I love how all of the libs used to dump on Romney when he ran against Obama, what a mean bastard he was, a terrible man who did not care about the little guy, only cares about rich people, what a rich elitest snob of a rich guy he was and now because he has a hard on for Trump he suddenly is this shining light of an example of a Republican. Talk about flip flopping! Bolton was practically the devil incarnate when he worked for Trump, a neocon and potential warmonger, but his opinion matters to you now that he has left the administration, funny how that works. Romney is just a useful idiot for the Trump haters like the rest. Cohen, Stone, and Bannon are scumbags but guys like Carter Page, Papadopolis, Flynn, and many of the names you mentioned were only targeted because of their association with Trump and Mueller's attempt to net the big fish that got away. Some of these guys such as Page and Papadopolis barely had any contact with Trump whatsoever. The American dream, that is what I believe America stands for, the ability of the individual to attempt to achieve those dreams with limited government interference, a belief that the power of the individual trumps (yeah, that's an intentional pun) the power of institutions, the belief that the individual knows better than big government how to run their lives. That my Canadian friend is what America stands for and is why I will be voting for Donald J. Trump in November.
My opinion of Romney, or Bolton, or other Republicans who are anti-Trump is completely irrelevant. My point has nothing to do with politics. At all. The point is that many people in Trump's own party, including high ranking officials who worked closely with him, will not support him for president. They see Trump as such a threat to the nation that they are willing to ignore political considerations entirely and work against him for the good of the country.

Moving on, you dismiss three guys as scumbags, as if it's nothing. Cohen was Trump's long time personal lawyer and fixer. He paid off a woman who had an affair with Trump to prevent her from coming forward with her story before the election. Stone was Trump's conduit to WikiLeaks, timing the release of files stolen by Russia for maximum benefit of Trump. Bannon was Trump's main strategic advisor for the first isx months of his presidency. Flynn had multiple meetings with Russians, failed to disclose them and lied to the FBI about them. He was the National Security Advisor, for god's sake. Obama even warned Trump about him.

Your rousing talk about the American Dream has become almost entirely theoretical. Republicans have worked tirelessly in favor of the wealthy and corporate America, who fund their campaigns. The tilted playing field that creates makes it next to impossible for some ordinary Josephine to pull herself up by her bootstraps and get ahead. The American Dream is on life support and Trump is pulling the plug. But that's politics. My main point is that Trump is so vile, so toxic, so against everything that America stands for that even dyed in the wool Republicans want him out.
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

Bert wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
Romney was my governor here in MA and he sucked. I love how all of the libs used to dump on Romney when he ran against Obama, what a mean bastard he was, a terrible man who did not care about the little guy, only cares about rich people, what a rich elitest snob of a rich guy he was and now because he has a hard on for Trump he suddenly is this shining light of an example of a Republican. Talk about flip flopping! Bolton was practically the devil incarnate when he worked for Trump, a neocon and potential warmonger, but his opinion matters to you now that he has left the administration, funny how that works. Romney is just a useful idiot for the Trump haters like the rest. Cohen, Stone, and Bannon are scumbags but guys like Carter Page, Papadopolis, Flynn, and many of the names you mentioned were only targeted because of their association with Trump and Mueller's attempt to net the big fish that got away. Some of these guys such as Page and Papadopolis barely had any contact with Trump whatsoever. The American dream, that is what I believe America stands for, the ability of the individual to attempt to achieve those dreams with limited government interference, a belief that the power of the individual trumps (yeah, that's an intentional pun) the power of institutions, the belief that the individual knows better than big government how to run their lives. That my Canadian friend is what America stands for and is why I will be voting for Donald J. Trump in November.
My opinion of Romney, or Bolton, or other Republicans who are anti-Trump is completely irrelevant. My point has nothing to do with politics. At all. The point is that many people in Trump's own party, including high ranking officials who worked closely with him, will not support him for president. They see Trump as such a threat to the nation that they are willing to ignore political considerations entirely and work against him for the good of the country.

Moving on, you dismiss three guys as scumbags, as if it's nothing. Cohen was Trump's long time personal lawyer and fixer. He paid off a woman who had an affair with Trump to prevent her from coming forward with her story before the election. Stone was Trump's conduit to WikiLeaks, timing the release of files stolen by Russia for maximum benefit of Trump. Bannon was Trump's main strategic advisor for the first isx months of his presidency. Flynn had multiple meetings with Russians, failed to disclose them and lied to the FBI about them. He was the National Security Advisor, for god's sake. Obama even warned Trump about him.

Your rousing talk about the American Dream has become almost entirely theoretical. Republicans have worked tirelessly in favor of the wealthy and corporate America, who fund their campaigns. The tilted playing field that creates makes it next to impossible for some ordinary Josephine to pull herself up by her bootstraps and get ahead. The American Dream is on life support and Trump is pulling the plug. But that's politics. My main point is that Trump is so vile, so toxic, so against everything that America stands for that even dyed in the wool Republicans want him out.
That's rich, a socialist calling the American dream "theoretical". Your opinion on Romney or Bolton may be irrelevant, using your words, but the media using these formerly vilified and evil Republicans as stooges in order to use them to taint Trump is laughable, as if the media is saying these were bad, bad people, but now that what they are saying fits our media narrative, let's listen to them now, they are not so bad. Cohen paying off women was not illegal, ask Bill Clinton, he didn't have one lawyer paying off the ladies, he had a whole team called the bimbo eruptions squad led by his wife Hillary. Flynn was a vocal critic at times of Obama's foreign policy, so it is no surprise he badmouthed Flynn. This is not Canada, it is not a crime to make money, it is not a crime against humanity to own a huge corporation or to make money. Does it ever occur to you that Republicans try to help these businesses to counteract the Dems who attempt to demonize the rich, confiscate their wealth that the Dems think is theirs to spend and waste on stuff such as the Kennedy Center in New York. If the American dream is theoretical, then who in Gods name are crossing the border in droves illegally in order to make a better life for themselves. Where are they going? Cuba? Venezuela? Canada? No. There coming to the good old USA! The American dream is more than theoretical for those who believe in it and as long as people keep coming in, that American dream lives on.
User avatar
Abductorenmadrid
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1376
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

LOL - The shadow is bigger and more encompassing than I had imagined when I created the thread, I was just worried about not having food on the shelves from all the panic buying!
My avatar courtesy of https://www.deviantart.com/sleepy-comics

My current story is Supergirl V Bane


This is all the stuff I've done here but don't tell anyone about this!
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

Apparently there are 30 different vaccine programs world wide that are at or almost at the trials stage, let's hope one of them bares fruit. I would still guess at at least a year for any kind of mass produced vaccine from any of them but let's hope it comes through quicker.
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
Damselbinder

bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago
Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
Romney is a shining light of an example of a Republican. When being compared to Obama, he compares unfavourably. When compared to his colleagues in his party, he compares favourably. There is nothing hypocritical about that.

Of course Bolton's opinion matters. He was in a position of vantage with respect to knowing about Trump because he was in his inner circle.

As far as the American dream goes, it's a beautiful thing. I would point out all sorts of features of current Trumpian and more generally conservative policy that goes starkly AGAINST small-governmentism (like their attitude to abortion), but I imagine you'd just deny the reality of any example I used. So let me use a thought experiment, to demonstrate the problem with thinking governments need to be hands-off to preserve liberty and economic freedom and so on.


Imagine you're playing a game of Monopoly. Everyone starts out in the same place. The people who end up winning are probably the people who were better at the game. And, sure, they will have got lucky to some degree, but they had no greater chance of being lucky than anyone else. So when there are haves-and-have-nots at the end of the game, it's as fair as it could be.

Now imagine that a second group of people come in to play Monopoly using the same board. Except, now, the winners of the previous game get to decide where their properties and investments go. Perhaps one of the winners is charitable, and puts his property and wealth back into the general pot for anyone to be able to win again. Perhaps one of the winners sees that their child is a player in the next game, and gives them much of their property to give them an advantage. Perhaps they just keep their winnings to themselves, hoarding them, denying ANYONE the chance to get them.

I think it's fair to say that this second game is no longer a fair one. The hardest working, most skilled player no longer has a fair shot at winning. They COULD win if they're extremely intelligent and talented, and perhaps they do. But they were massively disadvantaged.

How can the second game be made as fair as the first? It's going to look like it needs some disinterested third party: some representative institution that can enforce fairness.

Something to think about.
Romney was a better choice than Obama. Smarter, more honest and knew the issues

Obama was the worst President in modern history.

He was wrong in almost every issue. From the Middle East, to energy independence to race relations. He had Sharpton to the White House
I will always think of him fondly however for getting Bin Laden. In his campaign he promised that capturing Bin Laden was a top priority and he came through. Old Joe Biden incidentally was against the raid on the compound. What Obama did took guts. The U.S military invading a foreign country (Pakistan) and conducting a military operation to complete a somewhat risky mission to get the evil bastard largely responsible for 9/11. This mission very easily could have blew up in his face if it went wrong. Obama deserves credit for that decision to go in, it took balls.
If that is your analysis of mainstream Democrat policy then, forgive me, you are living in a fantasy world. Economically Clinton wasn't that far left of Reagan. In any other Western nation, the Democrats would fill a *right* wing political niche, given their policies. It's still controversial for them to call for a national health service!
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago

If that is your analysis of mainstream Democrat policy then, forgive me, you are living in a fantasy world. Economically Clinton wasn't that far left of Reagan. In any other Western nation, the Democrats would fill a *right* wing political niche, given their policies. It's still controversial for them to call for a national health service!
I have to agree. Reagan was an ex-democrat. And Clinton wasn't that extreme. He actually folded to the republican run congress at the time. His 8 years was actually pretty good except the last 2 with the dot com bust and the mistake there was forcing interest rates low to get us out of a bust that mostly only effected rich tech investors. His foreign policy was meh but he didn't really get us into any real major conflicts. He did kick the can down the block on Iraq but that's another argument.

As for repubs, today they are just JFK era democrats. That's why I don't get the hatred against them. They are merely the conservative democrats of the past. We have no real republican party. Trump was a democrat most of his life and Trump has done a lot of democrat-ee things. Like massive over spending which the left doesn't seem to call him out on.
Damselbinder

oh, I don't think that's true. He certainly gets a lot of flak for the state of the deficit - doesn't that effectively amount to a criticism of his spending?
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

I agree with you On Bill Clinton, he did some good things, particularly in the areas of welfare reform and balancing the budget. One wonders whether the Ross Perot third party dynamic which preached fiscal discipline as one of its principal tenets affected Clinton's lurches to the right at times. One thing I have always maintained is that we in America are a weird and singularly different lot, that the ideological dynamics here really do not exist in the same ways in many other parts of the world. We are very different and unique in that regard, absolutely.
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
I agree with you On Bill Clinton, he did some good things, particularly in the areas of welfare reform and balancing the budget. One wonders whether the Ross Perot third party dynamic which preached fiscal discipline as one of its principal tenets affected Clinton's lurches to the right at times. One thing I have always maintained is that we in America are a weird and singularly different lot, that the ideological dynamics here really do not exist in the same ways in many other parts of the world. We are very different and unique in that regard, absolutely.

That balanced budget thing is deceptive. The republicans raided the social security fund and replaced it with treasury notes then used it for balancing the budget. Now the SS is a bunch of IOUs that can be ignored if the fed wants to.
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

800, 000 dead globally.

Stay safe everybody
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
Bert

bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
That's rich, a socialist calling the American dream "theoretical". Your opinion on Romney or Bolton may be irrelevant, using your words, but the media using these formerly vilified and evil Republicans as stooges in order to use them to taint Trump is laughable, as if the media is saying these were bad, bad people, but now that what they are saying fits our media narrative, let's listen to them now, they are not so bad. Cohen paying off women was not illegal, ask Bill Clinton, he didn't have one lawyer paying off the ladies, he had a whole team called the bimbo eruptions squad led by his wife Hillary. Flynn was a vocal critic at times of Obama's foreign policy, so it is no surprise he badmouthed Flynn. This is not Canada, it is not a crime to make money, it is not a crime against humanity to own a huge corporation or to make money. Does it ever occur to you that Republicans try to help these businesses to counteract the Dems who attempt to demonize the rich, confiscate their wealth that the Dems think is theirs to spend and waste on stuff such as the Kennedy Center in New York. If the American dream is theoretical, then who in Gods name are crossing the border in droves illegally in order to make a better life for themselves. Where are they going? Cuba? Venezuela? Canada? No. There coming to the good old USA! The American dream is more than theoretical for those who believe in it and as long as people keep coming in, that American dream lives on.
You seem to feel that only in America can a person translate a good idea and hard work into success. You are wrong. The only thing special about the United States in that regard is that it's harder to do it there. Here's a little history of America. At the turn of the 20th century - the early 1900's - America was dominated by robber barons like the Rockefellers. The labor movement began as a reaction to the low pay, long hours and unsafe working conditions these huge monopolies forced their workers to endure. The government was quite uninvolved in business, allowing the few ultra-wealthy families to destroy or buy up competition to maintain and grow their monopolies. In these harsh days, what you perceive as the American Dream was virtually unattainable.

The laissez-faire government approach to finance allowed the banking industry to pursue ever riskier endeavors, eventually resulting in the 1929 crash that began the great depression. Again, no shot at the American Dream during those years. America emerged from the Depression by instituting the New Deal - a government enforced set of regulations designed to prevent massive monopolies and limit high risk banking practices. With the playing field finally leveled, American prosperity took off. Suddenly the American dream was in reach. Enterprise and hard work paid off. There wasn't a major bank failure for like 40 years. America became the dominant global economy and parents could look forward to their children have greater prosperity.

This golden age lasted until about 1980, when Reagan began dismantling New Deal regulations at the request of wealthy backers of Republicans. Over the following 25 years America undid most of the regulatory framework that maintained a level playing field. During that time, wealth disparity began to grow larger and larger. Wages stagnated as government actively worked against unions. Corporate profits surged, corporate taxes fell, monopolies began to form again and banking deregulation spawned increasingly speculative activity. In 2008 this culminated in the great recession. Major banks failed. Trillions evaporated overnight. Government stepped in again, new regulations were drafted to prevent further banking failures. This time the regulations started disappearing less than ten years later, along with environmental regs that had cleaned up the air, water and earth necessary for life. Wealth disparity remains out of control in America, with CEOs earning hundreds of times the salaries of workers. America stands alone in the industrialized world in having no universal health care.

The point of all this is to demonstrate that pure laissez-faire capitalism does not foster the American Dream, it squashes it. The little guy cannot overcome the advantages of monopolistic, vastly wealthy organizations in an unfettered business environment. Regulation is essential to provide banking stability and prevent monopolistic dominance. Universal health care prevents individuals and families from being wiped out financially because of illness. If the economic playing field is fair, individuals who are smarter/work harder can excel. Guess what - Canada has many, many wealthy people, as do other nations that you dismiss as "socialist". What these countries don't have is falling life expectancy, high levels of poverty and violence and obscene levels of wealth disparity. The so called American Dream is alive and well, just not in America.
User avatar
batgirl1969
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 2456
Joined: 14 years ago

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
Apparently there are 30 different vaccine programs world wide that are at or almost at the trials stage, let's hope one of them bares fruit. I would still guess at at least a year for any kind of mass produced vaccine from any of them but let's hope it comes through quicker.
TRUST me...we are working 24x7 on this....especially here in MD. if anyone is succesful I hope it is us first!!
User avatar
DrDominator9
Emissary
Emissary
Posts: 2455
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: On the Border of the Neutral Zone

Bushwackerbob, I have to agree with you about the left embracing such Republicans as Romney and Bolton, once they began saying anti-Trump things (Romney's started that in 2016 then went pretty quiet for three years until recently). It's a bit disingenuous for a left-leaning person to applaud someone who they'd been yelling about for so long. But "bad" people can do "good" things occasionally.

When you talk about the importance of the individual to achieve his or her dreams as being the promise of America, I couldn't agree more. However, you now have 175,000 individuals who will never be able to pursue those dreams thanks to the inept response of this Trump administration. Around late March I was saying that any number over 20,000 deaths would be laid at Trump's feet. In a country of this size and scope, I felt it would be unreasonable to expect us not to reach that sad number no matter how effective our response had been. So, by my estimation, 155,000 dead are "on Trump's watch."

I'm not sure how you can vote for a man who's lack of leadership has led to such a catastrophe for this country. We're talking the equivalent of a 9/11 attack every week for a year. If you honestly believe that whatever harm that the Biden/Harris ticket would impose on this country would be worse than that level of physical and psychological devastation, not to mention the harm to an economy that will take years to recover from, then cast your vote for Trump and hope that the country can hang on during four more years of corruption and mayhem that greets us every single morning upon awakening.
Follow this link to descriptions of my stories and easy links to them:

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=32025
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

1128 dead Stateside yesterday.
When winter hits you might well be at 10,000 dead a week.
Think on that number. You are hitting 6-7000 at the moment. Ten might seem Conservative in a few weeks time.
This is such a tragedy. Believe the science. Take precautions. Stay safe.
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
Bert

DrDominator9 wrote:
3 years ago
Bushwackerbob, I have to agree with you about the left embracing such Republicans as Romney and Bolton, once they began saying anti-Trump things (Romney's started that in 2016 then went pretty quiet for three years until recently). It's a bit disingenuous for a left-leaning person to applaud someone who they'd been yelling about for so long. But "bad" people can do "good" things occasionally.
I'm not sure if you are referring to me here, but my point has absolutely nothing to do with "embracing" these and other Republicans. As I keep saying again and again, fruitlessly it seems, this isn't political. IT'S NOT POLITICAL. Many legitimate, lifelong Republicans are against reelecting Donald Trump. They aren't opposed to him on political grounds. They are opposed to him because he poses a threat to America. 175,000 people have died, gasping and alone, and the president isn't doing a fucking thing about it. Still. What is he doing? Praising Q-Anon conspiracists, encouraging police presence at polling stations to intimidate likely Democrat voters. Lying about mail-in votes to deligitimize the November vote. Messing with the Postal Service to hamper mail-in voters - during a pandemic that he has made worse by deadly inaction. Trump is an existential threat to America. It has absolutely nothing to do with being a Republican. Trump is a danger because he is totally immoral, totally self-centered, and willing to do ANYTHING to hold on to power.
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

Bert wrote:
3 years ago
What is he doing?
Ok what is he supposed to do? And how many will die due to the shut down and massive economic damage. How many will be homeless, starving, commit suicide, die from other medical issues that weren't treated due to focus on covid or due to no money from income?

It seems if he said whatever you wanted him to say and did whatever you said you'd still think he is the problem. He borrowed a huge amount to fund the welfare relief. He's cutting payroll taxes so people can keep more money. He implemented the CAREs act so people can pull funds from 401ks.

As for the people dying, mostly elderly and sick who die every year from the flu. The 2017 and 2018 flu seasons were also very bad. I'm not dismissing the numbers but hyperbole like "gasping and alone" is not helping.

What does he do? A president can only do so much.
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
1128 dead Stateside yesterday.
When winter hits you might well be at 10,000 dead a week.
Think on that number. You are hitting 6-7000 at the moment. Ten might seem Conservative in a few weeks time.
This is such a tragedy. Believe the science. Take precautions. Stay safe.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKCN2582DV
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN22B2J8

And Great Britain isn't doing all that great either. Note the change in numbers due to the methodology change in analyzing the data. Is this also done in the US? Also what is a "covid death"? Someone who was already 85 years old on life support who died of heart failure? Is every elderly death a covid death? What methodology is used to measure this in the states?
Damselbinder

Yes. Great Britain isn't doing all that great. We, too, are furious with the ineptitude of our government's response. That doesn't make the American response better.

The methodology is simple: if someone died, and they were confirmed infected with Covid, that goes towards the statistics. So of course that's going to include people in whom their infection was incidental. But since EVERYONE is using that metric, that wouldn't make America look worse than anyone else.
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

Mr. X wrote:
3 years ago

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKCN2582DV
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN22B2J8

And Great Britain isn't doing all that great either. Note the change in numbers due to the methodology change in analyzing the data. Is this also done in the US? Also what is a "covid death"? Someone who was already 85 years old on life support who died of heart failure? Is every elderly death a covid death? What methodology is used to measure this in the states?
UK govts handling has been bloody awful we had 6 weeks notice from Chinese outbreak in January and 2 weeks notice from major outbreak in Italy. WE ARE AN ISLAND FFS it should have been easier for us to shut down and contain this mess than any of European neighbours but we had no PPE reserves no planned testing programme and no test centres (or very few) set up before it hit. We bought unsuitable PPE from Turkey classed a pair of gloves as TWO items of PPE to make things seem better with bigger numbers provided to the public. BoJo just spouted bullshit jingoistic crap about us wrestling the disease to the ground. His incompetent handling of this has cost thousands of lives and if he had died of it I would not have cared a jot. The guy lies professionally (he was sacked twice for lying and has been found legally guilty of deceiving the Queen,) and is completely self serving. In the old days a politician would have resigned in his position but these days you just have to lie and bluff it out a day or two and the world moves on. Remind you of anyone?
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
Damselbinder

So different from how it used to be. Remember the dog days of Alistair Campbell? That guy must have resigned in disgrace like

three times
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

Mandellson was the same.
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
Damselbinder

Man, I'm an idiot. It was Peter Mandelson I was thinking of, not Campbell.
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
WE ARE AN ISLAND FFS it should have been easier for us to shut down and contain this mess than any of European neighbours but we had no PPE reserves no planned testing programme and no test centres (or very few) set up before it hit.
Friendly jab but I do remember Trump wanting strict border policies because people bring disease in from other countries as one of his reasons. He was called racist. Yet Denmark for example pretty much shut the doors. Same with a lot of countries. In fact Mexico is strict and doesn't want Americans coming down. Are they racist?

So really the culprit here is China and WHO. WHO was supposed to watch for this stuff. Why are we paying them? They made inspections of the viral research facility.



As far as "believe the science".

The Imperial college also predicted 200 mill deaths from Bird flu. Do you see why someone like a president my be cautious about shutting down an entire economy and causing massive amounts of economic damage when the very same group has a rather shotty track record on predictions?

That doesn't mean it isn't bad but... this is the same "the science is settled" that said we only have 10 years left on climate change... over 30 years ago.
Damselbinder

That's a pretty bizarre comparison. "I can't believe people criticised Trump for wanting to close borders when there wasn't a pandemic, but when there WAS a pandemic people who closed their borders didn't get criticised!"

It was pretty clear pretty early on that C-19 was spreading a lot faster and more dangerously than bird flu. And I'm pretty sure "the Imperial College" didn't predict there were definitely going to be 200 million deaths. It was, like, "worst case scenario." Once it was clear that C-19 was a global pandemic there was no longer any reasonable doubt. Countries which have followed mainstream scientific advice as closely as possible - like New Zealand (in which 9 new cases was described by Trump as 'a surge', the fatuous hypocrite) - have done better than those which haven't.

The WHO thing I can't comment on. You say they didn't do their due diligence, maybe you're right, I don't know enough to contradict you. Yes, the Chinese government have a lot of responsibility for the situation. But when the virus reached US shores - whoever's fault that was - the handling once it got there was in the hands of the U.S. government. As the executive, Trump had most power to act fastest, and his response was awful.

As for climate change, here's a little example for you which I bring up whenever someone stamps the "the science isn't settled" foot (it is settled, even if the predictions about the level of crisis vary, but let's say they aren't).

Let's imagine that one day, the world's leading astronomer says that there's a big meteor heading for Earth. Some other astronomers check their findings. Some more check their findings. Military satellites and stuff are used to cross-check their results. After three months, about 75% of scientists with relevant expertise say the meteor is heading for Earth, and that our best chance for stopping it is to build a massively expensive super-nuke to knock it off course. Now, that 25% have some evidence for their view, but time is running out. Yes, if the 75% are wrong, a huge, huge amount of money will have been wasted. There may be severe economic repercussions. But it will prevent catastrophe. If the 25% are wrong, and nothing is done, billions will die.

I'm not a meteorologist. I'm not a climatologist. But I know that the majority of meteorologists and climatologists who accept the existence of serious, human-caused climate change, and that those changes if unchecked will lead to disaster, is a lot bigger than 75%. Of course it's possible they're wrong. Maybe the science isn't settled. But the consequences will be of sufficient severity that SURELY it is worth the risk to follow that advice.

And just in case you don't believe me, here's info from NASA itself:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

Bert wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
That's rich, a socialist calling the American dream "theoretical". Your opinion on Romney or Bolton may be irrelevant, using your words, but the media using these formerly vilified and evil Republicans as stooges in order to use them to taint Trump is laughable, as if the media is saying these were bad, bad people, but now that what they are saying fits our media narrative, let's listen to them now, they are not so bad. Cohen paying off women was not illegal, ask Bill Clinton, he didn't have one lawyer paying off the ladies, he had a whole team called the bimbo eruptions squad led by his wife Hillary. Flynn was a vocal critic at times of Obama's foreign policy, so it is no surprise he badmouthed Flynn. This is not Canada, it is not a crime to make money, it is not a crime against humanity to own a huge corporation or to make money. Does it ever occur to you that Republicans try to help these businesses to counteract the Dems who attempt to demonize the rich, confiscate their wealth that the Dems think is theirs to spend and waste on stuff such as the Kennedy Center in New York. If the American dream is theoretical, then who in Gods name are crossing the border in droves illegally in order to make a better life for themselves. Where are they going? Cuba? Venezuela? Canada? No. There coming to the good old USA! The American dream is more than theoretical for those who believe in it and as long as people keep coming in, that American dream lives on.
You seem to feel that only in America can a person translate a good idea and hard work into success. You are wrong. The only thing special about the United States in that regard is that it's harder to do it there. Here's a little history of America. At the turn of the 20th century - the early 1900's - America was dominated by robber barons like the Rockefellers. The labor movement began as a reaction to the low pay, long hours and unsafe working conditions these huge monopolies forced their workers to endure. The government was quite uninvolved in business, allowing the few ultra-wealthy families to destroy or buy up competition to maintain and grow their monopolies. In these harsh days, what you perceive as the American Dream was virtually unattainable.

The laissez-faire government approach to finance allowed the banking industry to pursue ever riskier endeavors, eventually resulting in the 1929 crash that began the great depression. Again, no shot at the American Dream during those years. America emerged from the Depression by instituting the New Deal - a government enforced set of regulations designed to prevent massive monopolies and limit high risk banking practices. With the playing field finally leveled, American prosperity took off. Suddenly the American dream was in reach. Enterprise and hard work paid off. There wasn't a major bank failure for like 40 years. America became the dominant global economy and parents could look forward to their children have greater prosperity.

This golden age lasted until about 1980, when Reagan began dismantling New Deal regulations at the request of wealthy backers of Republicans. Over the following 25 years America undid most of the regulatory framework that maintained a level playing field. During that time, wealth disparity began to grow larger and larger. Wages stagnated as government actively worked against unions. Corporate profits surged, corporate taxes fell, monopolies began to form again and banking deregulation spawned increasingly speculative activity. In 2008 this culminated in the great recession. Major banks failed. Trillions evaporated overnight. Government stepped in again, new regulations were drafted to prevent further banking failures. This time the regulations started disappearing less than ten years later, along with environmental regs that had cleaned up the air, water and earth necessary for life. Wealth disparity remains out of control in America, with CEOs earning hundreds of times the salaries of workers. America stands alone in the industrialized world in having no universal health care.

The point of all this is to demonstrate that pure laissez-faire capitalism does not foster the American Dream, it squashes it. The little guy cannot overcome the advantages of monopolistic, vastly wealthy organizations in an unfettered business environment. Regulation is essential to provide banking stability and prevent monopolistic dominance. Universal health care prevents individuals and families from being wiped out financially because of illness. If the economic playing field is fair, individuals who are smarter/work harder can excel. Guess what - Canada has many, many wealthy people, as do other nations that you dismiss as "socialist". What these countries don't have is falling life expectancy, high levels of poverty and violence and obscene levels of wealth disparity. The so called American Dream is alive and well, just not in America.
I am sure you are very happy in Canada. That is fine and dandy. You do you and I'll do me, I don't want to be you. Reagan was a very popular President. If it is harder to to it in the USA then why do people come from all over the world to try their luck at trying to achieve the American dream. I have never heard of the Canadian dream, have you, eh? I will put my country's immigration numbers against yours any day of the week pal. Typically in this country after 8 years of one party in power, the country is tired of that party's rule and goes for the other party's candidate in the following election, but in the case of Reagan, the American people apparently thought the country was on the right course and decided on another 4 years with the election of Bush 41, so apparently my Canadian friend, my fellow Americans rejected your socialist, heavily regulated, doom is gloom, class warfare, anti-capitalist propaganda. The election of Bush 41 was the American people's endorsement of Reagan's policies.
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

I can understand Presidents and Prime Ministers questioning estimates but that should be supercded by ACTUAL FACTS when you have Italy shipping 300+ deaths a day on a very small part of the North of the country.

I never saw 200 million bird flu deaths predicted but maybe they were averted by quick responsible action.

There is no way you can lay this on the WHO - they warned in January of how bad this might become and the republicans just used their statements out of context or only the first part of statements to try and colour the presidents down playing as valid. The issue of Trump being branded a racist I didn't see, I saw his measures being branded as foolish as clearly the East Coast out break was already widespread when he brought them in and his measures caused thousands of people from all parts of America crowded together when they got off planes from all parts of the world in one huge room which was a guaranteed way of spreading the disease to all parts of America which is precisely what's happened.
Screenshot_20200822-223310.png
Screenshot_20200822-223310.png (1.24 MiB) Viewed 3457 times
His constantly saying that there was nothing to worry about, don't need to wear masks, it will all go away was unforgiveable as at that time Italy had lost 30,000 people.

In the UK we were happy to show International death rates when Spain and Italy were higher than us the minute we overtook them apparently you couldn't make international comparisons as you weren't comparing like with like
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
Bert

bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
I have never heard of the Canadian dream, have you, eh? I will put my country's immigration numbers against yours any day of the week pal.

The U.S. takes in a little over one million immigrants most years. Canada averages a little over 300,000. But the U.S. has almost 10 times the population of Canada. On a per capita basis, Canada gets over three times the immigration the U.S. does.

Hmm, the Canadian Dream. I think a lot of your countrymen and women are having that dream right now. Far more if Trump doesn't leave the White House on January 20th.
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

We been there before. Full article below
Screenshot_20200823-001648.png
Screenshot_20200823-001648.png (719.2 KiB) Viewed 3430 times
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... lead-grows


Perhaps Americans have never heard of the Canadian dream because North of the border its known as 'reality'? 🤣
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

Bert wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
I have never heard of the Canadian dream, have you, eh? I will put my country's immigration numbers against yours any day of the week pal.

The U.S. takes in a little over one million immigrants most years. Canada averages a little over 300,000. But the U.S. has almost 10 times the population of Canada. On a per capita basis, Canada gets over three times the immigration the U.S. does.

Hmm, the Canadian Dream. I think a lot of your countrymen and women are having that dream right now. Far more if Trump doesn't leave the White House on January 20th.
And let's remember that Canada's mortality rate for coronavirus is 240 per million, compared to 544 in the US and 610 in the UK.

On a positive note, US school shootings have been way down recently. There must be a lot of itchy trigger fingers right now.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
helstar
Elder Member
Elder Member
Posts: 378
Joined: 15 years ago

I need to underline that here in Italy the situation is largely under control (well, if we compare now to the scary months before summer where we used to have 1k deaths every day).

Eventhough the infections are clearly going up again since a couple weeks, hospitalized and deaths are minimal (average of 5 a day).
Not sure if it's due to the summer heat so the viral load of the infected people is very very low resulting in a lot of asymptomatic, or the virus strain that is circulating now has mutated into something "lighter" and it's not giving the same serious side effects as before (full scale pneumonia, blood clots, etc.).

I guess we will see in the next months, in autumn/winter... the bad news is that we could catch cold, flu and covid19 in the same time, and it's not ideal to have multiple infections at once (my dad died of sepsis 4 years ago so I know very well, unfortunately)
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
Let's imagine that one day, the world's leading astronomer says that there's a big meteor heading for Earth. Some other astronomers check their findings. Some more check their findings. Military satellites and stuff are used to cross-check their results. After three months, about 75% of scientists with relevant expertise say the meteor is heading for Earth, and that our best chance for stopping it is to build a massively expensive super-nuke to knock it off course. Now, that 25% have some evidence for their view, but time is running out. Yes, if the 75% are wrong, a huge, huge amount of money will have been wasted. There may be severe economic repercussions. But it will prevent catastrophe. If the 25% are wrong, and nothing is done, billions will die.
I'm not going to change the issue to climate change how ever you're using a false dichotomy. This is the classic quad fallacy.

Do nothing---------| Do Something
nothing happens---| Nothing Happens
----------------------------------------------
Do nothing---------| Do something
Horror happens----| Less Horror happens.

So always do something.

Fill that quad in with breast cancer and having breasts removed and see what happens.
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

950 dead yesterday but at least the infections are consistently below 50, 000 per day so...er only 300,000 infected per week (well better than 350k plus)
Saw a clip where Trump rated his response to the virus as 10/10.
176000 dead = 10/10.
Jesus.
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
Damselbinder

Mr. X wrote:
3 years ago
Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
Let's imagine that one day, the world's leading astronomer says that there's a big meteor heading for Earth. Some other astronomers check their findings. Some more check their findings. Military satellites and stuff are used to cross-check their results. After three months, about 75% of scientists with relevant expertise say the meteor is heading for Earth, and that our best chance for stopping it is to build a massively expensive super-nuke to knock it off course. Now, that 25% have some evidence for their view, but time is running out. Yes, if the 75% are wrong, a huge, huge amount of money will have been wasted. There may be severe economic repercussions. But it will prevent catastrophe. If the 25% are wrong, and nothing is done, billions will die.
I'm not going to change the issue to climate change how ever you're using a false dichotomy. This is the classic quad fallacy.

Do nothing---------| Do Something
nothing happens---| Nothing Happens
----------------------------------------------
Do nothing---------| Do something
Horror happens----| Less Horror happens.

So always do something.

Fill that quad in with breast cancer and having breasts removed and see what happens.
That's a fallacy fallacy, because in your case you don't have legions of experts saying "your only chance of survival is a double mastectomy." THAT is what means that you should do something.
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

Bert wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
I have never heard of the Canadian dream, have you, eh? I will put my country's immigration numbers against yours any day of the week pal.

The U.S. takes in a little over one million immigrants most years. Canada averages a little over 300,000. But the U.S. has almost 10 times the population of Canada. On a per capita basis, Canada gets over three times the immigration the U.S. does.

Hmm, the Canadian Dream. I think a lot of your countrymen and women are having that dream right now. Far more if Trump doesn't leave the White House on January 20th.
Trump's approval rating has increased the same week as the DNC, go figure. I did not see that coming. Your math is a little fuzzy Bert my man. To each and every immigrant whom decide to enter the U.S or Canada legally, the population of the country at large is an irrelevant number, the per capita number is irrelevant, that only the total number of people whom decide between option A, the U.S or option B, our good neighbors to the north, Canada. Remember Bert, the key question we were talking about was what country would immigrants rather go to in order to achieve their dreams, and by your own numbers the U.S has Canada beat 1 million to a little over 300,000. The key question we were debating was essentially that if there were 1000 people who had the choice to emigrate to either the U.S or Canada, how many people would choose America and how many people would choose Canada. I think we have our answer. Thanks for making my point pal, nice try on trying to change the argument, no dice. Have a nice day.
Bert

bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
Trump's approval rating has increased the same week as the DNC, go figure. I did not see that coming. Your math is a little fuzzy Bert my man. To each and every immigrant whom decide to enter the U.S or Canada legally, the population of the country at large is an irrelevant number, the per capita number is irrelevant, that only the total number of people whom decide between option A, the U.S or option B, our good neighbors to the north, Canada. Remember Bert, the key question we were talking about was what country would immigrants rather go to in order to achieve their dreams, and by your own numbers the U.S has Canada beat 1 million to a little over 300,000. Thanks for making my point pal, nice try on trying to change the argument, no dice. Have a nice day.
I can't speak for the U.S., but in Canada immigration levels are controlled by the government. Many, many people are turned away. Population level has a huge impact on the number of immigrants a country can absorb. Vacancy rates in many Canadian cities are vanishingly small. There is a limit based on infrastructure, available jobs etc. as to how many immigrants can be accommodated. Canada accepts as many per year as we can, but huge numbers don't make it in.

U.S. News and World Report says Canada is number one in immigrants rankings. The U.S. ranked sixth, behind Switzerland, Sweden, Australia and Germany.

As for changing the topic, you my friend are the one who has consistently done so. My entire point in this discussion from the start has been that politics has no bearing on defeating Donald Trump. Members of his own party, some conservative media people and many former White House employees do not support him. You have kept returning it to politics, until you struck on this immigration tactic. Well guess what, an American publication reports that immigrants rank Canada significantly higher than the U.S. Number one in fact, as of 2017.
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

Bert wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
Trump's approval rating has increased the same week as the DNC, go figure. I did not see that coming. Your math is a little fuzzy Bert my man. To each and every immigrant whom decide to enter the U.S or Canada legally, the population of the country at large is an irrelevant number, the per capita number is irrelevant, that only the total number of people whom decide between option A, the U.S or option B, our good neighbors to the north, Canada. Remember Bert, the key question we were talking about was what country would immigrants rather go to in order to achieve their dreams, and by your own numbers the U.S has Canada beat 1 million to a little over 300,000. Thanks for making my point pal, nice try on trying to change the argument, no dice. Have a nice day.
I can't speak for the U.S., but in Canada immigration levels are controlled by the government. Many, many people are turned away. Population level has a huge impact on the number of immigrants a country can absorb. Vacancy rates in many Canadian cities are vanishingly small. There is a limit based on infrastructure, available jobs etc. as to how many immigrants can be accommodated. Canada accepts as many per year as we can, but huge numbers don't make it in.

U.S. News and World Report says Canada is number one in immigrants rankings. The U.S. ranked sixth, behind Switzerland, Sweden, Australia and Germany.

As for changing the topic, you my friend are the one who has consistently done so. My entire point in this discussion from the start has been that politics has no bearing on defeating Donald Trump. Members of his own party, some conservative media people and many former White House employees do not support him. You have kept returning it to politics, until you struck on this immigration tactic. Well guess what, an American publication reports that immigrants rank Canada significantly higher than the U.S. Number one in fact, as of 2017.
The immigration numbers are controlled by the government here as well, and we have countless numbers of people that have their heart broken because they are unable to come here. Maybe Canada was their second choice? You conveniently ignore my 1000 people thing because you know that Canada would end up on the losing end of that score. Your entire point was that the American dream has been diminished and I came back at you with the fact that more immigrants dream of making their lives in the U.S than a socialist enclave like Canada. It is diminished in your eyes because the U.S is not a socialist Bernie Sanders paradise that you would like it to be, and I thank the heavens on that score. I wonder if you ever believed in the American dream thing, or maybe you only believed in it when the man in the oval office happened to be a Democrat. I think a lot of the people who do not like him, do so for personal reasons, not political. Romney apparently liked him well enough at one time to go groveling up to Trump Tower hat in hand for a big campaign donation.
Bert

Socialist enclave? Have you ever been to Canada?
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

Bert wrote:
3 years ago
Socialist enclave? Have you ever been to Canada?
They won't let me in! They have already met their quota of 300,000 and there sadly is no room for bushwackerbob LOL!
Bert

Grin!!
User avatar
Femina
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1473
Joined: 14 years ago
Contact:

Mr. X wrote:
3 years ago
And Great Britain isn't doing all that great either. Note the change in numbers due to the methodology change in analyzing the data. Is this also done in the US? Also what is a "covid death"? Someone who was already 85 years old on life support who died of heart failure? Is every elderly death a covid death? What methodology is used to measure this in the states?
Your first sentence there is a SHIT method of argument and would have done better not being in your statement here AT ALL. Just because A is happening in more than one place doesn't mean B wouldn't be a better solution. I legitimately HATE this mode of argument. It's not a solution, its hardly even an observation. "Well the aliens are attacking Japan too... so I guess it's okay that they are blowing up our stuff?" It's defeatist nonsense. It has no substance or value.

But hey, we don't always speak with perfect substance, and thankfully there is some here.

As for the remainder of your comment, there's a lot of truth to be gleaned in examining this. I'd even agree that there is a legitimate risk of this all dragging on so long as for these things to become SERIOUS to the point of defeating the cost of just doing nothing... the problem is mathematically we can directly tally how many people are currently dying as a DIRECT cause of Covid... and its staggering. There's also the truth that every step we've taken to keep the risk of all the things you describe here by America's government have vastly favored the already exorbitantly rich as opposed to the average American who are the most at risk... both of illness AND the societal/economic consequences.

At the same time It's sort of the way anti-vaxers argue that you shouldn't vaccinate because there's a risk that it may cause Autism (unsubstantiated but lets take it as a factual risk for arguments sake)... they make this choice to avoid autism without calculating the cost of then allowing say... Tuberculosis (and every other thing we vaccinate for) to re-enter circulation as known killers. Was it better for that INDIVIDUAL to die of Tuberculosis than to have lived life on the autistic spectrum? Was it better for that kid to SPREAD these illnesses to others rather than to live live on the spectrum? Right now the worry about our economic stability are nebulously defined and uncertain... meanwhile Tuberculosis is killing thousands of people a day while we divert our focus all over the place.
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

Femina wrote:
3 years ago
Your first sentence there is a SHIT method of argument and would have done better not being in your statement here AT ALL.
I was refuting Tallyho's constant criticism of the US and constantly pointing out ONLY US numbers. His country isn't doing all that much better. I did not argue the US was right only that maybe he should take a look in his own backyard.
Damselbinder

Mr. X wrote:
3 years ago
Femina wrote:
3 years ago
Your first sentence there is a SHIT method of argument and would have done better not being in your statement here AT ALL.
I was refuting Tallyho's constant criticism of the US and constantly pointing out ONLY US numbers. His country isn't doing all that much better. I did not argue the US was right only that maybe he should take a look in his own backyard.
He's pointing out US numbers because only the American response to the pandemic has been defended. I don't want to speak for him, but multiple times in this thread Tallyho has been perfectly willing to admit the UK's response has also been terrible. Only difference is no-one on this thread is defending the UK response. We all agree it was shit. It's being shit doesn't make the US' response less shit.
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
He's pointing out US numbers because only the American response to the pandemic has been defended.
How? And the US has responded in the same ways as Britain. We put a multi-trillion dollar hole in the US economy. We destroyed businesses. People wear masks and social distance. And groups all over the world are protesting the lock downs not just some hillbillies in arkansas.
Damselbinder

How? I mean in this thread. And... yeah, okay... maybe they did? I still think you're under the weird impression that I'm saying Britain's response has been better than America's. I'm not.
User avatar
Femina
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1473
Joined: 14 years ago
Contact:

Mr. X wrote:
3 years ago
We destroyed businesses.
Did our choice to take action do this though? Or did the government favoring money handouts to their highest stockholders do that? :P Stimulus checks only stimulize when utilized to stir around in the economy... not when their sent to an offshore Corporate savings account.

We're also ignoring a bit that the reason we're STILL impacting our economy over this is cause our initial response sucked donkey balls, then our attempt to make a plan of action to combat it was HEAVILY IGNORED and many quit prematurely. MANY people AREN'T wearing masks or social distancing. I see it CONSTANTLY. I see people ranting about being kicked out of the grocery store for their 'choice' to endanger other people's lives on the weekly.... and I'm in podunk country where social distancing is EASIER.

Without a time machine it's also difficult to analyze what the economic and social impact of digging mass graves for an enormous influx of immediate dead flesh would have been.

Nothing ends your fledgling business quite like being dead.
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

Mr. X wrote:
3 years ago
Femina wrote:
3 years ago
Your first sentence there is a SHIT method of argument and would have done better not being in your statement here AT ALL.
I was refuting Tallyho's constant criticism of the US and constantly pointing out ONLY US numbers. His country isn't doing all that much better. I did not argue the US was right only that maybe he should take a look in his own backyard.
Dear God man I am pointing out the numbers and how it's going stateside because IT'S A HUMAN ISSUE, this isnt point scoring .

I could tell you 9 died in Wales last week or 324 in the UK and that doesn't really cause anything other than a shrug. I am quoting stateside figures because until it's under control your side, the world has no chance of normality but above all I am trying to empathise with the scale of thousands dying every week.

The UK response has been bloody awful but for christ sake it's not a competition I DESPERATELY WANT YOUR DEATH TOLL TO DROP why do you think I am a little more hopeful in my posts when you are under a thousand dead a day?

I dont need people dying and friends and relatives over there put at risk to prove to me how crap your man is, I know he's crap, I just wish he didn't keep proving it on a daily basis.
Our piece of self serving excrement in charge is only slightly less crap than your one if you want yo say they are just as bad I wont disagree.

But I find your situation appalling because of all the nations in the world you were in the best position to stop this happening to your own people. You had the pandemic response unit set up, you had the pandemic playbook and your 'government ' (and I use the term loosely ) turned it's back on all the preparations to cope with this and threw them away because Obama's name was on the initiative.

I post the numbers in pity for the loss and disgust that he doesn't give a damn and in incredulity that some think it's all to thwart him being re elected, some sort of global scare story ffs. I long for the day I can say deaths in double or better single figures or no deaths at all and I wish that day was tomorrow .

I post the daily numbers because it's a daily tragedy that affects everyone until it's under control
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
Mr. X wrote:
3 years ago
Femina wrote:
3 years ago
Your first sentence there is a SHIT method of argument and would have done better not being in your statement here AT ALL.
I was refuting Tallyho's constant criticism of the US and constantly pointing out ONLY US numbers. His country isn't doing all that much better. I did not argue the US was right only that maybe he should take a look in his own backyard.
Dear God man I am pointing out the numbers and how it's going stateside because IT'S A HUMAN ISSUE, this isn't point scoring .
Why only the US? Not sure why you keep doing this. BTW world wide numbers are 800k.

But I'm not going to debate this anymore. If you want to keep focusing on US numbers then so be it.
Locked