Reasonable Faith Forums

General Discussion => Political Threads => Topic started by: ArtD on October 04, 2020, 01:31:00 pm

Title: Hypotheical question
Post by: ArtD on October 04, 2020, 01:31:00 pm
SUPPOSE the leader of some country in a pandemic, downplayed the danger, lied, and discouraged people from wearing masks.
SUPPOSE as a result about 200,000 people died instead of perhaps the 100,000 that would have died anyway.

Would it be unchristian to wish on that leader the same suffering and death that he brought to so many of the country's citizens?
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Spero on October 04, 2020, 01:34:45 pm
I guess TDS is still alive and kicking.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: ArtD on October 04, 2020, 01:59:59 pm
I expect he's been deranged his entire life.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 04, 2020, 04:29:53 pm
SUPPOSE the leader of some country in a pandemic, downplayed the danger, lied, and discouraged people from wearing masks.
SUPPOSE as a result about 200,000 people died instead of perhaps the 100,000 that would have died anyway.

Would it be unchristian to wish on that leader the same suffering and death that he brought to so many of the country's citizens?

Sure, but the reason for 200K dead is:

1) China suppressed information about the disease letting people travel internationally while rrstricting travel to other provinces.
2) The previous administrations did not procure enough PPE and as a result the CDC did not recomnend, in the early days, mask wear to allow first responders to procure masks and other PPE.
3) Governor Cuomo would not allow Trump to enforse an interstate quarantine as other countries (like Italy and South Korea implemented early on).

If any of these were otherwise maybe less than 10K people die. None of them are Trump's fault but 2 of 3 are Democrat fault.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: ArtD on October 04, 2020, 06:03:14 pm
Harvey,
Speaking roughly, 100,000 would probably have died anyway. The remaining 100,000 watched Trump not wear a mask, went to one of his rallies, or were infected by someone who did.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 05, 2020, 05:26:58 pm
Harvey,
Speaking roughly, 100,000 would probably have died anyway. The remaining 100,000 watched Trump not wear a mask, went to one of his rallies, or were infected by someone who did.

But the rallies were outside. I believe most of the illness is spead in closed spaces.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 06, 2020, 01:58:20 am
Sure, but the reason for 200K dead is:

1) China suppressed information about the disease letting people travel internationally while rrstricting travel to other provinces.
2) The previous administrations did not procure enough PPE and as a result the CDC did not recomnend, in the early days, mask wear to allow first responders to procure masks and other PPE.
3) Governor Cuomo would not allow Trump to enforse an interstate quarantine as other countries (like Italy and South Korea implemented early on).

If any of these were otherwise maybe less than 10K people die. None of them are Trump's fault but 2 of 3 are Democrat fault.
With regards to points 1 & 2, those factors were pretty much the same elsewhere in the world. I explained in my other response that the public wearing medical masks were initially discouraged by CDC and by WHO (internationally) for reasons that you alluded to and that were later changed (that was when most sane people started wearing cloth masks).

You need to make a case to defend the USA very poor Covid-19 response compared to other countries, so the above two factors do not count as they were similar elsewhere.

Conservative people have opposed the wearing of masks, Trump himself has shown it throughout (this trend was/is widely reported in the media).

As for interstate travel, that is also a rather skew view that I addressed in my other response as well. The president, the federal government and the CDC have the authority to do what would have been necessary to manage the spread of the pandemic. Go and look it up. It has been widely reported on. Fauci even publicly stated that he would support the president closing down interstate travel. There are furthermore examples where both Clinton and Obama interfered in state matters when there were health issues that warranted such actions. The difference of course was that the states cooperated with them as there was mutual trust and buy-in. In this case the Democrats were at first very reluctant for Trump to interfere as they did not trust a situation where he could override them and potentially abuse such sweeping authority. In other words Trump did have the authority to intervene, but he did not have the influence as he was not trusted by some governors (I even linked an interesting comparison between what Trump said and did and what Cuomo said and did). However, as would become evident if you research this a bit further, he would have had the support a couple of weeks later into the pandemic, with Fauci's backing, to do exactly that. Instead he chose to ignore that as, at that time, he was already starting to talk about opening up the economy and about the pandemic that would simply disappear on its own by the end of April. Do you see the difference here, the difference in approach (and perhaps why he was never trusted in the first place), the difference that it might have made in the final (and ongoing) count?

Conservative people frankly did not want to take the pandemic seriously. In America it was mostly poor non-white people (with associated socio-economic comorbidity) who suffered the consequences of the pandemic. Not an important enough consideration compared to the health (wealth) of Trump's economy that he banked on for his re-election.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 06, 2020, 10:04:32 am
You need to make a case to defend the USA very poor Covid-19 response compared to other countries, so the above two factors do not count as they were similar elsewhere.

Well, Asia instinctively wears masks no matter what. It isn't like North America wear only bank robbers wear masks. I don't know about Europe, but I imagine it is either the same as the US or slightly better in terms of people owning masks and using them regardless what WHO says.

But, the quarantining of districts with high infection rates is what distinguishes the US from Europe and Asia. South Korea was an early infection zone and they immediately quarantined the hot areas and was able to control the virus. Italy also became a high infection zone and they too began early quarantining the hot zone area. In the US people left NYC and spread the disease. It was utterly ridiculous but that's what happened.

Quote from: Mammal
Conservative people have opposed the wearing of masks, Trump himself has shown it throughout (this trend was/is widely reported in the media).

True, but we're talking about the 210K who died. I believe most of those deaths happened because of the early spread of the disease that didn't as much occur in most other countries.

Quote from: Mammal
As for interstate travel, that is also a rather skew view that I addressed in my other response as well. The president, the federal government and the CDC have the authority to do what would have been necessary to manage the spread of the pandemic. Go and look it up. It has been widely reported on. Fauci even publicly stated that he would support the president closing down interstate travel. There are furthermore examples where both Clinton and Obama interfered in state matters when there were health issues that warranted such actions. The difference of course was that the states cooperated with them as there was mutual trust and buy-in. In this case the Democrats were at first very reluctant for Trump to interfere as they did not trust a situation where he could override them and potentially abuse such sweeping authority. In other words Trump did have the authority to intervene, but he did not have the influence as he was not trusted by some governors (I even linked an interesting comparison between what Trump said and did and what Cuomo said and did). However, as would become evident if you research this a bit further, he would have had the support a couple of weeks later into the pandemic, with Fauci's backing, to do exactly that. Instead he chose to ignore that as, at that time, he was already starting to talk about opening up the economy and about the pandemic that would simply disappear on its own by the end of April. Do you see the difference here, the difference in approach (and perhaps why he was never trusted in the first place), the difference that it might have made in the final (and ongoing) count?

Once the virus spread beyond a specific region it would have crashed the economy and led to severe shortages to stop interstate travel. Why didn't authorities do that in 1917-1918 when a lot more people died? Heck, 36 million people died of AIDS and no one took such severe steps and destroying their economy which would have taken many years to repair (longer if Dems introduced a "New Deal"). I think the window of opportunity was early on, and that window was lost.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 06, 2020, 12:12:15 pm
I think the window of opportunity was early on, and that window was lost.
I don't agree with you. Studies do show that NY was the epicenter, but there is good reason to think that the difference between early on and not at all might have contributed significantly to the numbers today. I mentioned those April holidays in my other post; the point is Trump and his conservative followers let it slipped way too early. The real infection of the larger USA only got started, while he was saying it's over and people could get back to normal. Studies will (still) confirm this.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 06, 2020, 05:45:13 pm
Well, that would have decimated people's livelihood.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 07, 2020, 01:25:31 am
Right.. I was not responding to that part of your earlier post as I assumed you would know that the destribution of essential goods don't need to be stopped, just controlled. This has been done all over the world. So it's not an excuse, I am afraid.

PS. Not sure I understand your objection though. Are you claiming that there was no choice but to open up the economy and that the high fatalities were simply collateral damage? Because there are many articles that have been written about this and the consensus seems to be that the various protocols were not adhered to (e.g. masks, social distancing) and/or were lifted too soon mainly due to a false sense that the worst was over. There were two critical stages that are well documented, Trump's initial lacklustre uncoordinated response and the period during early- and midsummer leading up to what became a very deadly pronounced secondary wave (where CDC & Fauci's recommendations were often ignored).
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 07, 2020, 10:15:43 am
I think once the contagion spread beyond the Tristate area any quarantining of the populace would be impractical. You would basically cause traffic jams for miles which would cause all sorts severe shortages of goods and services.

I realize that once the contagion spread, a complete shutdown was possible, but again that would be totally destructive to the national economy.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 07, 2020, 11:02:29 am
At this point we are talking past each other. Nobody is saying the USA and Trump performed miserably because of these factors that you are alluding to now, factors that were pretty much a universal logistical challenge (perhaps not on the same scale). This is not really why the USA ended up with so many more deaths. There were periods during which many states managed these situations. But there were certain periods when they did not, there were certain protocols that were not always adhered to; these are the issues.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 07, 2020, 04:27:12 pm
At this point we are talking past each other. Nobody is saying the USA and Trump performed miserably because of these factors that you are alluding to now, factors that were pretty much a universal logistical challenge (perhaps not on the same scale). This is not really why the USA ended up with so many more deaths.

I totally disagree. If Obama orders enough PPE, and if Trump is allowed to quarantine the growing hotspots (as Wuhan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Italy all did), the US would have had a very low number of COVID deaths. Where I blame Trump is he could have pursued PPE buildup after coming into office, and right now his administration has been very careless getting infections in the WH. But, overall he made a lot of great moves too. The latest scandal is a huge embarrassment though. 
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 08, 2020, 03:05:17 am
I totally disagree. If Obama orders enough PPE, and if Trump is allowed to quarantine the growing hotspots (as Wuhan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Italy all did), the US would have had a very low number of COVID deaths. Where I blame Trump is he could have pursued PPE buildup after coming into office, and right now his administration has been very careless getting infections in the WH. But, overall he made a lot of great moves too. The latest scandal is a huge embarrassment though.
But your assessment seems like a personal opinion rather than based on facts. You really ought to do some fact checking too. Whatever shortages there might have been, were known beforehand and not rectified by the Trump administration. This Time Magazine expose (https://time.com/5805683/trump-administration-coronavirus/) highlights the flaws and failures of the Trump administration's as well as the collective of USA government's early reaction to the pandemic. Throughout it you would get numerous references to Trump's failures to take responsibility and to take proper charge of a coordinated effort. As I already said, he had the authority, he had experts advising him, yet he seemingly did not have the influence, neither was he prepared to be honest about the scale and dangers of the pandemic, instead he preferred to downplay that as well as the safety protocols in favor of talking up the need for the American economy (seemingly more so than its people) to survive and to get back to normal. This also came out in the other article that I linked earlier that reflected back on what Trump has said and done vs what Cuomo has said and done during March. This is exactly what also came out of journalist Bob Woodward's book about his interviews with Trump.

The BBC did an insightful series whereby they assessed the American response, both good and bad, during various stages. This is helpful for reminding us what transpired and what were the main factors that might have contributed to successes and failures. The first article (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52125039) was published on 1 April, the second article (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52579200) on 13 May, while the third follow-up (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53337483) was published on 8 July. The collective USA response, supposed to be led by Trump (as the responsible man in charge), did not only fail once, it did so repeatedly.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 08, 2020, 07:12:44 am
Whatever shortages there might have been, were known beforehand and not rectified by the Trump administration.

Didn't I say that?

Quote from: Mammal
...instead he preferred to downplay that as well as the safety protocols in favor of talking up the need for the American economy (seemingly more so than its people) to survive and to get back to normal.

Shutting down the economy for any length of time is not a real option. Once the contagion spread it was necessary to "level the curve" which Trump did at enormous cost (maybe he was a few days late, but not by much). After that you have to re-open the economy. Trump did an excellent job working with businesses to provide PPE.

He didn't shutdown the economy as long as everyone would have liked, but no one shut down bars and clubs to slow HIV which was far more deadly. Agreed?
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: wonderer on October 08, 2020, 08:37:00 am
At this point we are talking past each other. Nobody is saying the USA and Trump performed miserably because of these factors that you are alluding to now, factors that were pretty much a universal logistical challenge (perhaps not on the same scale). This is not really why the USA ended up with so many more deaths.

I totally disagree. If Obama orders enough PPE, and if Trump is allowed to quarantine the growing hotspots (as Wuhan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Italy all did), the US would have had a very low number of COVID deaths. Where I blame Trump is he could have pursued PPE buildup after coming into office, and right now his administration has been very careless getting infections in the WH. But, overall he made a lot of great moves too. The latest scandal is a huge embarrassment though.

So, does this amount to sticking to your specialty of pissing on things?

What the New England Journal of Medicine says. (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2029812)

Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 08, 2020, 09:49:06 am
Shutting down the economy for any length of time is not a real option. Once the contagion spread it was necessary to "level the curve" which Trump did at enormous cost (maybe he was a few days late, but not by much). After that you have to re-open the economy. Trump did an excellent job working with businesses to provide PPE.
He didn't shutdown the economy as long as everyone would have liked, but no one shut down bars and clubs to slow HIV which was far more deadly. Agreed?
Nobody was saying he should have shut down the economy unnecessarily. You are by implication asserting that he HAD to compromise on certain protocols and actions and HAD to ignore certain advice because he HAD to keep the economy floating. But if you look at the list of failures and flaws, those were mostly just that, failures and flaws. Other countries managed to survive economically WHILE maintaining safety and lockdown protocols and thus keeping their people alive.

And HIV is not the same kind of contagious disease as Covid-19. People with HIV only get infected via unsafe sexual interaction, or by accident via blood contamination, not by merely visiting clubs and bars. Why do you keep on referring to it? Are you trolling?
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 08, 2020, 10:42:47 am
Nobody was saying he should have shut down the economy unnecessarily.

What do you think all of these actions amounted to? The Dems wanted total shutdown after they threatened legal action to quarantine NYC which was an extremely smart idea. The virus wasn't contained. At that point millions of people are going to get the virus unless you shut things down.

Quote from: Mammal
You are by implication asserting that he HAD to compromise on certain protocols and actions and HAD to ignore certain advice because he HAD to keep the economy floating.

Fauci said (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/09/anthony-fauci-trump-woodward-coronavirus-410895):

Quote
Fauci denied that he ever heard the president “distort” the threat of the coronavirus and maintained that Trump’s presentations to the public were largely in line with discussions he’d had with medical experts. When asked whether he ever felt Trump was downplaying the severity of the coronavirus, Fauci said no..

Case closed.

Quote from: Mammal
But if you look at the list of failures and flaws, those were mostly just that, failures and flaws. Other countries managed to survive economically WHILE maintaining safety and lockdown protocols and thus keeping their people alive.

They prevented the flow of people, or in the case of Japan and much of Asia they wear masks. Here's an article on March 11 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/not-just-coronavirus-asians-have-worn-face-masks-decades%3Famp&ved=2ahUKEwiC0aLXqaXsAhXzdc0KHacdB6YQFjAIegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1InR4a9mpgVkCILDwgrdjT&ampcf=1) that shows what Japan was doing with masks long before WHO and the CDC recommended to wear masks.

Quote from: Mammal
And HIV is not the same kind of contagious disease as Covid-19. People with HIV only get infected via unsafe sexual interaction, or by accident via blood contamination, not by merely visiting clubs and bars. Why do you keep on referring to it? Are you trolling?

Yes, but HIV spreads by people having sexual contact which could  have easily been prevented by closing bars and clubs. Are you trolling or can you really not see how bars and clubs played a major role in the spread of HIV?
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: wonderer on October 08, 2020, 11:40:58 am

Fauci said (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/09/anthony-fauci-trump-woodward-coronavirus-410895):

Quote
Fauci denied that he ever heard the president “distort” the threat of the coronavirus and maintained that Trump’s presentations to the public were largely in line with discussions he’d had with medical experts. When asked whether he ever felt Trump was downplaying the severity of the coronavirus, Fauci said no..

Case closed.

Fauci has said all sorts of stuff which anyone with a clue can recognize as tiptoeing around Trump's fragile ego.  Saying, "Case closed.", on the basis of such pandering to Trump's narcissism by Fauci is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 08, 2020, 12:58:52 pm
Fauci has said all sorts of stuff which anyone with a clue can recognize as tiptoeing around Trump's fragile ego.  Saying, "Case closed.", on the basis of such pandering to Trump's narcissism by Fauci is ridiculous.

Perhaps. But are we supposed to read the news only as fervant liberals? Are you a liberal?
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: wonderer on October 08, 2020, 05:18:36 pm
Fauci has said all sorts of stuff which anyone with a clue can recognize as tiptoeing around Trump's fragile ego.  Saying, "Case closed.", on the basis of such pandering to Trump's narcissism by Fauci is ridiculous.

Perhaps. But are we supposed to read the news only as fervant liberals? Are you a liberal?

Of course people can only read the news as who they are, so it would be nonsensical to say people should read the news as fervent anything.   I don't know what this has to do with recognizing that Fauci is walking a tightrope trying to maintain some constructive influence over Trump's decision making.  It seems to me that it should be obvious, that anyone unwilling to be a yes man, to at least some extent, doesn't last long in Trump's orbit.

I'm a liberal, in the sense that Steven Pinker and Jon Haidt are liberals.  Searcherman is likely to see me as on the verge of being alt-right, on the basis of quoting Quillette articles and such.  I see communism as ridiculously naive about human nature, and have as little desire that the US succumb to communist totalitarianism as to theocratic totalitarianism.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 09, 2020, 06:07:01 am
What do you think all of these actions amounted to? The Dems wanted total shutdown after they threatened legal action to quarantine NYC which was an extremely smart idea. The virus wasn't contained. At that point millions of people are going to get the virus unless you shut things down.
I already dealt with this. Cuomo and De Blasio's handling of the crisis were at first far from perfect and one study has indeed pointed out that many people's lives could have been saved if proper protocols were implemented a week earlier. But the reality was also that the American people might have reacted extremely negatively if drastic military(China)-like measures were enforced right from the outset. I am sure that this was an important consideration in both sides' thinking at the time when these decisions had to be made.

But, as I already pointed out, nothing prevented Trump from tackling the situation head-on in consultation with CDC, the Senate and Congressional committee's, the governors and mayors (even with international experts from other countries & WHO) and in doing so they could have come up with a coordinated effort and plan of action with all parties' buy-in. Instead this is what happened:

March 16: Governors of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, all Democrats, formulate the same rules for closures, saying they were forced to act because of a lack of coordination from the federal government.
"We need the federal government to do a better job," Cuomo said. "States don't have the capacity or the power to make up for the federal government. We're doing the best we can, but we need the federal government to step up." New York cases hit 950.
(ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/News/timeline-100-days-york-gov-andrew-cuomos-covid/story?id=71292880))

And less than a month later on April 14:
Setting up a potential constitutional showdown between himself and the nation’s governors, President Donald Trump is claiming “total” authority over states in ordering a reopening of the country once the coronavirus pandemic shows signs of receding, even as many governors forge ahead with plans of their own.
“When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. That's the way it's got to be,” Trump claimed Monday during the White House briefing, saying there are “numerous provisions” that grant him the authority to order a state to reopen its economy.
...
The president’s assertions come after he has, for weeks, sought to shift full responsibility onto the shoulders of governors in making decisions on closures for their states, resisting calls to issue a nationwide stay-at-home order at one time by citing the Constitution’s delegation of power to the states -- the very same constitutional principle he is now insisting he can overrule.
(ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-asserts-total-authority-states-reopen-country-contradicting/story?id=70138294))

So I am afraid your repeated counter claim does not hold much water.
       
Quote from: Harvey
Fauci said (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/09/anthony-fauci-trump-woodward-coronavirus-410895):

Quote
Fauci denied that he ever heard the president “distort” the threat of the coronavirus and maintained that Trump’s presentations to the public were largely in line with discussions he’d had with medical experts. When asked whether he ever felt Trump was downplaying the severity of the coronavirus, Fauci said no..

Case closed.
Well, not quite. In Fauci's first testimony before Congress (https://www.businessinsider.com/top-highlights-of-dr-anthony-fauci-congressional-testimony-2020-3?IR=T) it became apparent that even though he was keeping the president fully informed, the message from Trump and the White House to the American people conveyed a much different picture than Fauci's. And again during the Senate hearing a month later (https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/12/fauci-hearing-coronavirus-takeaways/) when he sharply contrasted Trump and warned explicitly against the early reopening.

And this is what he said (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fauci-says-contradicting-trump-not-helpful-avoiding-being-overtly-odds-n1234563) about how careful he has to be when contradicting Trump, which would explain your quote. 

Quote from: Harvey
Yes, but HIV spreads by people having sexual contact which could  have easily been prevented by closing bars and clubs. Are you trolling or can you really not see how bars and clubs played a major role in the spread of HIV?
This does not add value to the topic, so I am ignoring it.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 09, 2020, 07:42:39 am
So, you think Fauci loves his job so much that he would never resign if he thought the Trump administration was causing mayhem that you think he caused?
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 09, 2020, 08:34:02 am
It seems that he (Fauci) knows that he is worth more to the people of America than what Trump gives him credit for. He kind of answered that.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 09, 2020, 08:45:45 am
It seems that he (Fauci) knows that he is worth more to the people of America than what Trump gives him credit for. He kind of answered that.

So you think he would succumb to working in a completely incompetent administration rather than raise awareness of that incompetence to force change? I just don't think the good doctor is like that. Sure, I'm sure he's seen decisions which he strongly disagreed with (e.g., the Rose garden event), but I also think he believes the administration has served the American public very well or he would have resigned back in March.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 09, 2020, 09:32:43 am
How would it have helped America for him to resign and be replaced by somebody less competent? He was/is respected by many and he probably had a heck of a lot of influence in preventing even further damage to the cause.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 09, 2020, 09:45:45 am
How would it have helped America for him to resign and be replaced by somebody less competent? He was/is respected by many and he probably had a heck of a lot of influence in preventing even further damage to the cause.

It's simply immoral to associate your name to a incompetent or even dangerous regime as Trump likes to call certain administrations. I think Dr. Fauci is an upstanding guy who, while realizing every administration is incompetent to a certain degree, realizes that he has a moral responsibility to not be associated with dangerously incompetent or harmful administrations for the sake of the public he serves. I take it that you would have worked for Hitler?
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 09, 2020, 10:45:23 am
The moral thing to do, I would think, is to try and do one's job as best as possible and not be pushed out by the likes of Trump, to add value where it counts. Admirable thing to do. No need for Hitler comparisons..unless you want to disqualify yourself from the discourse.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 09, 2020, 11:40:20 am
The moral thing to do, I would think, is to try and do one's job as best as possible and not be pushed out by the likes of Trump, to add value where it counts. Admirable thing to do. No need for Hitler comparisons..unless you want to disqualify yourself from the discourse.

You just said that adding value is what counts so I suppose you would work for Osama bin Laden, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, etc.?
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 09, 2020, 01:12:07 pm
If you can help the people (not necessarily the rulers) that you serve. Thanks for the chat Harvey, it obviously ran its course.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 09, 2020, 01:28:25 pm
If you can help the people (not necessarily the rulers) that you serve. Thanks for the chat Harvey, it obviously ran its course.

Okay. But I would be very upset at Dr. Fauci if he thought as you did. As a doctor of public health I believe he has important responsibilities to not only give truthful health advice but to notify us if the administration he works for is endangering public health. He's entrusted by the people for this, so I can only he believe he knows that and would not take part in an administration endangering public health either through incompetence or mischievousness. Let's agree to disagree that Dr. Fauci would agree to this and would live up to this calling.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 10, 2020, 08:58:57 am
Okay. But I would be very upset at Dr. Fauci if he thought as you did. As a doctor of public health I believe he has important responsibilities to not only give truthful health advice but to notify us if the administration he works for is endangering public health.
He has done so often, just not in total defiance of Trump as he seems to understand the political nuances that are at play. I already linked two prominent examples and referred to a third early on. Here is another (https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54487154), hot off the press. In his words:
"The data speak for themselves - we had a superspreader event in the White House, and it was in a situation where people were crowded together and were not wearing masks."

I also linked his own explanation for how he sees his role. I have absolutely no idea why you refuse to grasp the situation and persist with this line of inquiry. We already ended our actual discussion on the previous page.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 10, 2020, 10:46:52 am
He has done so often, just not in total defiance of Trump as he seems to understand the political nuances that are at play. I already linked two prominent examples and referred to a third early on. Here is another (https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54487154), hot off the press. In his words:
"The data speak for themselves - we had a superspreader event in the White House, and it was in a situation where people were crowded together and were not wearing masks."

I also linked his own explanation for how he sees his role. I have absolutely no idea why you refuse to grasp the situation and persist with this line of inquiry. We already ended our actual discussion on the previous page.

This actually argues against your position. The fact that Dr. Fauci does express his opinions on where he disagrees with the administration means that when it was reported:

Quote
Fauci denied that he ever heard the president “distort” the threat of the coronavirus and maintained that Trump’s presentations to the public were largely in line with discussions he’d had with medical experts. When asked whether he ever felt Trump was downplaying the severity of the coronavirus, Fauci said no.

means that we should take him at his word and believe this to be the case. Your argument boils down to the notion that Fauci lies to preserve his job except when he's criticizing the administration which is the only time he's telling the truth. This is completely incredulous.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 10, 2020, 12:34:09 pm
Oh please.. It's obvious why he was saying what he did..context please..he even explained it himself and heck, I even linked his explanation..quote mining much nowadays..?
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 10, 2020, 01:26:03 pm
Oh please.. It's obvious why he was saying what he did..context please..he even explained it himself and heck, I even linked his explanation..quote mining much nowadays..?

So, do you think this is a lie on Fauci's part?:

Quote
When asked whether he ever felt Trump was downplaying the severity of the coronavirus, Fauci said no.

Is he telling the truth here?

Quote
"The data speak for themselves - we had a superspreader event in the White House, and it was in a situation where people were crowded together and were not wearing masks."
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 11, 2020, 06:35:05 am
You seem to be employing rather cheap conservative tactics here in order to distort Fauci's views that he expressed to Fox in order to convey the impression that Fauci has cleared Trump of wrongdoing during the pandemic. So first off, you need to at least paint the broader context of the interview (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dr-fauci-trump-woodward-downplay-covid-19). Fauci was responding to questions by Fox, i.e. very much the Trump mouthpiece, relating to Woodward's retelling of his interviews with Trump that put Trump in a rather poor light. So the Fox interview seems really about almost forcing Fauci's hand to choose sides between Trump and Woordward. As such he had to be rather careful in qualifying his response, for example:
Quote
On "The Daily Briefing," host John Roberts asked Fauci if he thought Trump had played down the threat of the virus.

"No, I didn't," Fauci responded. "I didn't get any sense that he was distorting anything. I mean in my discussions with him, they were always straightforward about the concerns that we had. We related that to him. And when he would go out, I'd hear him discussing the same sort of things. He would often say, 'We just got through with a briefing with the group from the task force,' and would talk about it. So it may have happened, but I have not seen that kind of distortion."
...
Roberts also asked Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, whether Trump broke with his advisers in trying to downplay the virus. "You were there through that whole thing," Roberts said. "Was that the playbook or was that the president just going his own direction?"

"I don't think so, John," Fauci responded. "I don't recall anything different than in our discussions that we had with the president that he said things quite similar publicly."
...
(Fauci in reference to Woodward's book): "I didn't really go over any of the text since it just came out," Fauci told Roberts. "But you know, in my discussions and the discussions of other task force members with the president, we're talking about the reality of what was going on.

"And then when we would get up in front of the press conferences, which were very, very common after our discussions with the president, he really didn't say anything different than we discussed when we were with him," he went on. "I may not be tuned in to the right thing that they're talking about. But, I didn't see any discrepancies between what he told us and what we told him, and what he came out publicly and said."

"If you notice, it was [reported that] others have said [I said] that. So, you know, you should ask others. I don't recall that at all," he said. "So I mean ... according to what I saw in the newspapers, it says 'and others have said that.' So you know, I don't really want to get involved in the kind of stuff that is very distracting to the kind of things that I'm trying to do and that we're all trying to do with this outbreak."
Are you able to grasp more of the context here and of Fauci's careful diplomatic responses in reference to what must have been specific interactions and briefings between them - not a general and sweeping statement about everything that Trump has said and done about the pandemic?

And we all know the quote as you gave it, judged purely on its own and at face value, is demonstrably false. We know that because we are privy to a very concise summary of all of Trump's lies about the Coronavirus (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/trumps-lies-about-coronavirus/608647/). Do yourself a favor and search ("Find") the name "Fauci" in that article and read the context in which Fauci is mentioned in connection with Trump's lies. See what I mean..?

So knowing that and having read about Fauci's reports to Congress and to the Senate, as well as his own explanation of why- and how he needs to be careful in how he deals with Trump (that I have all linked at the bottom of the previous page, some of which are apparent from the above Fox interview), we can form a very clear picture here of the dynamics, the political nuances and more importantly, that Fauci was not absolving Trump of everything in one sweeping and unqualified statement to Fox.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 11, 2020, 07:37:51 am
I don't think he was absolving Trump in his rallies, but what Trump said in the press conferences where Fauci attended is what we ought to compare with what Fauci has said.

Anyway, you're intent on calling Fauci a blatant liar when he says things you disagree with, and a brave honest voice when he says things you agree with. I don't know how anyone could take that position seriously.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 11, 2020, 09:11:37 am
Only I did not call him a liar, I was showing you that by referencing one comment without acknowledging its context in order to try and score a desperate point in a lost cause is nothing but quote mining. If you look at the bigger picture, his one isolated comment only fits the pattern if one contextualizes it properly. Trump still failed the test.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 11, 2020, 09:19:53 am
It would be a horrendous lie far worse than what extreme radical leftists and socialists are accusing Trump of doing.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: wonderer on October 11, 2020, 02:54:57 pm
CNN exclusive: Fauci says he was taken out of context in new Trump campaign ad touting coronavirus response. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/11/politics/fauci-trump-campaign-ad-out-of-context/index.html)

Your naivete is showing Harvey.  Educate yourself on the effects that being in the orbit of people with narcissistic personality disorder has on people.  You are expecting superhuman behavior from Fauci.  FWIW, Fauci is doing better than most people in Trump's orbit.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 11, 2020, 07:33:12 pm
Your naivete is showing Harvey.  Educate yourself on the effects that being in the orbit of people with narcissistic personality disorder has on people.  You are expecting superhuman behavior from Fauci.  FWIW, Fauci is doing better than most people in Trump's orbit.

Fauci is a straight shooter. As far as the quote Fauci is clear why he objected:

Quote
In my nearly five decades of public service, I have never publicly endorsed any political candidate. The comments attributed to me without my permission in the GOP campaign ad were taken out of context from a broad statement I made months ago about the efforts of federal public health officials,"

We have to be willing to accept that not everything is at the extremes. Fauci can be critical without being a Trump foe. Trump can make some rather good choices without having a great record. Obama-Biden could be critical over some obvious lapses by Trump as still have led a disastrous response had they been in power. The coronavirus handling could have been very bad without it being personally Trump's fault. Biden could be 100% coreect and still be the worst candidate by far. Because I see clearly on this issue and not on the extremes Iike you and Mammal I'm more likely to be less naive then either of you.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: wonderer on October 11, 2020, 07:55:32 pm
Because I see clearly on this issue and not on the extremes Iike you and Mammal I'm more likely to be less naive then either of you.

Right, you see the medical issues more clearly than the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine as well, I suppose.



Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 11, 2020, 08:15:44 pm
Right, you see the medical issues more clearly than the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine as well, I suppose.

Seriously?
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: wonderer on October 11, 2020, 08:31:59 pm
Right, you see the medical issues more clearly than the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine as well, I suppose.

Seriously?

"Seriously?", indeed.  Are you trying to mislead people into thinking the name signifies it being a provincial concern?  I have trouble believing that you are actually so ignorant as to think so.  So it seems more likely that you are trying to mislead people who might be ignorant on the matter.

From wikipedia:

The journal usually has the highest impact factor of the journals of internal medicine. According to the Journal Citation Reports, NEJM had a 2017 impact factor of 79.258,[26] ranking it first of 153 journals in the category "General & Internal Medicine".[27] It was the only journal in the category with an impact factor of more than 70. By comparison, the second and third ranked journals in the category (The Lancet and JAMA) had impact factors of 53.254 and 47.661 respectively.[28]
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 11, 2020, 09:49:59 pm
"Seriously?", indeed.  Are you trying to mislead people into thinking the name signifies it being a provincial concern?  I have trouble believing that you are actually so ignorant as to think so.  So it seems more likely that you are trying to mislead people who might be ignorant on the matter.

From wikipedia:

Let's look at the history.

1) The Wall Street Journal called it (https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-new-england-journal-of-politics-part-ii-11602283219) the New England Journal of Politics:

Quote
You might say “the New England Journal is joining the ranks of academic publications risking their reputations as non-partisan arbiters of good science in order to rumble in the political tarpits.” That’s a line from our 2006 editorial “New England Journal of Politics” describing how the NEJM had waded into a legal dispute over Merck’s painkiller Vioxx. The NEJM also appeared in these pages in 2007 for working to tank a diabetes drug and help Democrats in Congress to regulate treatment approvals more tightly.

As far as the testing failures this was an issue with the CDC and the FDA: (https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/03/10/testing-errors)

Quote
The main points of criticism have centered on faulty tests from CDC, the rules about which labs can perform tests, and the criteria under which patients can be tested, which CDC updated last week. . . According to the sources, the problem began with the United States' process for developing a diagnostic test. . . On Feb. 12, CDC announced some of the tests provided labs with inconclusive results. The problem, which involved an ingredient in the test kit, had further slowed the United States' ability to test and confirm COVID-19 diagnoses, requiring most of the testing to be conducted at CDC's headquarters in Atlanta. . . Once CDC became aware of the issue, the agency decided to fix the diagnostic test instead of switching to the diagnostic tests being used by other countries—a move that drew criticism from experts. However, CDC said applying for an FDA authorization to use tests from other countries and then validating and manufacturing the test would have taken the agency longer than fixing the issues with the agency's already validated tests.

What is unknown is who is to blame beyond the technical issues that led to the delays. The article says:

Quote
Regarding the missteps, Jeremy Konyndyk, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development who oversaw the international response to Ebola under former President Barack Obama's administration, said, "They've simply lost time they can't make up. You can't get back six weeks of blindness. To the extent that there's someone to blame here, the blame is on poor, chaotic management from the White House and failure to acknowledge the big picture.

So, it quickly became a political issue of who to place blame on, but a more reasoned view from what I can tell comes from Dr. Roger Klein (https://www.city-journal.org/overregulation-of-diagnostic-testing-coronavirus):

Quote
A Self-Inflicted Crisis
Overregulation has played a dangerous role in America’s coronavirus outbreak. . . The FDA’s regulation of laboratory tests has been a longstanding concern. This includes moves to regulate LDTs, despite the existence of stringent alternative-regulatory and oversight mechanisms. In general, the FDA has exercised “enforcement discretion” with respect to LDTs. With coronavirus testing, the FDA’s abandonment of enforcement discretion may have proved deadly.

In my opinion, people are blaming Trump just to find a scapegoat. One could just as well blame the Obama administration for not having the FDA for not moving forward years earlier with effective testing guidelines.

I just don't see this as the fault of a President. You think Joe is going to improve this? The Swine Flu infected 60 million Americans.

As far as strict government lockdowns, WHO is now advising against lockdowns as much as possible because it is causing very severe problems that some might say is actually worse or as worse as the coronavirus. What they're learning is that lockdowns are taking a heavy toll on the populace. But, Trump said that in April but liberals need to hear it from liberals before they believe anything.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 13, 2020, 02:35:34 am
In my opinion, people are blaming Trump just to find a scapegoat...
...
I just don't see this as the fault of a President.
...
As far as strict government lockdowns, WHO is now advising against lockdowns as much as possible because it is causing very severe problems that some might say is actually worse or as worse as the coronavirus. What they're learning is that lockdowns are taking a heavy toll on the populace. But, Trump said that in April but liberals need to hear it from liberals before they believe anything.
Trump can't even keep his White House, his staff and himself out of harm's way by adhering to safe & prescribed protocols, so he is undoubtedly unfit for the job of protecting the country against the pandemic. His many lies about it to the American public should by now have convinced the electorate and the polls reflect just that.

WHO's so-called new advice against lockdowns is not really all that new; they are just emphasizing that especially poor countries should rather not use strict lockdowns that might cause more harm than good to people who depend on their daily work to get food on the table. There are still prescriptions to guide countries accordingly, first and foremost that the virus is contained and not able to spread (before lockdowns are lifted).
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: wonderer on October 13, 2020, 06:15:45 am

Let's look at the history.

1) [The Rupert Murdock owned] Wall Street Journal called it the New England Journal of Politics:

Seriously?

I can do genetic fallacies too.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 13, 2020, 07:29:22 am
Seriously? I can do genetic fallacies too.

Just look at the facts. The NEJM is against the Trump administration because they believe they incompetently mishandled the early phases of testing when it was thousands of people involved and the errors in procedure were largely a result of years of FDA overregulation and bureacracy. It was a perfect storm of technical mistakes by the CDC, the speed by which the virus spread, and the overregulation of the FDA among the major factors that led to this issue. Blaming Trump is like blaming Bush for 9/11. People certainly will, but in reality s**t happens. As far as blaming Trump for not locking down longer, even WHO is advising against it.

Again, I'm not saying the response was perfect. There's a lot of information to disentangle of what Trump knew and decided. But, you can't just look at the bad. Trump's experience in business and running large corporations and willingness to work long hours probably saved many lives. I believe it's wrong to deify him while it's also wrong to demonize him. He has certain skills, but at the same time there are many presidents I would much rather be the president right now (e.g., Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr., John Kennedy, etc.). It's just that Biden is spent. Just yesterday he was saying he's running for the US senate again, and he couldn't remember Mitt Romney's name. The latter is especially troubling because he didn't quickly change the topic but rather tried to describe Romney (a Mormon, a governor, a senator). That shows more cognitive decline than just a memory blank which is human. He doesn't know what he is saying. And, that's really scarey because as President you have to know what you're saying.

Look, at any time in history Biden wouldn't stand much of a chance. But, he's winning because people absolutely detest Trump. And, I get that. I detest him too, but I also see a president who I think has accomplished a lot and has made some very, very tough choices that most president's outside of Reagan perhaps would have not done but might have saved our butts. For example, pulling out of the intermediate range weapons arms treaty was difficult, but China wasn't part of that agreement and they are building up a huge arsenal that could have our navy paralyzed in the Pacific. Russia, whom Dems like to say Trump is too chumy, was furious we pulled out when they too weren't honoring the deal. How about the Space Force? It sounds kind of hooky, but Trump probably made the most important decision in his presidency by implementing it. We were about to lose terribly in space if we didn't respond to what our adversaries are doing in space. I tend to think Trump did something that few presidents would do. The arctic was being literally taken over by Russia and now China, and with sea lanes opening up we needed to establish US presence to protect ourselves from future incursions that is very close to the country. Trump repeatedly has shown the kind of assertiveness and aggressiveness at the right time in history. So, I changed some of my mind of him.

But, it's not easy. He's a complete dope.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 13, 2020, 07:43:46 am
...so he is undoubtedly unfit for the job of protecting the country against the pandemic.

If X then Y. I don't buy Y. If you said, "therefore Trump is very careless wrt the pandemic" then I would agree. However, if Biden were competent (and I don't think he's even halfway competent) then it would be a good reason to vote for Biden. But we live in an extremely important time where the chances of a major conflict breaking out are as high as 1985 and socialists are trying to get their hands on American democracy (they haven't been this close since 1933). Biden is in no condition to handle either of these issues.

Quote from: Mammal
His many lies about it to the American public should by now have convinced the electorate and the polls reflect just that.

"Trump talk" is certainly lying, but it's not "Nixon lies" which I see as much more serious. I have no doubt Trump is lying in certain areas that are perhaps impeachable, but I think the pandemic related is mostly Trump talk.

Quote from: Mammal
WHO's so-called new advice against lockdowns is not really all that new; they are just emphasizing that especially poor countries should rather not use strict lockdowns that might cause more harm than good to people who depend on their daily work to get food on the table. There are still prescriptions to guide countries accordingly, first and foremost that the virus is contained and not able to spread (before lockdowns are lifted).

Lockdowns in rich countries has a very severe impact on poor countries. And, it has severe impacts on making rich countries poor.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 13, 2020, 09:46:41 am
If X then Y. I don't buy Y. If you said, "therefore Trump is very careless wrt the pandemic" then I would agree. However, if Biden were competent (and I don't think he's even halfway competent) then it would be a good reason to vote for Biden. But we live in an extremely important time where the chances of a major conflict breaking out are as high as 1985 and socialists are trying to get their hands on American democracy (they haven't been this close since 1933). Biden is in no condition to handle either of these issues.
Biden, with the kind of support personnel he has gathered around him, should be far bettter and safer and more trustworthy than the Trump fiasco. And the polls indicate a similar perception among the majority of Americans. Support for Trump has taken a dip since the start of the pandemic and has remained pretty low.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 13, 2020, 11:59:27 am
Biden, with the kind of support personnel he has gathered around him, should be far bettter and safer and more trustworthy than the Trump fiasco. And the polls indicate a similar perception among the majority of Americans. Support for Trump has taken a dip since the start of the pandemic and has remained pretty low.

Oh I don't give much hope for Trump. I talked to a couple of friends who voted for Trump last time (who actually tried to get me to vote for Trump -- I didn't, I voted for Hillary) and they absolutely will not in a million years vote a second time for Trump. The media is protecting Biden to a large extent but I don't think people realize that Biden is gone. He's checked out and didn't tell the front desk. He left the table without paying the bill. The wheel is spinning but the hampster has died. The chief of staff is going to be the next president. But unless that chief of staff is Bill Clinton or Barak Obama it is a big concern for the country.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 13, 2020, 12:42:36 pm
Collectively the Biden team is far better equipped than an autocratic and a loose cannon Trump.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 13, 2020, 03:49:50 pm
Collectively the Biden team is far better equipped than an autocratic and a loose cannon Trump.

Are you familiar how executive orders from the president are done in the US? It is against the 25th amendment for a president to be unable to carry out the job. That means that Biden will need to be removed from office once it is clear he is not giving the orders any longer. Why would Biden or any government official put the country through that process when it is clear he cannot perform in the office in which he is seeking.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 14, 2020, 01:16:03 am
Who was/is saying that he is incapable of executive orders? I was simply saying that Biden has gathered what appears to be a competent team and that there would likely be a consultative process that steers decision making at the highest level. That was in reaction to your earlier assertion that Biden is not capable to deal with the challenges.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 14, 2020, 07:50:53 am
Who was/is saying that he is incapable of executive orders? I was simply saying that Biden has gathered what appears to be a competent team and that there would likely be a consultative process that steers decision making at the highest level. That was in reaction to your earlier assertion that Biden is not capable to deal with the challenges.

But, if his cognitive decline is such that he describes Mitt Romney to people then he can't communicate with world leaders. He can't tell his staff what ideas he wishes to communicate. He probably won't remember what he's communicated. On top of that, if the Dems take the House and Senate they may be unwilling to exercise the 25th amendment if they find it is politically damaging to their party or they think there are liberal advantages to have Biden agreeing to everything they want. Not to mention Trump willl be tweeting everyday how Biden is not able to have a press conference (will he be able to have one where he doesn't have to just bash Trump?). It's a real nightmare brewing.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 14, 2020, 01:03:05 pm
Meh..

USA already finds itself in a situation where they elected a narcissistic degenerate who might have cost them double (or more) lives to Covid. A new precedent has been set for the president. Adapt.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: wonderer on October 14, 2020, 01:26:36 pm
Not to mention Trump willl be tweeting everyday how Biden is not able to have a press conference (will he be able to have one where he doesn't have to just bash Trump?). It's a real nightmare brewing.

So, because we can expect Trump to remain a narcissistic scumbag, we should keep him in office?

Even minimum security prison would restrict Trump's access to Twitter, I would think.  So put Trump where he belongs, and this problem is taken care of.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 14, 2020, 02:54:03 pm
Meh..

USA already finds itself in a situation where they elected a narcissistic degenerate who might have cost them double (or more) lives to Covid. A new precedent has been set for the president. Adapt.

60 million people Americans got Swine Flu under Obama-Biden. Using your logic they are responsible. You should stick to beliefs peddled in Wired!.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 14, 2020, 02:57:45 pm
So, because we can expect Trump to remain a narcissistic scumbag, we should keep him in office?

I'm just pointing out a potential nightmarish scenario where we have a president who's really not qualified for the presidency in the most basic of all sense. Trump's peanut gallery will only make the situation more divisive.

Quote from: Wonderer
Even minimum security prison would restrict Trump's access to Twitter, I would think.  So put Trump where he belongs, and this problem is taken care of.

You really want to invite civil unrest. I like my 401 thank you very much.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: wonderer on October 14, 2020, 08:49:35 pm
So, because we can expect Trump to remain a narcissistic scumbag, we should keep him in office?

I'm just pointing out a potential nightmarish scenario where we have a president who's really not qualified for the presidency in the most basic of all sense. Trump's peanut gallery will only make the situation more divisive.

If you are correct about Biden's mental state, then we are not going to have a president who is qualified for the presidency in the most basic sense, regardless of how the election turns out.  Undoubtedly Trump's peanut gallery will make the situation more divisive regardless of the outcome of the election as well.  That is no reason to keep Trump in office.

Quote
Quote from: Wonderer
Even minimum security prison would restrict Trump's access to Twitter, I would think.  So put Trump where he belongs, and this problem is taken care of.

You really want to invite civil unrest. I like my 401 thank you very much.

How materialistic of you.  I can't say I'm surprised, that you don't take things Jesus said all that seriously.

Of course I don't want to invite civil unrest.  Trump is the poster boy for promoting civil unrest, and you are supporting him.

But don't worry, Trump is likely to resign so that Pence can pardon him.  So Trump will remain free to foment hatred on Twitter.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 14, 2020, 10:00:06 pm
I can't say I'm surprised, that you don't take things Jesus said all that seriously.

Where did Jesus say to put the opposition leader in prison to form a Banana Republic?

Quote from: Trump
Of course I don't want to invite civil unrest.  Trump is the poster boy for promoting civil unrest, and you are supporting him.

I agree with Mattis that Trump should try to unite the country but doesn't. In that sense Biden would be far better. But, like I said, the day after Trump is out of office that damage is not that serious. But, if Biden gives China an opportunity to complete their 2025/2049 agenda then we're all in serious trouble.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 15, 2020, 02:55:59 am
60 million people Americans got Swine Flu under Obama-Biden. Using your logic they are responsible.
You want to compare Covid-19 with the Swine Flu, and their respective impacts on- and responses from the USA..? According to WHO the Covid-19 pandemic is like 10 times worse than what Swine Flu was and it was very quickly obvious that Covid-19 is far more deadlier, and remains potent for much longer (i.t.o. infection, spreading and recovering). If you look at the number of people who got infected by Swine Flu and who died from it compared to Covid-19 (over similar periods), then it becomes obvious that we are talking about vastly different pandemics.

As such and from what I have read, the Obama response, measured i.t.o. risk exposure, was quite adequate. In case you prefer the Trump/Republican spin on it, there are always fact checks such as this one (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/13/fact-check-swine-flu-spread-rapidly-but-not-deadly-covid-19/5577001002/) and this one (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/trump-misleads-on-h1n1-swine-flu-testing/).

The last fact check above quotes various experts, among others Dr. Amesh Adalja who is an expert on emerging infectious diseases and pandemics and a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. Elsewhere he was quoted saying:
Quote
What was the US response to swine flu compared to COVID-19?

"There were some mistakes, but it wasn't anything too consequential," Dr. Adalja says, adding that, "once public health officials realized that swine flu wasn't going to be cataclysmic, they backed down on mitigation efforts like school closures and social distancing."

But, Dr. Adalja says it's very difficult to compare the Obama administration's swine flu response to that of the Trump administration's handling of COVID-19. "Whatever faults the Obama administration had with their response to the 2009 pandemic, those are dwarfed by continual errors from the Trump administration that are continuing to this day," he says. Those include, but aren't limited to: failing to take the deadly illness seriously, slashing funding for critical public safety nets, and significantly lagging in testing during the first weeks and months of the pandemic. (Source) (https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/swine-flu-vs-covid-19)
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 15, 2020, 10:34:23 am
According to WHO the Covid-19 pandemic is like 10 times worse than what Swine Flu was and it was very quickly obvious that Covid-19 is far more deadlier, and remains potent for much longer (i.t.o. infection, spreading and recovering). If you look at the number of people who got infected by Swine Flu and who died from it compared to Covid-19 (over similar periods), then it becomes obvious that we are talking about vastly different pandemics.

No one could know the immediate impact of a virus. It's entirely possible that a virus like Swine Flu could have initiated a deadly cancer with a 80% mortality. No one knows, so you have to treat viruses as very serious and not allow them to spread. In the case of SF we were lucky that it was relatively harmless (although people did die). In the case of Covid-19 we weren't as lucky. It could have rapidly diminished with warm weather, but that didn't happen.

Quote from: Mammal
"There were some mistakes, but it wasn't anything too consequential,"

Much of this has to be dealt one by one. As we found out about the supposed testing mishap by Trump that it wasn't anywhere close to being Trump's fault.

Let's just call Covid-19 for how Dems see it: a lucky break to introduce socialism in the US. That about sums it up.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: wonderer on October 15, 2020, 11:16:51 pm

I agree with Mattis that Trump should try to unite the country but doesn't. In that sense Biden would be far better. But, like I said, the day after Trump is out of office that damage is not that serious. But, if Biden gives China an opportunity to complete their 2025/2049 agenda then we're all in serious trouble.

Republican senator Ben Sasse: (https://www.mediaite.com/trump/listen-gop-sen-ben-sasse-absolutely-torches-trump-on-call-with-voters-says-he-kisses-dictators-butts-and-flirted-with-white-supremacists/)

"The way he [Trump] kisses dictators’ butts. I mean, the way he ignores the Uighurs, are in literal concentration camps in Xinjiang. Right now, he hasn’t lifted a finger on behalf of the Hong-Kongers,” Sasse said.

“The United States now regularly sells out our allies under his leadership, the way he treats women, spends like a drunken sailor. The ways I criticize President Obama for that kind of spending; I’ve criticized President Trump for as well. He mocks evangelicals behind closed doors. His family has treated the presidency like a business opportunity. He’s flirted with white supremacists"

“But the reality is that he careened from curb to curb. First, he ignored COVID. And then he went into full economic shutdown mode. He was the one who said 10 to 14 days of shutdown would fix this. And that was always wrong. I mean, and so I don’t think the way he’s lead through COVID has been reasonable or responsible, or right.”
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Mammal on October 16, 2020, 05:45:40 am
No one could know the immediate impact of a virus. It's entirely possible that a virus like Swine Flu could have initiated a deadly cancer with a 80% mortality. No one knows, so you have to treat viruses as very serious and not allow them to spread. In the case of SF we were lucky that it was relatively harmless (although people did die). In the case of Covid-19 we weren't as lucky. It could have rapidly diminished with warm weather, but that didn't happen.
Many other governments around the world have learned from previous pandemics and were very successful in containing Covid-19. The Trump government apparently did not, they were not prepared. There are few excuses, hence the sentiment from those participating in the polls.
Title: Re: Hypotheical question
Post by: Harvey on October 16, 2020, 07:31:48 am
Republican senator Ben Sasse:

A lot of that I agree with. He's not the Republican candidate that I would choose to lead this nation. But, there are a lot of half-truths. For example, he pulled out of the intermediate missile agreement. Would another leader have done that? Putin was furious. He praised Xi while he increased tariffs completely wiping out a catastrophic 2025 target (you of all people should be glad because Trump probably saved your job and career),. He praised Kim while putting crippling sanctions and closing the means by which NK uses the banking system. Iran? Yes, he warms up to dictators but then is stronger against them than any American leader would for fear of starting a war. If this is the end of his administration I'll be glad for the end of his chaotic, immature style, but he made some very ballsy moves that in the end came at a critical moment. Unfortunately it will be followed up with extreme incompetence.