Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
They're Angry, Not Stupid! Why Trump Is Likely To Win Again
Doug Ducey- Governor of Arizona Republican Brian Kemp - Governor of Georgia Republican Ron DeSantis - Governor of Florida Republican Greg Abbott - Governor of Texas Republican J.B Pritzker - Governor of Illinois Democrat Gavin Newsom - Governor or California Democrat
LOL! this is more weak sauce, the weakest yet. It's the death rate that matters. ALL of the obscene death rates are in dem states. No one cares about catching a cold, they care about dying.
Hawaii, where I live, is deep Blue. Covid is outa control now. That wasn't the case, early on. When everything began to be re-opened is when everything went South. I'm learning that State gov't and its agencies here will screw up even an old-fashioned "Chinese Fire Drill." And in terms of numbers: Hawaii would compare very well (#45) in terms of the numbers of Covid cases, AND, unfortunately, deaths. But it's all about proportion. Apples to Apples, eh?
.....But to beat this pandemic requires strong leadership at the NATIONAL level, at the top. What we have at the top just now is a President choosing to IGNORE his responsibility. That leaves 50 State Governors to fend for themselves, while the tRumpster plays "Gaslight."
Please explain how this is going to work? You know, with the Constitution and all (some people still care about that). The bottom line that I see is that this virus is mostly having it's way absent a strong hammer lock down. That works, but the country itself is deeply divided on whether a lock down is worth the cost. It sure is worth it to retirees and rich folks who can Zoom and watch the stock market at home, but certainly not to my dear friends who lost their business to a covid lock down and thousands just like them.
The distinction between xenophobia and racism is irrelevant. So you introduced racism as a distraction? What happened to KISS?
Biden would not have done it, and rightly so. That should be feather in Biden's cap. Isn't that YOUR point?
No, my point concerns your posts. You sometimes post as facts what are at best perceptions. I selected an example; you distracted (see above), you diverted (asking for MY thoughts on something other than the veracity of the purported fact).
This practice doesn't help in making an underlying point. As Moynihan said,“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” But see@WABABC's post on postmodern conservatism.
No, MSF, you are incorrect. The statement you attacked was this: "First, the initial outbreak happened while dems, specifically including Biden and Pelosi, were downplaying the virus and bashing Trump's air travel ban as "xenophobic." That is precisely what happened. As I said, you dissected my words but not my point. Any reasonable person would see what was happening with the dems, their game plan was transparent -- de Blasio did the same exact thing as Pelolsi in NY's Chinatown. The dems downplayed the virus (as shown by Pelosi and and de Blasio) and Biden accused Trump of Xenophobia and, yes, racism:
"Speaking virtually to the Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) Victory Fund, Biden said the president had been slow to respond to the pandemic, and that he had only offered the public “denials, delays and distractions, many of which were nakedly xenophobic.”
“The pandemic has unleashed familiar forces of hate, fear and xenophobia that he always flames … that have always existed in this society,” Biden said. “But this president brought it with him, has brought with it a new rash of racial messages, verbal and physical attacks and other acts of hate, some subtle, some overt, against the Asian American and Pacific Islanders.”
There are at least four possible pathogenic mechanisms that may account for the detrimental effect of COVID-19 on the [Central Nervous System]. ...Any one or a combination of these mechanisms put COVID-19 survivors at risk for developing long-term neurological consequences, either by aggravating a pre-existing neurological disorder or by initiating a new disorder. This concern is supported by findings that show that one third of patients at the time of discharge have evidence of cognitive impairment and motor deficits. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7271826/
@wxman123 Nothing is perfect. "Perfect" is not a thing to be found in this universe. But here's a suggestion. Please explain how any of this is unconstitutional. https://joebiden.com/covid19/#
There are at least four possible pathogenic mechanisms that may account for the detrimental effect of COVID-19 on the [Central Nervous System]. ...Any one or a combination of these mechanisms put COVID-19 survivors at risk for developing long-term neurological consequences, either by aggravating a pre-existing neurological disorder or by initiating a new disorder. This concern is supported by findings that show that one third of patients at the time of discharge have evidence of cognitive impairment and motor deficits. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7271826/
Gesundheit.
Even if this fear is proven correct it doesn't change the FACT that all of the obscene and disproportionate death rates are in D states. Those dead people can't worry about risks and maybe's down the road. And doesn't Cuomo have the common sense to shut up on criticizing Trump's covid response given the state that he turned into a cemetery for the elderly in nursing homes? The hubris is remarkable, come on MSF throw me a bone on that one at least.
As I said, you dissected my words but not my point.
We should disregard the embedded falsities, just look at your points? If the words are to be disregarded, why not state the point directly, cleanly? Inclusion of false statements creates the perception that you can't substantiate your points.
In the rest you're backpeddling, discussing only Biden, giving only Biden quotes. Yet you had written "Biden and Pelosi ...." and doubled down: "that is precisely what happened". Own up and move on.
Cuomo and nursing homes? You had patients who needed continuous attention (i.e. nursing care), but no longer required hospitalization. Their hospital beds were needed. What do you do? At the time, returning those patients to nursing homes did not strike me as the right thing to do.
Currently I still think that, but I find it a closer call. The worst part of what he did was return patients without testing to see if they were contagious.
Aside from that, all the available options were bad. He could gamble that either the level of care was high enough in nursing homes to prevent the spread of the virus or in the alternative, that the level of care was so low that the virus would spread anyway. He could write off those patients (with relatively short life expectancies) as "acceptable losses", a sort of triage. Or he could keep them in hospitals and try to get them resources, if not space, to squeeze in more patients.
He could have done better. We still need an independent study to determine, FWIW, whether it would have made any difference. Of course his own study says no. Check out the Moreland Commission for a sense of Cuomo and his commissions.
As I said, you dissected my words but not my point.
We should disregard the embedded falsities, just look at your points? If the words are to be disregarded, why not state the point directly, cleanly? Inclusion of false statements creates the perception that you can't substantiate your points.
In the rest you're backpeddling, discussing only Biden, giving only Biden quotes. Yet you had written "Biden and Pelosi ...." and doubled down: "that is precisely what happened". Own up and move on.
I'm sorry MSF, despite your research and data you lose this round. There was no "embedded falsities" except those that might be contrived by you (and similar so-called "fact checkers") through word dissection. My point could not have been clearer. I said: "This idea that Trump botched the covid response is widespread, and many say Biden would have handled it better. I predict that flips for Trump by election night. First, the initial outbreak happened while dems, specifically including Biden and Pelosi, were downplaying the virus and bashing Trump's air travel ban as "xenophobic." The core point was basic, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I believe this is the point that will undermine Biden's claim to the high ground on covid, ultimately. The dems did downplay the virus early on and did charge Xenophobia. Pelosi was very clearly part of the downplaying. So was Biden, and he did use the xenophobia charge to make his point. So if you want to say that Pelosi specifically didn't specifically call the travel ban itself "xenophobic," fine. (I think the latter is your point though it's not entirely clear.) If so, it's is a real forest for trees argument that has nothing to do with my thesis, but you can have it if you want.
Cuomo and nursing homes? You had patients who needed continuous attention (i.e. nursing care), but no longer required hospitalization. Their hospital beds were needed. What do you do? At the time, returning those patients to nursing homes did not strike me as the right thing to do.
Currently I still think that, but I find it a closer call. The worst part of what he did was return patients without testing to see if they were contagious.
Aside from that, all the available options were bad. He could gamble that either the level of care was high enough in nursing homes to prevent the spread of the virus or in the alternative, that the level of care was so low that the virus would spread anyway. He could write off those patients (with relatively short life expectancies) as "acceptable losses", a sort of triage. Or he could keep them in hospitals and try to get them resources, if not space, to squeeze in more patients.
He could have done better. We still need an independent study to determine, FWIW, whether it would have made any difference. Of course his own study says no. Check out the Moreland Commission for a sense of Cuomo and his commissions.
All I can say is that if it were Trump who gave a national mandate to implement the same nursing home policy as Cuomo did on his own the dems would be running impeachment hearings right now.
I read this yesterday, well written but not well reasoned. It should have stopped with "But what’s different in this case[.]" The answer is very little absent the bias of the reader. If Bill Clinton hadn't done it first I wonder what the reaction would be to Trump getting a blow job from an intern in the oval office, and then lying about the whole affair. I know he would not be giving key note speeches at the RNC in the years that followed, hard to do that from a jail cell. Double standard, again.
>> wonder what the reaction would be to Trump getting a blow job from an intern in the oval office, and then lying about the whole affair. I know he would not be giving key note speeches at the RNC in the years that followed,
this wins the comedy silver at least
and not just for misunderstanding what puts one in jail
>> wonder what the reaction would be to Trump getting a blow job from an intern in the oval office, and then lying about the whole affair. I know he would not be giving key note speeches at the RNC in the years that followed,
this wins the comedy silver at least
and not just for misunderstanding what puts one in jail
If you think what Clinton did could not result in a criminal conviction you know not of you speak. Putting that to one side, if it were Trump the BJ would have been sexual assault and the cover up would have been addressed so as to result in unquestioned perjury. Yet the real comedy is you leftists vilifying Trump for rumors that even if true were SO, SO much less offensive than what we KNOW Clinton did. And then you even feature him as some kind of hero at your conventions. Mind-BLOWING hypocrisy.
On a more serious note, identify one known undisputed fact about anything Trump has done (from a moral perspective) that's worse than Clinton's abuse of power (not to mention the optics) of using "the people's house" (that phony baloney Pelosi was so concerned about at the RNC) to abuse a young intern, abuse power, have an extramarital affair all in the oval office, and later accuse that young intern of lying (exposing her to potential long imprisonment, and ruining her life) and than obstructing justice and lying during the subsequent investigation. Yet the dems go ape shit over dropping the charges against Michael Flynn. Picking fights over things like this does not advance your cause.
If I remember correctly Clinton was not impeached for having sex (consensual or not) with an intern. It was for lying about it. Meanwhile Trump has verifiably lied thousands of times during his time as President.
It may be quibbled that Trump did not lie to a Federal Grand Jury thousands of times. Does it really matter? And, no, my pointing this out does not make me supporter of Bill Clinton.
If I remember correctly Clinton was not impeached for having sex (consensual or not) with an intern. It was for lying about it. Meanwhile Trump has verifiably lied thousands of times during his time as President.
Correct. "I did not have sex with that woman!" So, a blow job doesn't count, Mr. President? Nice trick with the cigar, too... ******************************************** Then there were the nights in the Lincoln bedroom being offered. It all sucks.
..... Trump knows no boundaries, though. Zero. None. He will do anything. Charlie Sykes: "This President has no fixed principles." Neither does he own a conscience. Or a soul. Have you noticed that he is un-dead? That he doesn't cast a shadow?
Cuomo and nursing homes? You had patients who needed continuous attention (i.e. nursing care), but no longer required hospitalization. Their hospital beds were needed. What do you do? At the time, returning those patients to nursing homes did not strike me as the right thing to do.
Currently I still think that, but I find it a closer call. The worst part of what he did was return patients without testing to see if they were contagious.
Aside from that, all the available options were bad. He could gamble that either the level of care was high enough in nursing homes to prevent the spread of the virus or in the alternative, that the level of care was so low that the virus would spread anyway. He could write off those patients (with relatively short life expectancies) as "acceptable losses", a sort of triage. Or he could keep them in hospitals and try to get them resources, if not space, to squeeze in more patients.
He could have done better. We still need an independent study to determine, FWIW, whether it would have made any difference. Of course his own study says no. Check out the Moreland Commission for a sense of Cuomo and his commissions.
Cuomo and DeBlasio did a terrible job. Pro Publica lays it out. And they're staying on him about the nursing home story. If that idiot ever tries to go national I'll be posting this story frequently.
The question is, who would Biden have listened to as the virus began to spread? The people at the CDC, FDA, and HHS? Or politicians? Cuomo? London Breed and Gavin Newsome? Jay Inslee? Mike DeWine? Why would he have sought advice from any of them?
The Obama administration left behind a planning document and an operational unit in the National Security Council to face pandemic threats. The Playbook can be read a Politico. The document makes it clear that advice would have been sought from the various responsible Federal agencies.
The document reads like a strategic overview that might have led to something more concrete in the manner of what used to be called the incident command system and is now called the National Incident Management System. I know they had got as far as running table-top exercises. I'm trying to imagine Trump participating in a table-top concerning any scenario.
As for the original message of this post . . . Hilary Clinton isn't on the ballot. The Russkies aren't pimping whoever the Green Party nominated (yet.) And The Donald isn't the outsider anymore. The way people felt about Hilary may be the biggest factor here. I didn't vote for her. I don't care for family dynasties.
I am not predicting the outcome. I think it will be another test of Allen Lichtman's theory of what presidential elections turn on.
I do think it's funny when people cite their friends that lie to pollsters about voting for The Donald. These people are admitted liars. So how do we know they aren't lying about lying to the pollsters? An evangelical conservative friend of mine called me this summer to tell me he was voting for Biden. Tim Alberta's American Carnage flipped him.
Maybe if the PREDICT unit was not merged into the NSC group, maybe PREDICT would have been able to react to a pandemic issue rather than reporting to some layman with no medical comprehension trying to explain medical issues. Even with the pandemic ongoing, there has been no effort to reincarnate the PREDICT unit for medical guidance.
Comments
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/uncomfortable-data-biden-slams-trumps-covid-response-33-deaths-are
"Speaking virtually to the Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) Victory Fund, Biden said the president had been slow to respond to the pandemic, and that he had only offered the public “denials, delays and distractions, many of which were nakedly xenophobic.”
“The pandemic has unleashed familiar forces of hate, fear and xenophobia that he always flames … that have always existed in this society,” Biden said. “But this president brought it with him, has brought with it a new rash of racial messages, verbal and physical attacks and other acts of hate, some subtle, some overt, against the Asian American and Pacific Islanders.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/498350-biden-trumps-coronavirus-response-has-been-nakedly-xenophobic
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7271826/
Gesundheit.
https://joebiden.com/covid19/#
I heard Biden is appointing Cuomo and Murphy to lead the task force.
We should disregard the embedded falsities, just look at your points? If the words are to be disregarded, why not state the point directly, cleanly? Inclusion of false statements creates the perception that you can't substantiate your points.
In the rest you're backpeddling, discussing only Biden, giving only Biden quotes. Yet you had written "Biden and Pelosi ...." and doubled down: "that is precisely what happened". Own up and move on.
Currently I still think that, but I find it a closer call. The worst part of what he did was return patients without testing to see if they were contagious.
Aside from that, all the available options were bad. He could gamble that either the level of care was high enough in nursing homes to prevent the spread of the virus or in the alternative, that the level of care was so low that the virus would spread anyway. He could write off those patients (with relatively short life expectancies) as "acceptable losses", a sort of triage. Or he could keep them in hospitals and try to get them resources, if not space, to squeeze in more patients.
He could have done better. We still need an independent study to determine, FWIW, whether it would have made any difference. Of course his own study says no. Check out the Moreland Commission for a sense of Cuomo and his commissions.
The core point was basic, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I believe this is the point that will undermine Biden's claim to the high ground on covid, ultimately. The dems did downplay the virus early on and did charge Xenophobia. Pelosi was very clearly part of the downplaying. So was Biden, and he did use the xenophobia charge to make his point. So if you want to say that Pelosi specifically didn't specifically call the travel ban itself "xenophobic," fine. (I think the latter is your point though it's not entirely clear.) If so, it's is a real forest for trees argument that has nothing to do with my thesis, but you can have it if you want.
this wins the comedy silver at least
and not just for misunderstanding what puts one in jail
this takes comedy bronze
it would be higher except your bad pun attempt was in caps
https://law.stanford.edu/2020/05/11/doj-drops-charges-against-former-national-security-advisor-michael-flynn/
Third president to be impeached. What a legacy to be remembered by.
You are correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_impeachment
********************************************
Then there were the nights in the Lincoln bedroom being offered. It all sucks.
..... Trump knows no boundaries, though. Zero. None. He will do anything. Charlie Sykes: "This President has no fixed principles." Neither does he own a conscience. Or a soul. Have you noticed that he is un-dead? That he doesn't cast a shadow?
The question is, who would Biden have listened to as the virus began to spread? The people at the CDC, FDA, and HHS? Or politicians? Cuomo? London Breed and Gavin Newsome? Jay Inslee? Mike DeWine? Why would he have sought advice from any of them?
The Obama administration left behind a planning document and an operational unit in the National Security Council to face pandemic threats. The Playbook can be read a Politico. The document makes it clear that advice would have been sought from the various responsible Federal agencies.
The document reads like a strategic overview that might have led to something more concrete in the manner of what used to be called the incident command system and is now called the National Incident Management System. I know they had got as far as running table-top exercises. I'm trying to imagine Trump participating in a table-top concerning any scenario.
As for the original message of this post . . . Hilary Clinton isn't on the ballot. The Russkies aren't pimping whoever the Green Party nominated (yet.) And The Donald isn't the outsider anymore. The way people felt about Hilary may be the biggest factor here. I didn't vote for her. I don't care for family dynasties.
I am not predicting the outcome. I think it will be another test of Allen Lichtman's theory of what presidential elections turn on.
I do think it's funny when people cite their friends that lie to pollsters about voting for The Donald. These people are admitted liars. So how do we know they aren't lying about lying to the pollsters? An evangelical conservative friend of mine called me this summer to tell me he was voting for Biden. Tim Alberta's American Carnage flipped him.
https://www.arundelpatriot.org/2020/04/02/how-president-trump-paved-the-way-for-the-coronavirus-a-timeline/
Of course who needs scientists when the POTUS is the most knowledgeable about everything.
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-10-20/president-trump-thinks-hes-the-smartest-person-in-the-room
Well, considering the type of people that he chooses for advisors I suppose that could sometimes be true.