EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2320
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35145 Posts
| ||
|
Vivax
21972 Posts
This would be something both parties agreed to do, if I'm not wrong. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On May 21 2020 16:44 cLutZ wrote: HCQ is a generally safe drug with almost no side effects in most people (ones that most doctors who would be prescribing it prophetically to other healthcare workers would know, as an obvious example), and it has an obvious route for possible effectiveness via hemoglobin.* That is the something more. Off labeling is rarely based on much more. *Note we really don't have a full biological reason for why HCQ works against malaria and lupus. You are missing that most drugs are actually used all over the place all of the time based on what doctors hope will work. Think House, but on a wide scale, over many patients. Once a drug is generally approved, what happens is that people do all sorts of mediocre studies on that drug for ancillary uses and then doctors use their best judgment. Another thing is that safety is overweighted in formal approval. Aspirin would probably not be approved today for either pain or heart attacks, it is effective for both. Not only is offlabeling part of American drug culture, it is basically necessitated by the approval structure. There are many compounds that are probably effective but not used because they have never passed. If HCQ was not approved for used today, it would never be approved even for malaria. Not because its not useful for malaria, but because the cost of approval exceeds the potential gain for a private entity. Also, ethical doctors are not gonna do a randomized trial on a thing they think works unless they are getting paid and have cover. They just choose the course they think will work best. This means samples are nonrepresentative. But, some of the better studies suggest it does prevent progression, but probably doesn't solve cases once death is likely imminent. This is consistent with the hypothetical models that say the disease affects hemoglobin rather than the lungs directly. 3 things: 1) If I’m not mistaken, the dose being used for COVID is quite a bit higher than the typical dose as a malaria prophylactic (200 mg b.i.d. vs. 600 mg weekly), so the risk of side effects increases pretty dramatically. Even more so when adding other cardiac risk factors (azithromycin also promotes QT elongation, and COVID-19 itself often presents with heart symptoms). So “we already know it’s a safe drug” is not as firm as you think. 2) Off-label use will generally have something much stronger behind it than “in vitro activity against a related disease.” If a drug has gone through FDA approval for a related disease it doesn’t prove it works for your disease (see Lyrica), but that’s a lot stronger than in vitro activity. 3) I’d be interested to see some of these “better studies,” because anything not from the Marseilles group has so far mostly concluded “no statistically significant efficacy, QT elongation noted.” To my knowledge we have no data so far on prophylactic use, though. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 21 2020 23:25 Vivax wrote: If most of the world moves straight from a covid crisis into a new bank crisis, I hope you folks will know it wasn't because Biden got elected, but because congress passed a bill that would only let it emerge when they would allow it to. This would be something both parties agreed to do, if I'm not wrong. Seems like we've been putting off said banking crisis for quite a few years now - at least since late 2018, but honestly more so since 2008 when the money pump began in full swing. But when the productive economy is falling apart at the seams to such an extent that the government has committed to paying a large part of the nation's paychecks for many months to come, it's hard to see how this is supposed to last until December. At some point you really just can't save all the bad banks from themselves. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
On May 21 2020 23:25 Vivax wrote: If most of the world moves straight from a covid crisis into a new bank crisis, I hope you folks will know it wasn't because Biden got elected, but because congress passed a bill that would only let it emerge when they would allow it to. This would be something both parties agreed to do, if I'm not wrong. I think it's to soften the transition into one. Having banks report badly during a pandemic would likely crush the economy 100% and we'd really be in Great Depression 2.0. I'm no finance person but that seems like the most logical explanation. And while I don't have a problem with it necessarily, I wish it would break the "too big to fail" banks up or create a specific government oversight that has the tooth to go after them and allows better regulation of it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
On May 21 2020 23:55 LegalLord wrote: "Stop Great Depression 2.0" is fantastic cover for just pumping endless money into a failed system to mask systemic failure with hidden inflation. At this point you have to be a fool to fall for the same trick twice in just over a decade given how obvious it is that there was never any intention of "breaking up the banks" or fundamentally making things better. What is your suggestion on steps that should be taken? | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
This puts into stark reality how inept and grossly mismanaged this administration and by proxy, this country has become. This is borderline criminal negligence in my opinion. I really don't know what more to say than that. The U.S. could have prevented roughly 36,000 deaths from COVID-19 if broad social distancing measures had been put in place just one week earlier in March, according to an analysis from Columbia University. Underlining the importance of aggressively responding to the coronavirus, the study found the U.S. could have avoided at least 700,000 fewer infections if actions that began on March 15 had actually started on March 8. The U.S. currently has more than 1.5 million confirmed COVID-19 cases, and more than 93,000 people have died from the disease, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. In the analysis, researchers applied transmission models to data drawn from the pandemic's actual course county-by-county in the U.S. — the worst-hit nation in the world. The main focus of the study was the period from March 15 to May 3, when U.S. states and counties implemented "measures enforcing social distancing and restricting individual contact." Source | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 22 2020 00:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: What is your suggestion on steps that should be taken? Let the banks unwind and take a hit; focus the bailout effort more on the most vulnerable than the well-connected, and accept that a severe economic downturn is not particularly avoidable. And certainly don't spend the next decade pumping more money every time the economy starts to show signs of cracking because the original problems were never solved. Like most people in 2008, I did fall for the "we have to do this, it's this or Great Depression 2.0" trick. Years later, we're left with an anemic/jobless recovery for most people, and a financial system that will collapse the moment the government stops propping it up. If you're singing the same "stop the Great Depression 2.0 with massive bailouts of the banks" tune in 2020, I can only wonder if you just weren't paying attention to how the so-called "great" recession played out. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8983 Posts
On May 22 2020 01:44 LegalLord wrote: Let the banks unwind and take a hit; focus the bailout effort more on the most vulnerable than the well-connected, and accept that a severe economic downturn is not particularly avoidable. And certainly don't spend the next decade pumping more money every time the economy starts to show signs of cracking because the original problems were never solved. Like most people in 2008, I did fall for the "we have to do this, it's this or Great Depression 2.0" trick. Years later, we're left with an anemic/jobless recovery for most people, and a financial system that will collapse the moment the government stops propping it up. If you're singing the same "stop the Great Depression 2.0 with massive bailouts of the banks" tune in 2020, I can only wonder if you just weren't paying attention to how the so-called "great" recession played out. I know this isn't a personal attack on me, but it kinda feels like it hahahaha. I think I may have not clearly explained my position or why I think what is gonna happen, is going to happen. When I say that this this is a slow transition into an economic downturn, I meant just that. I don't think it wise to force banks to announce they're shit while everyone is trying to keep their head above water at the moment from the pandemic. Once they get people back to some sense of depraved previous normality, then they can let the bad news out. I don't think ripping the bandage off right now is a smart idea. When I said staving off Great Depression 2.0, I meant not saying "Fuck it everyone. Here's the current state of the system. We're gonna let this shit crumble and hopefully you kids can fix it in a couple years. I'm retired". I'd rather through this election that people start to work towards fixing the issue on a local/state level and preferably federal level. We know it won't happen because corporations are people too. So, best case is a slow transition to the inevitable economic decline and try to prop up the vulnerable (as they're currently doing, albeit not to my satisfaction). I never said spend a decade propping up bad banks and businesses. But to slowly transition into it. And let them fail. Let these behemoth companies fall by the wayside. Or as our socialist comrades would say, eat the rich. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23225 Posts
| ||
|
Vivax
21972 Posts
I usually wouldn't complain not being based in the US, but it seems the €-zone is intent to follow a similar path, either because otherwise the US would conclude they are taking advantage of it, or...dunno. I don't trust Lagarde to be as independent as she claims she is. Base line being here that the wealth gap is about to increase, not decrease. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7228 Posts
On May 22 2020 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote: There's 40 million recently unemployed people more than 30 million without health insurance amid a global pandemic and we're reopening while our new cases per day are higher than when we shut down. We're already in GD2.0 and a lot of denial imo. I dont think the cases per day is a good metric with the testing now being better than when we shut down its not apples to apples. The testing is still shit as far as quantity goes so who really knows where we are. Weve been home for 8 weeks and other than deaths being down we dont seem to have much to show for it. Its maddening. Are hospitals more prepared? Ventilator and ppe quantity? Testing capability? I think the unemployment numbers dont mean a bunch unless they linger for a month or two after things are reopened. When I say they dont mean much Im not downplaying the individual impact, im just saying weve purposely unemployed people. This isnt a "natural" downturn. Without demand people will be unemployed. Theres no demand if you arent allowed to be open for business. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On May 21 2020 16:44 cLutZ wrote: HCQ is a generally safe drug with almost no side effects in most people (ones that most doctors who would be prescribing it prophetically to other healthcare workers would know, as an obvious example), and it has an obvious route for possible effectiveness via hemoglobin.* That is the something more. Off labeling is rarely based on much more. *Note we really don't have a full biological reason for why HCQ works against malaria and lupus. You are missing that most drugs are actually used all over the place all of the time based on what doctors hope will work. Think House, but on a wide scale, over many patients. Once a drug is generally approved, what happens is that people do all sorts of mediocre studies on that drug for ancillary uses and then doctors use their best judgment. Another thing is that safety is overweighted in formal approval. Aspirin would probably not be approved today for either pain or heart attacks, it is effective for both. Not only is offlabeling part of American drug culture, it is basically necessitated by the approval structure. There are many compounds that are probably effective but not used because they have never passed. If HCQ was not approved for used today, it would never be approved even for malaria. Not because its not useful for malaria, but because the cost of approval exceeds the potential gain for a private entity. Also, ethical doctors are not gonna do a randomized trial on a thing they think works unless they are getting paid and have cover. They just choose the course they think will work best. This means samples are nonrepresentative. But, some of the better studies suggest it does prevent progression, but probably doesn't solve cases once death is likely imminent. This is consistent with the hypothetical models that say the disease affects hemoglobin rather than the lungs directly. Interesting post. So you agree that the only reason people would try HCQ is pure guess work. But that's is just the way it goes so its ok. Then you compare most doctors to House. Funny. Then you say that you can't believe studies because they skew their numbers. What can you trust ? Not those pesky scientists ! Then a nice strawman on how some drugs wouldn't be approved today so that makes it okay to misuses others, no arguments or anything. Then once again the "cant trust scientists". And a mention of a study that i'd like to see. Because all I could find that there was 0 effects. If I have misunderstood you, feel free to correct me, but try to not drown the fish. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21675 Posts
On May 22 2020 09:18 Doodsmack wrote: You mean obvious misconduct like withdrawing a case despite multiple guilty pleas because the defendant is a friend of the President?Should be interesting to see what happens in Flynn's case. He's appealing the trial judge's decision to request briefs from third parties. I did not realize it before but there is actually a procedural rule which does apparently grant a trial judge discretion to decide whether to grant a prosecution's motion to dismiss (i.e. to end a criminal case with the consent of both the prosecution and defendant). But the question is whether the trial judge only has such discretion in the case of obvious misconduct in the prosecution's decision to dismiss. https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1263596992896405504 Flynn's case is from what I can tell the textbook situation of why it is ultimately left up to the judge to decide on a dismissal. to avoid a situation where the defendant and DoJ conspire to avoid a trial/sentencing. Also from what I understand of this I can't see how this writ of mandamus has snowballs chance in hell. Its for a situation where a judge is acting unlawfully yet the law clearly states it is up to the judge to grant a dismissal. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 22 2020 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I know this isn't a personal attack on me, but it kinda feels like it hahahaha. I think I may have not clearly explained my position or why I think what is gonna happen, is going to happen. When I say that this this is a slow transition into an economic downturn, I meant just that. I don't think it wise to force banks to announce they're shit while everyone is trying to keep their head above water at the moment from the pandemic. Once they get people back to some sense of depraved previous normality, then they can let the bad news out. I don't think ripping the bandage off right now is a smart idea. When I said staving off Great Depression 2.0, I meant not saying "Fuck it everyone. Here's the current state of the system. We're gonna let this shit crumble and hopefully you kids can fix it in a couple years. I'm retired". I'd rather through this election that people start to work towards fixing the issue on a local/state level and preferably federal level. We know it won't happen because corporations are people too. So, best case is a slow transition to the inevitable economic decline and try to prop up the vulnerable (as they're currently doing, albeit not to my satisfaction). I never said spend a decade propping up bad banks and businesses. But to slowly transition into it. And let them fail. Let these behemoth companies fall by the wayside. Or as our socialist comrades would say, eat the rich. Ideally we'd be in a position where there wouldn't be two decades worth of really dangerous and self-destructive fiscal and monetary policy to unwind on the eve of a once in a lifetime economic shock, but yet here we are. I do very much understand the motivation behind wanting to use some gigantic amount of government spending in order to soften the blow of an economic downturn. And at first glance, it definitely looks sensible to just bail out the banks, preventing a financial crisis that will bring everything else to a halt. A large-scale failure of banks was, after all, a staple of the Great Depression, so preventing that would seem to make sense in preventing a significant credit crisis a la 2008 from spiraling into a full-on depression. That seemed to be the world's answer to the so-called "great recession" 12 years ago. By now, though, it should be clear how that game played out through the course of the Obama administration and the first few years of the Trump administration. The national debt rose to such highs that a new generation of policymakers had to make up convoluted leaps of logic to prove to themselves that debt doesn't actually matter (because otherwise they would have to admit just how much was racked up in the name of stimulus). The various financial institutions were propped up in such a way that the best-connected ones made a fortune, the most reckless off-loaded their bad debt onto the government or other bagholders, and no fundamental change in the circumstances leading to the actual financial crisis were ever remedied. The non-wealthy of the nation were largely left with an overall diminished economy and fewer high-quality jobs because there wasn't much more to go around after the wealthy and well-connected took their share of the government cheese. And none of this should be a surprise anymore - who, after all, is best positioned to take advantage of a gigantic amount of stimulus that is distributed in a decidedly top-down manner? The folks... at the top. Look at the $2T stimulus we have now, for example. $500B thrown at providing one month's expenses and a few months of unemployment in a fashion that's pretty nice for the poorest. $500B thrown at the actual virus. And the rest on businesses and corporations. Of course, beyond the initial trillion given to businesses, it turns out that we can just multiply the corporate welfare by 10 and have the Fed hand out $4.5 trillion in extremely cheap loans to big businesses and financial institutions. "Short term" in principle, but there's no doubt it'll just keep getting rolled over until the end of time because to actually have the Fed unwind their giant holding of loans would cause a meltdown in a market that has masked an unspeakable amount of dysfunction in endless borrowing. None of the things above are very different from what the Obama-era stimulus did. Bail out the financial institutions, have the Fed print money every time there's even a whiff of economic pullback, and keep a diseased system going with a dangerous mix of money-print and new debt. Worth noting that Trump pumped the economy with even more free money in trying to improve the numbers of "the economy" (via giant corporate tax cuts and aggressively pressuring the Fed to use its tools to prop up the stock market), but nevertheless it was only a matter of time before we'd be right back to the exact same situation that was buried in 2008 with a lot of stimulus money. It's easy to notionally end an economic crisis by pumping more money ($800 billion loss on mortgages? No problem, pump another trillion into the mortgage banks!), but in a decade you just end up in the exact same situation with far less leverage to be able to do anything about it. While the fact can be hidden for quite a while, the economy isn't going to fundamentally work if the average citizen is doing very poorly. You can only play finance games for so long before the lack of a strong backbone to that economy makes it all fail. Perhaps a good sign of that is that the general word on the current economy has been that a lot of things are going poorly, but the reason it's been moving along allegedly smoothly is because of the strength of consumerism (supported with large debt loads, of course). Well, I doubt there's going to be an awful lot of that once the economy "turns back on" at the end of this crisis, so hooray for more economic fallout. All that to say, you're not really going to "stop the Great Depression 2.0" by taking the lazy bank-and-corporation bailout approach while failing to reduce the gigantic mass of zombie businesses and doing nothing to address the eroding fundamentals of the economy. You're just going to buy yourself 12 years and make a "Greater Depression 2.1" in the process. Unwinding a mess of bad, economically dangerous businesses is going to be very painful during the downturn, but failing to do so just means you've delayed and exacerbated the crisis for some number of years. And when we're going on 40 million unemployed people, the government has probably shot their wad propping up a lot of corporations that can't be saved, in order to head off an economic depression that can't be stopped. What a great bailout. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On May 22 2020 09:44 Gorsameth wrote: You mean obvious misconduct like withdrawing a case despite multiple guilty pleas because the defendant is a friend of the President? Flynn's case is from what I can tell the textbook situation of why it is ultimately left up to the judge to decide on a dismissal. to avoid a situation where the defendant and DoJ conspire to avoid a trial/sentencing. Also from what I understand of this I can't see how this writ of mandamus has snowballs chance in hell. Its for a situation where a judge is acting unlawfully yet the law clearly states it is up to the judge to grant a dismissal. The mere fact that Flynn is the president's friend is not so important when you consider how unprecedented Flynn's entire case is. It all comes down to the events that transpired at the outset of his case. He was, effectively, surveilled by wiretap without any criminal or even national security predicate. He was the incoming national security advisor talking to a foreign diplomat and telling that diplomat not to escalate tensions; he should be encouraged to do that. His alleged lies consisted of him saying "I don't remember," which is a legal hedge against a charge of lying. And the FBI has no business policing the statements White House officials make to each, so it doesn't matter too much that Flynn "lied" to Pence about the phone call. Even granting that the FBI should be policing the conversations White House officials have among one another, the argument that Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail as a result of those conversations is just a total hail mary of an argument. And all of these facts make it a completely unprecedented case that reeks of law enforcement misconduct. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23225 Posts
| ||
| ||
