|
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 |
On October 08 2020 04:22 Nouar wrote:
So today the White House physician announced they had detected antibodies in Trump's blood test, while there were none on thursday.
Wasn't he injected with an experimental 8g cocktail of antibodies around friday ? I mean... I would hope they find antibodies after that injection !!
Did they specify 8 g of fluid or 8 g of material? 8 mL isn't a ton, but if we're talking 8 g of powder, they must have been shitting bricks prior lmao.
and yes, adding even 8 mL should mean easy detection. Desperate for good news? maybe..
|
On October 08 2020 03:05 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 21:56 Simberto wrote:
They say that some people are blind on the right eye, but when you look at Nettles, you notice that he also has a massive microscope attached to his left eye. Yeah it's really depressing to watch him argue so consistently in bad faith, and do such astounding mental gymnastics in order to keep to his dogma. Zero intellectual integrity, which I guess happens when you're always defending the indefensible.
I always imagine Nettles comes from some kind of right-wing bastion (not wholly unlike an equivalent to the mostly-left bastion we are here) then comes here and parrots the things they read, but fails to understand the things well enough to actually assess/defend them properly.
It's like an awkward way of getting the 'news' you'd avoid reading in the first place.
|
So I wonder if the public perception that the race is still close is hurting Trump. I mean by almost any metric Trump is getting murdered but because of 2016 a lot of conservatives are complacent. He is headed for single didgets percentage on 538. Instead of freaking out and getting motivated they are like it is no big deal and brushing it off. Kid you not a lot of them think he is going to beat his 2016 numbers which is impossible at this point.
|
On October 07 2020 23:41 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 22:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 07 2020 22:04 Gorsameth wrote:
But hey, no surprise you aren't willing to admit that Obama's election set off a large portion of the right when you also don't see the problem with black people being murdered in the streets by police.
Not willing to admit it was due to race, but rather his policies. But, run a poll with Republicans on their approval rating regarding Clarence Thomas if you still somehow think this is about race. It is eminently possible for people to have problematic racial attitudes while approving of a singular black individual. I find the narratives you pump out increasingly nonsensical, given they seem to entirely ignore the Obama years and couch everything in ‘it’s not x, it’s a reaction to the excesses of the left’, which entirely sidesteps a large chunk of time that those on the left are themselves reacting to. What about Chicago might suffice as a gotcha elsewhere, not really in this thread. While they’re linked phenomena, you can tackle crime or police malfeasance together or separately, it’s not a matter of one or the other.
Interesting how folks point to Obama, but do y'all really think the GOP went softer on Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter? What about Pelosi, Schumer, AOC, etc.? You attribute to malice and racism when for me I see it mostly as partisan posturing, just like Democrats will do the same to folks like Tim Scott, Watts, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, etc. You hear Uncle Tom bullshit all the time (which isn't better than the birtherism non-sense).
|
On October 08 2020 04:22 Nouar wrote:
So today the White House physician announced they had detected antibodies in Trump's blood test, while there were none on thursday.
Wasn't he injected with an experimental 8g cocktail of antibodies around friday ? I mean... I would hope they find antibodies after that injection !! Wouldn't he naturally have antibodies at this point as his own body is trying to fight off the infection? Regardless of whatever treatment he has had?
|
On when Trump last tested negative, they don't want to look back through the records.... of 1 week ago. Like the only two reasons they would say this would be that either he was already positive before going to the debate, or that their test regime was lacking and they didn't test him at all before going to the debate.
|
On October 08 2020 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 04:22 Nouar wrote:
So today the White House physician announced they had detected antibodies in Trump's blood test, while there were none on thursday.
Wasn't he injected with an experimental 8g cocktail of antibodies around friday ? I mean... I would hope they find antibodies after that injection !! Wouldn't he naturally have antibodies at this point as his own body is trying to fight off the infection? Regardless of whatever treatment he has had?
4 days is a little early... see this opterown post from the covid one.
They make it sound like he's got an awesome immune system and completely thwarted the virus with no symptoms (just look at how he looked to be gasping for air yesterday). It's pretty misleading, especially when you add that antibody cocktail.
On October 07 2020 22:40 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 20:20 Silvanel wrote:
A question: How long after the infection can be coronawirus deteced (in case someone wants to know if he already had it) ?? PCR is the main test used to diagnose COVID-19. It detects viral RNA from a swab. RNA can be detected from ~48hr prior to symptoms to up to a few months afterwards, but those are extremes. Usually it's detectable from about day -1 to day 14ish, depending on how severe your disease is. Antibody testing is not useful in the acute setting, but can show whether you've been exposed or not. It's a blood test. The test is usually positive 7-14 days after onset of symptoms. The antibodies remain detectable for many weeks, but in some people the antibodies can become undetectable after a few weeks-months. It would depend on your suspected time frame of infection, but antibody testing is probably more useful for you.
|
On October 08 2020 05:36 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On October 08 2020 04:22 Nouar wrote:
So today the White House physician announced they had detected antibodies in Trump's blood test, while there were none on thursday.
Wasn't he injected with an experimental 8g cocktail of antibodies around friday ? I mean... I would hope they find antibodies after that injection !! Wouldn't he naturally have antibodies at this point as his own body is trying to fight off the infection? Regardless of whatever treatment he has had? 4 days is a little early... see this opterown post from the covid one. They make it sound like he's got an awesome immune system and completely thwarted the virus with no symptoms (just look at how he looked to be gasping for air yesterday). It's pretty misleading, especially when you add that antibody cocktail. Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 22:40 opterown wrote:On October 07 2020 20:20 Silvanel wrote:
A question: How long after the infection can be coronawirus deteced (in case someone wants to know if he already had it) ?? PCR is the main test used to diagnose COVID-19. It detects viral RNA from a swab. RNA can be detected from ~48hr prior to symptoms to up to a few months afterwards, but those are extremes. Usually it's detectable from about day -1 to day 14ish, depending on how severe your disease is. Antibody testing is not useful in the acute setting, but can show whether you've been exposed or not. It's a blood test. The test is usually positive 7-14 days after onset of symptoms. The antibodies remain detectable for many weeks, but in some people the antibodies can become undetectable after a few weeks-months. It would depend on your suspected time frame of infection, but antibody testing is probably more useful for you. He first tested positive on Thursday from what we know (and they didn't disclose this initially). And as per a few posts above they refuse to say when his last negative was so atleast 6 days, possibly more since he was infected.
It might indeed be on the short side, but not impossible for him to naturally have antibodies. But he also likely received some as part of his treatment so either way the statement that he tests positive for antibodies is completely useless.
|
On October 08 2020 05:17 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 23:41 WombaT wrote:On October 07 2020 22:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 07 2020 22:04 Gorsameth wrote:
But hey, no surprise you aren't willing to admit that Obama's election set off a large portion of the right when you also don't see the problem with black people being murdered in the streets by police.
Not willing to admit it was due to race, but rather his policies. But, run a poll with Republicans on their approval rating regarding Clarence Thomas if you still somehow think this is about race. It is eminently possible for people to have problematic racial attitudes while approving of a singular black individual. I find the narratives you pump out increasingly nonsensical, given they seem to entirely ignore the Obama years and couch everything in ‘it’s not x, it’s a reaction to the excesses of the left’, which entirely sidesteps a large chunk of time that those on the left are themselves reacting to. What about Chicago might suffice as a gotcha elsewhere, not really in this thread. While they’re linked phenomena, you can tackle crime or police malfeasance together or separately, it’s not a matter of one or the other. Interesting how folks point to Obama, but do y'all really think the GOP went softer on Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter? What about Pelosi, Schumer, AOC, etc.? You attribute to malice and racism when for me I see it mostly as partisan posturing, just like Democrats will do the same to folks like Tim Scott, Watts, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, etc. You hear Uncle Tom bullshit all the time (which isn't better than the birtherism non-sense).
Oh like that time they elected the guy who made and gathered political steam with a conspiracy theory about Jimmy Carter not being a real american and being born in Kenya.
Oh. Wait...
|
On October 08 2020 05:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2020 05:36 Nouar wrote:On October 08 2020 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On October 08 2020 04:22 Nouar wrote:
So today the White House physician announced they had detected antibodies in Trump's blood test, while there were none on thursday.
Wasn't he injected with an experimental 8g cocktail of antibodies around friday ? I mean... I would hope they find antibodies after that injection !! Wouldn't he naturally have antibodies at this point as his own body is trying to fight off the infection? Regardless of whatever treatment he has had? 4 days is a little early... see this opterown post from the covid one. They make it sound like he's got an awesome immune system and completely thwarted the virus with no symptoms (just look at how he looked to be gasping for air yesterday). It's pretty misleading, especially when you add that antibody cocktail. On October 07 2020 22:40 opterown wrote:On October 07 2020 20:20 Silvanel wrote:
A question: How long after the infection can be coronawirus deteced (in case someone wants to know if he already had it) ?? PCR is the main test used to diagnose COVID-19. It detects viral RNA from a swab. RNA can be detected from ~48hr prior to symptoms to up to a few months afterwards, but those are extremes. Usually it's detectable from about day -1 to day 14ish, depending on how severe your disease is. Antibody testing is not useful in the acute setting, but can show whether you've been exposed or not. It's a blood test. The test is usually positive 7-14 days after onset of symptoms. The antibodies remain detectable for many weeks, but in some people the antibodies can become undetectable after a few weeks-months. It would depend on your suspected time frame of infection, but antibody testing is probably more useful for you. He first tested positive on Thursday from what we know (and they didn't disclose this initially). And as per a few posts above they refuse to say when his last negative was so atleast 6 days, possibly more since he was infected. It might indeed be on the short side, but not impossible for him to naturally have antibodies. But he also likely received some as part of his treatment so either way the statement that he tests positive for antibodies is completely useless.
It's not impossible, but you said, "wouldn't he already have antibodies? "
The answer is, "he might, but probably not".
I agree it's a useless statement, but it's not like we've ever expected useful statements from the WH.
|
On October 07 2020 20:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 11:53 Nevuk wrote:
More seriously:
The average democratic voter may have been calling republicans racists for years now, but it wasn't until very recently that anyone in party leadership started echoing it when talking about people rather than very specific actions. Voting rights act repeal of 2013? They would call it racist, but they wouldn't call Boehner racist.
It wasn't until Hillary in 2016 called them a basket of deplorables that anyone in leadership said it about republicans, and that was clearly an unintentional gaffe. Michelle Obama recently saying that Trump's campaign was racist in a scripted speech is the closest I've seen.
There's a lot of "obscure democratic blogger wrongly calls out racism" "falsely accused victim goes on fox news and conservative talk radio to talk about how reverse racism is the real issue and how it murdered their wife and slept with their dog" that makes cries of racism seem a lot more common and powerful than they really are. Started getting like that until around 2008-2009 when social media took off. Also starting around this time news article became more clickbait instead of actual news. Seems to coincide with the rise of the smartphone and people not using their PC so much. The pool is far larger than the mid 2000's (# of users online & actual content online) and people need to say crazier stuff to get noticed, whether to satisy their narcissism, earn them a few bucks or both.That explains a lot of it.
Ironically, for all that people shit on the posts after this one, this was pretty reasonable. It's an issue for both sides, though I think it's gotten worse among conservatives as the population on Facebook has begun aging. It was definitely worse among non-conservatives <2009ish, when the majority of social media used by non-college aged people was blogging, with things like Joy Behar's blog.
I'd blame facebook more than pretty much any other specific entity for the rise in polarization. Obama's election would definitely have always led to a rise in racialized politics, but facebook made it easy.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On October 08 2020 05:17 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 23:41 WombaT wrote:On October 07 2020 22:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 07 2020 22:04 Gorsameth wrote:
But hey, no surprise you aren't willing to admit that Obama's election set off a large portion of the right when you also don't see the problem with black people being murdered in the streets by police.
Not willing to admit it was due to race, but rather his policies. But, run a poll with Republicans on their approval rating regarding Clarence Thomas if you still somehow think this is about race. It is eminently possible for people to have problematic racial attitudes while approving of a singular black individual. I find the narratives you pump out increasingly nonsensical, given they seem to entirely ignore the Obama years and couch everything in ‘it’s not x, it’s a reaction to the excesses of the left’, which entirely sidesteps a large chunk of time that those on the left are themselves reacting to. What about Chicago might suffice as a gotcha elsewhere, not really in this thread. While they’re linked phenomena, you can tackle crime or police malfeasance together or separately, it’s not a matter of one or the other. Interesting how folks point to Obama, but do y'all really think the GOP went softer on Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter? What about Pelosi, Schumer, AOC, etc.? You attribute to malice and racism when for me I see it mostly as partisan posturing, just like Democrats will do the same to folks like Tim Scott, Watts, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, etc. You hear Uncle Tom bullshit all the time (which isn't better than the birtherism non-sense).
I mean to an extent, there’s the standard cut and thrust of partisan political business, especially within the confines of a de facto two party system. So yeah, plenty of this isn’t especially novel at a base sense, as to quite the degree and with the malice in the wider culture that surrounds it I’m not so sure.
Granted I’d have to refresh myself quite considerably on the Gingrich/Clinton dance. Republicans fighting on their policies or whatever principle they claim to hold that particular day is to be expected, outright and openly trying to block a President from getting things done even when it doesn’t conflict with the aforementioned is another thing.
I’m not a particular fan of Uncle Tom rhetoric, or rabid detached partisanship in governance. Nor do I deny the Dems are extremely partisan now, indeed I think they should be as it’s the only sensible position to adopt with the tactics used by their opposing party and with how the mechanics of the political system work.
That said the Uncle Tom designation is a judgement call based on observable behaviour, the birther nonsense was completely detached from reality entirely and should never have been entertained by any prominent political figure.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On October 08 2020 06:45 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 20:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 07 2020 11:53 Nevuk wrote:
More seriously:
The average democratic voter may have been calling republicans racists for years now, but it wasn't until very recently that anyone in party leadership started echoing it when talking about people rather than very specific actions. Voting rights act repeal of 2013? They would call it racist, but they wouldn't call Boehner racist.
It wasn't until Hillary in 2016 called them a basket of deplorables that anyone in leadership said it about republicans, and that was clearly an unintentional gaffe. Michelle Obama recently saying that Trump's campaign was racist in a scripted speech is the closest I've seen.
There's a lot of "obscure democratic blogger wrongly calls out racism" "falsely accused victim goes on fox news and conservative talk radio to talk about how reverse racism is the real issue and how it murdered their wife and slept with their dog" that makes cries of racism seem a lot more common and powerful than they really are. Started getting like that until around 2008-2009 when social media took off. Also starting around this time news article became more clickbait instead of actual news. Seems to coincide with the rise of the smartphone and people not using their PC so much. The pool is far larger than the mid 2000's (# of users online & actual content online) and people need to say crazier stuff to get noticed, whether to satisy their narcissism, earn them a few bucks or both.That explains a lot of it. Ironically, for all that people shit on the posts after this one, this was pretty reasonable. It's an issue for both sides, though I think it's gotten worse among conservatives as the population on Facebook has begun aging. It was definitely worse among non-conservatives <2009ish, when the majority of social media used by non-college aged people was blogging, with things like Joy Behar's blog. I'd blame facebook more than pretty much any other specific entity for the rise in polarization. Obama's election would definitely have always led to a rise in racialized politics, but facebook made it easy.
Purely anecdotal but in my teenage years keeping up with politics and discussing politics was largely a hobby confined to people who actively read a lot about politics and, in my experience was somewhat similar to the tenor of this thread.
Approaching the horrors of 31 and old age in a fortnight and it’s an entirely different landscape in terms of discourse.
I would posit a crude formulation that we’re seeing a certain cyclical process whereupon the democratisation of information and news has galvanised the advancement of certain left wing ideas among the youth, where it could have been previously buried by the gatekeepers of the mainstream media. While ultimately unsuccessful I don’t think say, Bernie Sanders gets remotely close to the Dem nomination in an alternative timeline where technology stayed static.
How do you counter a certain momentum in one direction that is enabled by openness to information? With similarly strong counter arguments, or alternatively with a slew of misinformation into a borderline unregulated space.
I’ll leave it up to readers to decide which path has been chosen by and large.
|
30 minutes til Pence/Harris debate. Should be interesting. Hope she shows up in prosecutor mode because there's a lot of answers I would like to hear out of him.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37120 Posts
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37120 Posts
The VP debate was nice, but it didn't generate as much hype and discussion afterwards, so we will go ahead and lock the debate thread a little early and unlock USPMT.
We will unlock the debate thread on October 15 for the... Joe Biden town hall debate...?
|
Frankly it was a little boring, so I'm not surprised. It was the regular question dodging career politicians that we know and love. It did serve to remind me why people voted for Trump, since it seems like all of the previous politicians were just (more polished) versions of the same.
(Of course the issue with Trump is... he is who he is as a person)
|
On October 09 2020 09:20 WarSame wrote:
Frankly it was a little boring, so I'm not surprised. It was the regular question dodging career politicians that we know and love. It did serve to remind me why people voted for Trump, since it seems like all of the previous politicians were just (more polished) versions of the same.
(Of course the issue with Trump is... he is who he is as a person)
It was a reminder that a "return to normal" is just politicians lying and dodging questions while screwing over their constituencies in a more civil way.
|
Yeah, it's weird GH. I still think you're a bit out there sometimes, but I'm slowly coming to see the truth in a lot of what you say. It's like I'm moving from a JimmiC default Canadian centre-left position to maybe a bit more left, with more distrust in the political process.
This is especially true of American politics. I feel like Canadian politics is still generally giving me good options in the general election, though I'm going to be giving the NDP and Green party much closer looks this time around (and I was a CPC member for their second most recent leadership race).
|
Hm, I just listened to one of these "far-right militia" fellas' (Brandon Caserta) videos talking for about 30 minutes. Can't really speak for the others included in the scheme, but this dude is certainly an anarchist rather than right-wing. It's mostly him speaking to the immorality of any and all government and disregarding their authority based on initiation of force, which is all the government does. He talks against Trump and points out that he is not a friend to those who support him, and refers to Trump as a tyrant. He points out that it makes no sense to allow certain people to enforce rules and initiate violence upon the rest; equates supporting the police to supporting slavery-enforcement. Rejects the existence of laws and the legitimacy of democracy to pick a ruling class. Supporting/participating in the government in is supporting/participating in slavery; legitimizing authority is legitimizing slavery. His personal motivation doesn't seem to be that of limited government, but rather no government.
His stuff was yanked off of YouTube rather quickly so I'm just assuming TL wouldn't want me posting links here; research if you don't trust my summary :p I think there are a few clips on twitter if you don't want to listen to the whole thing (it's sort of interesting, not necessarily compelling.)
Thought it might be worth pointing out that this guy didn't seem to be operating as a supporter of right wing-ideals. That said, again, I can't speak for the motivations of the others in the group (or the group as a whole,) but maybe the label of right-wing extremism isn't the appropriate title. If Caserta's views reflect that of the others involved, it seems possible to me that these people were against what they saw as abuse of power by the governor, police, and government as a whole rather than attacking leftist ideals specifically. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it interesting enough to bring up.
And before anyone thinks I'm defending the far-right: I'm not. I don't support that bullshit.
I'll attach the articles posted by Erasme and DPB in the presidential debate thread for reference (I was about to post there before it got locked xd):
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/10/08/feds-thwart-militia-plot-kidnap-michigan-gov-gretchen-whitmer/5922301002/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-michigan-whitmer-idUSKBN26T2ZF
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
