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.
Apparently, Donald Trump recently made another gaffe... claiming that Biden beat Obama? I'm assuming this is real, and not fake / A.I.?
Did Trump purposely say Biden (I don't know who else he would be referring to, since no one beat Obama)? Did Trump purposely say Obama (I don't know who else he would be referring to, since the only person that Biden beat was Trump, which Trump still denies)?
Did Trump get both names wrong? With some other gaffes, we could at least figure out the correct names (like Nancy Pelosi vs. Nikki Haley), but I can't decipher this one.
On March 19 2024 23:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Great take. Vote Biden.
Still no.
What I hear when Democrat voters talk about the threat Trump poses and accepting Biden's complicity in genocide is that they will follow whatever fascist laws/rules Trump puts in place no matter the consequences or how depraved they might be.
Their 'fight against fascism' basically starts and ends at the ballot box (even if their vote doesn't really matter), nevermind they are 'voting against fascism' by voting for someone that's openly (and not so openly) aiding and abetting a genocide by an authoritarian apartheid regime.
The reality is that if Trump wins, there will be NO checks on the Israeli government whatsoever because Trump's base has all of America's Islamaphobes in it, and Trump's own rhetoric says he will have do no checking whatsoever on Israel's aggression.
There is no good option here in the election for the Palestinians. Biden is the less bad one if this is your one button issue, if you think voting for any of the third party candidates is a better option then you're simply being naive about how US elections work. A vote for a liberal third party candidate that will check Israel harder than Joe Biden will is taking a vote away from Biden and giving Trump a better chance of winning.
It's not a reality I like but it's the reality that exists.
What I hear when Democrat voters talk about the threat Trump poses and accepting Biden's complicity in genocide is that they will follow whatever fascist laws/rules Trump puts in place no matter the consequences or how depraved they might be.
Their 'fight against fascism' basically starts and ends at the ballot box (even if their vote doesn't really matter), nevermind they are 'voting against fascism' by voting for someone that's openly (and not so openly) aiding and abetting a genocide by an authoritarian apartheid regime.
The reality is that if Trump wins, there will be NO checks on the Israeli government whatsoever...+ Show Spoiler +
because Trump's base has all of America's Islamaphobes in it, and Trump's own rhetoric says he will have do no checking whatsoever on Israel's aggression.
There is no good option here in the election for the Palestinians. Biden is the less bad one if this is your one button issue, if you think voting for any of the third party candidates is a better option then you're simply being naive about how US elections work. A vote for a liberal third party candidate that will check Israel harder than Joe Biden will is taking a vote away from Biden and giving Trump a better chance of winning.
It's not a reality I like but it's the reality that exists
.
I'd like to believe that with the US becoming an openly fascist dictatorship endorsing and arming genocide, the rest of the Western world wouldn't just bow and kiss the ring, but I'm increasingly skeptical it has such resolve.
All the "if Trump wins" scenarios basically say to me, is that if Trump wins, the people saying them will be picking up their batons to join the fascists (especially if they still get a meaningless ballot with it), not socialism to join in solidarity with the people they claim they are concerned for.
What I hear when Democrat voters talk about the threat Trump poses and accepting Biden's complicity in genocide is that they will follow whatever fascist laws/rules Trump puts in place no matter the consequences or how depraved they might be.
Their 'fight against fascism' basically starts and ends at the ballot box (even if their vote doesn't really matter), nevermind they are 'voting against fascism' by voting for someone that's openly (and not so openly) aiding and abetting a genocide by an authoritarian apartheid regime.
The reality is that if Trump wins, there will be NO checks on the Israeli government whatsoever...+ Show Spoiler +
because Trump's base has all of America's Islamaphobes in it, and Trump's own rhetoric says he will have do no checking whatsoever on Israel's aggression.
There is no good option here in the election for the Palestinians. Biden is the less bad one if this is your one button issue, if you think voting for any of the third party candidates is a better option then you're simply being naive about how US elections work. A vote for a liberal third party candidate that will check Israel harder than Joe Biden will is taking a vote away from Biden and giving Trump a better chance of winning.
It's not a reality I like but it's the reality that exists
.
I'd like to believe that with the US becoming an openly fascist dictatorship endorsing and arming genocide, the rest of the Western world wouldn't just bow and kiss the ring, but I'm increasingly skeptical it has such resolve.
All the "if Trump wins" scenarios basically say to me, is that if Trump wins, the people saying them will be picking up their batons to join the fascists (especially if they still get a meaningless ballot with it), not socialism to join in solidarity with the people they claim they are concerned for.
What does an acceptable policy on Palestine look like to you?
I mean obviously a cessation of active support and military aid I would assume.
Would the US have to actively intercede to try and better resolve the conflict, or merely stop in its supporting of Israel? I guess I’m asking if mere non-involvement or some kind of neutral hand would be the bar, or something else
GH doesn't understand that he's never spent any time offering a positive reason to chose socialism over facism. He doesn't understand why the "option" he's offering is in reality worse than what maga people are even "proposing". His entire shtick is to say "lets make everything worse on purpose" without having the ability to realize he too is saying we should abandon democracy just like what the maga people want to do.
He doesn't care about making things better he just wants to act like he's better than you by refusing the premise of the thread.
On March 20 2024 04:49 Sermokala wrote: Blame for the start of a crisis and blame for the continuance of said crisis are distinctly different things. Trump failed at managing covid for any time at all he was president. From the start of when he was informed at how bad it was going to be he kept messaging that it wasn't a problem and would go away any day of the week. This message was constantly spread at the same time critical time was being wasted to prepare for covid. Trump got rid of the department that was suppose to manage and prepare for Covid. By the Time Rudy gobert gets sick and the nation finally starts receiving the trauma of just how bad the plague was going to be there was no leader from the oval office preparing the nation for the trial to come. Even as things were undeniably bad and the medical system was showing signs about to collapse we have Trumps kids playing games with critical supplies. Trump was constantly belittling and was jealous all the time about the one guy in his administration that knew what they were doing. He follows the simplest American directive of "throw money at the problem" to get the vaccine updated and cleared in record time then refuses to convince the people to get it. The one good thing he does his entire presidency that actually benefited people and he is so shitty of a person he can't bring himself to save peoples lives.
On the other issue you had republicans up and down saying to any media they could that the border was now open and all immigrants should come on by because joe bidens not going to do anything anymore. You have a governor thats publicly advertising how he is going to send you to the good parts of the country for free if you're able to actually get to texas. Now that everyone can agree immigration needs reform and the border needs protection who is the one that is actually working to that and who is the one who is working against that?
I think 'The US is in need of border reform, and this was the Dem approach to enact border reform. It didn't work perfectly, or great, but isn't unsalvageable' is kinda where I'm at currently. I don't like the turnaround whataboutist "But Trump is a moron!". I don't see it as helpful, and I'd hope for a US gov't free of having to compare what it does to what Trump might have, or has, done.
If you were to, free of Trump considerations, assess the current border issues under Biden, where do you end up?
Trump is a fucking disaster human. We should still be able to criticize dems despite that.
I end up with the same need for comprehensive immigration reform that is impossible to do with a house of representatives that refuses to govern.
A federal level dispersal program to prepare cities for and to accept immigrants is not only necessary but beneficial for the nation as a whole. Immigrants commit less crime than natural born citizens and contribute to the economy. There are a lot of cities in the interior that could cheaply be renovated and accept these millions of new citizens easily compared to growing brand new construction.
Bj I'm not going to respond to your nonsense posting in response to a few words out of a whole post you clearly just skimmed. You're not pleasant enough of a person to justify me reading all that shit.
On March 20 2024 04:49 Sermokala wrote: Blame for the start of a crisis and blame for the continuance of said crisis are distinctly different things. Trump failed at managing covid for any time at all he was president. From the start of when he was informed at how bad it was going to be he kept messaging that it wasn't a problem and would go away any day of the week. This message was constantly spread at the same time critical time was being wasted to prepare for covid. Trump got rid of the department that was suppose to manage and prepare for Covid. By the Time Rudy gobert gets sick and the nation finally starts receiving the trauma of just how bad the plague was going to be there was no leader from the oval office preparing the nation for the trial to come. Even as things were undeniably bad and the medical system was showing signs about to collapse we have Trumps kids playing games with critical supplies. Trump was constantly belittling and was jealous all the time about the one guy in his administration that knew what they were doing. He follows the simplest American directive of "throw money at the problem" to get the vaccine updated and cleared in record time then refuses to convince the people to get it. The one good thing he does his entire presidency that actually benefited people and he is so shitty of a person he can't bring himself to save peoples lives.
On the other issue you had republicans up and down saying to any media they could that the border was now open and all immigrants should come on by because joe bidens not going to do anything anymore. You have a governor thats publicly advertising how he is going to send you to the good parts of the country for free if you're able to actually get to texas. Now that everyone can agree immigration needs reform and the border needs protection who is the one that is actually working to that and who is the one who is working against that?
I think 'The US is in need of border reform, and this was the Dem approach to enact border reform. It didn't work perfectly, or great, but isn't unsalvageable' is kinda where I'm at currently. I don't like the turnaround whataboutist "But Trump is a moron!". I don't see it as helpful, and I'd hope for a US gov't free of having to compare what it does to what Trump might have, or has, done.
If you were to, free of Trump considerations, assess the current border issues under Biden, where do you end up?
Trump is a fucking disaster human. We should still be able to criticize dems despite that.
I end up with the same need for comprehensive immigration reform that is impossible to do with a house of representatives that refuses to govern.
A federal level dispersal program to prepare cities for and to accept immigrants is not only necessary but beneficial for the nation as a whole. Immigrants commit less crime than natural born citizens and contribute to the economy. There are a lot of cities in the interior that could cheaply be renovated and accept these millions of new citizens easily compared to growing brand new construction.
Bj I'm not going to respond to your nonsense posting in response to a few words out of a whole post you clearly just skimmed. You're not pleasant enough of a person to justify me reading all that shit.
Is that feasible, though?
I'm not saying that because I don't believe it is, I'm asking because given what I know I expect it isn't and/or would cause a bunch of other problems. Part of the identity of the United States as far as I understand it is that it is... well, a united collection of individual states. Republicans are certainly against 'the government' having much control over anything, so I don't understand how you'd ever get a federal program through. Even if you did, the pessimist in me just sees it being abused to send as many migrants as humanly possible to California or whichever blue state, while simultaneously cutting the funding meant to support these programs and laughing to themselves the entire time. I could be misunderstanding your idea, but generally I have no faith that the US could construct and enact a functional system, because the US is perpetually at war with itself.
What I hear when Democrat voters talk about the threat Trump poses and accepting Biden's complicity in genocide is that they will follow whatever fascist laws/rules Trump puts in place no matter the consequences or how depraved they might be.
Their 'fight against fascism' basically starts and ends at the ballot box (even if their vote doesn't really matter), nevermind they are 'voting against fascism' by voting for someone that's openly (and not so openly) aiding and abetting a genocide by an authoritarian apartheid regime.
The reality is that if Trump wins, there will be NO checks on the Israeli government whatsoever...+ Show Spoiler +
because Trump's base has all of America's Islamaphobes in it, and Trump's own rhetoric says he will have do no checking whatsoever on Israel's aggression.
There is no good option here in the election for the Palestinians. Biden is the less bad one if this is your one button issue, if you think voting for any of the third party candidates is a better option then you're simply being naive about how US elections work. A vote for a liberal third party candidate that will check Israel harder than Joe Biden will is taking a vote away from Biden and giving Trump a better chance of winning.
It's not a reality I like but it's the reality that exists
.
I'd like to believe that with the US becoming an openly fascist dictatorship endorsing and arming genocide, the rest of the Western world wouldn't just bow and kiss the ring, but I'm increasingly skeptical it has such resolve.
All the "if Trump wins" scenarios basically say to me, is that if Trump wins, the people saying them will be picking up their batons to join the fascists (especially if they still get a meaningless ballot with it), not socialism to join in solidarity with the people they claim they are concerned for.
What does an acceptable policy on Palestine look like to you?
I mean obviously a cessation of active support and military aid I would assume.
Would the US have to actively intercede to try and better resolve the conflict, or merely stop in its supporting of Israel? I guess I’m asking if mere non-involvement or some kind of neutral hand would be the bar, or something else
"Acceptable" in what capacity I'd wonder?
If I tried to put myself back in my disaffected Democrat brain I'd want all support to stop and sanctions (though I've never really been a fan of most sanctions, some targeted ones could have appealed to me) to start stacking up until/unless progress begins on a Palestinian state with full self-determination within the framework of the "international rules-based order" with hopes that said order could still be salvaged.
In that context, I'd probably begrudgingly and barely "accept" heavily limited aid (like conditionally providing exclusively defensive stuff in exchange for meaningfully moving forward on Palestinian statehood).
But that would have been months and thousands of dead people ago. At this point, even if I could bring myself all the way back to the "enthusiastically Democrat" brain I had for Obama, these last few months would have been too much for me to tolerate.
I'd have to go all the way back to my angry child "The US makes the most awesomest weapons/don't f with us or we'll nuke you chumps!" brain to rationalize the brutality and the US's complicity in it, but that brain probably wouldn't have been a Democrat if it was old enough to vote. It'd probably have lost it's right to vote by the time it was old enough anyway.
On March 20 2024 12:26 Sermokala wrote: Bj I'm not going to respond to your nonsense posting in response to a few words out of a whole post you clearly just skimmed. You're not pleasant enough of a person to justify me reading all that shit.
Hilarious. My post (which takes about 30 seconds to read) was comprised overwhelmingly with statistics, quotes and data from extremely reputable sources is "nonsense." Which data point was nonsense? The one from the National Institute of Health, or the American College of Emergency Physicians or NPR or AP News? I'll forward your complaint to them.
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen you post any link to any reputable source for any of your claims... like ever... Your posts are comprised almost entirely of bad opinions and insults. I'll tell you what, let's take... say.. your last 100 posts chronologically, if you show me any of them that contains a single hyperlink to anything, a news article, a study, anything, I'll self-ban for a week.
On March 20 2024 12:26 Sermokala wrote: Bj I'm not going to respond to your nonsense posting in response to a few words out of a whole post you clearly just skimmed. You're not pleasant enough of a person to justify me reading all that shit.
Hilarious. My post (which takes about 30 seconds to read) was comprised overwhelmingly with statistics, quotes and data from extremely reputable sources is "nonsense." Which data point was nonsense? The one from the National Institute of Health, or the American College of Emergency Physicians or NPR or AP News? I'll forward your complaint to them.
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen you post any link to any reputable source for any of your claims... like ever... Your posts are comprised almost entirely of bad opinions and insults. I'll tell you what, let's take... say.. your last 100 posts chronologically, if you show me any of them that contains a single hyperlink to anything, a news article, a study, anything, I'll self-ban for a week.
Decent sourcing but employed in response to a throwaway line, rather than the central crux of his point, that Trump’s personal handling and conduct around Covid was let’s generously say, less than ideal.
Trump’s specific role being bloody shite, and worst case scenarios predicted and warned by relevant bodies ultimately not coming to pass can both be true simultaneously.
Like if I went around barebacking every broad in Belfast I can still be an idiot even if I somehow avoid contracting an STI or creating a legion of nascent Minibats
What I hear when Democrat voters talk about the threat Trump poses and accepting Biden's complicity in genocide is that they will follow whatever fascist laws/rules Trump puts in place no matter the consequences or how depraved they might be.
Their 'fight against fascism' basically starts and ends at the ballot box (even if their vote doesn't really matter), nevermind they are 'voting against fascism' by voting for someone that's openly (and not so openly) aiding and abetting a genocide by an authoritarian apartheid regime.
The reality is that if Trump wins, there will be NO checks on the Israeli government whatsoever...+ Show Spoiler +
because Trump's base has all of America's Islamaphobes in it, and Trump's own rhetoric says he will have do no checking whatsoever on Israel's aggression.
There is no good option here in the election for the Palestinians. Biden is the less bad one if this is your one button issue, if you think voting for any of the third party candidates is a better option then you're simply being naive about how US elections work. A vote for a liberal third party candidate that will check Israel harder than Joe Biden will is taking a vote away from Biden and giving Trump a better chance of winning.
It's not a reality I like but it's the reality that exists
.
I'd like to believe that with the US becoming an openly fascist dictatorship endorsing and arming genocide, the rest of the Western world wouldn't just bow and kiss the ring, but I'm increasingly skeptical it has such resolve.
All the "if Trump wins" scenarios basically say to me, is that if Trump wins, the people saying them will be picking up their batons to join the fascists (especially if they still get a meaningless ballot with it), not socialism to join in solidarity with the people they claim they are concerned for.
What does an acceptable policy on Palestine look like to you?
I mean obviously a cessation of active support and military aid I would assume.
Would the US have to actively intercede to try and better resolve the conflict, or merely stop in its supporting of Israel? I guess I’m asking if mere non-involvement or some kind of neutral hand would be the bar, or something else
"Acceptable" in what capacity I'd wonder?
If I tried to put myself back in my disaffected Democrat brain I'd want all support to stop and sanctions (though I've never really been a fan of most sanctions, some targeted ones could have appealed to me) to start stacking up until/unless progress begins on a Palestinian state with full self-determination within the framework of the "international rules-based order" with hopes that said order could still be salvaged.
In that context, I'd probably begrudgingly and barely "accept" heavily limited aid (like conditionally providing exclusively defensive stuff in exchange for meaningfully moving forward on Palestinian statehood).
But that would have been months and thousands of dead people ago. At this point, even if I could bring myself all the way back to the "enthusiastically Democrat" brain I had for Obama, these last few months would have been too much for me to tolerate.
I'd have to go all the way back to my angry child "The US makes the most awesomest weapons/don't f with us or we'll nuke you chumps!" brain to rationalize the brutality and the US's complicity in it, but that brain probably wouldn't have been a Democrat if it was old enough to vote. It'd probably have lost it's right to vote by the time it was old enough anyway.
I guess to meet your own threshold for non-complicity in genocide rather than necessarily be palatable enough to actually consider voting blue. But yeah cheers for the response, makes sense
On March 20 2024 12:26 Sermokala wrote: Bj I'm not going to respond to your nonsense posting in response to a few words out of a whole post you clearly just skimmed. You're not pleasant enough of a person to justify me reading all that shit.
Hilarious. My post (which takes about 30 seconds to read) was comprised overwhelmingly with statistics, quotes and data from extremely reputable sources is "nonsense." Which data point was nonsense? The one from the National Institute of Health, or the American College of Emergency Physicians or NPR or AP News? I'll forward your complaint to them.
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen you post any link to any reputable source for any of your claims... like ever... Your posts are comprised almost entirely of bad opinions and insults. I'll tell you what, let's take... say.. your last 100 posts chronologically, if you show me any of them that contains a single hyperlink to anything, a news article, a study, anything, I'll self-ban for a week.
Decent sourcing but employed in response to a throwaway line, rather than the central crux of his point, that Trump’s personal handling and conduct around Covid was let’s generously say, less than ideal.
Trump’s specific role being bloody shite, and worst case scenarios predicted and warned by relevant bodies ultimately not coming to pass can both be true simultaneously.
Like if I went around barebacking every broad in Belfast I can still be an idiot even if I somehow avoid contracting an STI or creating a legion of nascent Minibats
Disagree. Whether that is his central point or not, that is precisely the crux of the issue. A discussion of the handling of the COVID pandemic is absolutely pointless if one half has irrationally catastrophized the virus in a way that doesn't conform with reality. You should actually come to some consensus of how bad the problem is before discussing how the problem should be solved, otherwise you're just wasting your breath. The fact that I challenged Serm's irrational beliefs with a slew of citations from reputable sources and his response was basically to stick his fingers in his ears and call it nonsense pretty much shows why the COVID thread was a shit show for 3 years straight.
On March 20 2024 12:26 Sermokala wrote: Bj I'm not going to respond to your nonsense posting in response to a few words out of a whole post you clearly just skimmed. You're not pleasant enough of a person to justify me reading all that shit.
Hilarious. My post (which takes about 30 seconds to read) was comprised overwhelmingly with statistics, quotes and data from extremely reputable sources is "nonsense." Which data point was nonsense? The one from the National Institute of Health, or the American College of Emergency Physicians or NPR or AP News? I'll forward your complaint to them.
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen you post any link to any reputable source for any of your claims... like ever... Your posts are comprised almost entirely of bad opinions and insults. I'll tell you what, let's take... say.. your last 100 posts chronologically, if you show me any of them that contains a single hyperlink to anything, a news article, a study, anything, I'll self-ban for a week.
Decent sourcing but employed in response to a throwaway line, rather than the central crux of his point, that Trump’s personal handling and conduct around Covid was let’s generously say, less than ideal.
Trump’s specific role being bloody shite, and worst case scenarios predicted and warned by relevant bodies ultimately not coming to pass can both be true simultaneously.
Like if I went around barebacking every broad in Belfast I can still be an idiot even if I somehow avoid contracting an STI or creating a legion of nascent Minibats
Disagree. Whether that is his central point or not, that is precisely the crux of the issue. A discussion of the handling of the COVID pandemic is absolutely pointless if one half has irrationally catastrophized the virus in a way that doesn't conform with reality. You should actually come to some consensus of how bad the problem is before discussing how the problem should be solved, otherwise you're just wasting your breath. The fact that I challenged Serm's irrational beliefs with a slew of citations from reputable sources and his response was basically to stick his fingers in his ears and call it nonsense pretty much shows why the COVID thread was a shit show for 3 years straight.
Did Trump exercise this kind of approach at the time? Or did he frequently go with his gut and what was politically expedient to him in navigating it?
It wasn’t all bad, the vaccine development being a success on his watch if we’re being fair.
Indeed I also have some misgivings over the polarisation and how it became as much a cultural and political signifier as did it become one of sound, evidence-based policy. Although personally I’m much more forgiving of error in the nascent stages than some others are.
Discussion of the handling of the pandemic is equally as pointless if it’s through hindsight than what was actually known at particular junctures
Hey I’ll let Serm speak for himself and correct me, his phrasing to me indicates that the ‘nonsense posting’ is in reference to your choice to choose to respond to that one specific line, not that what you brought to the table was nonsense.
There’s a famous instance of an Australian ice skater who won his nation’s first Winter Olympics gold in speed skating after being dead last and a crash wiping out the entire field right at the final stretch. Sure he’s got an Olympic gold but sometimes the result isn’t really merited by the effort.
It’s a pure hypothetical, although I think it also applies to people praising him for not escalating conflicts. If he employed the same approach to COVID as a COVID-XTREME that’s actually as bad as the more apocalyptic predictions, what does that actually look like? Based on how he used his influence in actuality, I don’t think that looks remotely
Now it’s a pure hypothetical thought experiment and perhaps he changes tack, although personally I doubt that.
To build off my previous point Trump’s personal conduct over COVID can still have been greatly sub-optimal, even if the experts may have made errors, and indeed a lot of (generally I must confess) left-leaning people have been insufferable doom merchants in that period.
It’s like you’re holding a bunch of posters on a StarCraft forum to a higher standard than a man who was the Leader of the Free WorldTM at the time.
On March 20 2024 12:26 Sermokala wrote: Bj I'm not going to respond to your nonsense posting in response to a few words out of a whole post you clearly just skimmed. You're not pleasant enough of a person to justify me reading all that shit.
Hilarious. My post (which takes about 30 seconds to read) was comprised overwhelmingly with statistics, quotes and data from extremely reputable sources is "nonsense." Which data point was nonsense? The one from the National Institute of Health, or the American College of Emergency Physicians or NPR or AP News? I'll forward your complaint to them.
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen you post any link to any reputable source for any of your claims... like ever... Your posts are comprised almost entirely of bad opinions and insults. I'll tell you what, let's take... say.. your last 100 posts chronologically, if you show me any of them that contains a single hyperlink to anything, a news article, a study, anything, I'll self-ban for a week.
Decent sourcing but employed in response to a throwaway line, rather than the central crux of his point, that Trump’s personal handling and conduct around Covid was let’s generously say, less than ideal.
Trump’s specific role being bloody shite, and worst case scenarios predicted and warned by relevant bodies ultimately not coming to pass can both be true simultaneously.
Like if I went around barebacking every broad in Belfast I can still be an idiot even if I somehow avoid contracting an STI or creating a legion of nascent Minibats
Disagree. Whether that is his central point or not, that is precisely the crux of the issue. A discussion of the handling of the COVID pandemic is absolutely pointless if one half has irrationally catastrophized the virus in a way that doesn't conform with reality. You should actually come to some consensus of how bad the problem is before discussing how the problem should be solved, otherwise you're just wasting your breath. The fact that I challenged Serm's irrational beliefs with a slew of citations from reputable sources and his response was basically to stick his fingers in his ears and call it nonsense pretty much shows why the COVID thread was a shit show for 3 years straight.
Did Trump exercise this kind of approach at the time? Or did he frequently go with his gut and what was politically expedient to him in navigating it?
It wasn’t all bad, the vaccine development being a success on his watch if we’re being fair.
Indeed I also have some misgivings over the polarisation and how it became as much a cultural and political signifier as did it become one of sound, evidence-based policy. Although personally I’m much more forgiving of error in the nascent stages than some others are.
Discussion of the handling of the pandemic is equally as pointless if it’s through hindsight than what was actually known at particular junctures
Hey I’ll let Serm speak for himself and correct me, his phrasing to me indicates that the ‘nonsense posting’ is in reference to your choice to choose to respond to that one specific line, not that what you brought to the table was nonsense.
There’s a famous instance of an Australian ice skater who won his nation’s first Winter Olympics gold in speed skating after being dead last and a crash wiping out the entire field right at the final stretch. Sure he’s got an Olympic gold but sometimes the result isn’t really merited by the effort.
It’s a pure hypothetical, although I think it also applies to people praising him for not escalating conflicts. If he employed the same approach to COVID as a COVID-XTREME that’s actually as bad as the more apocalyptic predictions, what does that actually look like? Based on how he used his influence in actuality, I don’t think that looks remotely
Now it’s a pure hypothetical thought experiment and perhaps he changes tack, although personally I doubt that.
To build off my previous point Trump’s personal conduct over COVID can still have been greatly sub-optimal, even if the experts may have made errors, and indeed a lot of (generally I must confess) left-leaning people have been insufferable doom merchants in that period.
It’s like you’re holding a bunch of posters on a StarCraft forum to a higher standard than a man who was the Leader of the Free WorldTM at the time.
I don't expect anyone to be optimal, nobody bats 1.000. It's obvious that we could have done a whole heck of a lot worse if we had other people in charge at the time. Look at my home area of San Francisco and how they handled COVID. It's perhaps the largest single reason of the many reasons the city is in shambles. If that needs some elaboration - consider what happens when you tell an entire city to work from home because it's too dangerous to go into the office. What happens to the cafe that sells the office workers their coffee? what happens to the sandwich shop that sells the office workers their lunch? Now that the cafe is closed there's less foot traffic for the adjacent businesses because nobody is going to the cafe. So they have to close down too. Then it just snowballs and shop and after shop has to shut down. San Francisco is still talking about it's COVID recovery plans. Florida stopped talking about that years ago. It's obvious that the COVID doomsayer rhetoric was 10x more harmful to this city than any of Trump's rhetoric.
Edit: Forgot to point out - San Francisco has among the lowest death rates per capita for COVID so according to some people they handled the pandemic better than anyone I guess. Sure, this once vibrant city considered among the greatest in the world is now downtrodden and full of poverty and despair, and the number of fentanyl deaths is probably at 4x the number of COVID deaths, but who's keeping count...
Guys he straight up lied during Covid on a multitude of things. It wasnt that he was simply wrong, it was that he lied to try to downplay things for political gain. Then he turned masks and other attempts to navigate the virus into a political wedge issue.
1)he was a dick about masks when with the initial strain came out and it seemed like they were at least somewhat effective. 2)talked about magical opening days and the virus simply going away 3)Hydroxychloroquine 4)Ivermectin 5)vilified mail in voting in the middle of a fucking pandemic. Then tried to stage a coup.
In no way shape or form did he handle the pandemic even remotely well.
Yes some good things happened, the vaccines for instance. But the government is huge, those successes were in spite of him. Do you not remember how much he attacked Fauci for simply doing his job?
On March 20 2024 12:26 Sermokala wrote: Bj I'm not going to respond to your nonsense posting in response to a few words out of a whole post you clearly just skimmed. You're not pleasant enough of a person to justify me reading all that shit.
Hilarious. My post (which takes about 30 seconds to read) was comprised overwhelmingly with statistics, quotes and data from extremely reputable sources is "nonsense." Which data point was nonsense? The one from the National Institute of Health, or the American College of Emergency Physicians or NPR or AP News? I'll forward your complaint to them.
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen you post any link to any reputable source for any of your claims... like ever... Your posts are comprised almost entirely of bad opinions and insults. I'll tell you what, let's take... say.. your last 100 posts chronologically, if you show me any of them that contains a single hyperlink to anything, a news article, a study, anything, I'll self-ban for a week.
Decent sourcing but employed in response to a throwaway line, rather than the central crux of his point, that Trump’s personal handling and conduct around Covid was let’s generously say, less than ideal.
Trump’s specific role being bloody shite, and worst case scenarios predicted and warned by relevant bodies ultimately not coming to pass can both be true simultaneously.
Like if I went around barebacking every broad in Belfast I can still be an idiot even if I somehow avoid contracting an STI or creating a legion of nascent Minibats
Disagree. Whether that is his central point or not, that is precisely the crux of the issue. A discussion of the handling of the COVID pandemic is absolutely pointless if one half has irrationally catastrophized the virus in a way that doesn't conform with reality. You should actually come to some consensus of how bad the problem is before discussing how the problem should be solved, otherwise you're just wasting your breath. The fact that I challenged Serm's irrational beliefs with a slew of citations from reputable sources and his response was basically to stick his fingers in his ears and call it nonsense pretty much shows why the COVID thread was a shit show for 3 years straight.
Did Trump exercise this kind of approach at the time? Or did he frequently go with his gut and what was politically expedient to him in navigating it?
It wasn’t all bad, the vaccine development being a success on his watch if we’re being fair.
Indeed I also have some misgivings over the polarisation and how it became as much a cultural and political signifier as did it become one of sound, evidence-based policy. Although personally I’m much more forgiving of error in the nascent stages than some others are.
Discussion of the handling of the pandemic is equally as pointless if it’s through hindsight than what was actually known at particular junctures
Hey I’ll let Serm speak for himself and correct me, his phrasing to me indicates that the ‘nonsense posting’ is in reference to your choice to choose to respond to that one specific line, not that what you brought to the table was nonsense.
There’s a famous instance of an Australian ice skater who won his nation’s first Winter Olympics gold in speed skating after being dead last and a crash wiping out the entire field right at the final stretch. Sure he’s got an Olympic gold but sometimes the result isn’t really merited by the effort.
It’s a pure hypothetical, although I think it also applies to people praising him for not escalating conflicts. If he employed the same approach to COVID as a COVID-XTREME that’s actually as bad as the more apocalyptic predictions, what does that actually look like? Based on how he used his influence in actuality, I don’t think that looks remotely
Now it’s a pure hypothetical thought experiment and perhaps he changes tack, although personally I doubt that.
To build off my previous point Trump’s personal conduct over COVID can still have been greatly sub-optimal, even if the experts may have made errors, and indeed a lot of (generally I must confess) left-leaning people have been insufferable doom merchants in that period.
It’s like you’re holding a bunch of posters on a StarCraft forum to a higher standard than a man who was the Leader of the Free WorldTM at the time.
I don't expect anyone to be optimal, nobody bats 1.000. It's obvious that we could have done a whole heck of a lot worse if we had other people in charge at the time. Look at my home area of San Francisco and how they handled COVID. It's perhaps the largest single reason of the many reasons the city is in shambles. If that needs some elaboration - consider what happens when you tell an entire city to work from home because it's too dangerous to go into the office. What happens to the cafe that sells the office workers their coffee? what happens to the sandwich shop that sells the office workers their lunch? Now that the cafe is closed there's less foot traffic for the adjacent businesses because nobody is going to the cafe. So they have to close down too. Then it just snowballs and shop and after shop has to shut down. San Francisco is still talking about it's COVID recovery plans. Florida stopped talking about that years ago. It's obvious that the COVID doomsayer rhetoric was 10x more harmful to this city than any of Trump's rhetoric.
Edit: Forgot to point out - San Francisco has among the lowest death rates per capita for COVID so according to some people they handled the pandemic better than anyone I guess. Sure, this once vibrant city considered among the greatest in the world is now downtrodden and full of poverty and despair, and the number of fentanyl deaths is probably at 4x the number of COVID deaths, but who's keeping count...
What does that have to do with Donald Trump’s handling of Covid?
What I hear when Democrat voters talk about the threat Trump poses and accepting Biden's complicity in genocide is that they will follow whatever fascist laws/rules Trump puts in place no matter the consequences or how depraved they might be.
Their 'fight against fascism' basically starts and ends at the ballot box (even if their vote doesn't really matter), nevermind they are 'voting against fascism' by voting for someone that's openly (and not so openly) aiding and abetting a genocide by an authoritarian apartheid regime.
May I ask what your thoughts are on Biden's recent "red line" comment regarding the Israel-Gaza war? Does it affect your view of him?
By the way Reuters calls Biden's comment contradictory (I disagree with them, I think with the full context of the quote it's completely coherent).
On March 20 2024 19:18 Sadist wrote: Guys he straight up lied during Covid on a multitude of things. It wasnt that he was simply wrong, it was that he lied to try to downplay things for political gain. Then he turned masks and other attempts to navigate the virus into a political wedge issue.
1)he was a dick about masks when with the initial strain came out and it seemed like they were at least somewhat effective. 2)talked about magical opening days and the virus simply going away 3)Hydroxychloroquine 4)Ivermectin 5)vilified mail in voting in the middle of a fucking pandemic. Then tried to stage a coup.
In no way shape or form did he handle the pandemic even remotely well.
Yes some good things happened, the vaccines for instance. But the government is huge, those successes were in spite of him. Do you not remember how much he attacked Fauci for simply doing his job?
On March 20 2024 12:26 Sermokala wrote: Bj I'm not going to respond to your nonsense posting in response to a few words out of a whole post you clearly just skimmed. You're not pleasant enough of a person to justify me reading all that shit.
Hilarious. My post (which takes about 30 seconds to read) was comprised overwhelmingly with statistics, quotes and data from extremely reputable sources is "nonsense." Which data point was nonsense? The one from the National Institute of Health, or the American College of Emergency Physicians or NPR or AP News? I'll forward your complaint to them.
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen you post any link to any reputable source for any of your claims... like ever... Your posts are comprised almost entirely of bad opinions and insults. I'll tell you what, let's take... say.. your last 100 posts chronologically, if you show me any of them that contains a single hyperlink to anything, a news article, a study, anything, I'll self-ban for a week.
Decent sourcing but employed in response to a throwaway line, rather than the central crux of his point, that Trump’s personal handling and conduct around Covid was let’s generously say, less than ideal.
Trump’s specific role being bloody shite, and worst case scenarios predicted and warned by relevant bodies ultimately not coming to pass can both be true simultaneously.
Like if I went around barebacking every broad in Belfast I can still be an idiot even if I somehow avoid contracting an STI or creating a legion of nascent Minibats
Disagree. Whether that is his central point or not, that is precisely the crux of the issue. A discussion of the handling of the COVID pandemic is absolutely pointless if one half has irrationally catastrophized the virus in a way that doesn't conform with reality. You should actually come to some consensus of how bad the problem is before discussing how the problem should be solved, otherwise you're just wasting your breath. The fact that I challenged Serm's irrational beliefs with a slew of citations from reputable sources and his response was basically to stick his fingers in his ears and call it nonsense pretty much shows why the COVID thread was a shit show for 3 years straight.
Did Trump exercise this kind of approach at the time? Or did he frequently go with his gut and what was politically expedient to him in navigating it?
It wasn’t all bad, the vaccine development being a success on his watch if we’re being fair.
Indeed I also have some misgivings over the polarisation and how it became as much a cultural and political signifier as did it become one of sound, evidence-based policy. Although personally I’m much more forgiving of error in the nascent stages than some others are.
Discussion of the handling of the pandemic is equally as pointless if it’s through hindsight than what was actually known at particular junctures
Hey I’ll let Serm speak for himself and correct me, his phrasing to me indicates that the ‘nonsense posting’ is in reference to your choice to choose to respond to that one specific line, not that what you brought to the table was nonsense.
There’s a famous instance of an Australian ice skater who won his nation’s first Winter Olympics gold in speed skating after being dead last and a crash wiping out the entire field right at the final stretch. Sure he’s got an Olympic gold but sometimes the result isn’t really merited by the effort.
It’s a pure hypothetical, although I think it also applies to people praising him for not escalating conflicts. If he employed the same approach to COVID as a COVID-XTREME that’s actually as bad as the more apocalyptic predictions, what does that actually look like? Based on how he used his influence in actuality, I don’t think that looks remotely
Now it’s a pure hypothetical thought experiment and perhaps he changes tack, although personally I doubt that.
To build off my previous point Trump’s personal conduct over COVID can still have been greatly sub-optimal, even if the experts may have made errors, and indeed a lot of (generally I must confess) left-leaning people have been insufferable doom merchants in that period.
It’s like you’re holding a bunch of posters on a StarCraft forum to a higher standard than a man who was the Leader of the Free WorldTM at the time.
I don't expect anyone to be optimal, nobody bats 1.000. It's obvious that we could have done a whole heck of a lot worse if we had other people in charge at the time. Look at my home area of San Francisco and how they handled COVID. It's perhaps the largest single reason of the many reasons the city is in shambles. If that needs some elaboration - consider what happens when you tell an entire city to work from home because it's too dangerous to go into the office. What happens to the cafe that sells the office workers their coffee? what happens to the sandwich shop that sells the office workers their lunch? Now that the cafe is closed there's less foot traffic for the adjacent businesses because nobody is going to the cafe. So they have to close down too. Then it just snowballs and shop and after shop has to shut down. San Francisco is still talking about it's COVID recovery plans. Florida stopped talking about that years ago. It's obvious that the COVID doomsayer rhetoric was 10x more harmful to this city than any of Trump's rhetoric.
Edit: Forgot to point out - San Francisco has among the lowest death rates per capita for COVID so according to some people they handled the pandemic better than anyone I guess. Sure, this once vibrant city considered among the greatest in the world is now downtrodden and full of poverty and despair, and the number of fentanyl deaths is probably at 4x the number of COVID deaths, but who's keeping count...
What does that have to do with Donald Trump’s handling of Covid?
The 2nd sentence of the post. If we applied the anti-Trump model to handling COVID on a national level it would be a disaster. Trump encouraged places to reopen as quickly as they could. The places that did that like Texas and Florida have had booming economies and the places that didn’t like California and New York have seen a huge influx of people leaving their states. These are the kind of big impact metrics we should be looking at but I understand if people prefer to judge his performance by stringing together some one off sentences while speaking off the cuff at press conferences instead.
On March 20 2024 12:26 Sermokala wrote: Bj I'm not going to respond to your nonsense posting in response to a few words out of a whole post you clearly just skimmed. You're not pleasant enough of a person to justify me reading all that shit.
Hilarious. My post (which takes about 30 seconds to read) was comprised overwhelmingly with statistics, quotes and data from extremely reputable sources is "nonsense." Which data point was nonsense? The one from the National Institute of Health, or the American College of Emergency Physicians or NPR or AP News? I'll forward your complaint to them.
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen you post any link to any reputable source for any of your claims... like ever... Your posts are comprised almost entirely of bad opinions and insults. I'll tell you what, let's take... say.. your last 100 posts chronologically, if you show me any of them that contains a single hyperlink to anything, a news article, a study, anything, I'll self-ban for a week.
Decent sourcing but employed in response to a throwaway line, rather than the central crux of his point, that Trump’s personal handling and conduct around Covid was let’s generously say, less than ideal.
Trump’s specific role being bloody shite, and worst case scenarios predicted and warned by relevant bodies ultimately not coming to pass can both be true simultaneously.
Like if I went around barebacking every broad in Belfast I can still be an idiot even if I somehow avoid contracting an STI or creating a legion of nascent Minibats
Disagree. Whether that is his central point or not, that is precisely the crux of the issue. A discussion of the handling of the COVID pandemic is absolutely pointless if one half has irrationally catastrophized the virus in a way that doesn't conform with reality. You should actually come to some consensus of how bad the problem is before discussing how the problem should be solved, otherwise you're just wasting your breath. The fact that I challenged Serm's irrational beliefs with a slew of citations from reputable sources and his response was basically to stick his fingers in his ears and call it nonsense pretty much shows why the COVID thread was a shit show for 3 years straight.
Did Trump exercise this kind of approach at the time? Or did he frequently go with his gut and what was politically expedient to him in navigating it?
It wasn’t all bad, the vaccine development being a success on his watch if we’re being fair.
Indeed I also have some misgivings over the polarisation and how it became as much a cultural and political signifier as did it become one of sound, evidence-based policy. Although personally I’m much more forgiving of error in the nascent stages than some others are.
Discussion of the handling of the pandemic is equally as pointless if it’s through hindsight than what was actually known at particular junctures
Hey I’ll let Serm speak for himself and correct me, his phrasing to me indicates that the ‘nonsense posting’ is in reference to your choice to choose to respond to that one specific line, not that what you brought to the table was nonsense.
There’s a famous instance of an Australian ice skater who won his nation’s first Winter Olympics gold in speed skating after being dead last and a crash wiping out the entire field right at the final stretch. Sure he’s got an Olympic gold but sometimes the result isn’t really merited by the effort.
It’s a pure hypothetical, although I think it also applies to people praising him for not escalating conflicts. If he employed the same approach to COVID as a COVID-XTREME that’s actually as bad as the more apocalyptic predictions, what does that actually look like? Based on how he used his influence in actuality, I don’t think that looks remotely
Now it’s a pure hypothetical thought experiment and perhaps he changes tack, although personally I doubt that.
To build off my previous point Trump’s personal conduct over COVID can still have been greatly sub-optimal, even if the experts may have made errors, and indeed a lot of (generally I must confess) left-leaning people have been insufferable doom merchants in that period.
It’s like you’re holding a bunch of posters on a StarCraft forum to a higher standard than a man who was the Leader of the Free WorldTM at the time.
I don't expect anyone to be optimal, nobody bats 1.000. It's obvious that we could have done a whole heck of a lot worse if we had other people in charge at the time. Look at my home area of San Francisco and how they handled COVID. It's perhaps the largest single reason of the many reasons the city is in shambles. If that needs some elaboration - consider what happens when you tell an entire city to work from home because it's too dangerous to go into the office. What happens to the cafe that sells the office workers their coffee? what happens to the sandwich shop that sells the office workers their lunch? Now that the cafe is closed there's less foot traffic for the adjacent businesses because nobody is going to the cafe. So they have to close down too. Then it just snowballs and shop and after shop has to shut down. San Francisco is still talking about it's COVID recovery plans. Florida stopped talking about that years ago. It's obvious that the COVID doomsayer rhetoric was 10x more harmful to this city than any of Trump's rhetoric.
Edit: Forgot to point out - San Francisco has among the lowest death rates per capita for COVID so according to some people they handled the pandemic better than anyone I guess. Sure, this once vibrant city considered among the greatest in the world is now downtrodden and full of poverty and despair, and the number of fentanyl deaths is probably at 4x the number of COVID deaths, but who's keeping count...
What does that have to do with Donald Trump’s handling of Covid?
The 2nd sentence of the post. If we applied the anti-Trump model to handling COVID on a national level it would be a disaster. Trump encouraged places to reopen as quickly as they could. The places that did that like Texas and Florida have had booming economies and the places that didn’t like California and New York have seen a huge influx of people leaving their states. These are the kind of big impact metrics we should be looking at but I understand if people prefer to judge his performance by stringing together some one off sentences while speaking off the cuff at press conferences instead.
What the president says is important. It is utter nonsense to pretend it isnt. The government is much more than just Trump. There are smart people in place who can overcome his BS.
Trump encouraging places to open, what does that even mean? What are the policy differences state to state? "This state handled it well" doesnt mean anything without knowing what they did and didnt do specifically and determining if it actually mattered or was just noise.
Sure, this once vibrant city considered among the greatest in the world is now downtrodden and full of poverty and despair, and the number of fentanyl deaths is probably at 4x the number of COVID deaths, but who's keeping count...
EPT
