Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

3 minutes ago, pigseye said:

I'm going to enjoy watching this next generation fall flat on their faces and I won't be reaching down with a hand up. 

They said that about the boomers....

Have you ever given a speech so bad that it wiped out like a trillion dollars from the world economy? That's what makes Trump special.

— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) March 12, 2020

 

7 minutes ago, do or die said:

They said that about the boomers....

The boomers are the ones who effed it all up for this generation. 

What was notable about the Trump speech was....  what wasn't in it

Anything about hospital preparation and large scale community mitigation, in front of an expected tidal wave of new patients

Accurate updates about testing and the state of test kit production

Clarity about how cornovirus treatments would be covered.   Health insurers, which met with Trump just days ago, scrambled to rebut Trump’s claims that plans would cover coronavirus treatments at no cost, clarifying that they only committed eliminate out-of-pocket costs for testing. Insurers will cover coronavirus care, but have not yet committed to waiving costs for treatment.

Clarity about the new travel bans.  Hours later, the administration had to walk back Trump’s assertion that his new travel bans would also affect cargo coming from 26 European countries — a move that would of screwed up the pharmaceutical supply chain and made testing even more difficult. At least two test kit companies are based in European countries.

Too much confusion, period.  Travel bans are one thing, but the needed information for people at the national, local and community level has to be open, accurate and clear.    So far, no dice.

 

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

The boomers are the ones who effed it all up for this generation. 

The Victorians screwed it up for everybody.....

Does anyone really believe that they want to stop the spread of this virus? 

10B people by 2030, Trump and Putin know they have to thin the heard, those evil bastards. 

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

So just with a google search, I was able to confirm roughly 22% (I will trust that your math is correct), so this is the number that we know of as common knowledge then. If it's that prevalent I'm fine with my 90% figure as we never hear most of what gpes on behind the scenes and never will. No retraction or admission of trolling at all. 

Actually, 22% is only the criminal aspect. For all 3 factors, only W and Trump meet your Google search criteria. That equates to 4%, not 22, and certainly not 90. And saying "well they cover it up so really the 4% proven is the same as my undocumented assumption of 90%, so I must be right" is a flat out falsehood.

Your assumption isn't evidence, it's bullsh*t. You may be "fine" with it, but it doesn't make it at all true, or even remotely proven. So stop peddling it or back it up with hard facts, Mr. ready to have a debate.

1 hour ago, do or die said:

What was notable about the Trump speech was....  what wasn't in it

Anything about hospital preparation and large scale community mitigation, in front of an expected tidal wave of new patients

Accurate updates about testing and the state of test kit production

Clarity about how cornovirus treatments would be covered.   Health insurers, which met with Trump just days ago, scrambled to rebut Trump’s claims that plans would cover coronavirus treatments at no cost, clarifying that they only committed eliminate out-of-pocket costs for testing. Insurers will cover coronavirus care, but have not yet committed to waiving costs for treatment.

Clarity about the new travel bans.  Hours later, the administration had to walk back Trump’s assertion that his new travel bans would also affect cargo coming from 26 European countries — a move that would of screwed up the pharmaceutical supply chain and made testing even more difficult. At least two test kit companies are based in European countries.

Too much confusion, period.  Travel bans are one thing, but the needed information for people at the national, local and community level has to be open, accurate and clear.    So far, no dice.

 

Protect the economy

Or draconian measures to protect health which will slow down economy.

Trump picks the former and he will be accused of murderous neglect and not caring.

Choose the latter he will be accused of abuse of power and tanking the economy.

The "good guys" know this and will play both ends to middle for as long as possible,...cheered all the way.

Epic levels of cynicsm.

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

I'm going to enjoy watching this next generation fall flat on their faces and I won't be reaching down with a hand up. 

The smart tech jobs we told them to get are outsourced. Wages driven down. Tell them to despise the history of their own country. Traditions to be mistrusted and ridiculed. Eat cockroaches. Gonna be a helluva ride.

14 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Protect the economy

Or draconian measures to protect health which will slow down economy.

Trump picks the former and he will be accused of murderous neglect and not caring.

Choose the latter he will be accused of abuse of power and tanking the economy.

The "good guys" know this and will play both ends to middle for as long as possible,...cheered all the way.

Epic levels of cynicism.

Real cynicism would be to simply pretend that more could not be done - example: testing - the CDC, over the course of 2 days, this week tested exactly 77 people.
So, Instead of specific domestic initiatives, to address what will be the hardest hit sectors and people, (and it is coming) we have Trump trying to push his payroll tax cut horse, onto the Senate.

I have a stake in all of this - and just want all world leaders, to be at the top of their game, here. 

Edited March 12, 20205 yr by do or die

Wag the F’n dog.  Unreal. 
 

 

2 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Actually, 22% is only the criminal aspect. For all 3 factors, only W and Trump meet your Google search criteria. That equates to 4%, not 22, and certainly not 90. And saying "well they cover it up so really the 4% proven is the same as my undocumented assumption of 90%, so I must be right" is a flat out falsehood.

Your assumption isn't evidence, it's bullsh*t. You may be "fine" with it, but it doesn't make it at all true, or even remotely proven. So stop peddling it or back it up with hard facts, Mr. ready to have a debate.

You can't prove that a hypothesis is true, you can only disprove it, so good luck with that one. 

Edited March 12, 20205 yr by pigseye
p

1 hour ago, Zontar said:

The smart tech jobs we told them to get are outsourced. Wages driven down. Tell them to despise the history of their own country. Traditions to be mistrusted and ridiculed. Eat cockroaches. Gonna be a helluva ride.

When your Holy Bible is the The Robber Barons you know you got big problems a coming down the pike. 

What a gong show...

 

Its like Trump saw W. handling of Katrina and said "I can screw it up way bigger than that guy". 

16 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Its like Trump saw W. handling of Katrina and said "I can screw it up way bigger than that guy". 

He did already with Dorian. 

This is my shocked face... 

 

1 hour ago, JCon said:

This is my shocked face... 

 

The relevant section in the report:

In the case of Alex Azar, he did go to the president in January. He did push past resistance from the president's political aides to warn the president the new coronavirus could be a major problem. There were aides around Trump - Kellyanne Conway had some skepticism at times that this was something that needed to be a presidential priority.

But at the same time, Secretary Azar has not always given the president the worst-case scenario of what could happen. My understanding is he did not push to do aggressive additional testing in recent weeks, and that's partly because more testing might have led to more cases being discovered of coronavirus outbreak, and the president had made clear - the lower the numbers on coronavirus, the better for the president, the better for his potential reelection this fall.

2 hours ago, pigseye said:

You can't prove that a hypothesis is true, you can only disprove it, so good luck with that one. 

Interesting logic there - all theories are true, regardless of lack of evidence, and it’s the job of the skeptic to disprove it, not the job of the theorist to justify their theory, it must be inherently accepted unless definitively disproven. So even though the hard data available solidly discredits your 90% claim, unless I can show that the data in existence is ALL the data in existence, you can claim that the speculative and so far undiscovered data would support your assumption, and since I can’t disprove it your hypothesis wins out (the “disprove a negative” approach). 
 

OK, let me dip my toe into that rabbit hole you’d like me to go down. If I heard a rumour that Pigseye likes having sex with barnyard animals - I mean come on, his board name is “Pigseye”, so that’s gotta be a dead giveaway that this guy likes to ride the hog, if you know what I mean - then that hypothesis is inherently true unless you could definitively disprove it. I mean, I’m not saying I have proof Pigseye likes to sodomize razorbacks, I’m just saying there’s no evidence out there that he doesn’t, and so if that rumour was out there, then it’s totally on him to disprove that embarrassing allegation. Because you can only disprove the hypothesis. 
 

So good luck with that one. 

4 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Interesting logic there - all theories are true, regardless of lack of evidence, and it’s the job of the skeptic to disprove it, not the job of the theorist to justify their theory, it must be inherently accepted unless definitively disproven. So even though the hard data available solidly discredits your 90% claim, unless I can show that the data in existence is ALL the data in existence, you can claim that the speculative and so far undiscovered data would support your assumption, and since I can’t disprove it your hypothesis wins out (the “disprove a negative” approach). 
 

OK, let me dip my toe into that rabbit hole you’d like me to go down. If I heard a rumour that Pigseye likes having sex with barnyard animals - I mean come on, his board name is “Pigseye”, so that’s gotta be a dead giveaway that this guy likes to ride the hog, if you know what I mean - then that hypothesis is inherently true unless you could definitively disprove it. I mean, I’m not saying I have proof Pigseye likes to sodomize razorbacks, I’m just saying there’s no evidence out there that he doesn’t, and so if that rumour was out there, then it’s totally on him to disprove that embarrassing allegation. Because you can only disprove the hypothesis. 
 

So good luck with that one. 

Outstanding! Nicely put on explaining burden of proof as well. The amount of logical fallacies committed by those two "yings" is priceless.

 

If Trump did choose to block testing to artificially keep results low to help himself, that's inexcusable and should lead to a resignation.  No defense for that.

11 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

If Trump did choose to block testing to artificially keep results low to help himself, that's inexcusable and should lead to a resignation.  No defense for that.

Some people would find a way.....

37 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

 

Trump last week:

"Anybody that needs a test gets a test. They're there. They have the tests. And the tests are beautiful,"

3 minutes ago, do or die said:

Some people would find a way.....

All presidents have blocked life saving tests in order to get reelected. This is common to 88.9% of Presidents. Prove me wrong!