Again, I'm not cool with you having your own version of observable facts.
Ms. Clinton's record on election fraud IS exactly spotless.
The Democrats in Congress weren't looking for "something that might stick." They were awash in potential impeachable offenses pretty much from the moment Trump walked in the door. In my opinion, they showed restraint. That might have been a mistake.
The harrasment and assault charges against Kavanaugh are NOT a lie. He lied multiple times under oath to win confirmation.
And again my opinion: Clinton as Secretary of State worked hard enough for three cabinet officials, so my sense is her "overprepared" approach may well have saved lives in this pandemic. Calling her lazy is just such an insult...she works harder at this stuff than we ever could. It's OK if you don't like her personally (and plenty didn't), but holy moley, her work ethic leaves others in the dust.
jcburnsAnd again my opinion: Clinton as Secretary of State worked hard enough for three cabinet officials,
She's one of the biggest crooks in DC. You may choose not to believe it, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
And that's enough of this for me. Like talking to a wall.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Email server: thoroughly debunked by, y'know, facts. Let it go!
Benghazi: same deal.
So is she lazy or is she a crook? Or is she a lazy crook? And by the way: she's not even in DC these days. All this namecalling!
jcburnsEmail server: thoroughly debunked by, y'know, facts. Let it go! Benghazi: same deal.
Wow - even the MSM lied about them, then.
US Embassy attacked. Several US citizens died. Who's responsible for US Embassies? Oh, yeah - the Secretary of State. Funny thing about that.
By the time of her 8+ hours of testimony in October 2015, Mrs. Clinton had already taken responsibility for the State Department’s handling of the attacks.
"I was the one who asked Chris (Stephens) to go to Libya as our envoy. I was the one who recommended him to be our Ambassador to to the President.
After the attacks, I stood next to President Obama as Marines carried his casket and those of the other three Americans off the plane at Andrews Air Force Base.
I took responsibility. And, as part of that, before I left office, I launched reforms to better protect our people in the field and help reduce the chance of another tragedy happening in the future."
Sounds pretty stand-up to me.
Someone said online something I could not say better:
"Barack Obama was the president of the Harvard law review and one of the most brilliant presidents in history and Donald Trump paid someone to take his SAT test and racists worship him.
God Bless America."
When you say "elite" with a sneer and a smirk, do you mean: bright, intelligent?
How many Benghazi investigations did the Republicans have?
How many charges and convictions resulted?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
jcburns Email server: thoroughly debunked by, y'know, facts. Let it go!
You're entitled to believe that, but don't expect me to believe that.
As for the press coverage of how individual states have handled COVID-19, it is a bit strange to see two states with similar per capita case and fatality numbers get very different treatment by the press.
Which two states? And if "the press" is reporting the facts—the who, what, where, when and how in both cases, how is that "very different treatment"?
The press reports. The media, by en large, reports. They don't make up stuff—it's against their very nature.
Now "commentators" and "analysts"—they put out opinion, smart, neutral, or idiotic. That's not the reporting though. It'll do you well to keep them apart.
When a reporter for AP or Reuters or CBS News says X Y or Z happened, you can 99 times out of 100 take that to the bank. When someone on TV tries to tell you what that X Y or Z means—well, personally, I'd just take that for the very very little it's worth.
And yes, call me a radical, but I expect you to believe facts. You don't have to believe a single one of my or other opinions, but the facts, well-reported, yes, please believe them. Science is real. The earth is round. Facts.
JCBURNS: CHECK YOUR PERSONAL MESSAGES.
I've mentioned this before, but I still think much of the devisiveness is the fault of our educational system. Everybody "knows" what's right, and if the news doesn't agree, then it's biased against the "truth."
From the beginning we are told what to believe. "Just memorize it; it'll be on the test." Don't ask why. Don't try to analyze it.
Above all, be loyal to your school. "My high school is the best high school!" Don't pay attention to any statistics that might say otherwise. "Our football team is the best football team!" If we lost the last game, it was because the officials were against us. Attach yourself to an organization and you'll never have to think again.
We see this in the politicians that value party loyalty above anything else in spite of the pledge they make when they are sworn in. As long as we get what we want, we can flout the Constitution and break whatever laws we can get away with.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Euclid JCBRUNS: CHECK YOUR PERSONAL MESSAGES. It's "Burns." Facts matter.
JCBRUNS: CHECK YOUR PERSONAL MESSAGES.
jcburns Euclid JCBRUNS: CHECK YOUR PERSONAL MESSAGES. It's "Burns." Facts matter.
But don't forget: we also have "alternative facts".
Paul of Covington jcburns Euclid JCBRUNS: CHECK YOUR PERSONAL MESSAGES. It's "Burns." Facts matter. But don't forget: we also have "alternative facts".
Kellyanne actually choked a little when she said that
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Name calling has started at the top and rolled down the population since January 20, 2017.
Want division - start calling people names - use names that defy a groups humanity - works every time.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
tree68 jcburns And again my opinion: Clinton as Secretary of State worked hard enough for three cabinet officials, Tell that to the families of the personnel she abandoned in Benghazi. And how about that email server? She's one of the biggest crooks in DC. You may choose not to believe it, but that doesn't mean it's not true. And that's enough of this for me. Like talking to a wall.
jcburns And again my opinion: Clinton as Secretary of State worked hard enough for three cabinet officials,
Tell that to the families of the personnel she abandoned in Benghazi. And how about that email server?
So why don't you practice what you preach? It's not because you certainly ever let a fact stand in your path.
charlie hebdoSo why don't you practice what you preach? It's not because you certainly ever let a fact stand in your path.
I try to take a middle of the road approach. Unfortunately, these days, if you don't agree with someone, you're obviously opposed to them.
I haven't trusted Ms Clinton since Bill was president. Nothing she's done since has engendered any improvement on her part.
And I'm reminded of what's been going on since the beginning of the panicdemic - if anyone comes out with any information that makes the virus less scary, said information is quickly "debunked." Like the malaria medication - which the Henry Ford Health Center now says saves the lives of a significant portion (like half) of those sickened by the virus. But no - Trump was a fool for suggesting it.
You have your opinions, I have mine. That's how this all works.
tree68Tell that to the families of the personnel she abandoned in Benghazi.
Have you ever read the final report on Benghazi?
I didn't think so.
You can have an opinion and express it—you don't trust her. OK, got it.
(By the way, not trusting someone who garnered so many votes in 2016 doesn't seem like a middle of the road approach to me...it seems like a way out there extreme position. My opinion.)
it's a pandemic. A GLOBAL pandemic. Calling it a 'panicdemic' is more of that name calling. Can you lay off on that please? We've lost two Vietnam wars and a handful of 9/11's worth of our fellow Americans.
whenever I see someone minimizing that brutal, brutal number, I just (internally) wish they could spend a day as a hospital volunteer, processing and (sadly) stacking up the dead. Would it sink in then? I dunno.
And about the Henry Ford study...read the whole thing, especially toward the end where the University of Michigan medical system has looked at this and said..mmm...no, still too risky, especially in cardiac risk patients.
Ah, middle-of-the-road. Funny thing about middle-of-the-road: everybody has a middle-of-the-road view. After all, if I wasn't completely objective, I'd be biased, and I'm certainly not biased. I'm very sensible in my views. Sometimes there are a whole bunch of people to the right, and sometimes there are a whole bunch of people to the left, but I'm always in the sensible middle.
Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right.......
Stuck in the middle with (all of) you.
Maybe this is old news, but we followed a 68 Chevy Bel Air on I-75 a year or two ago that had two matching rear bumper stickers at the extremes:
⇦Clowns Jokers⇨
Was he driving in the middle lane?
Throughout this pandemic experience, there has been speculation surrounding the issue of asymptomatic infection. One aspect of this is the claim that people can contract the virus at one point, but do not develop any symptoms until sometime later, such as 1-3 weeks later. During that time of being asymptomatic, the subject has no way of knowing they are infected unless it is discovered by testing. Generally, the consensus is that the virus can be spread to others during the period of being asymptomatic in an infected person.
Then another round of speculation began that assumed people could contract the virus and never develop symptoms. So as a practical matter, they never experienced the disease at all. Again, the assumption is that these infected people can spread the virus to others.
We began testing around the first week of March this year. The virus arrived 3-4 months earlier.
Without testing, we could not have known how many cases we had in this country unless they developed symptoms. And if they never developed symptoms; at the same time large numbers of people were being infected by transmission; there could have developed a very large pool of people who had the virus without anyone knowing it. There is speculation that the largeness of this pool caused heard immunity which further increased the infection spread without ever producing symptoms.
We are now testing in massive quantities and finding many cases that are always referred to as “new cases.” What we don’t know is whether these are actually new cases in terms of developing recently—or -- are only “new” in terms of being newly discovered by testing. The news information narrative clearly is that the day testing finds a case, that case originated that same day, or maybe just a very short time previous.
Then based on this assumption of the case being newly originated, the discourse concludes that the cases found while ramping up testing rates is proof that the virus is actually ramping up in infection rates. But what if some of the “new cases” found today existed back in January rather than a few days ago? There is a huge difference if we are trying to find the true real-time daily rate of new cases originating.
Being that we are now testing at a greatly accelerating rate; and that we have no test data prior to March; there is no evidence that we are currently experiencing a spike or second wave in new cases of infection originating. Without earlier testing, that evidence simply cannot exist.
Therefore, with this emerging trend calling for imposing new restrictions based on the so-called second wave, I no longer trust anything we are being told about this pandemic. I believe we are being deceived for an objective to prolong the economic shutdown.
"I no longer trust anything we are being told about this pandemic. I believe we are being deceived for an objective to prolong the economic shutdown."
By the evil Forces Who Don't Want The Economy Going? Do they have regular meetings? Please excuse the slight sarcasm, but the growth in "new cases" and deaths is happening in Republican-run states, in Democratic-run states. The virus doesn't care about politics, it is only curtailed by distancing and wearing a mask. If we did a better baseline job of those two things—many medical experts tell us—we could as a country in general be in a "moderate reopen" scenario right now that would not lead to rampant outbreaks.
I think everyone on the planet wants a situation where people are back at their jobs and people are buying and dining and entertaining and so on. There is, however, one very large subset of "everyone" that does not want this to happen in an unsafe environment.
The other factor here is we're learning about what is (barring a vaccine) a safe environment and what isn't. Maybe education and religious assembly has to happen outdoors, in smaller numbers. We're learning more every day. My opinion: we would be smart to be flexible, and mature enough to realize the "a zillion sweaty people jammed in a bar" scenario or even "a hundred emotional people tightly packed inside at a funeral" scenario is, to be super-polite, problematic. And it will be until a vaccine is deployed widely.
About being asymptomatically infected: of course that's just the symptoms visible to a medical person from the outside. Infected yet 'asymptomatic' people could be having all kinds of lung and cardiac damage being done below an easily observable level. Like tiny amounts of bank interest, it adds up over time. And they could be carrying large or smaller amounts of "viral load," which makes them more or less infectious at any given encounter.
I sure wish we had better ways of determining this (the fabled "medical tricorder", just point it at somebody and get the readout in a second.) But...we don't, and in the US, our testing regimens have run the gamut. Different kinds of tests, different timings, all mostly inadequate.
Finally, I don't need to tell you that what you term the "news information narrative" is not a thing, right? it's just a lot of reporters, working hard, questioning Presidents, public health officials, governors, doctors, nurses, and telling us what they're hearing.
We should listen.
tree68 jcburns Does that concern you? Are you embarrassed by that if he's your candidate? The possible interference concerns me. I am, however, very glad that Ms Clinton lost. As optimistic as you all seem to be, I would opine that as individuals, you would not have been happy with the result, either. Ms Clinton's record regarding election fraud isn't exactly spotless. As for the impeachment - the Dems started looking for reasons the day of the election. That it took them two years to find something they thought might stick speaks to their desperation. And I'll stand by my opinion that the attacks on the POTUS would have occured no matter who the Republican winner was. Trump gave them ammunition. Had it been anyone else, the Dems would have found something. They found someone to make a sexual harrassment claim about Kavanaugh. Never mind that the charge was a lie.
jcburns Does that concern you? Are you embarrassed by that if he's your candidate?
The possible interference concerns me. I am, however, very glad that Ms Clinton lost. As optimistic as you all seem to be, I would opine that as individuals, you would not have been happy with the result, either. Ms Clinton's record regarding election fraud isn't exactly spotless.
As for the impeachment - the Dems started looking for reasons the day of the election. That it took them two years to find something they thought might stick speaks to their desperation.
And I'll stand by my opinion that the attacks on the POTUS would have occured no matter who the Republican winner was. Trump gave them ammunition. Had it been anyone else, the Dems would have found something. They found someone to make a sexual harrassment claim about Kavanaugh. Never mind that the charge was a lie.
The fact that there are mouth-breathing partisans on the left does not invalidate every concern expressed about Trump. There are a lot of very legitimate reasons to send him back to Trump Tower where he belongs.
Tree 68
Suppose the Republicans had chosen a real concenssus builder, another Deight David Eisenhower, do you suppose the Dems would have worked toward impeachment?
I'm assuminxg he would have been elected, of course, and I think he would have won the popular vote as well, as a result of the erased tapes and Bengazi.
If there was no sense that any President had done something impeachable (ie "high crimes and misdemeanors") no, there is no Democrat who would worked for impeachment.
Because that would be against the rule of law.
This whole casting of impeachment as political vindictiveness...well, I have to admit my first reaction to Bill Clinton's impeachment was, "hey, Republican political vindictiveness", but once it became clear he lied under oath, well, that tipped the scale. I think he did a lot of good, but you do not lie under oath.
And please, that whole "erased tapes"...? I think that was Nixon in Watergate.
Hillary Clinton endured a massive investigation, it is complete, done, finished, and no charges were filed. Continued attacks on her seem to me to be entirely personal, and mostly directed at her because she's a woman. I find those attacks un-American.
Donald Trump was impeached for crimes he did commit.
jcburns If there was no sense that any President had done something impeachable (ie "high crimes and misdemeanors") no, there is no Democrat who would worked for impeachment. Because that would be against the rule of law. This whole casting of impeachment as political vindictiveness...well, I have to admit my first reaction to Bill Clinton's impeachment was, "hey, Republican political vindictiveness", but once it became clear he lied under oath, well, that tipped the scale. I think he did a lot of good, but you do not lie under oath. And please, that whole "erased tapes"...? I think that was Nixon in Watergate. Hillary Clinton endured a massive investigation, it is complete, done, finished, and no charges were filed. Continued attacks on her seem to me to be entirely personal, and mostly directed at her because she's a woman. I find those attacks un-American. Donald Trump was impeached for crimes he did commit.
Excellent assessment.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.