ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- Worst President Ever

[ Posted Friday, April 10th, 2020 – 17:26 UTC ]

In times of crisis, America looks for leadership. This means they want to be told the truth, they want to see the president and those around him working as hard as they can to improve things for everyone, and they want to see mistakes quickly rectified and problems that pop up addressed and ultimately solved. Sadly, though, we are getting none of this from President Trump.

What we're getting instead are temper tantrums worthy of a two-year-old toddler. We're getting lies and misinformation from the president. Things that should be getting done are not, or (even worse) are being actively blocked by the White House. No one appears to be in charge, since Trump announces a new "point man" every couple of days. Mistakes are piling up which are making the problems that already existed much worse. We're in a ditch, and Trump's only answer is for everyone to dig faster.

Some of Trump's own advisors are even beginning to notice that the more Trump appears on television in his lengthy daily briefings, the more his poll numbers come down.

President Trump's advisers are reportedly deeply worried that his narcissistic daily briefings on coronavirus are hurting his reelection chances. That's revealing, in that it shows Trump's unshakable faith in his ability to manipulate the news cycle with his magical reality-bending powers is not shared by his data-focused team.

But what's even more revealing is what those advisers won't say about these displays. This shows the limits on what constitutes acceptable criticism of Trump among those who have a big stake in his political success.

In short: It's only okay to leak criticism of Trump for things that are perceived to harm him politically in the most superficial of ways, never mind the danger that his failings continue to pose to the country.

. . .

A remarkably revealing New York Times report details these concerns, with a focus on how Trump's daily coronavirus briefings are working against him:

As unemployment soars and the death toll skyrockets, and new polls show support for the president's handling of the crisis sagging, White House allies and Republican lawmakers increasingly believe the briefings are hurting the president more than helping him. Many view the sessions as a kind of original sin from which all of his missteps flow, once he gets through his prepared script and turns to his preferred style of extemporaneous bluster and invective.

The Trump campaign's internal polls show "he has mostly lost the initial bump he received early in the crisis," the Times reports, and advisers want these briefings limited. Republican Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) claims that in these briefings, Trump "drowns out his own message." Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.) says "they're going on too long."

In the past week alone, it was revealed that the White House had gotten buy-in from all parties (including the health insurance industry) to open an emergency enrollment period for Obamacare, but that Trump vetoed it at the last minute, for purely political reasons (Trump famously hates the idea that Obamacare could ever be a good thing, of course). Trump absolutely refuses to use the Defense Production Act in the way it was designed -- to use the power of the federal government to buy up all production and then deliver it to the states where it is needed. Instead, he first told the states to go buy their own supplies on the open market, and then made things immeasurably worse by interfering with that process:

President Donald Trump is "playing politics" with lives with his manipulation of Colorado's ventilator request to help embattled GOP Sen. Cory Gardner's reelection, a Democratic lawmaker charges.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency hijacked 500 ventilators ordered by the state for COVID-19 patients, but Trump restored 100 as a special favor to Gardner in a move that will help the vulnerable lawmaker's reelection, complained Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

"President Trump says we will get 100 as a courtesy to Senator Gardner. That means, because the president is playing politics with public health, we're still 400 ventilators short from what we should have received," DeGette said in a statement Wednesday. Trump's "mismanagement of this crisis is costing lives and livelihoods."

Trump has repeatedly told states to get their own supplies to deal with the coronavirus pandemic. But when they do, the federal government often cancels their orders or outbids them so FEMA can add them to the national stockpile to dole out as Trump administration officials please. That was the case after Colorado contracted to purchase 500 ventilators.

Trump tweeted about giving 100 ventilators to Colorado with a valuable shoutout to Gardner. The senator in turn lavished gratitude on the president and took credit for his answered appeal in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday night.

. . .

Colorado's Democratic Gov. Jared Polis told Don Lemon on CNN last week after FEMA blocked the state's ventilator order that the Trump administration has to "either be in or out," on helping states acquire medical supplies.

"Either you're buying them and you're providing them to states and you're letting us know what we're going to get and when we're going to get them," Polis said. "Or you stay out, and let us buy them."

He added: "But this middle ground where they're buying stuff out from under us... that's really challenging to manage our hospital surge and [the] safety of our health care workers."

In other words, the federal government is causing absolute chaos for purely political reasons. That is downright criminal, or perhaps "evil" is a better word for it. The Denver Post went even further:

The Denver Post editorial board this week accused Donald Trump of "playing political games with lives" amid the coronavirus pandemic.

The newspaper's board slammed the president's politicized response to the public health crisis, saying he was "treating life-saving medical equipment as emoluments he can dole out as favors to loyalists" in a critical column.

"It's the worst imaginable form of corruption," the board wrote in the editorial Thursday, adding: "For the good of this nation during what should be a time of unity, he must stop."

. . .

"We find it hard to believe decisions are being made on such a morally bankrupt basis, but Trump is doing this nation no favors by giving us the impression that politics will drive his administration's response to a virus that has already killed thousands of Americans and will kill thousands more," the board concluded.

Speaking of evil, in the midst of the worst unemployment crisis America has faced since the Great Depression, the secretary of Labor is also acting to make things worse, for millions now out of work:

The Labor Department is facing growing criticism over its response to the coronavirus pandemic as the agency plays a central role in ensuring that the tens of millions of workers affected by the crisis get assistance.

The criticism ranges from direct actions that the agency has taken to limit the scope of worker assistance programs to concerns that it has not been aggressive enough about protecting workers from health risks or supporting states scrambling to deliver billions in new aid.

In recent days, Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia, who has expressed concerns about unemployment insurance being too generous, has used his department's authority over new laws enacted by Congress to limit who qualifies for joblessness assistance and to make it easier for small businesses not to pay family leave benefits. The new rules make it more difficult for gig workers such as Uber and Lyft drivers to get benefits, while making it easier for some companies to avoid paying their workers coronavirus-related sick and family leave.

"The Labor Department chose the narrowest possible definition of who qualifies for pandemic unemployment assistance," said Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation who has spent two decades working on unemployment programs.

At the same time, frustrations have built among career staff at the Labor Department that the agency hasn't ordered employers to follow safeguards, including the wearing of masks, recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to protect workers. Two draft guidance documents written by officials at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, part of the Labor Department, to strengthen protections for health-care workers have also not been advanced, according to two people with knowledge of the regulations granted anonymity to discuss the internal deliberations.

If his last name rings a bell, there's a reason: "Scalia, a longtime corporate lawyer... is the son of the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia."

Since there is an absolute vacuum of leadership from the White House, the states have had to step up and do the best job they can. They were left on their own when it came to shelter-in-place orders (Trump still refuses to issue a nationwide order), they were largely left on their own to secure testing supplies and ventilators and P.P.E.s, and they're now once again being left on their own to figure out how to get back to normal:

A national plan to fight the coronavirus pandemic in the United States and return Americans to jobs and classrooms is emerging -- but not from the White House.

Instead, a collection of governors, former government officials, disease specialists and nonprofits are pursuing a strategy that relies on the three pillars of disease control: ramp up testing to identify people who are infected. Find everyone they interact with by deploying contact tracing on a scale America has never attempted before. And focus restrictions more narrowly on the infected and their contacts so the rest of society doesn't have to stay in permanent lockdown.

But there is no evidence yet the White House will pursue such a strategy.

Instead, the president and his top advisers have fixated almost exclusively on plans to reopen the U.S. economy by the end of the month, though they haven't detailed how they will do so without triggering another outbreak. President Trump has been especially focused on creating a second coronavirus task force aimed at combating the economic ramifications of the virus.

Administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations, say the White House has made a deliberate political calculation that it will better serve Trump's interest to put the onus on governors -- rather than the federal government -- to figure out how to move ahead.

"It's mind-boggling, actually, the degree of disorganization," said Tom Frieden, former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director. The federal government has already squandered February and March, he noted, committing "epic failures" on testing kits, ventilator supply, protective equipment for health workers and contradictory public health communication. The next failure is already on its way, Frieden said, because "we're not doing the things we need to be doing in April."

Trump really needs a sign on his desk reading: "The buck stops anywhere else but here." And then, bizarrely, he expects to be praised for his absolute abdication of responsibility. Trump, of course, also has the time to show zero empathy, because he still sees the entire crisis as all about him. None of that wimpy "I feel your pain" for Trump! Instead, what we got was a tweet urging us all to just move on and forget about it all. No, really:

Once we OPEN UP OUR GREAT COUNTRY, and it will be sooner rather than later, the horror of the Invisible Enemy, except for those that sadly lost a family member or friend, must be quickly forgotten. Our Economy will BOOM, perhaps like never before!!!

Got that? We're all supposed to just quickly forget the entire crisis. Well, except for those who had a friend or family member die -- even Trump realizes that "quickly forgetting" them would be too much to ask for.

But we aren't going to forget the past few months anytime soon. In fact, history will long remember this time period as the time when Donald Trump secured for himself a real superlative that he richly deserves: "Worst president ever."

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Through no real action on his own part, this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is Joe Biden, for being the last man standing in the Democratic presidential nomination race.

When Bernie Sanders bowed out of the race this week, it left Joe Biden as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Biden, to his credit, has been working with Bernie's team and has already started signing on to some of the progressive agenda Bernie has been fighting for. Of course, Biden is only supporting incremental versions rather than the revolutionary steps Bernie's been proposing, but all the steps he's taken have been in the right direction at least. He could easily have decided to "tack back to the center" instead, so Biden should be applauded for courting Bernie's supporters in earnest.

Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic Party's nominee, and he will have the challenge of taking on Donald Trump. Will he be up to this challenge? That remains to be seen. He certainly shouldn't have much trouble uniting the party behind him, because unlike someone like Mitt Romney or John McCain, the alternative to voting for Biden is pretty downright unthinkable for anyone who calls himself or herself a Democrat. It's always been all about beating Trump for most Democratic voters -- that's really the only thing that has stayed remarkably consistent throughout the primary season. Now that those who thought Biden would be the best way to beat Trump have carried the day, the rest of the party will quickly fall in line behind him.

It remains to be seen how Joe Biden will take on Trump in the head-to-head general election campaign. Will he attack Trump or just try to "be presidential," and by doing so show in stark contrast why such a difference is crucial in a time of crisis? We'll soon find out.

Whatever campaign he decides to run, however, Joe Biden is now the choice of the Democratic Party to take on Donald Trump. And after a primary race that had over two dozen candidates, that alone is pretty impressive -- especially considering how Biden was almost written off after his disappointing finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire. Joe Biden is now the Democratic standard-bearer going forward, and he's also our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Joe Biden is technically a private citizen, and it is our standing policy not to link to campaign webpages, so you'll have to search his contact information yourself if you'd like to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

While there have been plenty of disappointing moments over the past week, they have all centered around either Donald Trump or other Republicans.

Like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis giving a televised press briefing while wearing only one protective glove -- which completely defeats the purpose of wearing gloves. Or DeSantis flat-out lying to his own citizens by falsely claiming that: "I don't think, nationwide there's been one single fatality under [the age of] 25."

Or Florida deliberately designing a system to handle unemployment claims so that it flat-out doesn't work. This became painfully apparent in the past few weeks. Other states may have been bad, but Florida actually planned for the system to fail. That's beyond bad.

Or Bill O'Reilly telling Sean Hannity: "Many people who are dying, both here and around the world, were on their last legs anyway."

Or the pastor of a church in Louisiana who is defying orders not to hold large gatherings, explaining his flock to reporters: "Like any zealot or like any pure religious person, death looks to them like a welcome friend. True Christians do not mind dying."

Or Donald Trump deciding he doesn't want any oversight of the half-trillion-dollar bailout fund Congress just gave him.

There are, in fact, dozens of such examples from the other side of the aisle. But over on the Democratic side, all that can be seen is competence. So we're going to put the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award back on the shelf until next Friday, unless someone has a suggestion to make for a nominee that we somehow missed.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 569 (4/10/20)

Once again, a mixed bag this week. Now that the general election season has begun, these talking points will likely get a lot more campaign-specific in the weeks to come, but for now the coronavirus is still dominating the conversation.

 

1
   Demand mail-in voting!

Democrats really need to pounce on this now, in a big way.

"In extraordinary times, extraordinary measures are called for. We're in the midst of a pandemic, and nobody knows when this crisis will be fully over. We could see the coronavirus ebb and then return in force after the summer. Which is why Democrats are demanding the option of mail-in ballots for every voter across the country who wants one. All obstacles to mail-in voting must be suspended for the duration of the emergency. Voting should not mean -- as it did in Wisconsin this week -- having to risk your health or your very life. And yet, for some bizarre reason, Republicans are fighting this commonsense measure tooth and nail. The Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin could go right ahead with its primary, leading Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to write in scathing dissent: 'The Court's suggestion that the current situation is not "substantially different" from "an ordinary election" boggles the mind.' She's right. These are not normal times, and this will not be an ordinary election. We must keep every voter as safe as possible, and that means allowing everyone the option of safely casting their ballot by mail, period."

 

2
   Trump did it!

The best argument comes from Trump himself.

"Last month, President Donald Trump cast his ballot in the Florida primary by mail. If it's good enough for Trump, then why isn't it good enough for everyone? When asked about this discrepancy, Trump flailed around, trying to explain: 'there's a big difference between somebody that's out of state and does a ballot, and everything's sealed, certified and everything else,' he said, about his own vote, but allowing everyone to do it would mean: 'you get thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place.' This, obviously, makes no sense whatsoever. In actual fact, one-third of all votes cast in Florida are mail-in ballots. More Florida Republicans actually use mail-in ballots than Democrats. I'll say it again -- if voting by mail is good enough for Donald Trump, then it should be good enough for everyone."

 

3
   Bye-bye to the Trump bump

Easy come, easy go.

"In any crisis, there is what is called a 'rally-round-the-president' effect in the polls, where sitting presidents see their poll numbers go up. But due to Donald Trump being on television every night blathering on and on and repeatedly attacking reporters for asking simple questions, this polling bump has now evaporated. There were six separate polls out this week showing Trump's approval rating has fallen right back down to where it was before the crisis -- between 40 and 45 percent. A majority of Americans now disapprove of his handling of the crisis, which wasn't true only a week ago. It seems the more they see the president on television doing nothing more than patting himself on the back while ignoring all the massive failures of his coronavirus response, the more the public realizes that he is simply not up to dealing with an emergency in any way, shape, or form."

 

4
   Even conservatives agree

You know things are getting bad when a Republican president can't even count on support from the Wall Street Journal and Fox News.

"The Wall Street Journal just ran an editorial titled 'Trump's Wasted Briefings,' where they accurately pointed out that Trump's daily television appearances have devolved into, quote, a boring show of President Vs. the press, unquote. They chided Trump for his 'outbursts against his political critics,' which they called 'notably off-key at this moment,' and concluded: 'If Mr. Trump thinks these daily sessions will help him defeat Joe Biden, he's wrong.' Ouch. Brit Hume of Fox News echoed this sentiment, pointing out: 'He could get his views across without bragging, endlessly repeating himself, and getting into petty squabbles with the junior varsity players in the WH press corps. And he could stop talking much sooner to give Pence, Fauci, Birx and Giroir more time.' In other words, even the conservative media is telling Trump that he is, in essence, his own worst enemy."

 

5
   If the media needs something to do....

This is disturbing.

"The New York Times reported this week that Donald Trump may have an investment in the company that produces hydroxychloroquine. No wonder he's been pushing everyone to use it! If true this could be a new low for Trump's ongoing corruption in office. So why isn't this in front page headlines everywhere? Trump stands to profit from the very drug he's touting as a cure-all for coronavirus. I mean, where's the outrage?"

 

6
   Pay it back!

This was downright disgusting, from start to finish.

"So Captain Brett Crozier was concerned about the sailors on his aircraft carrier and he sent out a letter begging the Navy to take action. The Navy did take action, but it was of the purely ass-covering variety -- they relieved Crozier of his command. This was done by Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly, who then flew out to Guam to personally address the sailors on the ship. In doing so, he absolutely trashed Captain Crozier, calling him 'too naive or too stupid to be commanding officer of a ship like this.' The sailors reacted angrily, and they also gave Crozier a standing ovation when he left the ship for the final time. Ironically, Modly made the case that the captain should have known his letter was going to leak to the media, and then had to deal with the fact that his own speech to the sailors leaked to the media. At first, he insisted that he stood by every word he said, but then later was forced to apologize profusely. But it was too late -- within hours, Modly himself was forced to resign. And a final outrage to this outrageous story: the cost of Modly's 35-hour roundtrip to trash the captain's reputation in person cost the taxpayers a whopping $243,000. If there were any justice for Captain Crozier, Modly's retirement pay would be docked to cover the cost of his disastrous trip. After all, why should the American taxpayers have to pay for his idiocy?"

 

7
   "Now watch this drive"

Another Bush moment for Trump.

"Remember back before the 9/11 attacks, when President Bush was asked to address global terrorism? He tried to do so, but then got back to what really mattered -- his golf game. Right after addressing the terrorist threat, he turned and said: 'Now watch this drive.' Now Donald Trump is desperately searching for someone else to blame for his disastrous coronavirus response, and he's decided that it's all the Democrats' fault for impeaching him. But you know what? That dog don't hunt. Donald Trump wasn't distracted by impeachment, he was distracted by playing golf and holding rallies. Since he was first briefed about the coronavirus, he has gone golfing nine times, including right after he declared a national emergency. He also held a dozen rallies in the same time period. Remember when Republicans used to be incensed when President Obama played golf? Now that we're in the midst of one of the worst pandemics in American history, it seems that those very same Republicans are just fine with Trump wasting time out on the golf course, or holding political rallies. How times have changed!"

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

101 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- Worst President Ever”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    President Trump's advisers are reportedly deeply worried that his narcissistic daily briefings on coronavirus are hurting his reelection chances.

    Did you watch the briefing today? Trump was back taking questions and he seemed to tone it down a bit. At least, it looked like he was trying very hard but just couldn't resist at a couple of points.

    Having said that, guess what's more scary than his narcissistic briefings? Oh, that would be the kind of briefing he had today where on at least two occasions, in response to rather surprisingly enlightening questions, he appeared stone cold clueless.

    When confronted with a geopolitical question about what should be the US response to an emboldened China in the South China Sea and evirons, considering that a US aircraft carrier in the area is out of commission.

    I think I may have stood up and applauded the journalist who asked the question, smiles all around!

    But, I rather stood aghast as Trump went on his typical anti-China tirade about how, ever since the WTO let them in, China has been taking advantage of the US because the US had stupid leaders but they won't be taking advantage of US anymore with me in charge.

    I just picked my jaw off the floor very recently. :(

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don’t forget Trump tweeting out WHAT is most important to him during this emergency:

    The Wall Street Journal always “forgets” to mention that the ratings for the White House Press Briefings are “through the roof” (Monday Night Football, Bachelor Finale, according to @nytimes) & is only way for me to escape the Fake News & get my views across. WSJ is Fake News!

    Someone should tell him that there would be no higher TV ratings than Trump announcing he was stepping down as president...ratings through the roof! I honestly think Donald might actually consider stepping down if he was assured it would garner the highest TV ratings any show has ever gotten. His ego could not resist such a honor.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's nice to be a working Canadian who is out of work due to stay at home orders and who is not, alas, essential. Heh.

    I just received my first of at least four monthly payments of $2000, directly deposited, of course. :)

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    His ego could not resist such a honor.

    If, only.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Worst President Ever" with ratings inversely proportional. I like it!

    As for the MIDOTW award … well, all I can find the energy to say is … … is, I concur. :)

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Will [Biden] attack Trump or just try to "be presidential," and by doing so show in stark contrast why such a difference is crucial in a time of crisis?

    I'm afraid that is going to require a lot of thought to answer. See ya next week!

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm so glad I'm oblivious to Fox.

    It's hard to imagine - I mean really hard to wrap my mind around - how anyone could say that. I guess less hard to imagine in the case of Bill O'Reilly.

    He and his cohorts really don't care at all, do they?

    That will be hard to beat, I'm guessing ...

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TP#1-2,

    Well, Democrats will have to find a way to counter Trump's persistent claims of mail-in ballot fraud if these two talking points are to have any legs.

    I mean, they'll have to get specific about the process and how it works. Perhaps, even entice a Republican governor whose state has this down pat to do the explaining - shouldn't be too hard to pull off considering we're all in the fight of our lives together to bring the coronavirus to its knees.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    … a 'rally-round-the-president' effect in the polls, where sitting presidents see their poll numbers go up. But due to Donald Trump being on television every night blathering on and on and repeatedly attacking reporters for asking simple questions, this polling bump has now evaporated.

    You mean 'simpleton' questions, right Chris? Heh.

    I just couldn't resist - they did better today, though.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, the absolute scariest part of the WH briefing today, or any day came when Trump was asked who he's going to listen to in order to make the biggest decision of his life (ie. when to relax the lockdown) and he pointed to his head with his index finger, kind of like a gun.

    Great. He's going to listen to all the experts - science and economic - and he may as well toss a coin.

    Good God.

  11. [11] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    It's nice to be a working Canadian who is out of work due to stay at home orders and who is not, alas, essential. Heh.

    I just received my first of at least four monthly payments of $2000, directly deposited, of course. :)

    B-b-b-but that sounds like socialism! OMG socialism is, like, EVIL! We just can't have that in the USA USA USA!

  12. [12] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
    Chris,

    Will [Biden] attack Trump or just try to "be presidential," and by doing so show in stark contrast why such a difference is crucial in a time of crisis?

    I'm afraid that is going to require a lot of thought to answer. See ya next week!

    Methinks it ou

  13. [13] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Methinks it ought to be a judicious mix. Trump's mental death spiral is always the elephant in the room, and Joe is going to have to call out Trump from time to time. Otherwise present his evaluation and prescription to get us outta this mess.

  14. [14] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I loooved Elizabeth Warren's wonky "I have a plan for that." She had the chutzpah to join Bernie in putting her cards on the table. So I'd love to see Joe mix in some wonkiness** during the "presidential material" segment of his campaign. $15? Public Option? Student Debt Relief? Tell America what you're bleeping going to do, like a man!

    "The adult in the room, always be."

    -Yoda

    **Preferably after he decides how far left he has to go to win the Progressives

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, like, has Elizabeth endorsed Joe, yet? Hmmmm?

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just remember … Joe ain't the world's greatest campaigner or even, dare I add, explainer.

    Presidential leadership is right in core of his wheelhouse, though.

    The question is, how are we going to get him in the oval office?

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    Methinks it ought to be a judicious mix.

    I think you're quite right about that. But, what does a judicious mix look like?

  18. [18] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Trump recently estimated American Covid-19 deaths at between 110K and 200K.

    Am I the only one who wonders if Trump knows it'll likely be less, and if so he'll get to claim he did a fabulous job protecting us?

    Signed-

    Cynical or Realistic? I can't decide.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wonder if president Trump knows that Bill and Melinda Gates and their foundation went into full-blown coronavirus response mode about two months before he did, if he even has yet.

  20. [20] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [17]

    Elizabeth I don't think Joe can avoid just rolling with whatever Trump, that is expressing outrage as needed (yup, Don Harris is right. Joe should have, say, enlisted Bernie for a joint declaration to Wisconsin to delay the Primary. BOTH of them so there's no thumb on the scale appearance whatsoever.).

    Other than that Joe has simply been [Establishment] Joe. Joe when he was down and now when he's the man. No sin there, Don. WYSIWYG and all.

    But I digress. Joe's outrage must appear a relatively spontaneous reaction to when Trump really crosses the line. And not every last Trump boo-boo, either.

  21. [21] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I wonder if Obama would like to be the attack dog?

  22. [22] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I wish it was Elizabeth, I think it'll be Kamala.
    Or the Governor of my home state of Meee-chigan, Gretchen Whitmer?

  23. [23] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [16]

    Elizabeth,

    Does is right in core of his wheelhouse, though in Canadian translate to, "is right up his alley," in 'Murican?

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, that 'wheelhouse' reference is a Bidenism.

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What, may I ask, is president Obama waiting for?

  26. [26] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Nope,Elizabeth Warren has not endorsed anyone yet.

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Figures.

  28. [28] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Gee, maybe part of Joe's family tree is in Canada, like mine.

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You know, for me, Biden has always kind of represented the anti-establishment simply based on the fact that, as Senator, he very often took a position on issues that did not toe the party line.

    I think that's one of the things I've always liked about him.

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Until Senator Warren endorses Biden, she is dead to me.

  31. [31] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Mayhaps Elizabeth Warren is holding her fire for the moment, realizing that deferring her endorsement of Joe until after he's clinched the nomination would give him hopefully the maximum amount of "ooomph" with us Progressives. Er, eh?

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Who knows.

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If she waits too long, it'll be meaningless. Her judgement isn't as stellar as she may think ...

  34. [34] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [29]

    Are you versed enough in Joe to elaborate on that? Tell me the good stuff, for we have to go into November with the Biden we have. I'm stuck on the bankruptcy bill and the Iraq War votes among other things.

  35. [35] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Naw, Elizabeth's endorsement wouldn't make a ripple right now and likely for weeks in the face of CV-19. Better that she gets to signal her "approval" of Joe once he's done pivoting to the left.
    I think Elizabeth is capable of that level of slickness.

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, please don't get me stated on the AUMF in Iraq. It's too late and I have to go get some sleep.

    Ditto for the bankruptcy bill.

    Later!

    G'nite.

  37. [37] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Remember, Elizabeth Warren has had to be twice as good to earn her successes.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    started … I have stated so much on that already … too bad I didn't just save it to a file or something … anyway, more tomorrow!

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [37],

    Oh, puleeeeeeze.

  40. [40] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Me, too.

    G'Nite! This was fun

  41. [41] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    I would like to nominate California's governor Newsom retroactively for MIDOW. I was shocked to note the extreme disparity between COVID-19 cases in New York and California: as I write this, 170,000+ cases vs 19,400+. (And even more indicative, a 40% positive-test rate vs 16%, meaning CA is probably testing more asymptomatic people.)
    https://www.politico.com/interactives/2020/coronavirus-testing-by-state-chart-of-new-cases/

    The difference: Newsom issued a 'stay at home' order on 19 March.
    https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/03/19/governor-gavin-newsom-issues-stay-at-home-order/

    The day before, New York governor Cuomo REFUSED to issue a similar order for his state, DESPITE the mayor of New York begging him to do so.
    'Cuomo said that such drastic policies would create more fear amid the COVID-19 outbreak, which has now infected more than 6,500 people across the U.S. and killed at least 115, according to Johns Hopkins University. With 1,717 confirmed infections, New York state has more cases than any other state in the country. However, Cuomo has said the true number is likely much higher due to limited testing capacity and stringent federal guidelines over who’s eligible for diagnostic testing.

    “Quarantine in place, you can’t leave your home,” Cuomo said. “The fear, the panic is a bigger problem than the virus.”'
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/cuomo-says-he-wont-approve-coronavirus-shelter-in-place-order-for-new-york-city.html

  42. [42] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    I'm submitting my comments in 3 parts, since wordpress doesn't seem to like too many links in one post.
    I would like to nominate California's governor Newsom retroactively for MIDOW. I was shocked to note the extreme disparity between COVID-19 cases in New York and California: as I write this, 170,000+ cases vs 19,400+. (And even more indicative, a 40% positive-test rate vs 16%, meaning CA is probably testing more asymptomatic people.)
    https://www.politico.com/interactives/2020/coronavirus-testing-by-state-chart-of-new-cases/

  43. [43] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    The difference: Newsom issued a 'stay at home' order on 19 March.
    https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/03/19/governor-gavin-newsom-issues-stay-at-home-order/

  44. [44] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    The day before, New York governor Cuomo REFUSED to issue a similar order for his state, DESPITE the mayor of New York begging him to do so.
    'Cuomo said that such drastic policies would create more fear amid the COVID-19 outbreak, which has now infected more than 6,500 people across the U.S. and killed at least 115, according to Johns Hopkins University. With 1,717 confirmed infections, New York state has more cases than any other state in the country. However, Cuomo has said the true number is likely much higher due to limited testing capacity and stringent federal guidelines over who’s eligible for diagnostic testing.

    “Quarantine in place, you can’t leave your home,” Cuomo said. “The fear, the panic is a bigger problem than the virus.”'
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/cuomo-says-he-wont-approve-coronavirus-shelter-in-place-order-for-new-york-city.html

  45. [45] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    It beggars belief that some people are urging Gov Cuomo to run for President. Do they not remember the cautionary tale about the campaign for 'President Giuliani'?!

  46. [46] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    Regarding the talking points about vote by mail, as always Trump's ravings ("Mail ballots, they cheat. People cheat," Trump said Tuesday), are easily swatted aside with facts.
    'Oregon, the pioneer in this area, has sent out more than 100 million mail-in ballots since 2000, and has documented only about a dozen cases of proven fraud.”'
    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/false-narrative-vote-mail-fraud

  47. [47] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Well, those of us who aren't cult members know that when certain people say things like 'People cheat' and 'Are they [medical masks] going out the back door?' they mean 'That's what I do and I can't even understand honesty.'

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    You are right that the rest of the Democratic Party will rally behind Biden now that he is the nominee.

    And you had better hope that Democrats alone are enough to beat Trump.

    But you are wrong that the choice to run the campaign is a choice between attacking Trump or looking presidential.

    Biden will continue to be Biden.

    He already has shown he will not act presidential by
    not speaking out against the Wisconsin primary.

    This clearly qualified him for MDDOTW.

    I guess ignoring that is part of the rally behind Biden thing instead of the MeToo type of response to make Biden drop out that should have happened.

    Acting presidential would have been to speak out against the Wisconsin Primary. And acting presidential now would be for Biden to admit that it was a mistake to not speak out.

    For me, this was serious enough that even if Biden were to commit to run a small donor only campaign I would now have trouble deciding whether I would vote for him in November.

    And it may be important to other voters that are not looking through Dem colored glasses.

  49. [49] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I'm wagering it will, by virtue of hindsight, eventually become obvious that Biden should have been BOTH the "Most impressive . . ." AND the " Most disappointing . . ."

  50. [50] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [47]

    Don Harris are you seriously willing to help Trump get reelected because Joe won't go small doner? Respectfully, man, that makes you appear to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Don't you think that another 4 years of Trump will make your campaign even less likely to succeed?

    [48]

    Agreed. Again, I think Joe not calling for the postponment of the Wisconsin primary was a political calculation the avoid even the appearance of Democratic "thumb on the scale to help Biden." But announcing together with Bernie would have protected Wisconsin voters without any kind of rancour.

  51. [51] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @mc

    i think you're right and it was a political calculation. probably not the best one either, but hardly worthy of a "most" disappointing. it was at worst a missed opportunity, and at best a minefield avoided. your idea of putting out a joint statement with bernie might have been a good one, but who knows what went on behind the scenes..

    JL

  52. [52] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    We are headed into a dictatorship just as has happened in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. And I believe we have passed the tipping point and and like falling off a roof once it begins there is nothing you can to to stop it. You just watch the ground hurling up to meet you until our life is over. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/opinion/wisconsin-primary-democracy.html?algo=top_conversion&fellback=false&imp_id=275041869&imp_id=176857359&action=click&module=Most%20Popular&pgtype=Homepage. This coming election is just so much strum and drang, the fix is in, and there is no way democrats can win in November. When Trump & Mitch win they will cast into concrete all their power and Trump will become president for life. all the while some forty percent of the population cheer him on. I wish this were not the case but Wisconsin proves that e we have passed the point where we can stop it.

  53. [53] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [50]

    nypoet22 wrote

    your idea of putting out a joint statement with bernie might have been a good one, but who knows what went on behind the scenes..

    I don't think Bernie was any obstacle to a joint plea for the safety of Wisconsin voters because delaying as many primaries as possible would increase the (longshot) possibility that Joe stumbles, gets caught up in scandal or even, perish the thought, catches and dies of Covid-19.

    I think they collectively missed a great chance to show concern for the electorate that Trump and the Repugs obviously lack, with no significant effect on the overall contest between them.

  54. [54] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    But, then again, Democrats are correctly known for being pussies. Sigh.

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Instead, what we got was a tweet urging us all to just move on and forget about it all. No, really:

    Once we OPEN UP OUR GREAT COUNTRY, and it will be sooner rather than later, the horror of the Invisible Enemy, except for those that sadly lost a family member or friend, must be quickly forgotten. Our Economy will BOOM, perhaps like never before!!!

    Got that? We're all supposed to just quickly forget the entire crisis.

    Trump, Republicans in Congress, Fox News, and their useful idiots will tweet their revisionist history and spend multiple months and millions (if not billions) trying to convince you that you didn’t see and hear what they said and did in January, February, and March up until Friday the 13th when they ceased to refer to the deadly virus as the "Democrat hoax."

    All that time spent undermining trust in government, pissing on experts, and ridiculing science... then irony catches up to your standard con job so you'd naturally like it "quickly forgotten." *shakes head*

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    I have to admit that I haven't the energy to go on and on about the AUMF in Iraq and whether it was a de facto vote for war or why Biden voted for the 2005 bankruptcy bill.

    I've been over it too many times, including right here in these comments sections, through the years.

    But, if you have anything you'd like my opinion on regarding these issues or any other than concern Biden or his senate voting record, I'll be more than happy to give it.

  57. [57] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    Allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good is a great saying. But it does not apply here.

    A small donor only Biden would be far from perfect and a non small donor Biden cannot be considered good.

    I fail to see how Biden who would benefit from the primaries proceeding would appear to be putting the thumb on the scale in favor of Biden by Biden speaking out against the primaries proceeding.

    Electing Biden is worse than four more years of Trump because electing Dems like Biden is what led to Trump being elected and will lead to another Republican even worse than Trump just as electing Obama led to a Republican president worse than GWB.

    Demanding that Biden run a small donor only campaign to earn our votes (Biden recently said he knows he needs to earn our votes) is similar to demanding that he accept the War on Habitat as being real, supporting a 15 dollar an hour wage or any other thing that Dems demand of their candidates.

    The difference is that running a small donor only campaign is the only way to know if they are going to try to do the other things they promise.

    Without the small donor only commitment the other promises are lies.

    Because four more years of Trump scares the Dems they think it will scare everyone else as well.

    It won't. I am more frightened of Biden leading to a Republican president worse than Trump following another ineffective deceptive big money Dem.

    I refuse to accept the not as bad as the only choice as not as good is the enemy of the adequate.

  58. [58] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The reality of Biden's decision to not speak out against the Wisconsin primary proceeding is that it is SOP for the Dems. Make sure that there is no clear difference between the Dems and Republicans.

    The Dems do not want to win big. It is more important to keep the election close to inspire their voters to vote and to keep people from voting for anything other than than CMPs because the election is close.

    A perfect example is the 2000 election.

    In the summer when Bush or Gore was leading by a wide margin following the conventions Nader was polling around 10%. When September rolled around and the race tightened up Nader's support dropped below 5%.

  59. [59] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    OOps. That should be the not as bad is the enemy of the adequate.

    That mistake was a case of the terrible being the enemy of making a good point. :D

  60. [60] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    On a lighter note, it's too bad I can't use foul language anymore.

    I'm sure I could have done something topical today with the term Easter egg hunt. :D

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    obviously someone doesn't quite get the whole concept of "lighter"

    https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/giada-de-laurentiis/easter-pie-recipe-1952152

  62. [62] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and just in case anyone didn't know exactly what CW was referring to:

    https://dictionary.apa.org/monomania

  63. [63] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And I already explained why that does not apply in my response to CW.

    As CW has not responded to that I can assume it was an reasonable response.

  64. [64] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Found this online and thought it worthy of sharing!

    Look Before You Leap

    A private jet with Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Dr. Fauci, and a 10 year old girl onboard is facing engine problems and going down. There are only three parachutes on the plane.

    Dr. Fauci takes the first one and says, "I have to save the country from the pandemic," and jumps off.

    Donald Trump takes the next one and tells them, "I'm the President," and jumps off.

    Hillary Clinton looks at the little girl sadly and tells her, "You go ahead and take the last one, because you have a long life ahead of you."

    The little girl replies, "Don't worry, we have two parachutes. The idiot Trump jumped off with my backpack."

    Happy Easter Sunday everyone, despite our circumstances.

  65. [65] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    [don replying to my clarification of CW's suggestion that don "quit with your own monomania"],

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/04/01/april-is-the-cruelest-month/#comment-156925

    And I already explained why that does not apply in my response to CW.

    i was curious what your response to CW actually was, so i looked it up. it was as follows:

    "Comment 54- Where are you?"
    -Theme from "Car 54 Where are you?

    well okay then, that certainly clears it up.

    As CW has not responded to that I can assume it was an [sic] reasonable response.

    that's certainly one possibility. i'll leave it up to others to generate alternative hypotheses.

    JL

  66. [66] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as for me, i'm still waiting for CW to respond to my repeated requests for an article about pie-based voting. as all his responses so far have been about something other than pie-based voting, he is obviously afraid to engage on the topic.

    JL

  67. [67] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    Demanding that Biden run a small donor only campaign to earn our votes (Biden recently said he knows he needs to earn our votes) is similar to demanding that he accept the War on Habitat as being real, supporting a 15 dollar an hour wage or any other thing that Dems demand of their candidates.

    Interesting. How, exactly, is your demand that candidates take only small donations similar to the voting base wanting a minimum $15 hourly wage? One helps people obtain a livable wage and yours is nothing more than your own liberal purity test that does not really accomplish anything!

    The difference is that running a small donor only campaign is the only way to know if they are going to try to do the other things they promise.

    Without the small donor only commitment the other promises are lies.

    Running a small donor campaign is the ONLY WAY TO KNOW if they are going to try to do the other things they promise??? How? How does this work? What guarantees the success of the desire to raise minimum wages for candidates that accept only smaller donations?

    Why not promise that it will cure the coronavirus too while you are making idiotic claims?

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    This pandemic is changing everything and challenging our systems and what we know.

    It should also change how we think and what we need to do ensure our future.

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The following post, my response to Kick from an older thread, is posted here because I think it is important enough to suspend my habit of leaving old threads behind - there's just not enough time to keep tracking back, you know …

    Kick,

    but make no mistake there is evidence that it's being driven by asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, as well as symptomatic transmission... every one of them apply.

    Yes, there may be some element of airborne or pre-symptomatic transmission but this is not the driving force of the epidemic.

    Apparently [the WHO] missed some research.

    Well, they didn't miss the research you cite from Singapore. The WHO's Dr. Michael Ryan talked about this research out of Singapore that says 6% of the cases reported were asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic at one of the WHO daily press briefings on COVID-19.

    Here is what Dr. Ryan said about the Singapore research:

    "There are many articles coming out at the moment on types of transmission and pre-symptomatic transmission. I've seen one recently from I think Singapore where there was an estimation that about 6% of cases may have been caused by people who were pre-symptomatic. I'm not here to question that - there are many different estimates. But the corollary of that, the opposite of that is clearly that 94% of infections are caused by people who ARE symptomatic.

    "So we have to look at what's driving this epidemic. There is always the possibility of asymptomatic transmission. There is always the possibility that we can have some element of airborne transmission. But what we have to look at is what is the main driver of this pandemic. And, in this case we still believe that the main driver of this pandemic is symptomatic individuals coughing or sneezing or contaminating surfaces or contaminating other individuals.

    "Breaking that chain means ensuring that infected individuals are diagnosed and isolated, their contacts are traced and tracked and quarantined and that people are cared for very quickly in the system."

    Maybe the WHO will get with the program and catch up.

    No, Kick, the WHO is the premier organization fighting this pandemic and they are, in fact, poring over ALL of the research. It is well worth the time to take a look at their daily coronavirus briefings.

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, this discussion track all the way back to On Wisconsin

  71. [71] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Liz-

    That article is 9 days old. That's the pleistocene on a situation as fast as this is developing. It's currently though that asymptomatic carriers make up 20-40% of the currently infected.

    But, it's interaction of those numbers and not the numbers themselves that is important. Yes, those pumping out bodily fluids at higher rates are generally more infectious. But it's the asymptomatic carriers that bring it to new populations. Both have to be planned around, and planned around at rate that might not be proportional to overall numbers.

    As to the WHO, in a situation like this you will see the best of science. Lots of collaboration and the organization with the best funding and/or most packed with experts are not guaranteed the breakthrough. Everyone must be read if you want to keep up on the most current science.

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bashi,

    The WHO looks at all the papers and research and interact with the researchers, on a continuous basis, 24/7.

    If you are one of those who enjoys bashing the WHO, go for it. But, I won't engage.

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bashi,

    It's currently though that asymptomatic carriers make up 20-40% of the currently infected.

    So, what do you propose be done about that, in terms of the response?

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bashi,

    It's currently though that asymptomatic carriers make up 20-40% of the currently infected.

    So, what do you propose be done about that, in terms of the response?

    As you imply, it's important to talk about dose and viral load and level of infectiousness.

    The WHO is not saying that transmission is only by symptomatic individuals and there are all kinds of estimates out there about what percentage of infections are caused by pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic shedding of virus.

    The question is what should be the response.

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here is the latest guidance from the WHO - which is updated as new evidence is gathered - on the transmission of the virus causing the COVID-19 disease,
    https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations

  76. [76] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Bashi and Elizabeth: one point in a number of stories about particular outbreaks is that someone either became unwell during an event or had mild symptoms which they attributed to something else, but they were nonetheless contagious. Some people never become seriously ill, and there is some question, I believe, whether youngsters who do not show symptoms may none the less spread the virus.

    The guy who wrote in the Washington Post about developing symptoms on the plane evacuating him and others from one of the cruise ships pointed out that had he been at home, and not part of a group who knew they had been exposed, he probably would have gone to work with a 'cold'. And he seems to have been relatively lucky in not developing pneumonia.

    The early symptoms of this are not unlike colds and even allergic coughs (ask anyone allergic to tree pollen, like me--I've been coughing off and on since early February), so it's not just whether people are asymptomatic, but whether they recognise relatively mild symptoms for what they are and isolate themselves.

    This is one of the reasons distancing or shelter-in-place is needed, because people don't always realise what it is quickly enough, and some still don't seem to realise how deadly it can be. It's also one of the reasons politicians and others who down-played the seriousness of this coronavirus and ignored expert advise must be held to account at the ballot box and possibly, eventually, in the courts.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/28/i-have-coronavirus-so-far-it-isnt-that-bad/

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mezzomamma,

    This is one of the reasons distancing or shelter-in-place is needed, because people don't always realise what it is quickly enough, and some still don't seem to realise how deadly it can be.

    Precisely!

    And, I sure hope 'people' will be held to account at the ballot box.

  78. [78] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    nypoet-
    My response to CW was posted on the next article. You found my response to your comment.

  79. [79] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    okay, i found your comment, and will address it as much as i'm capable (although i do disagree with your assertion that CW's lack of additional comment lends it any credibility).

    Before I read the column I must comment on being labeled by you as a troll. Based on what?

    based on your near constant attention-seeking behavior over the past five years, your attempt to hijack every thread possible for your own venture (whose relationship to any given blog-post is tangential at best), and the escalation of your provocation against the forum's host when ignored or rejected. attempting to provoke others into off-topic discussion with increasingly incendiary comments is one of the definitions of trolling. no matter how much you convince yourself that your posts have all been on-topic and appropriate, i don't think anyone else who read them would agree with that assessment.

    As for language, when one of the real trolls behaves like an offensive word them I use that offensive word.

    another common feature of internet trolls is attempting to redirect accusations of trolling behavior against those who respond in kind to their own trolling behavior. if the forum's host believes you fit that definition more than others, perhaps it's your responsibility to change things to influence his opinion, not his responsibility to change things to fit your opinion.

    I do comment with my opinion on the articles and comments. And my opinion is that the problems we are facing right now are caused by big money corrupting our political process.

    again, that may be true in your own assessment, but your assessment cannot be considered valid until you convince the forum's host that it's accurate.

    Ignoring me doesn't work. Of course not. Why would it?

    because most healthy individuals realize that after a few thousand times repeating a comment, if others aren't interested in responding then it makes sense to move on to a different topic or a different audience, rather than repeating the same topic to the same audience.

    I comment with my opinion explaining why what you write about in your articles is either incorrect or the same principle you apply in the article should be applied to [me]. And usually how [i] can be part of the solution to what the article is about because [my pet issue] is [more important than] every other issue.
    *[phrases paraphrased to provide POV/context]

    from your own perspective this may seem valid, but the forum's host obviously sees this as seeking attention for yourself rather than making a productive contribution to HIS comments section. and as i've mentioned before, it's HIS space and therefore everyone else's responsibility to adhere to HIS opinions, not the other way 'round.

    And when this is ignored I remain persistent in demanding an answer. Just like you have lauded others for doing to people that will not give them an answer.

    the key difference between yourself and others in that position is that CW views the other people's demands as justified and yours as not justified. and again, on HIS column it's YOUR responsibility to adapt to HIS opinion on the subject, not HIS responsibility to adapt to YOUR opinion.

    Ignoring me hasn't worked. Try something different.

    That is precisely what CW has just suggested:

    "If ignoring you doesn't work, then banning you just might...
    "Is that clear enough?"
    ~CW

    great, now that we've settled that issue...

    I have not complained [cough, cough] about Kick or Listen and their trolling me. Are they on double secret probation or are they above reproach for some unknown reason? If my language offends then why are you not chastising Kick and Listen for provoking me instead of offering real discussion?

    russ, victoria and michale all seem to grasp the same basic concept that you don't - namely, our responsibility as commentators is to contribute to this forum in ways that the host considers acceptable, and show a little consideration for all the effort he puts in to make it available for all. as such, personal conflicts still need to follow the forum's rules and respect the opinions of its host.

    So no it is not clear.

    if that's the case, you're literally the ONLY one to whom it isn't. everybody else seems to understand perfectly.

    You will have to explain the inconsistencies in your comment, the conclusion and what it is based on that I am a troll and why Kick and Listen are seemingly not trolls.

    no, HE doesn't have to explain anything whatsoever. it's HIS space, and therefore clearing up inconsistencies in your understanding is YOUR responsibility, NOT HIS.

    Did you ever think that a person might get tired of being ignored by you and harassed by trolls?

    if that's really going to continue to be the way you see it, CW has already suggested a simple remedy. found your own blog, where YOUR opinions are the ones that count.

    If you think I'm a troll then prove it

    again, this is HIS forum and that's not HIS responsibility. if you're unable to grasp that basic truth, i'm afraid your long and industrious time here will soon come to an abrupt end.

    I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.
    ~a few good men

    michale, if you're reading, that one was for you - and feel free to correct me if you think anything i just wrote for don was anything less than dead-on-ballz-accurate.

  80. [80] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy,

    with all respect, you're still relatively new here, so you're missing quite a bit of context.

    JL

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy,

    for example, liz has been advocating for joe biden's virtues as a potential president on this forum since before barack obama even declared his candidacy.

    JL

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    let that one sink in a minute

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Has it been that long? :)

  85. [85] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well kick is the resident archivist of our group, so i'll leave it to her to certify whether i'm right or not about the timing. but i'm pretty sure, yeah.

  86. [86] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    it's possible that the conversation started over at huffpost then migrated here in '08, but my memory isn't THAT good.

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    my God … HuffPost ...almost forgot about that place!

  88. [88] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Okay, great. I only noticed the Comments section a year or so ago so I'm sure I'm missing out on a lot of context. It was pretty clear from the get go that Elizabeth favors Biden, and for that reason I am somewhat heartened about him. I guess my main question is, as a disappointed Bernie Bro/Elizabeth Warren supporter, what makes Joe something more than just another establishment Democrat? Since the curse of Reaganism® began afflicting America I've seen the Democrats, especially Bill Clinton and Obama, go along with it. That's why Sanders and Warren appeal to me.

  89. [89] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So does anyone else feel like they should be getting their money back on their insurance coverage that promised us that we were “fully covered”? How is it that my insurance provider has been telling me for years that I was “fully covered” when they knew there were not enough ventilators in my city to handle a medical emergency of this magnitude? How good is my health care coverage if there are not nearly enough hospital beds to handle a medical emergency?

    This is where the insurance providers point their fingers at the hospitals wanting us to blame them for not having the supplies and hospital beds we now desperately need, but the insurance providers are the ones that decide which hospitals they work with... they chose to send us to hospitals they knew were deficient to care for their customers.

    When profits are the most important factor in how hospitals are managed, how can we ever hope to be prepared for these tragedies? Preparedness is NOT profitable!

    If this does not wake us up to the dire need for universal healthcare in this country, then we deserve what happens to us!

  90. [90] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    my best abridged explanation is that whatever his faults and foibles, biden's strength is that he's always tried his best to be on the right side of history.

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    69

    The following post, my response to Kick from an older thread, is posted here because I think it is important enough to suspend my habit of leaving old threads behind - there's just not enough time to keep tracking back, you know …

    The following post, my response to Elizabeth Miller from an older thread, is posted here because Elizabeth Miller's need to keep this post arguing (basically) semantics got the best of her so she's breaking her own rules again.

    there's just not enough time to keep tracking back, you know …

    Sounds lazy to me, and to be completely factual, we all have the same amount of time but just choose to use it in various assorted ways. One person's "not enough time" is another person's "too bloody lazy." :)

    Kick,
    61

    Elizabeth Miller
    63

    Yes, there may be some element of airborne or pre-symptomatic transmission but this is not the driving force of the epidemic.

    Okay, first off: It's a "pandemic"... so you referring to it as an "epidemic" is insulting to it since it's worldwide and not just pestering a community.

    Secondly, I see you're making progress with the fact that all the elements of transmission of the disease are "driving forces." Good for you. It doesn't matter what degree to which they drive the disease, they are each a "driving force."

    Well, they didn't miss the research you cite from Singapore. The WHO's Dr. Michael Ryan talked about this research out of Singapore that says 6% of the cases reported were asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic at one of the WHO daily press briefings on COVID-19.

    So Dr. Ryan is admitting they are driving forces. Great. Then I cannot fathom why you keep taking issue when I say they are each driving forces that transmit the disease.

    Here is what Dr. Ryan said about the Singapore research:

    "There are many articles coming out at the moment on types of transmission and pre-symptomatic transmission. I've seen one recently from I think Singapore where there was an estimation that about 6% of cases may have been caused by people who were pre-symptomatic. I'm not here to question that - there are many different estimates. But the corollary of that, the opposite of that is clearly that 94% of infections are caused by people who ARE symptomatic.

    "So we have to look at what's driving this epidemic. There is always the possibility of asymptomatic transmission. There is always the possibility that we can have some element of airborne transmission. But what we have to look at is what is the main driver of this pandemic. And, in this case we still believe that the main driver of this pandemic is symptomatic individuals coughing or sneezing or contaminating surfaces or contaminating other individuals. Breaking that chain means ensuring that infected individuals are diagnosed and isolated, their contacts are traced and tracked and quarantined and that people are cared for very quickly in the system."

    So you see there that Dr. Ryan characterized symptomatic transmission as the "main driver" of the virus.

    So to recap:

    All I am saying is that based on all of the evidence so far, the WHO is still saying that the driver of this pandemic is symptomatic transmission. ~ Elizabeth Miller

    *

    Well, it's being driven by:
    * asymtomatic
    * pre-symptomatic
    * symptomatic
    * all of the above... ~ Kick

    Actually, as your quote from Dr. Ryan makes clear, what he said was "symptomatic transmission" is the main driver of the disease. The other modes of transmission I listed are still drivers of the disease... I never claimed they were the main drivers... simply listed all the drivers of the virus... whereupon you took issue with two of them as somehow not drivers.

    Over and out.

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    64

    Heh.

    Happy Easter! Yesterday, of course. :)

  93. [93] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick

    Happy late Easter to you, too!

    -R

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    85

    well kick is the resident archivist of our group, so i'll leave it to her to certify whether i'm right or not about the timing. but i'm pretty sure, yeah.

    Obama announced on February 10, 2007. I would wager (if I was a wagering kind of person) that EM was definitely singing Biden's praises on Huff Post before that. :)

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There can be only one driver, Kick. :)

  96. [96] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet-
    You should stick to pie jokes.

    Your feeble attempt a trolling was just more of the same bullcrap reset nonsense that clearly exposes that you have no rational argument to any objective observer.

  97. [97] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    just trying to help, don. i've never trolled anyone before, but if i decided to start, you'd know it. it's very unfortunate for you that you can't seem to tell the difference.

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    95

    There can be only one driver, Kick. :)

    Trump University, am I right!?

    You obviously won't listen to me or Bashi or facts, but it's laughable to watch you claim over and over that the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is limited to "one driver" when there is currently evidence of multiple drivers and research continues to evolve rapidly.

    FACT: Not only are pathogens not limited to "one driver" of transmission, they are not even limited to a single type of driver, e.g. biological, ecological, behavioral, etc.

    I'm being nice today and won't call you ignorant.
    You're welcome. :)

    Let it go, let it go... ~ Elsa (Idina Menzel), Frozen

  99. [99] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    frozen? really?!

  100. [100] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    99

    frozen? really?!

    Yes, sir: Frozen. I'm watching Disney+ today.

    Play nice or I'll resort to this:

    https://www.lc.ncu.edu.tw/learneng/script/AmericanPie.pdf

    ;)

  101. [101] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ouch!

Comments for this article are closed.