President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Could you discuss the link between economic status and access to healthcare, and why it might matter for vaccine distribution?

Also: Were their recommendations "built around" those issues, or did they consider those issues when making recommendations?


Finally: Would you prefer to trust such planning to "experts" or - say - a real-estate developer and the my pillow guy?

 

Just pulling your leg - mostly.

I get it, dude. I don't want any part of AOC/The Squad/Don Lemon/Chris Hayes on me, either. They are not my spirit animal. You just seem more shook up by them than most.

 

Sure. Poor people don't have as good health care as rich people (or middle-class people like me who spend their careers swingin' on the teat). And if charged with prioritizing between older people (who tend toward being richer and whiter) and younger essential workers, that link is a non-issue because, wait for it, letting that link inform your decision means a lot more people will die.

You tell me ... Look at their slides and tell me how they arrived at their UNANIMOUS recommendation.

Which "experts"?

Now let me ask you something. What, in those committee-members' realm of expertise, would lead you to think that they are especially endowed of knowledge and understanding with regard to such moral judgements (because that's what those are)?

 

They’re not acting like a bunch of rabble constantly knocking each others’ legs out from under them! They’re no longer acting like a bunch of crabs in a bucket all scrabbling for the top and causing themselves to fail!

Ermahgerd, the radical left is showing signs of well-thought-out strategery! What ever are we to do about this unforeseen development?!? <fretfully clutches pearls>

 

yes, I did. I didn’t include the “context” because it didn’t change the result

 

I happened to have one that i passed along to a nurse. Must have had it for home improvement projects. They did need all the masks available at the time.

 

Can you imagine if some of these arguments are used in other areas of science?

What should we accept we can't go the speed of light? The "experts" were wrong about going faster than sound!
Well they weren't wrong, they didn't think it was possible because the strain on planes that got close was too much for the way planes were designed. When they finally figured out the engineering, they adjusted their thinking. But what does that have to do with light?
Well they if they were wrong about sound, can't they just adjust their engineering? Why should we trust that light can't be passed?
... Because we know nothing can go faster than light using technology we have...
Oh technology we have! So "experts" are wrong!
... No, it's impossible. We can prove it and have confirmed it. You don't understand what I meant by existing technologies. I just mean if we travel a light year in less time than it takes light, it won't be because we found a propulsion that pushed us faster it will because we found a short cut...
"Experts!"

Or "experts" claim they proved Fermat's Last Theorum but it just talks about this other problem. How do we know those "experts" proved it?
Because we used other math to show if we solved this other problem, it will prove Fermat...
But Fermat said he had a proof and didn't know about that other problem, so how can the experts be right about that? Uh? Oh, got you!
Um ... we know there are proofs that are close but have an error. Fermat might have found one of those that seem to prove it, but have a mistake. But why did that matter? This proof proved it. Why does it matter how we did?
But those Fermat had a proof, so you "experts" are wrong!

Yes those are absurd examples, yes no one would argue that (actually, I did listen to a well known test pilot actually argue Einstein et al were wrong about relatively), yes it is absurd for the sake of effect but that's how some of you sound.
But Faucci said this contradictory thing! Yeah, but he's admitted he needed to readjust based on evidence. Some politicians are still telling the same lies from February and you give them a pass.
But progressives (some idiotic claim) that is some how awful!
Some politicians are undercutting science, putting lives at risk to satisfy their egos, denying life saving advice because it doesn't fit their narrative, denying payments to people so they can live while out of work, denying help to businesses, flat out lying about the vaccines but are first in line to get them, support insurrections because some liberal woman wanted to slow the spread of the disease, but Progressives are the problem because they sound corporate.

You are probably working remotely happy as a clam, but I have to risk my life because you would rather I or one of my colleagues die than have them work from home too. Hell, one of us on this board got Covid and if still recovering because little like you have zero respect for teachers. Some of you are the biggest hypocrites on this board and have lost all credibility. But the corporate Progressives are the problem.

I hope you never get the disease. I hope you never have a good friend tell you his wife died of the disease and he couldn't be comforted by his family because he was sick too. I hope you are never told students you care about are sick with the disease. I hope you love your life happily with the benefit of the experts you distrust but still did their jobs helped along by those corporate Progressives who weren't perfect but tried to save lives. Because let me tell you, I'm not taking any of that for granted when I get to give my friend the hug he needs. Those on here who have been infected aren't taking it for granted.

I'll pause for you to tell me how I'm out of line, distorting the facts and something, something French Laundry, something, something masks in March or some other BS.

 

"United we stand, divided we fall" doesn't just apply to wars.

We have reached a point in this country where no form of emergency communication — not a national address from the president, not an emergency declaration by the CDC — reaches all portions of it. We believe something only if "our side" is saying it.

That makes the United States perfect for invasion by outside forces ... be they military, economic or viral.

 

Playing loose with the truth can have all kinds of unforeseen circumstances. Like, for example, it turns out masks are actually crucial so you probably shouldn’t have lied that they don’t work at all (yes, he knew they worked a little).

Or when you willfully downplay the fact that casualties are extremely overweighted by age, and now many people are going to die because young health care workers are getting the vaccine before nursing homes in some states.

But fine, maybe he had to do it because it was the least bad way of dealing with the dumb fucks. We can at least stop clutching our pearls every time it’s suggested that’s what he did.

 

Hospitals went through lots and lots and lots of masks than they usually did. Their demand was higher than usual.

 

No matter how many times this analogy is used, it’s still not accurate.

yes, sometimes scientists change their minds because of new information. That’s not what happened here and Fauci openly admits it. He willfully said things he believed at the time were not true because he thought the not-true thing would get better results from the public.