|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 21, 2021 16:28:55 GMT -8
it is a statement of generality for discussion, and to introduce an opinion built on observation and as a member of a federal republic. i don't care who answers and states an opinion, that discusses the problems. if all that i stated is interpreted as needing you personally to address the underlying issue, and causing a slight defensiveness by response, then it is no longer a discussion, but a dismissal of opinion. you exclude the remainder, and interpret the statements as blame of the democratic administration in charge at the time. how you arrive at that conclusion, is exactly why discussions change from discussions to dismissal of discussion. no, i did not state any such correlation. i idid not say it was a democrat party or a republican party. you have assumed, i think, with a slight bent toward bias. we all do it, but the very basic building block of a discussion is to understand what is stated, and not assume, and if not understood, ask questions. you did not understand, interpreted incorrectly, and did not ask what is meant. i think you may have assumed, by my use of the word "democratic", that i was referring to a party affiliation. i will clarify, with the goal of understanding: democratic means the taret was an assault on the people. i don't know what is confusing or hard to understand what is meant by responsible party, unless the entire statement was ignored as to meaning. party...any party. party affiliation. affiliation identification. controlling party. not what party is responsible. these are the statements i made. they are clear. i truly hope you are not trying to insinuate a preference in my thoughts for a republican or a democrat. if you are, then you definitely have not understood any post i have made on the subject, in any thread. it does not really matter what a person likes or dislikes in a statement. that is not discussion. that is judgement and dismissal and somewhat biassed. You wrote “Steve, but....”, so of course I’d think that applies to my comment that you’re replying to. Regarding the bolded: I thought I was asking about that which I didn’t understand? I wasn’t confused by your use of “democratic”. Your last comment again began with “Steve,...not what party is responsible or what party did what...” which makes it seem like I was stating or implying the opposite. I can see now what you were saying. Sometimes it’s awkward when we don’t have the fluid or natural sort of back and forth that would exist if we were sitting in the same room when “talking” is instead written out. Also, the “snip” wasn’t to be dismissive of your words, those were all perfectly clear, but rather to simply make space when quote boxes get too unwieldy. I made the effort to hide part of the post in a spoiler tag, but was unsuccessful, so “snip” worked in a pinch. Believe me, I’m very happy to entertain most any discussion, and I do my best to listen and be open-minded about things. I most certainly have a bias in many areas, but I’m smart enough to know that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily always right. I’m also smart enough to know I’m not very smart. You're a glutton for punishment  |
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Jan 21, 2021 16:42:36 GMT -8
The music made it difficult to hear everything, but I’m sure if a MAGA group wanted to hold a “disco” on BLM plaza they certainly could. Also, her comment about 25,000 National Guard troops made little sense. I suspect any group/organization that had numbers in the thousands(or more) that were vocal in potentially wreaking havoc on the inauguration event they would be equally deterred by police, etc. Please let me know if I missed something she said. Again, the beginning was particularly muddled for me. This will explain her observations better than I could. www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/i-watched-bidens-inauguration-first-hand-katie-hopkins/I thought I was following and understanding her ok. The whole BLM plaza thing is just silly, and she should understand that. If BLM members had stormed into the Capital amidst cries of “Hang Pence” I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be holding a “disco” there today. I could even meet her part way regarding the National Guard Troops(Maybe several hundred would have sufficed based on what happened two weeks ago) and I think they need to all go home over the weekend and let local DC police and/or the Capital police figure things out from here. But as she discusses her displeasure/sadness over the military presence in DC and absence of visitors etc., she then goes into her seeing suitcases of ballots for Pres. Trump being dumped in Pennsylvania? I guess I’m just not believing any such thing occurred in PA or the other swing states as she suggested. I can’t even begin to see how such a thing could happen. Not just an isolated incident, but in such a widespread fashion as would have been required to offset “x” amount of votes that would given Pres. Biden the lead. She completely lost me there. |
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Jan 21, 2021 16:42:56 GMT -8
i understand, steve.
thanks.
a final clarification, in the event it was on the mind of you or any reader of my comment: ".....so, after that silly comment, please explain portland....", was a self criticism of my own previous paragraph, and asking of myself to explain portland in light of my thoughts expressed in my previous paragraph, because if i did not do that, then my statements in the paragraph are illogical logic. the logic posit being the rule of law, which is the entire emphasis of my opinion.
yes, i did and do think i was not understood, and i have to take the blame for any misunderstanding. he who wrote it is most responsible for the interpretation by others. i will take the hit.
i note that roy did decipher the thrust was the rule of law as a focus. he is getting better at my puzzles tendency, when posting my thoughts
|
|
|
|
Post by barry on Jan 21, 2021 17:56:22 GMT -8
I thought I was following and understanding her ok. The whole BLM plaza thing is just silly, and she should understand that. If BLM members had stormed into the Capital amidst cries of “Hang Pence” I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be holding a “disco” there today. I could even meet her part way regarding the National Guard Troops(Maybe several hundred would have sufficed based on what happened two weeks ago) and I think they need to all go home over the weekend and let local DC police and/or the Capital police figure things out from here. But as she discusses her displeasure/sadness over the military presence in DC and absence of visitors etc., she then goes into her seeing suitcases of ballots for Pres. Trump being dumped in Pennsylvania? I guess I’m just not believing any such thing occurred in PA or the other swing states as she suggested. I can’t even begin to see how such a thing could happen. Not just an isolated incident, but in such a widespread fashion as would have been required to offset “x” amount of votes that would given Pres. Biden the lead. She completely lost me there. She's discussing an overreaction for political gain that backfired and ruined the inauguration. I think if you reread what she says about the ballots it's not a firsthand account. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 21, 2021 21:29:58 GMT -8
B) I'm not saying there was a problem with the protests. I'm all for freedoms to protest but there was absolutely a double standard because they turned a blind eye to Covid spread due to BLM protests but they continue to come down hard on other rights that people are forfeiting, like their freedom to associate, to run their businesses and run their lives without the interference of others.
B) I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the term “blind eye”. I think of it more like the potential Covid spread was of lesser concern than what would have happened if the protests were shut down or regulated in some way. I think agitation or violence would have only increased had that happened. Law enforcement across the Country pretty much stood down rather than exacerbate things imo.
B) I think there has been example over example of how Covid was the ultimate problem until something that suited Democrats came along and then all of a sudden Covid became less of a problem. It's a repeating pattern over the last 12 months....and it's culminating now after the election.
My buddy david davidpg who just joined, told me last summer "just watch, as soon as the election is over the pandemic will be over" and I didn't believe him.
Guess what?
1) 5 days after the election an announcement for the vaccine comes out. Image if the vaccine was announced just a few days BEFORE the election?
2) A month after the election, Cuomo, arguably one of the most powerful people in America after the POTUS declares that NYC can no longer stay locked down and wait for a vaccine - after barking the exact opposite for a year while wrestling with Trump on the issue. Complete hypocrisy.
3) Today the WHO released a document warning that PCR tests may indeed be too sensitive and they are resulting in many 'false positives and that positive PCR tests need to be assessed along with symptoms, patient history, etc before assessing the patient as Covid positive. Even the NYT had an article last August or September on this exact subject, stating that up to 90% of the tests may be over sensitive and false positives. That means there aren't nearly as many Covid positives as are recorded.
Is it all co-incidental that the page has turned on the Covid playbook at this point in America's history, all around the election after Trump has left office? 
These are not small things. The Vaccine, the hardest hit state in the US that the world has been watching and the WHO on testing sensitivity are all pillars in the fight against Covid and they all changed around the election.
It all looks like a Democrat ploy to oppose Trump and now they are acting just like Trump would have acted if he was still in office after opposing him for nearly a year on the pandemic.
It's kind of hard to 'unsee' it once you see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Jan 21, 2021 21:44:22 GMT -8
B) I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the term “blind eye”. I think of it more like the potential Covid spread was of lesser concern than what would have happened if the protests were shut down or regulated in some way. I think agitation or violence would have only increased had that happened. Law enforcement across the Country pretty much stood down rather than exacerbate things imo.
B) I think there has been example over example of how Covid was the ultimate problem until something that suited Democrats came along and then all of a sudden Covid became less of a problem. It's a repeating pattern over the last 12 months....and it's culminating now after the election.
My buddy david davidpg who just joined, told me last summer "just watch, as soon as the election is over the pandemic will be over" and I didn't believe him.
Guess what?
1) 5 days after the election an announcement for the vaccine comes out. Image if the vaccine was announced just a few days BEFORE the election?
2) A month after the election, Cuomo, arguably one of the most powerful people in America after the POTUS declares that NYC can no longer stay locked down and wait for a vaccine - after barking the exact opposite for a year while wrestling with Trump on the issue. Complete hypocrisy.
3) Today the WHO released a document warning that PCR tests may indeed be too sensitive and they are resulting in many 'false positives and that positive PCR tests need to be assessed along with symptoms, patient history, etc before assessing the patient as Covid positive. Even the NYT had an article last August or September on this exact subject, stating that up to 90% of the tests may be over sensitive and false positives. That means there aren't nearly as many Covid positives as are recorded.
Is it all co-incidental that the page has turned on the Covid playbook at this point in America's history, all around the election after Trump has left office?
These are not small things. The Vaccine, the hardest hit state in the US that the world has been watching and the WHO on testing sensitivity are all pillars in the fight against Covid and they all changed around the election.
It all looks like a Democrat ploy to oppose Trump and now they are acting just like Trump would have acted if he was still in office after opposing him for nearly a year on the pandemic.
It's kind of hard to 'unsee' it once you see it.
It must be the words we each pick up when listening to various reports. I’m not at all hearing the pandemic is over. I watched Dr. Fauci’s briefing and certainly didn’t come away with the the idea Covid was behind us. Some positives in that Johnson & Johnson should soon be able to roll out a 3rd vaccine that requires only simple refrigeration and only one injection as opposed to two. Fwiw, I’m not ready to give either President credit for any of this. As for more positives being chalked up on the tote board than there actually should be, I’m not sure what to make of it. Isn’t that a far cry better than the reverse? |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 21, 2021 22:03:48 GMT -8
It must be the words we each pick up when listening to various reports. I’m not at all hearing the pandemic is over. I watched Dr. Fauci’s briefing and certainly didn’t come away with the the idea Covid was behind us. Some positives in that Johnson & Johnson should soon be able to roll out a 3rd vaccine that requires only simple refrigeration and only one injection as opposed to two. Fwiw, I’m not ready to give either President credit for any of this. As for more positives being chalked up on the tote board than there actually should be, I’m not sure what to make of it. Isn’t that a far cry better than the reverse? There is no doubt the pandemic was politicized and weaponized to influence people. Does anyone dispute that?
The pandemic isn't really over. We know that. People are still getting infected and dying but how it's being portrayed by the media, which is left leaning, and how it was portrayed by the left is changing now that Trump is no longer the enemy...the message is slowly turning about the pandemic. The weaponization is no longer necessary so now the message is slowly turning to suit the left.
In regards to giving either president credit for anything, history records things through the winner's eyes.
Here is an example: Obama is constantly credited for economic growth over his 8 year term and yet he inherited an economy that collapsed and had nowhere to go but up. It would have gone up even if Obama had slept at the wheel for 8 years...but he was in office and that is the way history will record it.
In a similar manner, Trump will likely not be remembered as the president who brought the vaccine to the people because it arrived after he lost the election, but he was responsible for the funding and approvals that got the vaccine to the world.
And yes, more false positives is better than more false negatives, but the message about false positives has been floating around since last August...why is it making it's rounds in the media and from the WHO now that Trump is out of office? Because it was useful to keep buried when Trump needed to be villainized and now that there is no more need, showing that there aren't as many infections in the country will make the Dems look better. I thought that part would have been obvious.
It's all just more of the information shell game, manipulating public perception for politics.
I guess if you DON'T see how the media is slowly changing the perception of the pandemic from being against Trump and now to make the Dems look better then I'm not sure what else to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Jan 21, 2021 23:10:16 GMT -8
It must be the words we each pick up when listening to various reports. I’m not at all hearing the pandemic is over. I watched Dr. Fauci’s briefing and certainly didn’t come away with the the idea Covid was behind us. Some positives in that Johnson & Johnson should soon be able to roll out a 3rd vaccine that requires only simple refrigeration and only one injection as opposed to two. Fwiw, I’m not ready to give either President credit for any of this. As for more positives being chalked up on the tote board than there actually should be, I’m not sure what to make of it. Isn’t that a far cry better than the reverse? There is no doubt the pandemic was politicized and weaponized to influence people. Does anyone dispute that?
The pandemic isn't really over. We know that. People are still getting infected and dying but how it's being portrayed by the media, which is left leaning, and how it was portrayed by the left is changing now that Trump is no longer the enemy...the message is slowly turning about the pandemic. The weaponization is no longer necessary so now the message is slowly turning to suit the left.
In regards to giving either president credit for anything, history records things through the winner's eyes.
Here is an example: Obama is constantly credited for economic growth over his 8 year term and yet he inherited an economy that collapsed and had nowhere to go but up. It would have gone up even if Obama had slept at the wheel for 8 years...but he was in office and that is the way history will record it.
In a similar manner, Trump will likely not be remembered as the president who brought the vaccine to the people because it arrived after he lost the election, but he was responsible for the funding and approvals that got the vaccine to the world.
And yes, more false positives is better than more false negatives, but the message about false positives has been floating around since last August...why is it making it's rounds in the media and from the WHO now that Trump is out of office? Because it was useful to keep buried when Trump needed to be villainized and now that there is no more need, showing that there aren't as many infections in the country will make the Dems look better. I thought that part would have been obvious.
It's all just more of the information shell game, manipulating public perception for politics.
I guess if you DON'T see how the media is slowly changing the perception of the pandemic from being against Trump and now to make the Dems look better then I'm not sure what else to say.
Sure, I get how the pandemic is politicized. Practically anything of note gets politicized one way or another. As far as how History records all this stuff, I think Presidents get too much glory and too much blame. Using the President seems an easy way to define a particular era or group of years. I don’t deny media colors perception, but maybe people need to mix it up a little and not sit in their own echo chamber all day? The public allows itself to be manipulated imo. At least in the West. There’s a great many options for information if one makes the effort to look for it, but most of us get lazy and stay tuned in to the same thing all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 21, 2021 23:13:52 GMT -8
I'm not sure if this is going to show up on this site, but here is the terrifying insurrection that is the worst thing to ever happen to the US. 
It looks real...I mean, how do you fake this?
|
|
|
|
Post by barry on Jan 22, 2021 6:40:28 GMT -8
I'm not sure if this is going to show up on this site, but here is the terrifying insurrection that is the worst thing to ever happen to the US. It looks real...I mean, how do you fake this?
It's scary how real that looks. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 22, 2021 7:03:34 GMT -8
There is no doubt the pandemic was politicized and weaponized to influence people. Does anyone dispute that?
Sure, I get how the pandemic is politicized. Practically anything of note gets politicized one way or another. As far as how History records all this stuff, I think Presidents get too much glory and too much blame. Using the President seems an easy way to define a particular era or group of years. I don’t deny media colors perception, but maybe people need to mix it up a little and not sit in their own echo chamber all day? The public allows itself to be manipulated imo. At least in the West. There’s a great many options for information if one makes the effort to look for it, but most of us get lazy and stay tuned in to the same thing all the time. I agree.
And that's why I say that the real problem in politics is not the elected official, it's the people who keep electing these officials into office.
When is the last time you can say you had an official in office that wasn't dishonest or that you had what the public would call a well intentioned person in office?
But it is REALLY hard to 'mix it up' when the information that is found out there on mainstream media is slanted and biased. Until you realize this, you're going to be a part of the flock and led with the masses.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Jan 22, 2021 7:30:18 GMT -8
Sure, I get how the pandemic is politicized. Practically anything of note gets politicized one way or another. As far as how History records all this stuff, I think Presidents get too much glory and too much blame. Using the President seems an easy way to define a particular era or group of years. I don’t deny media colors perception, but maybe people need to mix it up a little and not sit in their own echo chamber all day? The public allows itself to be manipulated imo. At least in the West. There’s a great many options for information if one makes the effort to look for it, but most of us get lazy and stay tuned in to the same thing all the time. I agree.
And that's why I say that the real problem in politics is not the elected official, it's the people who keep electing these officials into office.
When is the last time you can say you had an official in office that wasn't dishonest or that you had what the public would call a well intentioned person in office?
But it is REALLY hard to 'mix it up' when the information that is found out there on mainstream media is slanted and biased. Until you realize this, you're going to be a part of the flock and led with the masses.
At the higher levels of government I don’t think you can find an elected official who’s not dishonest(or disingenuous correct here?) as it applies to their conduct in trying to make the most people happy in order to retain their job during the next election cycle. I’d think a good portion are well intentioned at the onset of their careers, and maybe they always have good intent, but that’s harder to measure or determine at least to my way of thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 22, 2021 7:48:52 GMT -8
I'm not sure if this is going to show up on this site, but here is the terrifying insurrection that is the worst thing to ever happen to the US. It looks real...I mean, how do you fake this?
Some cops are in on it, obviously. |
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Jan 22, 2021 8:24:35 GMT -8
a few issues upon a change of administration that are questionable as to serving the best interest of all the people of federal republic, with a goal of healing:
1) cancelling a pipeline, and cancelling 15,000 +needed positions of employment, and cancelling the use of u.s steel, which will benefit foreign markets in south korea and canada (which imports from china), and reducing the status of the u.s. as a net exporter and not an importer.
2) re-wording regulations addressing illegal entrants, by removing the description "aliens", and changing the wording to "non-citizens", and forgetting to allow for the 5 million aliens that are in the u.s. legally that are not (yet) u.s. citizens i.e. non-citizens (many of whom have the legal right to vote).
3) cancelling a border wall construction, that has existing contracts with substantial penalties for cancellation, and is a security measure vital to u.s. security interests, noting the multi thousands of illegal aliens waiting across the border for this opportunity to enter the u.s., and the additional so-called caravan coming toward our border...and are in addition to the multi thousands already at the border.... via humanity exceptions recognized by our federal republic, with no structure to address the legal process of a hearing, which at the moment has not scheduled the hearings for approximately 80,0000 aliens that already entered. i am not referring to daca. i do concur with extending the daca status. it should be noted that the new executive of the new administration previously voted for a 1,200 mile security wall. what exactly has changed?
4)re-joining the paris accords climate group of nations, and thus adhering to timetables of other nations for compliance that are not in accord with our trade and economic and health interests, thereby allowing the someday we will comply nations to continue to flood u.s. markets with goods and services that are in defiance of regulations imposed on our own business interests to be able to economically compete, and in many instances to export to the u.s. inferior products.
5) forcing canada, a country that was in accord with the need and puppose of the pipeline, to now revert to selling their product to....china and russia.
note that this pipeline that was cancelled (and had gone through a 10 year vetting process of regulation requirements at the state and local levels) is not a major monster when compared to the overall existing pipeline map, but would have actually decreased emissions and energy cost and fossil fuel requirements, because the product would not be transported from canada to texas by rail and land based transportation. thus, the climate suffers an added indignity.
i do not think this is the decision making process that is helpful to a federal republic, as the opening decisions in the first few days of a new administration that encourages healing of the differences of members of the federal republic, and moving the nation forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by barry on Jan 22, 2021 9:12:44 GMT -8
a few issues upon a change of administration that are questionable as to serving the best interest of all the people of federal republic, with a goal of healing: 1) cancelling a pipeline, and cancelling 15,000 +needed positions of employment, and cancelling the use of u.s steel, which will benefit foreign markets in south korea and canada (which imports from china), and reducing the status of the u.s. as a net exporter and not an importer. 2) re-wording regulations addressing illegal entrants, by removing the description "aliens", and changing the wording to "non-citizens", and forgetting to allow for the 5 million aliens that are in the u.s. legally that are not (yet) u.s. citizens i.e. non-citizens (many of whom have the legal right to vote). 3) cancelling a border wall construction, that has existing contracts with substantial penalties for cancellation, and is a security measure vital to u.s. security interests, noting the multi thousands of illegal aliens waiting across the border for this opportunity to enter the u.s., and the additional so-called caravan coming toward our border...and are in addition to the multi thousands already at the border.... via humanity exceptions recognized by our federal republic, with no structure to address the legal process of a hearing, which at the moment has not scheduled the hearings for approximately 80,0000 aliens that already entered. i am not referring to daca. i do concur with extending the daca status. it should be noted that the new executive of the new administration previously voted for a 1,200 mile security wall. what exactly has changed? 4)re-joining the paris accords climate group of nations, and thus adhering to timetables of other nations for compliance that are not in accord with our trade and economic and health interests, thereby allowing the someday we will comply nations to continue to flood u.s. markets with goods and services that are in defiance of regulations imposed on our own business interests to be able to economically compete, and in many instances to export to the u.s. inferior products. 5) forcing canada, a country that was in accord with the need and puppose of the pipeline, to now revert to selling their product to....china and russia. note that this pipeline that was cancelled (and had gone through a 10 year vetting process of regulation requirements at the state and local levels) is not a major monster when compared to the overall existing pipeline map, but would have actually decreased emissions and energy cost and fossil fuel requirements, because the product would not be transported from canada to texas by rail and land based transportation. thus, the climate suffers an added indignity. i do not think this is the decision making process that is helpful to a federal republic, as the opening decisions in the first few days of a new administration that encourages healing of the differences of members of the federal republic, and moving the nation forward. Yes this is terrible and puts us on a direct path to Obama era economic and market malaise and decay. But we knew we'd get this with Biden. |
|
