2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[wgdsr]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

[MDlaxfan76]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

But you are of course correct in your nit on the word.

[wgdsr]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

[Farfromgeneva]

But she could’ve made any number of decisions that would’ve led to similar numbers as well.

Unlikely, given comparison countries like Germany.

The problem in the US would have been that not having Trump in charge would not have eliminated the trumpistas, who likely would still have been bleating out virus from their maskless pie-holes.

But I think a death rate twice Germany's (rather that four times, as under Trump) would have been entirely achievable.

What about the part later on in my comment where I said that I believe she (or anyone else) would likely have done much better by not prioritizing certain things Trump did and afford it the appropriate focus and dedication it should’ve have gotten from day 1?

But, to state, as a certainty that the number would’ve been lower is impossible to support. Probability wise, I’d lay odds at the outcome quantitatively was similar under her at something like 5-10%, off the cuff.

I also agree with you that Doc’s comments come from some personal hatred. It’s pretty much impossible at this point to defend the position that Trump did a good job managing and overseeing a response to Covid. And easy to believe that a better set of choices, decisions and actions would have produced a lower mortality total, by how much who knows, but let’s just start at min 15-20% better (so if we’re at like 250k now that means 35-50k less deaths).

Lastly attributing the actions of trump suckers to trump as if he’s conditioned them is wrong in my opinion. He is just a nasty accelerant. They would’ve resisted the mandates and recommendations of a Hillary led effort 14x as much no doubt.

If you’re suggesting that I hate Donald Trump ...

... you’re probably correct.

He’s a vile, malignant, racist, bigoted, authoritarian, misogynistic, narcissistic piece of trash. His actions and inactions have killed a quarter million Americans (not my number ... see the Columbia University study I cited). He has tried to subvert American democracy. Trump made white supremacy acceptable. He has separated hundreds of young migrant children from their families. His administration is easily the most corrupt in American history.

Trump is quite simply the worst human being to have ever occupied the Oval Office.

Is Trump a worthy subject of hate?

Hard to say anyone is worthy of hate ... but Trump is more worthy of revulsion and spite than any other president in American history.

DocBarrister

No I wasn’t suggesting that, though if you did it wouldn’t surprise me and it wouldn’t move me at all (always disappointing when anyone, myself including, gets to the point of felling hatred towards anyone as a generality, but it happens unfortunately for a plethora of reasons).

I was responding to CU where I was making the simple case that any absolute claim on certainty of an outcome in an alternative scenario and so of course you’re using hyperbole, in a previous comment where Mr Minnesota has gotten so upset with you. But later on in the comment I said I believed that Hillary or any other leader would’ve produced a better outcome with the degree of improvement to be debated.

For me, I knew Trump was a gross fraud from my days in the CMBS and CRE CDO businesses around many people who did business with him in the past and shared his many failures and related stories in those years (among other major and prominent CRE owners/investors, Trump was actually down the list a good bit but usually when discussing the bank lender blacklists that we’re created for a while in the end of the 80s and early 90s due to a host of cowboy investors around NYC defaulting and doing crazy stuff where Trumps names comes up after Macklowe and a few others). Many greater NYC area people like him but most know who he really is and he was never as big as his public persona portrayed. What I didn’t realize until he became president how dirty he could be as a human being to try to scrape any advantage for himself personally. extend and perpetuate whatever lie he’s caught in at the moment, sell out this country in every way imaginable for a buck like a true huckster no different than an old fashioned pick pocket or simple con man in a small town with no allegiance to anything or anyone else.

So I don’t hate him I’m just disgusted and tired of this sh*t and hoping we, really the political class at large but especially my group, bottom out soon and start to rebuild while we flip generationally and avoid giving our hegemony over to anyone else by eating our own.

Estimating outcomes in “alternative scenarios” is precisely what much of the science of epidemiology does.

For example, how many person-years of life would have been saved if you had reduced smoking by 10% between 1980 and 1985? Epidemiologists can estimate that.

It’s challenging to estimate how many lives would have been saved if Trump had initiated serious pandemic mitigation measures six weeks earlier and more consistently advocated mask wearing, etc., but it’s hardly impossible. That’s what epidemiologists do. In fact, that has already been done.

There’s an entire field devoted to estimating health outcomes with “alternative scenarios.” That is epidemiology, and that’s why we have epidemiologists.

DocBarrister

Yes and as a devotee to the empirical skepticism line of thinking I would counter that while these “data scientists” can create elegant mathematical models and produce “model validated” (which is simply an affirmation of the methodologies, not the value of the input variables and weighting however) output to be published, but it always underestimated the Rho, or error, in the model.

This where where I point out how Nietzsche was pointing to exactly this problem when he stated that god is dead in that he meant that this post modern reason/thinking/metaphysical analysis Isn’t necessarily superior to religious type beliefs but simply has replaced them as a belief with conviction disconnected to the understanding that a final answer has never been solved and that science is softer than many folks think in its evolving and chaotic nature.

[MDlaxfan76]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

[DocBarrister]

But she could’ve made any number of decisions that would’ve led to similar numbers as well.

Unlikely, given comparison countries like Germany.

The problem in the US would have been that not having Trump in charge would not have eliminated the trumpistas, who likely would still have been bleating out virus from their maskless pie-holes.

But I think a death rate twice Germany's (rather that four times, as under Trump) would have been entirely achievable.

What about the part later on in my comment where I said that I believe she (or anyone else) would likely have done much better by not prioritizing certain things Trump did and afford it the appropriate focus and dedication it should’ve have gotten from day 1?

But, to state, as a certainty that the number would’ve been lower is impossible to support. Probability wise, I’d lay odds at the outcome quantitatively was similar under her at something like 5-10%, off the cuff.

I also agree with you that Doc’s comments come from some personal hatred. It’s pretty much impossible at this point to defend the position that Trump did a good job managing and overseeing a response to Covid. And easy to believe that a better set of choices, decisions and actions would have produced a lower mortality total, by how much who knows, but let’s just start at min 15-20% better (so if we’re at like 250k now that means 35-50k less deaths).

Lastly attributing the actions of trump suckers to trump as if he’s conditioned them is wrong in my opinion. He is just a nasty accelerant. They would’ve resisted the mandates and recommendations of a Hillary led effort 14x as much no doubt.

If you’re suggesting that I hate Donald Trump ...

... you’re probably correct.

He’s a vile, malignant, racist, bigoted, authoritarian, misogynistic, narcissistic piece of trash. His actions and inactions have killed a quarter million Americans (not my number ... see the Columbia University study I cited). He has tried to subvert American democracy. Trump made white supremacy acceptable. He has separated hundreds of young migrant children from their families. His administration is easily the most corrupt in American history.

Trump is quite simply the worst human being to have ever occupied the Oval Office.

Is Trump a worthy subject of hate?

Hard to say anyone is worthy of hate ... but Trump is more worthy of revulsion and spite than any other president in American history.

DocBarrister

No I wasn’t suggesting that, though if you did it wouldn’t surprise me and it wouldn’t move me at all (always disappointing when anyone, myself including, gets to the point of felling hatred towards anyone as a generality, but it happens unfortunately for a plethora of reasons).

I was responding to CU where I was making the simple case that any absolute claim on certainty of an outcome in an alternative scenario and so of course you’re using hyperbole, in a previous comment where Mr Minnesota has gotten so upset with you. But later on in the comment I said I believed that Hillary or any other leader would’ve produced a better outcome with the degree of improvement to be debated.

For me, I knew Trump was a gross fraud from my days in the CMBS and CRE CDO businesses around many people who did business with him in the past and shared his many failures and related stories in those years (among other major and prominent CRE owners/investors, Trump was actually down the list a good bit but usually when discussing the bank lender blacklists that we’re created for a while in the end of the 80s and early 90s due to a host of cowboy investors around NYC defaulting and doing crazy stuff where Trumps names comes up after Macklowe and a few others). Many greater NYC area people like him but most know who he really is and he was never as big as his public persona portrayed. What I didn’t realize until he became president how dirty he could be as a human being to try to scrape any advantage for himself personally. extend and perpetuate whatever lie he’s caught in at the moment, sell out this country in every way imaginable for a buck like a true huckster no different than an old fashioned pick pocket or simple con man in a small town with no allegiance to anything or anyone else.

So I don’t hate him I’m just disgusted and tired of this sh*t and hoping we, really the political class at large but especially my group, bottom out soon and start to rebuild while we flip generationally and avoid giving our hegemony over to anyone else by eating our own.

Estimating outcomes in “alternative scenarios” is precisely what much of the science of epidemiology does.

For example, how many person-years of life would have been saved if you had reduced smoking by 10% between 1980 and 1985? Epidemiologists can estimate that.

It’s challenging to estimate how many lives would have been saved if Trump had initiated serious pandemic mitigation measures six weeks earlier and more consistently advocated mask wearing, etc., but it’s hardly impossible. That’s what epidemiologists do. In fact, that has already been done.

There’s an entire field devoted to estimating health outcomes with “alternative scenarios.” That is epidemiology, and that’s why we have epidemiologists.

DocBarrister

Yes and as a devotee to the empirical skepticism line of thinking I would counter that while these “data scientists” can create elegant mathematical models and produce “model validated” (which is simply an affirmation of the methodologies, not the value of the input variables and weighting however) output to be published, but it always underestimated the Rho, or error, in the model.

This where where I point out how Nietzsche was pointing to exactly this problem when he stated that god is dead in that he meant that this post modern reason/thinking/metaphysical analysis Isn’t necessarily superior to religious type beliefs but simply has replaced them as a belief with conviction disconnected to the understanding that a final answer has never been solved and that science is softer than many folks think in its evolving and chaotic nature.

The Harvard School of Public Health actually required a philosophy course when I attended. There is a place for philosophy in science.

However, if you are trying to cast doubt on modern epidemiological methods ... don’t. The science and methodology are solid, fine tuned by over a century of work. Certainly, the epidemiologists have been more accurate and insightful during this pandemic than the politicians and ideologues.

DocBarrister

[Typical Lax Dad]

But she could’ve made any number of decisions that would’ve led to similar numbers as well.

Unlikely, given comparison countries like Germany.

The problem in the US would have been that not having Trump in charge would not have eliminated the trumpistas, who likely would still have been bleating out virus from their maskless pie-holes.

But I think a death rate twice Germany's (rather that four times, as under Trump) would have been entirely achievable.

What about the part later on in my comment where I said that I believe she (or anyone else) would likely have done much better by not prioritizing certain things Trump did and afford it the appropriate focus and dedication it should’ve have gotten from day 1?

But, to state, as a certainty that the number would’ve been lower is impossible to support. Probability wise, I’d lay odds at the outcome quantitatively was similar under her at something like 5-10%, off the cuff.

I also agree with you that Doc’s comments come from some personal hatred. It’s pretty much impossible at this point to defend the position that Trump did a good job managing and overseeing a response to Covid. And easy to believe that a better set of choices, decisions and actions would have produced a lower mortality total, by how much who knows, but let’s just start at min 15-20% better (so if we’re at like 250k now that means 35-50k less deaths).

Lastly attributing the actions of trump suckers to trump as if he’s conditioned them is wrong in my opinion. He is just a nasty accelerant. They would’ve resisted the mandates and recommendations of a Hillary led effort 14x as much no doubt.

If you’re suggesting that I hate Donald Trump ...

... you’re probably correct.

He’s a vile, malignant, racist, bigoted, authoritarian, misogynistic, narcissistic piece of trash. His actions and inactions have killed a quarter million Americans (not my number ... see the Columbia University study I cited). He has tried to subvert American democracy. Trump made white supremacy acceptable. He has separated hundreds of young migrant children from their families. His administration is easily the most corrupt in American history.

Trump is quite simply the worst human being to have ever occupied the Oval Office.

Is Trump a worthy subject of hate?

Hard to say anyone is worthy of hate ... but Trump is more worthy of revulsion and spite than any other president in American history.

DocBarrister

No I wasn’t suggesting that, though if you did it wouldn’t surprise me and it wouldn’t move me at all (always disappointing when anyone, myself including, gets to the point of felling hatred towards anyone as a generality, but it happens unfortunately for a plethora of reasons).

I was responding to CU where I was making the simple case that any absolute claim on certainty of an outcome in an alternative scenario and so of course you’re using hyperbole, in a previous comment where Mr Minnesota has gotten so upset with you. But later on in the comment I said I believed that Hillary or any other leader would’ve produced a better outcome with the degree of improvement to be debated.

For me, I knew Trump was a gross fraud from my days in the CMBS and CRE CDO businesses around many people who did business with him in the past and shared his many failures and related stories in those years (among other major and prominent CRE owners/investors, Trump was actually down the list a good bit but usually when discussing the bank lender blacklists that we’re created for a while in the end of the 80s and early 90s due to a host of cowboy investors around NYC defaulting and doing crazy stuff where Trumps names comes up after Macklowe and a few others). Many greater NYC area people like him but most know who he really is and he was never as big as his public persona portrayed. What I didn’t realize until he became president how dirty he could be as a human being to try to scrape any advantage for himself personally. extend and perpetuate whatever lie he’s caught in at the moment, sell out this country in every way imaginable for a buck like a true huckster no different than an old fashioned pick pocket or simple con man in a small town with no allegiance to anything or anyone else.

So I don’t hate him I’m just disgusted and tired of this sh*t and hoping we, really the political class at large but especially my group, bottom out soon and start to rebuild while we flip generationally and avoid giving our hegemony over to anyone else by eating our own.

Estimating outcomes in “alternative scenarios” is precisely what much of the science of epidemiology does.

For example, how many person-years of life would have been saved if you had reduced smoking by 10% between 1980 and 1985? Epidemiologists can estimate that.

It’s challenging to estimate how many lives would have been saved if Trump had initiated serious pandemic mitigation measures six weeks earlier and more consistently advocated mask wearing, etc., but it’s hardly impossible. That’s what epidemiologists do. In fact, that has already been done.

There’s an entire field devoted to estimating health outcomes with “alternative scenarios.” That is epidemiology, and that’s why we have epidemiologists.

DocBarrister

Yes and as a devotee to the empirical skepticism line of thinking I would counter that while these “data scientists” can create elegant mathematical models and produce “model validated” (which is simply an affirmation of the methodologies, not the value of the input variables and weighting however) output to be published, but it always underestimated the Rho, or error, in the model.

This where where I point out how Nietzsche was pointing to exactly this problem when he stated that god is dead in that he meant that this post modern reason/thinking/metaphysical analysis Isn’t necessarily superior to religious type beliefs but simply has replaced them as a belief with conviction disconnected to the understanding that a final answer has never been solved and that science is softer than many folks think in its evolving and chaotic nature.

The Harvard School of Public Health actually required a philosophy course when I attended. There is a place for philosophy in science.

However, if you are trying to cast doubt on modern epidemiological methods ... don’t. The science and methodology are solid, fine tuned by over a century of work. Certainly, the epidemiologists have been more accurate and insightful during this pandemic than the politicians and ideologues.

DocBarrister

What about Trump’s MRI doctor that was advising him on epidemiology?

[wgdsr]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

[DocBarrister]

But she could’ve made any number of decisions that would’ve led to similar numbers as well.

Unlikely, given comparison countries like Germany.

The problem in the US would have been that not having Trump in charge would not have eliminated the trumpistas, who likely would still have been bleating out virus from their maskless pie-holes.

But I think a death rate twice Germany's (rather that four times, as under Trump) would have been entirely achievable.

What about the part later on in my comment where I said that I believe she (or anyone else) would likely have done much better by not prioritizing certain things Trump did and afford it the appropriate focus and dedication it should’ve have gotten from day 1?

But, to state, as a certainty that the number would’ve been lower is impossible to support. Probability wise, I’d lay odds at the outcome quantitatively was similar under her at something like 5-10%, off the cuff.

I also agree with you that Doc’s comments come from some personal hatred. It’s pretty much impossible at this point to defend the position that Trump did a good job managing and overseeing a response to Covid. And easy to believe that a better set of choices, decisions and actions would have produced a lower mortality total, by how much who knows, but let’s just start at min 15-20% better (so if we’re at like 250k now that means 35-50k less deaths).

Lastly attributing the actions of trump suckers to trump as if he’s conditioned them is wrong in my opinion. He is just a nasty accelerant. They would’ve resisted the mandates and recommendations of a Hillary led effort 14x as much no doubt.

If you’re suggesting that I hate Donald Trump ...

... you’re probably correct.

He’s a vile, malignant, racist, bigoted, authoritarian, misogynistic, narcissistic piece of trash. His actions and inactions have killed a quarter million Americans (not my number ... see the Columbia University study I cited). He has tried to subvert American democracy. Trump made white supremacy acceptable. He has separated hundreds of young migrant children from their families. His administration is easily the most corrupt in American history.

Trump is quite simply the worst human being to have ever occupied the Oval Office.

Is Trump a worthy subject of hate?

Hard to say anyone is worthy of hate ... but Trump is more worthy of revulsion and spite than any other president in American history.

DocBarrister

No I wasn’t suggesting that, though if you did it wouldn’t surprise me and it wouldn’t move me at all (always disappointing when anyone, myself including, gets to the point of felling hatred towards anyone as a generality, but it happens unfortunately for a plethora of reasons).

I was responding to CU where I was making the simple case that any absolute claim on certainty of an outcome in an alternative scenario and so of course you’re using hyperbole, in a previous comment where Mr Minnesota has gotten so upset with you. But later on in the comment I said I believed that Hillary or any other leader would’ve produced a better outcome with the degree of improvement to be debated.

For me, I knew Trump was a gross fraud from my days in the CMBS and CRE CDO businesses around many people who did business with him in the past and shared his many failures and related stories in those years (among other major and prominent CRE owners/investors, Trump was actually down the list a good bit but usually when discussing the bank lender blacklists that we’re created for a while in the end of the 80s and early 90s due to a host of cowboy investors around NYC defaulting and doing crazy stuff where Trumps names comes up after Macklowe and a few others). Many greater NYC area people like him but most know who he really is and he was never as big as his public persona portrayed. What I didn’t realize until he became president how dirty he could be as a human being to try to scrape any advantage for himself personally. extend and perpetuate whatever lie he’s caught in at the moment, sell out this country in every way imaginable for a buck like a true huckster no different than an old fashioned pick pocket or simple con man in a small town with no allegiance to anything or anyone else.

So I don’t hate him I’m just disgusted and tired of this sh*t and hoping we, really the political class at large but especially my group, bottom out soon and start to rebuild while we flip generationally and avoid giving our hegemony over to anyone else by eating our own.

Estimating outcomes in “alternative scenarios” is precisely what much of the science of epidemiology does.

For example, how many person-years of life would have been saved if you had reduced smoking by 10% between 1980 and 1985? Epidemiologists can estimate that.

It’s challenging to estimate how many lives would have been saved if Trump had initiated serious pandemic mitigation measures six weeks earlier and more consistently advocated mask wearing, etc., but it’s hardly impossible. That’s what epidemiologists do. In fact, that has already been done.

There’s an entire field devoted to estimating health outcomes with “alternative scenarios.” That is epidemiology, and that’s why we have epidemiologists.

DocBarrister

Yes and as a devotee to the empirical skepticism line of thinking I would counter that while these “data scientists” can create elegant mathematical models and produce “model validated” (which is simply an affirmation of the methodologies, not the value of the input variables and weighting however) output to be published, but it always underestimated the Rho, or error, in the model.

This where where I point out how Nietzsche was pointing to exactly this problem when he stated that god is dead in that he meant that this post modern reason/thinking/metaphysical analysis Isn’t necessarily superior to religious type beliefs but simply has replaced them as a belief with conviction disconnected to the understanding that a final answer has never been solved and that science is softer than many folks think in its evolving and chaotic nature.

The Harvard School of Public Health actually required a philosophy course when I attended. There is a place for philosophy in science.

However, if you are trying to cast doubt on modern epidemiological methods ... don’t. The science and methodology are solid, fine tuned by over a century of work. Certainly, the epidemiologists have been more accurate and insightful during this pandemic than the politicians and ideologues.

DocBarrister

What about Trump’s MRI doctor that was advising him on epidemiology?

MRI docs should stick to looking at those fancy pictures produced by their fancy multimillion dollar machines. One of my old friends used to boast of reading MRIs in his home office twice a day for about two hours each session. Made $500,000 a year, and that was quite a while ago (he was an equity partner in his imaging facility).

Nice living ... but those guys should stay away from epidemiology and other tasks that require more than visual pattern recognition.

DocBarrister

[wgdsr]

we are now debating 9th grade C level science papers. we are doomed.

[MDlaxfan76]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.

We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.

So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...

To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.

But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.

[ABV 8.3%]

For the record, I don't believe the comments of ANYONE here "come from some personal hatred", least of all Doc.

What followed, on this thread alone, after this declarative statement. Aside from the outright admission of several posters, of posting comments on personal hatred towards (and yes, net moving on your part to say I was speaking of other posters, not Trump), can be followed up by comments decrying fellow posters worth, or NOT worth, when it comes to providing benefits to the exchanges on a "mostly" anoymous website comment section.

You guys are like annoying seagulls, chasing the INFOTAINMENT fishing boats.......

[ABV 8.3%]

we are now debating 9th grade C level science papers. we are doomed.

I did notice that NO ONE came close to answering YOUR inquiry , or question, as how other countries were, or were not, like Germany. Or, for that matter, what Germany did, or didn't do.

instead, we read glaring examples as to why people voted for Trump. Because of pretend liberals joke about someone making half a million...decades ago...for just reading pretty pictures. yuck yuck, funny. He too lives in a gated community, attending all those $30K plate dinner fundies. for Hillary. Clinton. Yup, just ignore the lifelong Democrats that HATE people that bath and luxeriate in hypocrisy.......

Do we need to look any further than the 95 , NOVA/BWI area. Crappy CONDO"S Starting at $300K....in Harpers Ferry, West VA? Remove a zero, and you got plenty of $30K homes in Baltimore. Many a long "buddy pass" from the very Univerity that taught them compassion, but lacking understanding as to whom, at this lifes station, REALLY voted for Trump. It ain't some manscapped guys calling themselves some homoerotic "gang" name, the proud boys

[Typical Lax Dad]

Good morning citizens....The 45th President of these United States of America is hard at work for you:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 89441?s=21

[Typical Lax Dad]

we are now debating 9th grade C level science papers. we are doomed.

I did notice that NO ONE came close to answering YOUR inquiry , or question, as how other countries were, or were not, like Germany. Or, for that matter, what Germany did, or didn't do.

instead, we read glaring examples as to why people voted for Trump. Because of pretend liberals joke about someone making half a million...decades ago...for just reading pretty pictures. yuck yuck, funny. He too lives in a gated community, attending all those $30K plate dinner fundies. for Hillary. Clinton. Yup, just ignore the lifelong Democrats that HATE people that bath and luxeriate in hypocrisy.......

Do we need to look any further than the 95 , NOVA/BWI area. Crappy CONDO"S Starting at $300K....in Harpers Ferry, West VA? Remove a zero, and you got plenty of $30K homes in Baltimore. Many a long "buddy pass" from the very Univerity that taught them compassion, but lacking understanding as to whom, at this lifes station, REALLY voted for Trump. It ain't some manscapped guys calling themselves some homoerotic "gang" name, the proud boys

Plenty of cheap college too.

[Matnum PI]

Mitch McConnell Congratulates Joe Biden for Being President-elect https://nyti.ms/3a8eLwu

[wgdsr]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.

We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.

So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...

To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.

But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.

your points on their face are what anyone would agree upon, generally speaking.

what's been tossed around here to generate the discussion, however, is pure cherry picking, hindsight and speculation. with huge confounding errors not small ones, contradictory outcomes omitted, and a massive absence of data crunching. so, "here's what i think." not much more than that. i will defend your right to say it all day long.

[MDlaxfan76]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.

We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.

So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...

To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.

But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.

your points on their face are what anyone would agree upon, generally speaking.

what's been tossed around here to generate the discussion, however, is pure cherry picking, hindsight and speculation. with huge confounding errors not small ones, contradictory outcomes omitted, and a massive absence of data crunching. so, "here's what i think." not much more than that. i will defend your right to say it all day long.

And I yours.

I dunno, most of the discussion on here is just that, spitballing by non-experts, putting together lines of argument in as logical and well defended way as we can each muster. Some bother to cite experts and put some weight on such expertise, whereas others have a tough time conceiving that anyone could actually know more than they do.

Personally, I find I learn some things I wouldn't necessarily have considered through those discussions and I don't have any problem with moderating my view as a result.

On this one, after all the back and forth, I don't have any trouble with a position that Trump's choices have cost (many) tens of thousands of lives that any modern predecessor POTUS would have very likely avoided. Precision is more debatable, but directionally I find refutation of that position darn implausible.

[seacoaster]

Report from Kookistan:

https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/ ... 8508472321

[wgdsr]

any opinion is defensible. it's an opinion.

well, that too is 'defensible'.

Of course, you understood that my intended connotation of the word 'defensible' is that of 'justifiable' as opposed to merely 'arguable'.

In that connotation, some 'opinions' are more easily 'defended' or 'justified' than others which are less meritorious, less well founded in logic and fact. I don't see all opinions as being equivalently 'defensible', do you?

no, it's all relative. i'm not sure where hypotheticals and strawmen fall, that's for smarter folks than me.

Not sure what you mean...you are saying that opinions all have equal merit, regardless of logics and facts???

i was just answering your question the way you phrased it. that was the "no". some stuff's off the wall, sure.

i wouldn't put hypotheticals and strawmen, which is what the discussion looks like here, above any other reasonable opinion (or guess really). but that's just me.

Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.

We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.

So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...

To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.

But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.

your points on their face are what anyone would agree upon, generally speaking.

what's been tossed around here to generate the discussion, however, is pure cherry picking, hindsight and speculation. with huge confounding errors not small ones, contradictory outcomes omitted, and a massive absence of data crunching. so, "here's what i think." not much more than that. i will defend your right to say it all day long.

And I yours.

I dunno, most of the discussion on here is just that, spitballing by non-experts, putting together lines of argument in as logical and well defended way as we can each muster. Some bother to cite experts and put some weight on such expertise, whereas others have a tough time conceiving that anyone could actually know more than they do.

Personally, I find I learn some things I wouldn't necessarily have considered through those discussions and I don't have any problem with moderating my view as a result.

On this one, after all the back and forth, I don't have any trouble with a position that Trump's choices have cost (many) tens of thousands of lives that any modern predecessor POTUS would have very likely avoided.
i don't either. when that moves to false certainty and a refutation of other's opinions and possible other outcomes, that's when i either tune out or might have something to point out. scientific and political leaders are flailing to keep up with ever changing info. and that is not surprising.
Precision is more debatable, but directionally I find refutation of that position darn implausible.
to each his own. for sure, if the focus was covid deaths, lockdowns (stay at home) and fear have been maybe the strongest correlator to rT directionally moving south for a time. imo. you can't hardly get it if you don't mingle with anyone. would have to be enforced, of course, and then the length of doing that runs into debate in some circles. we'll see what 2021 brings, i'm long individual vaxx effectiveness and short adoption of them right now.