LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:11 am More stock act news. Senators Ron Johnson, Jim Imhof also sold stocks after the Senate briefing. Sen Feinstein’s husband, an investment manager, sold shares in a cancer company prior to the Senate briefing. I’ll bet this list grows.

Yup.

Also, we as citizens constantly protect government officials from being held personally liable for the things that the government holds us responsible for. Prosecutors have total immunity, Congress (and their employees!) can trade on information given to them in official meetings and suffer no repercussions, teachers can basically murder someone and they can't be fired, cops historically could get away with murder (literally) and never suffer consequences (though body cameras are changing that).

I am not a fan of government writ large because the natural human tendency when given power which is not earned (almost no political power is earned; promising gifts for votes is not exactly an honorable process) is to abuse that dynamic (Katie Hill anyone?).

6ftstick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:26 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:11 am More stock act news. Senators Ron Johnson, Jim Imhof also sold stocks after the Senate briefing. Sen Feinstein’s husband, an investment manager, sold shares in a cancer company prior to the Senate briefing. I’ll bet this list grows.

Its news to you that the political class are thieves for the most part?

One major divide between voters is R's don't trust politicians whereas D's do.

Stop. We now have Senate trials without documents and witnesses. That means they either trust the boss or assume his guilt and don’t care.

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:11 am More stock act news. Senators Ron Johnson, Jim Imhof also sold stocks after the Senate briefing. Sen Feinstein’s husband, an investment manager, sold shares in a cancer company prior to the Senate briefing. I’ll bet this list grows.

Sold shares in a cancer company before the briefing? an investment manager?
a cancer company?

Whoa, lets not suggest that doing your job is an issue.

Trading on news not disclosed publicly is a crime.

If politicians are publicly saying that there is no issue when they've been told privately that the issue is highly serious and they trade on this news, knowing the truth will ultimately be understood (after they've sold at highs), that's indeed potentially criminal...at a minimum highly unethical...used to get you censured or tossed from the the House or Senate.

I don't recall what Imhof was saying publicly, but Johnson was very, very publicly denying that the virus was an issue despite knowing better...

I’m not suggesting Feinstein did anything wrong. Just that she was among the Senators reporting stock sales in the period.

Serious question. No politics please.

If in Wuhan China—the epicenter for this virus since December—and with population higher but comparable to California—has only had 82,000 cases.
And seems to be declining in any new cases.

How can Gavin Newsome claim 25 million Californians will be infected. They are Chicoms but being able to conceal 25 million cases?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template: ... ical_cases

ps: only 250K cases globally to date

The Chinese really locked down to stop this. Took turns going outside. Movement monitored by the government.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:37 am Serious question. No politics please.

If in Wuhan China—the epicenter for this virus since December—and with population higher but comparable to California—has only had 82,000 cases.
And seems to be declining in any new cases.

How can Gavin Newsome claim 25 million Californians will be infected. They are Chicoms but being able to conceal 25 million cases?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template: ... ical_cases

ps: only 250K cases globally to date

Serious answer:

China had total lockdown, enforced 100%...and I mean enforced in ways hard to even imagine. 8 weeks of such.

We can't get kids off the beaches and out of the bars.

Newsom is saying that without a lockdown, that's where it's going.

serious answer.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:35 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:11 am More stock act news. Senators Ron Johnson, Jim Imhof also sold stocks after the Senate briefing. Sen Feinstein’s husband, an investment manager, sold shares in a cancer company prior to the Senate briefing. I’ll bet this list grows.

Sold shares in a cancer company before the briefing? an investment manager?
a cancer company?

Whoa, lets not suggest that doing your job is an issue.

Trading on news not disclosed publicly is a crime.

If politicians are publicly saying that there is no issue when they've been told privately that the issue is highly serious and they trade on this news, knowing the truth will ultimately be understood (after they've sold at highs), that's indeed potentially criminal...at a minimum highly unethical...used to get you censured or tossed from the the House or Senate.

I don't recall what Imhof was saying publicly, but Johnson was very, very publicly denying that the virus was an issue despite knowing better...

There was a book out a couple years ago describing how congress would draft legislation then call in effected businesses to extort campaign contributions to either kill the legislation if it hurt the company or guarantee its passage if it helped. Nonfiction with footnotes

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:32 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:26 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:11 am More stock act news. Senators Ron Johnson, Jim Imhof also sold stocks after the Senate briefing. Sen Feinstein’s husband, an investment manager, sold shares in a cancer company prior to the Senate briefing. I’ll bet this list grows.

Its news to you that the political class are thieves for the most part?

One major divide between voters is R's don't trust politicians whereas D's do.

The D's trust a systematic approach. They certainly do not trust all politicians. They do however see differences.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:41 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:37 am Serious question. No politics please.

If in Wuhan China—the epicenter for this virus since December—and with population higher but comparable to California—has only had 82,000 cases.
And seems to be declining in any new cases.

How can Gavin Newsome claim 25 million Californians will be infected. They are Chicoms but being able to conceal 25 million cases?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template: ... ical_cases

ps: only 250K cases globally to date

Serious answer:

China had total lockdown, enforced 100%...and I mean enforced in ways hard to even imagine. 8 weeks of such.

We can't get kids off the beaches and out of the bars.

Newsom is saying that without a lockdown, that's where it's going.

serious answer.

Agree with this. Giving the worst case scenario. If there is one thing I am having difficulty with right now is that is all that seems to be getting out there is the worse case....absolute worse case. What i do not see is that there is a range of possibilities and if we do not do X or Y we will see A or B. Certainly people can decide not to do what they are suggested to do to avoid the worse case scenario but by only presenting the absolute worse case you create panic. Just my opinion and I could be wrong......am quite a bit actually.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:27 am

Bart wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 7:28 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 1:06 am Am watching the tail end of Maddow now. Dr. David Ho is being interviewed. He is the Chinese - American super virologist mentioned in an article earlier today by Trinity I think. In any case he was talking about the possibilities for the drug combo that had everyone spun up today. He is much less sanguine about its possibilities to battle corona virus than were us educated non-specialists. He did not call it promising. He has been in contact with the researchers who made the discovery.

It is vastly different than his approach to torch viral proteases. He may very well be correct but it still needs to be fleshed out.

Did Dr Ho have any insight into Remdesivir? Its action is also completely different than inhibiting proteases.

edit-original was snippy sounding...not intent.

My statement was perhaps misleading. He felt overall we would solve the problem. He was not worried about that, long term. He was certain we would solve the problem (no time estimate given as I recall). He was specifically less sanguine about the reported malaria drug talked about yesterday. He seemed more upbeat about Remdesivir and other approaches. He also had just had a drug trial fail, where his group had tested a solution that was similar conceptually (to my understanding, not identical) to the malaria drug approach. The mixture of a cocktail of already well known drugs. Don't recall the details, which ones. This perhaps contributes to his skepticism. Of course the malaria drug approach should be tested further. He did not suggest otherwise (nor would I).

Thanks. Looks like we got the A team on this. Heck a bunch of A teams.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:31 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:11 am More stock act news. Senators Ron Johnson, Jim Imhof also sold stocks after the Senate briefing. Sen Feinstein’s husband, an investment manager, sold shares in a cancer company prior to the Senate briefing. I’ll bet this list grows.

Yup.

Also, we as citizens constantly protect government officials from being held personally liable for the things that the government holds us responsible for. Prosecutors have total immunity, Congress (and their employees!) can trade on information given to them in official meetings and suffer no repercussions, teachers can basically murder someone and they can't be fired, cops historically could get away with murder (literally) and never suffer consequences (though body cameras are changing that).

I am not a fan of government writ large because the natural human tendency when given power which is not earned (almost no political power is earned; promising gifts for votes is not exactly an honorable process) is to abuse that dynamic (Katie Hill anyone?).

Yes and this is my problem with government and politicians and actually the American System in general. Those at the top have and continue to take advantages - huge advantages, whether legal or not. The solution is not to destroy the system. The solution is to fix the problem. Actually hold those at the top MORE RESPONSIBLE. More severe and more certain penalties! There are people in this world and specifically in American society who would not take these advantages. They actually believe in SERVICE. Very few of these individuals are in federal government leadership positions. We need to lop off some very visible heads.

Bart wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:53 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:41 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:37 am Serious question. No politics please.

If in Wuhan China—the epicenter for this virus since December—and with population higher but comparable to California—has only had 82,000 cases.
And seems to be declining in any new cases.

How can Gavin Newsome claim 25 million Californians will be infected. They are Chicoms but being able to conceal 25 million cases?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template: ... ical_cases

ps: only 250K cases globally to date

Serious answer:

China had total lockdown, enforced 100%...and I mean enforced in ways hard to even imagine. 8 weeks of such.

We can't get kids off the beaches and out of the bars.

Newsom is saying that without a lockdown, that's where it's going.

serious answer.

Agree with this. Giving the worst case scenario. If there is one thing I am having difficulty with right now is that is all that seems to be getting out there is the worse case....absolute worse case. What i do not see is that there is a range of possibilities and if we do not do X or Y we will see A or B. Certainly people can decide not to do what they are suggested to do to avoid the worse case scenario but by only presenting the absolute worse case you create panic. Just my opinion and I could be wrong......am quite a bit actually.

Let me make the counter argument; unless we're willing to enforce a total lockdown (not voluntary) the path is indeed "worst case". We do not have the surveillance testing available to do selective quarantine, so the ONLY way to slow this thing down enough to eventually choke it off is TOTAL lockdown.

When we can get the surveillance testing necessary, we can release some of the pressure.

But right now we're neither doing total lockdown nor remotely on path to surveillance testing.

People want to know the truth...every time we softball it, the loss of credibility is far worse than the scary truth.

I'd also suggest that the only reason why someone might 'panic' in this situation is that so many people continue to recognize the enormity of the issue and the criticality of individual compliance.

Ok, I'll re-insert a bit of politics: why the heck is Florida's Governor letting kids party on the beach???

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:35 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:11 am More stock act news. Senators Ron Johnson, Jim Imhof also sold stocks after the Senate briefing. Sen Feinstein’s husband, an investment manager, sold shares in a cancer company prior to the Senate briefing. I’ll bet this list grows.

Sold shares in a cancer company before the briefing? an investment manager?
a cancer company?

Whoa, lets not suggest that doing your job is an issue.

Trading on news not disclosed publicly is a crime.

If politicians are publicly saying that there is no issue when they've been told privately that the issue is highly serious and they trade on this news, knowing the truth will ultimately be understood (after they've sold at highs), that's indeed potentially criminal...at a minimum highly unethical...used to get you censured or tossed from the the House or Senate.

I don't recall what Imhof was saying publicly, but Johnson was very, very publicly denying that the virus was an issue despite knowing better...

Any politician with a public service job should be required to place any and all personal and family investments into blind trusts managed by reputable firms, with absolutely no input from the politician, their family, or friends. And if they violate any aspect of that, they should be held criminally liable just as you would for trading on information not readily available to the public. And if Sen Feinstein (or any politician) wants to be married to a fund manager, then either he resigns from his firm upon her election, or she doesn't run for office. How hard is this?

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 9:09 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:31 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:11 am More stock act news. Senators Ron Johnson, Jim Imhof also sold stocks after the Senate briefing. Sen Feinstein’s husband, an investment manager, sold shares in a cancer company prior to the Senate briefing. I’ll bet this list grows.

Yup.

Also, we as citizens constantly protect government officials from being held personally liable for the things that the government holds us responsible for. Prosecutors have total immunity, Congress (and their employees!) can trade on information given to them in official meetings and suffer no repercussions, teachers can basically murder someone and they can't be fired, cops historically could get away with murder (literally) and never suffer consequences (though body cameras are changing that).

I am not a fan of government writ large because the natural human tendency when given power which is not earned (almost no political power is earned; promising gifts for votes is not exactly an honorable process) is to abuse that dynamic (Katie Hill anyone?).

Yes and this is my problem with government and politicians and actually the American System in general. Those at the top have and continue to take advantages - huge advantages, whether legal or not. The solution is not to destroy the system. The solution is to fix the problem. Actually hold those at the top MORE RESPONSIBLE. More severe and more certain penalties! There are people in this world and specifically in American society who would not take these advantages. They actually believe in SERVICE. Very few of these individuals are in federal government. We need to lop off some very visible heads.

ok, found something to at least partially disagree with you on '72.

I was with you on "fix the system" and holding folks more accountable, more clear, "severe and more certain penalties".

But I disagree with this statement: "....They actually believe in SERVICE. Very few of these individuals are in federal government."

Nope, there are many, not few, such people in government. I think most.

However, there are also way too many who get caught up with power, prestige, etc and 'take advantage' unethically. I think that's way more the political class than the civil servants. And even most of the political bunch simply need to get a whop up side the head (and yes, a few lopped off, so to speak) about where "advantages" should not be taken.

But remember that this is not just a gov't issue, it's also rampant throughout our capitalist society. And it's really not as simple as we might think.

For instance, my family knows personally many top doctors, folks who run departments, at Johns Hopkins...so, when my mom and dad were sick, the calls went to them and we felt confident in who they would see and the care they would receive. I don't know that they actually received differentiated service, but I did feel more confident about it. Should I have not made those calls? Was it "unethical"?...

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 9:12 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:35 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:11 am More stock act news. Senators Ron Johnson, Jim Imhof also sold stocks after the Senate briefing. Sen Feinstein’s husband, an investment manager, sold shares in a cancer company prior to the Senate briefing. I’ll bet this list grows.

Sold shares in a cancer company before the briefing? an investment manager?
a cancer company?

Whoa, lets not suggest that doing your job is an issue.

Trading on news not disclosed publicly is a crime.

If politicians are publicly saying that there is no issue when they've been told privately that the issue is highly serious and they trade on this news, knowing the truth will ultimately be understood (after they've sold at highs), that's indeed potentially criminal...at a minimum highly unethical...used to get you censured or tossed from the the House or Senate.

I don't recall what Imhof was saying publicly, but Johnson was very, very publicly denying that the virus was an issue despite knowing better...

Any politician with a public service job should be required to place any and all personal and family investments into blind trusts managed by reputable firms, with absolutely no input from the politician, their family, or friends. And if they violate any aspect of that, they should be held criminally liable just as you would for trading on information not readily available to the public. And if Sen Feinstein (or any politician) wants to be married to a fund manager, then either he resigns from his firm upon her election, or she doesn't run for office. How hard is this?

On this topic via Thread Reader: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1240 ... 35328.html

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 9:12 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:35 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:11 am More stock act news. Senators Ron Johnson, Jim Imhof also sold stocks after the Senate briefing. Sen Feinstein’s husband, an investment manager, sold shares in a cancer company prior to the Senate briefing. I’ll bet this list grows.

Sold shares in a cancer company before the briefing? an investment manager?
a cancer company?

Whoa, lets not suggest that doing your job is an issue.

Trading on news not disclosed publicly is a crime.

If politicians are publicly saying that there is no issue when they've been told privately that the issue is highly serious and they trade on this news, knowing the truth will ultimately be understood (after they've sold at highs), that's indeed potentially criminal...at a minimum highly unethical...used to get you censured or tossed from the the House or Senate.

I don't recall what Imhof was saying publicly, but Johnson was very, very publicly denying that the virus was an issue despite knowing better...

Any politician with a public service job should be required to place any and all personal and family investments into blind trusts managed by reputable firms, with absolutely no input from the politician, their family, or friends. And if they violate any aspect of that, they should be held criminally liable just as you would for trading on information not readily available to the public. And if Sen Feinstein (or any politician) wants to be married to a fund manager, then either he resigns from his firm upon her election, or she doesn't run for office. How hard is this?

No, that goes way too far re spouses...but you are 100% correct about insider trading and I quite agree about blind trusts etc, at least for those with high public office.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2020 8:37 am Serious question. No politics please.

If in Wuhan China—the epicenter for this virus since December—and with population higher but comparable to California—has only had 82,000 cases.
And seems to be declining in any new cases.

How can Gavin Newsome claim 25 million Californians will be infected. They are Chicoms but being able to conceal 25 million cases?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template: ... ical_cases

ps: only 250K cases globally to date

The 25 million number sounds high to me. Given the expert estimates, half of that number is easily justifiable and probably closer to the truth. Probably in the 13 to 19 range, if you believe Fauci. Half of those will show no symptoms, just spread it to others.

I was just getting comfortable that a society-wide agreement had been reached to starve out this virus. Then I opened the Facebook and browsed over to the pages of my reactionary-right wing friends pages.

How long can fake news media/Democrats successfully keep Americans at a fever pitch level of irrational panic and fear?........

........We know our constitutional rights and will fight for them. We will not go gentle into Democrats' snap-of-their-fingers repeal of our constitutional freedoms intended to collapse our economy.

The simple truth is the coronavirus has had very little effect, causing around 125 deaths nationwide. What has caused the unprecedented closing down of America is media-hype about the coronavirus.

.........Because God put Trump into the White House and only God will take him out.

And apparently there is some press supporting this thinking.

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... dness.html