Coronavirus

[Guest]

I don't like Trump. I think he is a bonehead, immoral douche. In fact, I think Biden would probably do a better job (in some regards). Though I think Biden will continue to sellout the people has he and his cohorts have been doing over the past 40 years. I won't vote for Biden and I might vote for Trump. I say this for a few reasons:

 

1) I think the media will be far harder on Trump than Biden (look at how the media jumped on Trump and Kavanaugh but aren't hitting Biden that hard). This is like a counter to corruption. The media is far likely to investigate and call out Trump rather than Biden.

 

2) Biden is of the generation of politicians that have sold out the middle class. He helped build up China while the coasts of this country has prospered and the rest have declined. I drive though places like Zanesville, OH or Washington, PA. These looked like they were pretty nice areas several decades ago. Do you really we would be seeing such class divide if the government held interest rates at 7%? I can guarantee you there would be far, far, far $1 million+ homes around the country. And of course, the stock market would be a lot lower too. A government should not be giving unfair advantages to certain groups of people.

 

3) I think Trump has the higher probability of blowing up the system. I think huge amount of the system is corrupt (look at college costs, CEO pay, environmental destruction, drug prices, etc). I like the idea of burning things down and starting anew. It's good to have those situations every several decades (though it sucks while it's happening).

 

Here is the perspective of a non-American. At some point Americans have to start thinking about what is right for the country and not simply what is best for them. I believe the US will be at a crossroads in November.

 

If Trump is re-elected for 4 more years i think the US and the world will sustain permanent damage. I am not exaggerating when i say this :-) Trump is tearing the very fabric of American democracy and society. He already governs like a king; if he gets in for 4 more years he will act quickly, aggressively and even more ruthlessly than his first term. Perceived enemies will be wiped out (removed, attacked and beaten). Think of all the things he has learned the past 3.5 years and think about all the injustices and wrongs he needs to ‘pay back’. But he HAS to play nice right now due to the fall election. But i guarantee you he is making plans. US Democracy is toast. US rule of law is toast. Non-supporters are toast (if you do not kiss his ass you are the enemy). He is a very smart, evil and ruthless man. Senate republicans are his servants. If re-elected Trump will have 4 more years to remake America in his own image.

 

American standing (influence) in the world is at all time lows. Under Trump the US can no longer be trusted. Trump will divide the West and China and Russia will benefit from the anarchy Trump brings. (Russia is the good guy?????). China, and to a lesser degree Russia, are happy to fill the void left by the US.

 

In some respects, i do believe Trump has been the change agent that many people wanted. Immigration needed to be reformed. Regulation needed to be streamlined. Trade deals needed to be updated. The tax system needed to be updated. Law enforcement (CIA and FBI) had its biases and flaws. Obamacare had its flaws. The news media has its biases when reporting. China, and its political system, and the risk it presents to Western Democracies, is now understood in the US and globally. Allies were not paying their fair share on defense. i am not saying that Trump dealt with all of these topics perfectly or even well; he caused everyone to debate and think about these topics in unimaginable ways (pre 2016). and he has moved the supreme court hard right with the appointment of two justices.

 

On all of these issues Trump has changed the dialogue in the US permanently. There is no going back for the Democrats to pre-2016 on these issues. If Trump is not reelected you still get many of the benefits of having Trump for the past 4 years. His reform agenda will continue. But by electing a Democrat you will get your country back and the much needed healing can start.

 

Trump did his job. He changed the narrative (sometimes 180 degrees) on many, many issues. But he also is also destroying the US. If you elect a Democrat you get to keep Trump’s work and you do not destroy the country. If you elect Trump your Democracy and society is screwed. And the world will be a much, much worse please (the globe needs a functioning US).

 

I don't want the Establishment country back. They are the ones that put China in power in the first place.

[rb]

At least they don't have skyscrapers in Russia.  :-\

 

Ahem, maybe not sky scraping hospitals.

 

But...

 

[ERICOPOLY]

 

Trump brags about doing things that are consensual.  Trump has never bragged about assault. 

 

 

The women disagree with you that it was consensual, including the 13 yr old girl that Trump allegedly raped in Jeffery Epstein's apartment:

 

The number of women who have accused Trump of rape or sexual assault is at least 12

 

https://www.mic.com/articles/156669/how-many-women-have-accused-donald-trump-of-rape-or-sexual-assault#.KujVwb2jl

[rb]

I don't want the Establishment country back. They are the ones that put China in power in the first place.

This is so dumb! I cannot even begin....

[Guest]

I don't want the Establishment country back. They are the ones that put China in power in the first place.

This is so dumb! I cannot even begin....

 

Well, let's try. ;)

 

What part of the country/world are you from?

 

 

[rb]

Why does that matter?

[Guest]

 

Trump brags about doing things that are consensual.  Trump has never bragged about assault. 

 

 

The women disagree with you that it was consensual, including the 13 yr old girl that Trump allegedly raped in Jeffery Epstein's apartment:

 

The number of women who have accused Trump of rape or sexual assault is at least 12

 

https://www.mic.com/articles/156669/how-many-women-have-accused-donald-trump-of-rape-or-sexual-assault#.KujVwb2jl

 

Isn't it amazing how Epstein knows all of these folks? How about we get rid of them all? ;)

[Guest]

Why does that matter?

 

I'll assume you have experiences that are biasing your knowledge base. Now, keep in mind, I do too. ;)

 

Knowing where you're from might help me understand what your experiences are.

[ERICOPOLY]

 

Trump brags about doing things that are consensual.  Trump has never bragged about assault. 

 

 

The women disagree with you that it was consensual, including the 13 yr old girl that Trump allegedly raped in Jeffery Epstein's apartment:

 

The number of women who have accused Trump of rape or sexual assault is at least 12

 

https://www.mic.com/articles/156669/how-many-women-have-accused-donald-trump-of-rape-or-sexual-assault#.KujVwb2jl

 

Isn't it amazing how Epstein knows all of these folks? How about we get rid of them all? ;)

 

More remarkable that Trump claims he never met Epstein.  Has something to deny does he?

[Guest]

 

Trump brags about doing things that are consensual.  Trump has never bragged about assault. 

 

 

The women disagree with you that it was consensual, including the 13 yr old girl that Trump allegedly raped in Jeffery Epstein's apartment:

 

The number of women who have accused Trump of rape or sexual assault is at least 12

 

https://www.mic.com/articles/156669/how-many-women-have-accused-donald-trump-of-rape-or-sexual-assault#.KujVwb2jl

 

Isn't it amazing how Epstein knows all of these folks? How about we get rid of them all? ;)

 

More remarkable that Trump claims he never met Epstein.  Got something to deny does he?

 

Oh, I would be very surprised if Trump didn't have a lot of pretty bad things in his closet.

[Jurgis]

At least they don't have skyscrapers in Russia.  :-\

 

Ahem, maybe not sky scraping hospitals.

 

But...

 

 

Whoosh....

 

 

 

They had skyscrapers there since 1950s. I studied in one of them ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_building_of_Moscow_State_University )

[Guest]

Like I said, it might be a good thing if the whole system went down:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/us/jeffrey-epstein-harvard.html

[Jurgis]

All coronavirus discussion should be conducted in another socially isolated location.

[Guest]

All coronavirus discussion should be conducted in another socially isolated location.

 

haha fair enough!

[rb]

Why does that matter?

 

I'll assume you have experiences that are biasing your knowledge base. Now, keep in mind, I do too. ;)

No I don't base my statement on biases like you do. Just facts.

 

The TLDR on this is that there's nothing that special about China. Also nothing too exceptional about the US. These are just stories we tell ourselves. The US is a moderately affluent country. But they have a lot of people. So great power.

 

China is actually a very average country. Almost the definition of average. They're about as affluent as other big names such as Turkmenistan, the Dominican Republic, Palau and Serbia. Somewhat below the great Belarus and well below some other great places like Bulgaria! But there's a lot of them so great power.

 

The thing is nobody put China in power. They put themselves in power by achieving the incredible feat of being average and under performing Bulgaria. All that China had to do was to stop shooting themselves in the foot with cultural revolution type shit. It was inevitable.

 

Now you might argue that other "types" of administrations would have been able to suppress China through economic and military wars. That worked in the case of Cuba, but sucked in the case of a larger country like Vietnam. My guess is that it would have really sucked in the case of China.

[LC]

 

I don't want the Establishment country back. They are the ones that put China in power in the first place.

 

I thought that was the Deep State. I must be getting my nameless, hidden-in-plain-sight, pseudo-government entities of Democrat carpetbaggers pulling the strings of Democracy from the confines of leather armchairs, fireplaces and Great Danes at the Bilderberg estate...confused.

 

If you think "the Establishment" put a country of 1 billion people with a rich history of productivity, who performed incredibly cheap labor at high cost to themselves for decades, to the benefit of the western nations "in power" and their citizens - then I would argue you are ignoring factors which represent 95% of China's rise to geopolitical power, in favor of <5% of the factors which you are fitting into your narrative.

[Guest]

Why does that matter?

 

I'll assume you have experiences that are biasing your knowledge base. Now, keep in mind, I do too. ;)

No I don't base my statement on biases like you do. Just facts.

 

The TLDR on this is that there's nothing that special about China. Also nothing too exceptional about the US. These are just stories we tell ourselves. The US is a moderately affluent country. But they have a lot of people. So great power.

 

China is actually a very average country. Almost the definition of average. They're about as affluent as other big names such as Turkmenistan, the Dominican Republic, Palau and Serbia. Somewhat below the great Belarus and well below some other great places like Bulgaria! But there's a lot of them so great power.

 

The thing is nobody put China in power. They put themselves in power by achieving the incredible feat of being average and under performing Bulgaria. All that China had to do was to stop shooting themselves in the foot with cultural revolution type shit. It was inevitable.

 

Now you might argue that other "types" of administrations would have been able to suppress China through economic and military wars. That worked in the case of Cuba, but sucked in the case of a larger country like Vietnam. My guess is that it would have really sucked in the case of China.

 

Everyone's opinion is based on personal biases. At least some of us can admit to it.

 

If we had even trade with China (no surplus or deficit) I would guess that the US would be more stable (more middle class jobs here) and China would be less prosperous. Yeah, yeah, the stock market wouldn't have gone up as much but big deal. Perhaps jobs would have moved over to other countries but the move probably wouldn't have been as extreme - since those other countries have far few people.

[Guest]

 

I don't want the Establishment country back. They are the ones that put China in power in the first place.

 

I thought that was the Deep State. I must be getting my nameless, hidden-in-plain-sight, pseudo-government entities of Democrat carpetbaggers pulling the strings of Democracy from the confines of leather armchairs, fireplaces and Great Danes at the Bilderberg estate...confused.

 

If you think "the Establishment" put a country of 1 billion people with a rich history of productivity, who performed incredibly cheap labor at high cost to themselves for decades, to the benefit of the western nations "in power" and their citizens - then I would argue you are ignoring factors which represent 95% of China's rise to geopolitical power, in favor of <5% of the factors which you are fitting into your narrative.

 

You don't think that the folks in power wanted to make these moves so that we would have "economic growth?" All of these displaced folks will just get new training they said. Well, guess what, the factories shut down and they were left in the cold. Guess you benefited? Stockholders.

 

How about we leave stockholders out in the cold too by not consistently bailing out the market? I have no problem with people fending for themselves...if the playing field is equal.

 

Like I said, I would prefer no bailouts for anyone - ever. That's fair.

 

Do I think this is some multi-decade conspiracy? No. Do I think the system is quite corrupt? Yes. The Democrats didn't want Bernie so they teamed up against him. Look at all of the connections Epstein and Weinstein had. The government has set up stockholders and the wealthy (any guesses as how many folks running the country own stocks?) to win and the middle and lower classes to lose. That is wrong.

 

The Republicans also didn't want Trump but they let nature take it's course. And, as I've said many times, I have never voted for Trump (and would prefer not to).  Trump getting rid of the Fiduciary Rule for financial planners was a giant middle finger to populism (as are his tax cuts).

 

Don't get me wrong, I've benefited tremendously through this broken system but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

 

By, I'll try to respect the thread and will try to go back to speaking only about the virus from here on out.

[LC]

Sorry but eventually, Adam Smith always wins. You don't get to blame the Democrats or Republicans for a lesson as old as time itself: you can't beat change (or comparative advantage).

 

For decades China was (and is) able to supply low cost inputs for global consumption. The entire world - including the mean (and median) US citizen and corporation - is better off as a result. Even the ones laid off when "they took our jobs".

[Guest cherzeca]

 

thread

[DooDiligence]

Sorry but eventually, Adam Smith always wins. You don't get to blame the Democrats or Republicans for a lesson as old as time itself: you can't beat change (or comparative advantage).

 

For decades China was (and is) able to supply low cost inputs for global consumption. The entire world - including the mean (and median) US citizen and corporation - is better off as a result. Even the ones laid off when "they took our jobs".

 

This,

 

and the entitled sheep will continue to piss & moan & ignore their prosperity.

[Guest]

Sorry but eventually, Adam Smith always wins. You don't get to blame the Democrats or Republicans for a lesson as old as time itself: you can't beat change (or comparative advantage).

 

For decades China was (and is) able to supply low cost inputs for global consumption. The entire world - including the mean (and median) US citizen and corporation - is better off as a result. Even the ones laid off when "they took our jobs".

 

If you mean "better off" by the amount of crap people can buy, sure. If you mean "better off" by having a job you take pride in, then I'll have to disagree. The fact that drug deaths and suicides are up make me believe that a lot of folks are not better off.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/351-400/db356_fig1.png

 

It looks like it is better off under Trump here.

 

But hey, Congresses' stocks are up, CEOs are paid way (way) more than deserve. Let's parttty!

 

Okay...I'm hoping this one really is my last non-virus post on this thread Sorry all!

 

 

 

[LC]

If you mean "better off" by the amount of crap people can buy, sure. If you mean "better off" by having a job you take pride in, then I'll have to disagree. The fact that drug deaths and suicides are up make me believe that a lot of folks are not better off.

 

I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government.

 

You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism.

 

Okay...I'm hoping this one really is my last non-virus post on this thread Sorry all!

 

I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D

[Liberty]

 

"Deaths among the elderly in Sweden have been painfully high. In a more densely populated country like the United States, and with a larger proportion of vulnerable people, the human toll of a herd immunity strategy could be devastating"

 

Also:

[Guest]

If you mean "better off" by the amount of crap people can buy, sure. If you mean "better off" by having a job you take pride in, then I'll have to disagree. The fact that drug deaths and suicides are up make me believe that a lot of folks are not better off.

 

I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government.

 

You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism.

 

Okay...I'm hoping this one really is my last non-virus post on this thread Sorry all!

 

I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D

 

lc...you're dragging me back in. What does 70 year data have to do with anything? China was allowed free trade by Clinton in 2000. And through most of that time we've had artificially low interest rates and huge deficits to maintain our broken system.

 

If I were wrong, we wouldn't have the current leadership we do now either. ;)