Fox/Trump Immoral Handling of covid19

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 182
#91
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@ebuc
Not “supporting” McCarthy. I’m saying that given the situation the US was experiencing at the time, it is understandable why he did what he did. Espionage was a huge issue, and he did was he could to defend his government and country. He was way too overzealous in doing so, and I don’t like a lot of what he did.

Trump instituted a travel ban one day after the WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Pretty timely.

Should he have done more testing a bit quicker? Probably. But I don’t understand why we are freaking out and closing society down because of some weird flu-like virus that really only hurts the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. If you could explain why this is worse than H1N1, for which we didn’t close down our entire economy, perhaps I’m ignorant of a fact or two about its deadliness or something to that effect.

Anyways, I’m still not convinced Republicans, freer of slaves, are worse than Jim Crowe Democrats :/
#92
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@RationalMadman
Republicans are offering emergency UBI for the poor to help them pay for expenses. Democrats have blocked it twice now to try to push a bill with a $15 minimum wage, solar and wind tax credits, adding $300 million for refugee assistance, no voter ID required, and a bunch of other pork barrel bull $h1t they know won’t get passed just to make Republicans look bad for not passing a bill.
#93
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
Liar. You can twist it any way you want, it is a lie. Democrats will always care for the poor infinitely more than Republicans, it's an absolute fact.

#94
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,826
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Please, let's take a second to just analyze what the Republicans are trying to get through.

It's biggest feature is essentially a $500 billion corporate bailout. What makes this so special? Well, aside from the fact that it bears almost no requirements for bailed-out firms to protect their workers, it's mainly the fact that that pool of money can be distributed by the Treasury Secretary with virtually no input from other parties. That's a lot of money to put at the sole discretion of the executive branch, especially when there is effectively no transparency with regards to how it would be spent. You want to talk about pork barrel? This is the epitome of that - Trump himself hasn't ruled out spending some of that money to bolster his own company. The Democrats shouldn't be engaging in tit-for-tat behavior on this, but this alone is pretty damning to the effort.
#95
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@RationalMadman
I prefer offering jobs rather than handouts. If the welfare class is eliminated, Democrats lose their base
#96
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@whiteflame
I don’t think their bill was perfect or even close to that. But this relief to businesses and Americans is needed immediately. The bill was part of a bipartisan negotiation and was sunk at the last second. Now, instead of merely negotiating more in terms of stock buyback regulations and worker protections, which I’d support and I’m sure most Republicans in Congress would, they had to make an 1100+ page bill of unrelated, stupid issues.

So while again the first bill was by no means perfect, when there is a crisis at hand, you don’t really have time to make a perfect bill. I’d have been more in favor of them passing the first bill than just d*cking around as the situation continues to grow worse.

All in all, really stupid political move on the part of the Democrats. If they truly cared about long-term helping people through their policies, they would suck it up and pass it. Now that they get these terrible optics, they are all but guaranteeing a loss in November.
#97
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,826
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Relief to businesses is fine. I don't mind providing that relief in the slightest. That being said, I don't think it validates any attempts to essentially grant the president personal and exclusive access to $500 billion, which, no, was not part of those bipartisan negotiations. I have a lot of problems with the fact that this is taking so long, but it's the result of both parties - not just the Democrats - trying to net some major gains out of a bill that should be functioning exclusively for the benefit of a country that is hurting terribly. I'd say this is equally stupid of the Republicans. Neither side should be putting something into this bill that is flagrantly a ploy for the benefit of their base, yet both sides are doing that. The only reason you're not calling out the Republicans for doing the same is that they haven't clearly labeled it the same way that the Democrats have.


#98
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@whiteflame
Come on Whiteflame!  The Democrats are trying to get money to protect the Kennedy Center, and what made them even think about that, makes me wonder what other goodies were introduced that we haven't heard about.  WTF does the Kennedy Center have to do with this virus, we want to make sure that rich people can still see their operas?  You know that has got to be on the top of the list....   You know most of that 500 Billion will go to good deeds, but because this President was impeached, they think he is just going to cheat everyone out of money when he didn't even take a salary for this job.  The 500 billion will be used to build the economy just like he did when he became President.   They all said Trickle down ecomomics will bankrupt everyone, we will be in a recession before you know it, there is no way for him to hit the GDP levels that he promissed, he is dreaming Obama said.  Sorry, but he didn't just wish upon a star for the economy to hit record levels during his presidency, it happened because of what he did, regulations he put in place, as well as de-regulations, the tax cuts he made, the negotiations that he has come out on top of.  Please don't say it is the after affects of Obama. 

You don't hear anyone saying that trickle down economics don't work now, do you? No.  

And I seriously doubt that Trump would be dumb enough to help his own companies, unless they really need it, he does have quite a few businesses, but with three years under his belt now, I think we can safely say, he is a politician, which I hate.  
#99
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,826
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@DBlaze
Wow, just... wow. I have at no point defended any of the choices Democrats have made with regards to this stimulus package (though I'm pretty sure they have, and I simply don't feel the need to do so), save 1: not accepting this bill. "You know most of that 500 Billion will go to good deeds"... Really? How do I know this? If this was a Democratic president, would you be OK granting them total access to this much money, no strings attached? I'm not comfortable giving any single branch of government that kind of access without any mechanisms for ensuring that it's used properly, and I'm much less comfortable affording those kinds of funds to a single person who is very easily manipulated. And yes, the basis for the impeachment trial makes it all the more worrisome, as does the fact that Trump himself has refused to promise that he won't use those funds for the benefit of his own company. That was his choice, not mine. The fact that he's already used excessive amounts of taxpayer funds to fund his own business indirectly definitely doesn't help your case.

It's insane to me to see so many people who are usually so anti-big government and centralization of power supporting giving this much power and money to a single entity. This situation is nothing like the one that Trump encountered when he came into office, and shouldn't be treated the same in any way (though to be clear, Trump did not have this huge bolus of cash to use for any purpose he wished at the beginning of his presidency). If you want to talk about Trickle Down Economics (which, yes, I would say failed miserably), that's a different story and will really distract from this conversation. It has nothing to do with this. In my view, we already are in a recession and well on our way to a depression. That calls for a quick and decisive response, but that doesn't mean that any response will do. Like the responses of the Democrats in this case, I honestly don't see how you can defend this clear attempt to garner massive resources that he can use with absolutely no oversight. Just because it doesn't take the form of a specific pork barrel project doesn't mean it's any less an attempt to use this situation to his benefit.

#100
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@whiteflame
So, do you think the Senate got this together using Trumps guidelines, and they were all cool with that?   Trump does own Hotels, so they are going to get something regardless.   Or... do you think we are both being mislead over what is actually in the bill and how it is being conveyed?  I think the latter is the case.  Did you read the bill?  I have not read the bill?  

Did we get this information from leaks?  Yes.  If there isn't provisions in there that prevent him from being able to do that, there should be.  Which I would totally agree with you on..... but I'm just saying that I don't think he would actually do that.    

I don't know that he won't use this to help his own businesses, but my guess is he did not become president to further enrich himself.   Unless he is secretly playing the stock market, which he totally could manipulate easily, but i think someone would have caught on to that by now.  

I like how you started your post.... Wow,just... wow!   that cracked me up.  

#101
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@whiteflame
Sorry, I am off chronologically on my posts.

Can you tell me what this means?  
"Eighty-seven percent of deaths occurred in those under 65 years of age with children"?  does that mean including children?  Maybe it has been too long of a day for me, because that sentence looks strange.

Why do you say the flu is more of an economic problem, when this one will, or is about to cause a recession?  Are you talking about over the course of years?



#102
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,826
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@DBlaze
I don't know what led the Senate to pursue this avenue, but clearly they thought this was important enough to contribute $500 billion to. Whether that's the result of Trump's interventions or their own expectations for how he would use that money doesn't really matter to me. I simply don't have the same trust in Trump's (or, for that matter, any individual entity's) capacity to distribute that money equitably, nor his willingness to do so in a way that does the most to help the people who need the most help: their employees. 

I haven't read the bill - I don't think we have access to the full text. That being said, I'm not seeing Republicans coming out in droves to say how false it is that this money is being set aside in this fashion. If these conclusions were entirely fabricated, then I'd expect that Republicans would be doing everything they could to push back on the narrative in the media. I'm not seeing them doing that. If they were trying to put controls on the use of that money, I would expect to see McConnell mentioning that somewhere. I'm not, which concerns me.

It's hard to say what Trump actually wants to do with this money. I would hope, sometimes against hope, that Trump actually has our best interests at heart. I really want to believe that, especially at times like this. I haven't seen him conveying that very well, and maybe that's just because he's not a great communicator. I hope that's the reason. He may not be in this to enrich himself, but he certainly doesn't seem to care most about the people who are in the direst of straits right now.

#103
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,826
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@DBlaze
"Eighty-seven percent of deaths occurred in those under 65 years of age with children"? 

That means that parents with children were the most likely to die of H1N1.

"Why do you say the flu is more of an economic problem, when this one will, or is about to cause a recession?  Are you talking about over the course of years?"

We can't know what the price of COVID-19 will be. We know what the price of the flu has been, and if we're talking about direct effects (i.e. number of people sickened and the effects on productivity that result), then it has a stronger effect on the economy. The response to COVID-19 has caused greater economic hardship, and it's possible that the direct effects could be as bad or worse than the flu, but we can't know that without allowing it to run rampant, which is not really an option.

#104
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@whiteflame
If we didn't know about it we would just have a bad cold that might or might not lead to complications that might or might not cause us to expire. 

Same old shit as Eugene would say.

Nonetheless, It's interesting how "the virus" is becoming more of a financial crisis and less of a health crisis. And of course a big political weapon.

Oh! The immorality of a virus.
#105
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,826
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, but we do know about it, and responding to the threat of it in this way is something that many experts agree is necessary. Yes, there’s lots of other things the virus could be seen to function as, though first and foremost, it is a virus, and a dangerous one. 
#106
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,826
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
Hey, looks like they've found a way to include oversight for the now $400 billion for distressed corporations. Still a bit concerned about how this will be used, but the inclusion of an independent inspector general, a congressional oversight board, and some restrictions in how corporations can use that money (not to reward shareholders or executives through stock buybacks) all seem like reasonable measures to prevent misuse. Surprised and disheartened that it took this long, but this seems like it's finally getting the support it needs to pass.
#107
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21

#108
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
#109
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Liar. You can twist it any way you want, it is a lie. Democrats will always care for the poor infinitely more than Republicans, it's an absolute fact.
<br>
Would you like me to link posts where Democrats are putting their wishlist into the bill as BMD mentioned?
#110
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
The Democrats care for the poor as they do for a caged animal.

Feed it just enough so it doesn't attack them, but not too much so it might realize it doesn't need the cage. Toss it a bone to distract them every now and then and call the bone a deplorable Republican.

It's how they remained in control in the decaying liberal dystopias like Detroit in the North, New Orleans in the South, Los Angeles in the west, and New York in the East for decades with no opposition. It's actually true Democrats care about the poor. They need to keep them poor or else they will have no power to hand out the slow IV drip of goodies anymore. Every policy out of a Democrats' mouth is to ensure the poor get as few opportunities to climb up the prosperity ladder as possible. From open borders to a plethora of job-killing policies stemming from wage-fixing, over-taxation, competition-killing exclusionary licensing, and over-regulation. You can't even open a lemonade stand as a poor person in California anymore. Stay in your place. Vote the same for decades.
#111
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
The Republican's solution to poverty is to try to move as many people up the ladder as possible.

The Democrat's solution to poverty is to knock everyone down the ladder except for themselves so that they don't have to worry about threats to their power.

Income equality is only good if everyone is poor and the DC elites in government are the exclusive uncontested oligarchy of the rich.
#112
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@whiteflame
Relief to businesses is fine. I don't mind providing that relief in the slightest. That being said, I don't think it validates any attempts to essentially grant the president personal and exclusive access to $500 billion, which, no, was not part of those bipartisan negotiations. I have a lot of problems with the fact that this is taking so long, but it's the result of both parties - not just the Democrats - trying to net some major gains out of a bill that should be functioning exclusively for the benefit of a country that is hurting terribly. I'd say this is equally stupid of the Republicans. Neither side should be putting something into this bill that is flagrantly a ploy for the benefit of their base, yet both sides are doing that. The only reason you're not calling out the Republicans for doing the same is that they haven't clearly labeled it the same way that the Democrats have.

I'm not trying to entirely vindicate Republicans here. I do believe that they are mostly blameless and that Democrats are very much to blame. There is a $500 billion dollar fund that is supposed to be used to help businesses. That is something that, while imperfect, can be worked with to make it tenable. It can require more transparency or make limitations on some business actions once loans are received. What isn't tenable would be adding solar and wind tax credits to the bill, same-day voter registration, no ID for voting, $300 million for refugees, board diversity, minority bank and loan provisions, etc.

So I reject the idea that Republicans are being anywhere near as unreasonable as Democrats and that this stalling will result in a better result than simply passing the original bill.

This might be a bit dated, because I think it just got passed or will soon.
#113
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,826
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, it's a bit dated. Nonetheless, I feel a need to respond.

It strikes me as odd that your perspective on this issue is largely to dismiss any possible misuse of the $500 (now $400) billion dollar fund by Republicans, and instead to chastise the Democrats for designating specific targets for much smaller sums of money. I have a hard time believing that, were the tables reversed and it was a Democrat in office, you would take the prospect of a Democratic president having sole authority with no oversight over such a large sum of money as reasonable or, as you put it, "mostly blameless". Whoever is in office controls where that money goes, and I'll note that it's 3 orders of magnitude over the $300 million you cited for refugees. Imagine if Democrats got that and set aside a substantial portion for green energy industries. Do you believe that, given no limitations or transparency, the Trump Administration would have made choices that afforded money to companies in need without any form of bias? It didn't have limitations and transparency when it was first presented, and, lo and behold, when limitations and transparency were added, it's set to pass. I would argue that the current bill is quite a bit better, and though it still falls short of what should be happening, it's a good start.
#114
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@whiteflame
- They have compulsory military service, ensuring that they can effectively guard much of that wall
They might be able to afford a higher density based on troops to area. However, I don't believe the source prescribes a particular amount of troops per mile of fence. So, while they could technically have (615,000 reserve and active duty/150) 4,100 troops/mile, I know they don't do that and that they have no need to. If, let's say, it is wise to have one troop per 1/16 of a mile, we would need (16*2000) 32,000 troops/border patrol agents, which we could easily afford based on military reserves alone.

- They have a much shorter border to guard, ensuring that they can effectively upkeep the wall. From your source:

While yes, they have a shorter border, our GDP is over 55x the size of Israel's, while our border is only a little over 13x larger, so having the resources to maintain such a wall isn't too worrisome.

- The terrain on which these walls have been/are being built is very different. From your source:

True, it will be harder to construct a wall on our border, but it is by no means impossible.

- The legal response has been different, and it has been much better correlated with Israel's success. From your source:

B) Stating that simply having the border wall would be enough is problematic in its own right. The very article you cite talks about what border security measures are actually the most effective, many of which we use right now:

Trump has actually been enforcing laws that have already been on the books regarding immigration enforcement. Further implementation of stricter laws, which could easily occur if Republicans win the next election, could contribute to more legal ramifications/deterrents for illegal immigration. However, I don't believe I have said, or if I did, I had no intention to say, that a border wall is some panacea for illegal immigration. It is merely an indispensable part of what would have to be a multi-faceted approach of adding troops, altering laws, and providing more technology to help detect illegal immigrants, etc.

On a side note, I would say Democrats are adding many obstacles to discouraging illegal immigration, as they have said they will provide "free" healthcare to illegal immigrants, stop deportations (in the case of Biden, supposedly just the first 100 days), and proposing other laws that would be much more lenient on illegal immigrants. But, they can be ignored because the wall wouldn't even be completed if they were elected.


#115
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
What isn't tenable would be adding solar and wind tax credits to the bill, same-day voter registration, no ID for voting, $300 million for refugees, board diversity, minority bank and loan provisions, etc.

Yah, if they wanna pass that bullshit, put that up for a separate vote so the public can weigh in on the level of ridiculousness their policies are on their own. None of that has anything to do with ameliorating the current virus and economic disaster.

It's actually par for the course though, Democrats will poisonpill the initial bill KNOWING it wouldn't pass even with their support just so they can go back to their district and claim Republicans were anti-solar, anti-wind, anti-democracy, anti-openborder with unlimited welfare for all. Anti-minority...etc..


All of it is just straight-up typical political bullshit...
#116
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@whiteflame
Obviously my bias will affect my judgement of this a bit. I would have a bigger problem with unaccountable Democrat spending than Republican spending because I know that Republicans have a similar perspective on how to resolve this issue. That being said, I still didn't say that I thought it was a good thing that they were trying to have non-transparent flows of money. That still was an issue. My point was that this was something easy to rectify. It just needed a few provisions to fix it. What Democrats were adding, however, had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis at hand and weren't fixable. That is why, even though the dollar amount was smaller, I still had a much bigger issue with what Democrats did to the bill. 

Update: the new bill has provisions for $25 million to the Kennedy center and $75 million for public broadcasting for some strange reason. Also $75,000,000 for National Endowment for the Humanities
#117
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, my thoughts were that they were trying to make an unpassable bill mainly blame Republicans for being heartless/not responding to the disaster, etc. They got smashed for not passing the bill initially, so they are playing a game of hot potato with bad bills to try to get the American public to demonize the other side. Typical partisan bull$h1t that pisses me off. Bills should really only address like 1-3 issues at a time to prevent this stupid porkbarreling.
#118
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Lol, you said that literally as I was editing and adding to my post.
#119
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Which part? lol
#120
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
The last part about it being poison pilled just so they could use it to demonize during elections knowing full well it wasn't going to pass.