Coronavirus - are we all doomed?

[Steve R.]

And the masterful font of all knowledge strikes again. https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...g-disinfectant-as-covid-19-treatment-11977958
Is he on some form of medical treatment to make himself so completely stupid?
(Possibly he's been injecting bleach?)

Once again, Trump has made an inopportune remark. Those with TDS immediately seized on it as proof for their point of view. Once again they hysterically scream we have Trump now!

Meanwhile, the person who they hope to replace Trump with, Biden makes remarks that demonstrate an amazing amount of bravado that displays the very faults those with TDS are accusing Trump of. Joe Biden's latest ad said Trump 'rolled over for the Chinese' on coronavirus, and people are calling it racist and xenophobic.

Many criticized the ad's rhetoric, calling it racist and xenophobic on Twitter, saying that it parroted Republicans' anti-China talking points and stood to harm Asian Americans who have already faced harassment as a result of the pandemic.

It positions Biden as his hypothetical foreign policy foil, showing a clip of Biden saying, "I would be on the phone with China making it clear: We are going to need to be in your country. You have to be open. You have to be clear. We have to know what's going on." (empahsis added)

So those with TDS claim that Trump is a warmonger and a xenophobe. When Biden says:"We are going to need to be in your country." that sounds like an arrogant call to war. You (China) must do what we demand or else. So here we have a presidential candidate who is simply trying to outdo Trump's supposed warmongering and xenophobia. Those with TDS may not like Trump, your call; but do really want a weak unimaginative person who simply mimics Democratic falsehoods concerning Trump, by making those claims his. (PS. That almost seems like plagiarism, stealing someone else's original stuff and making it your own because you lack original thought. Joe Biden Caught Lying On Camera, Plagiarizing Other Politicians' Speeches.)

Based on Biden's supposed promises, if China does not acquiesce to US power; Biden (to prove that he is a real he-man ready to take on the backyard bully in a fist fight), will go to war with China. Is that a better alternative to Trump?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I know that sometimes I have come to DJT's defense. Regarding whether I support DJT... I have stated this many times.

I voted for Donald Trump with one hand (because we have electronic push-button voting machines in Louisiana). But the other hand was holding my nose and my mouth so I wouldn't throw up on the machine. The only choices I saw were "the Donald" or Hillary or a bunch of hopeless 3rd party candidates. Voting for the 3rd party gang guaranteed to dilute the vote against Hillary. I said it before and I'll say it again. I didn't necessarily vote FOR DJT but I absolutely DID vote against HRC.

Her involvement in Whitewater scandals back when she and Bill were still in Arkansas already marked her as shady. The 13 deaths that cannot be attributed to the Clintons but cannot be attributed anywhere else either? More frosting on that cake. Then her "healthcare" plan that Bill Clinton tried to get passed during his term in office... was extreme at that time and would have bankrupted the country. SHE was the author of that bill. Fast forward to her involvement with being the in the back pocket of "big Pharma" ; toss in her TOTAL mishandling of Benghazi, sprinkle in her TOTAL disregard for national security. Liberally (no pun intended) sprinkle in the overtones of The Clinton Foundation, which was a radical influence-peddling scheme, and I simply could not tolerate the idea of her being elected. So the only solution was to vote for Trump because he was the only candidate who had the shot at knocking her out of public office. My support was therefore based on restricted choice.

Trump is cringe-worthy even on good days. And yet, knowing now how things have gone, I have to say I still would have voted for him in order to keep Hillary out. He isn't entirely bad. Though there are people who would object to this viewpoint, he has finally called to task a lot of countries who were relying on the wealth of the USA to keep their countries from having to actually do more to protect themselves. There were unfair trade agreements that had more holes than a Swiss cheese. (NOTE: That is neither a slam of the Swiss people nor a slam of Swiss cheese, which I happen to like.) There have been liberal-agenda issues that simply couldn't be allowed to proceed because SOMEBODY has to stop kicking all those cans down the road.

For limited reasons, I still support "the Donald" but only because of the people who are running against him and speaking out against him on the political podium. I have absolutely no trouble with those people on this forum who dislike DJT because I'm not 100% in favor of him either.

 

[deletedT]

I can't understand why as soon as somebody talks about Trump, his supporters try to defend him with examples from Biden or Hilary or Democrats.
When I criticize Trump, It doesn't mean I'm supporting Democrats or Hilary or Biden. I even don't know who they are and where they belong to. Most of the people outside of US are the same as me. We don't care about Biden or others, because as long as they are not in the office, it's a US internal problem. But when they sit on that chair in White House, it becomes our problem. Because it effects all countries around the world.

When I criticize Trump, I’m talking about his personality and behavior, not trying to say Democrats are better. Most of those who live and are out of US, we don't like him because of his language, because of his position against media, because of his childish mistakes in numbers, because his repeatedly attacks on others.
And I don't like him because of his NOBODY KNOW ..... BETTER THAN ME while he has proved he doesn't know anything better than his precedents. He is a genius in business? maybe. I don't really know. Good for American citizen to have someone to support their economy. But does it justify his childish mistakes?

 

[deletedT]

@Jon Again sorry, I'm trying hard but I can't really understand. You're trying to compare Einstein's quantum physics mistake with the nonsense that president Trump is saying on a daily basis? I really don't know anything about physics, but I assume Einstein's mistake has been something very rare and the result of years of studies, or something that even took a long time for other scientists to even understand him and realize it's been wrong. Are you comparing a quantum physics mistake with a some data as simple as the population of a city? Every kid will laugh as soon as hearing someone talking about a city with 300 million population, no matter it's in Korea or USA or any other country. 300 million people in a city? It's simply ridiculous. He even doesn't know the most populated city in the world is 38 million.
Do you want to tell me because a scientist makes mistakes, he can too. Yes, he can. Nobody denies that. But how often? And how simple mistakes? I've said it before. He can set a committee to investigate and report to him. Then he can announce what's he's been reported.

Without any surveys he start talking nonsense (forgive my language) and makes a fool of himself. (I apologize to those who believes him. It's just what I think)

And yes, of course he's joking. He's joking when he says windmill causes cancer, he's joking when he says Mexican are rapist. He's joking when he calls others animal. He is joking when he says African countries are $hithole.

He IS NOT the problem. We who don't get his jokes are problem.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I can't understand why as soon as somebody talks about Trump, his supporters try to defend him with examples from Biden or Hilary or Democrats.
When I criticize Trump, It doesn't mean I'm supporting Democrats or Hilary or Biden. I even don't know who they are and where they belong to. Most of the people outside of US are the same as me. We don't care about Biden or others, because as long as they are not in the office, it's a US internal problem. But when they sit on that chair in White House, it becomes our problem. Because it effects all countries around the world.

When I criticize Trump, I’m talking about his personality and behavior, not trying to say Democrats are better. Most of those who live and are out of US, we don't like him because of his language, because of his position against media, because of his childish mistakes in numbers, because his repeatedly attacks on others.
And I don't like him because of his NOBODY KNOW ..... BETTER THAN ME while he has proved he doesn't know anything better than his precedents. He is a genius in business? maybe. I don't really know. Good for American citizen to have someone to support their economy. But does it justify his childish mistakes?

Tera,
with all do respect honestly this dialogue goes back a long time. Long before I became a member in 2010. Back then it was George W. was a war criminal, the opposition would reply with "what about Bill and Hillary Clinton and Mena Arkansas"?

When there is a Democrat in office all their supporters rally around and pretend giving Iran billions dollars in the dead of night is okay. They would ignore or defend it somehow.

When there is a Republican in office all their supporters rally around and pretend the birther issue is okay. It really does cut both ways and straight down party lines.

Reagan was senile with his finger on the button remember? On and on it goes.

 

[Deleted member 147267]

When there is a Democrat in office all their supporters rally around and pretend giving Iran billions dollars in the dead of night is okay.

I have heard that one so many times now that I have to point out what the another side of the story is to that "fact", which didn't come from Fox News (aka David Pecker is Trump's best friend). In a nutshell, it is this:

- US holds billions in Iran assets and won't release any of it under the circumstances
- Iran signs nuclear non-proliferation deal/treaty in exchange for getting their assets back
- US gives Iran what belongs to them in good faith (which is the "payment" that so many seem to think happened).
- Fox tells Trumpians that Obama gave Iran billions and leaves it to the viewer to draw their own conclusion as to what that means. Naturally, no one is going to think it was Iran's money in the first place and was a reciprocal part of the treaty deal.

Whether or not it was a great deal isn't the point. I know that version yet my relatives keep harping on about the other version like it was US taxpayer money. I have never spoken about what I saw on the news because they're all brainwashed and I don't discuss politics with them. So truly, which version is right? If anyone is going to post an answer to that, I hope it is factual and based on the clear, unequicvocal and complete truth and not opinion. We both can't be right - or else I'm misinterpreting what these Iran payment comments mean.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Tera, you are from outside the USA so do not understand our political system. I live here and sometimes have trouble understanding everything I see, so I surely cannot be surprised or disappointed that you are confused. All I can say, my friend (if I may call you that), is "Welcome to the USA Political Confusion Club."

You ask a valid question but perhaps don't understand that even a total idiot could be president in our political system. Mr. Trump is not a total idiot but he surely DOES lack many social graces. Our law says that to be President, a candidate must be at least 35 years old and a natural-born citizen of the USA. He also must have lived within the USA for the last 14 years. There are a couple of disqualifying conditions having to do with legalities. Note that there IS NO REQUIREMENT for a law degree, political science degree, or service within any branch of government. Any upstanding citizen who meets the requirements could be elected.

Mr. Trump did not come to power through typical political pathways. He was neither a governor nor a senator nor a representative nor a war hero. The last war hero president was "Ike" Eisenhower, who did not serve politically before being elected president. John Kennedy served representing Massachussets after being a PT Boat captain during WWII so he was a war hero AND a congressman. George H.W. Bush was a war hero (Navy fighter pilot) who represented Texas in Congress.

Mr. Trump was never in a war and never represented any state in Congress. Therefore, he does not act like a politician or a military hero. He's a businessman who is used to giving orders and having them obeyed by the folks he employs. In corporate America, he commanded loyalty to the company and therefore to himself as owner of the company. But that doesn't work in his current situation.

Our political system, for better or worse, has become highly adversarial. (I said for better or worse, but I really mean "for worse" because there is nothing better about what we have now.) Therefore, whether you intended it or not, some people will see any criticism of Trump as a statement from his opponents. Making an isolated criticism might have been the intent, but in the barrage of Trump haters, the Trump lovers will defend him tooth and nail, often indiscriminately. As to whether he puts his foot in his mouth on a regular basis, that is immaterial from a legal viewpoint. He is shielded from repercussions of that verbal clumsiness by the restrictions placed on filing criminal or civil charges against ANY seated president. Only Congress has the authority to remove him from office and the last time this Congress tried to remove him, it didn't work out very well for them.

You want to know about his childish mistakes. The word "justify" isn't applicable. For the last several years, the "opposition" has characterized the mistakes of the president, whoever is in office. They magnify the errors because of that adversarial relationship between the political parties. I sincerely hope he washes his toes well because his foot is in his mouth so often. But even if he spoke eloquently, he would be vilified. Even Ronald Reagan, one of the best public speakers we have had as a president in recent memory, was savaged one way or another by his opponents.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Whether or not it was a great deal isn't the point. I know that version yet my relatives keep harping on about the other version like it was US taxpayer money.

Nope it was Iranian monies, I have never thought otherwise. In-fact we were holding that cash hostage. Basically the cash was frozen.

But I don't think you believe its a good idea to give the Iranian Revolutionary Army billions.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Fox tells Trumpians

Its the characterizing of people that truly fuels these debates.

If Tera's still listening!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Given the radical nature of Iranian Islamists, giving them billions of dollars is probably not a good idea. Even if it was originally theirs. Legally, good idea. When considering potential consequences, maybe not so good.

 

[deletedT]

@The_Doc_Man Talking about President Reagan, I remember he always had a joke about Soviet and make fun of them.

Doc, it's an honor to be called a friend. A while back, I decided not to post anything about ourselves here, because there was a misunderstanding I caused. It seemed that I wanted to prove We are Better than you.

Since then I decided not tell anything about ourselves, but because you had a very well explained answer to me, I talk a little. It doesn't mean I want to compare politic between us and you. It's just how we think. And please don't misunderstand me. It's not a comparison by any means and I don't want to say one is better than the other.

We have two major parties here. Liberal Democratic Party(LDP) & Democratic party.
Almost %80 of voters are LDP supporters. But when it comes to voting, they don't vote for LDP. They vote to the left wing. They don't like a one-sided congress. Our congress seats are almost 70-30 or something near that. There's been a lot of times that the opposite party won more seats than the government.
It's because they don't want to make it easy for the government to pass bills one after the other. They want to make a wall for the government and make them talk and discuss each and every bill or law that's going to pass the congress. They vote to the opposite party to make it harder for them and let the nation having a chance to hear both sides. My wife loves our Prime Minister. They have been in the same school a long time ago. But she never votes to him. She says giving him enemies, makes him stronger. He has too many friends. Several more enemy doesn't hurt.

They also are not afraid of criticizing the prime minister, even those who have supported him and voted for him. They believe criticizing the government makes them stay awake and on the watch. It's very common that the Prime minister apologizes for what he has said or done. It doesn't make him small. When he accepts a mistake, and apologizes to the nation via a TV conference or in the congress, he'll be given another chance. As @Jon says, everyone has his own mistakes. Sure. We are human and do mistakes. But accepting our mistakes is another part of our nature too.

So I believe, Maybe Trump supporters better show him that he's been wrong in several cases. It makes him a better politician.
We have a saying The father who loves his son, scolds his son. So sometimes telling someone he's been wrong is the best support.

Reading your answer above, shows we are in the same boat. So it wasn't necessary to be told.
Take the above just as my monologue. Nothing serious was meant.

 

[deletedT]

Its the characterizing of people that truly fuels these debates.

If Tera's still listening!

I'm listening. But if you read above, you know what I think. I think both sides are on the wrong sides. They simply heat up. They have forgotten everything is for the nation. I really can't understand why never CNN accepts a part of what FOX broadcasts and never FOX admits Trump is on the wrong boat.

 

[deletedT]

But I don't think you believe its a good idea to give the Iranian Revolutionary Army billions.

I really don't know about Iran, but your comment brought a question to me.
Why supporting Israel is OK but not Iran. Both of them are killing each others and making a lot of trouble in the area. If US think they are really international police, why supporting Israel? Any pressure from wealthy Jews in US?

 

[AccessBlaster]

If US think they are really international police, why supporting Israel? Any pressure from wealthy Jews in US?

Wow, were really going there?

 

[deletedT]

Wow, were really going there?

No, I retreat. As I said I know nothing about it. It was just a question that flashed. Forget it please.

 

[Deleted member 147267]

But I don't think you believe its a good idea to give the Iranian Revolutionary Army billions.

That depends. If it buys a non nuclear proliferation agreement AND that agreement comes with unfettered inspector access AND that agreement is subject to some sort of group (e.g. G7, G20 although G7 is more likely) coalition sanctions for non-compliance then why not? It is their money after all. Before you pooh-pooh sanctions, consider that if you put enough people deep enough in poverty for long enough, they will overthrow the government - it has happened before.

Which is worse, the situation that existed as a result of that deal (which AFAIK was being complied with) or the freedom that Iran has now to develop nuclear fissionable material thanks to DT and his shoot from the lip diplomacy? In one scenario, you think the money was going to the Iranian military (as if you really had to worry about their capability compared to yours) yet you have no concrete reason to assume as much. In the current scenario, it probably now goes to uranium enrichment and you can thank only one person for that.

 

[AccessBlaster]

There is a reason we froze those assets. Unless you think we did it just to be pricks.

 

[Steve R.]

As I was getting ready to post, I saw your comment below.

No, I retreat. As I said I know nothing about it. It was just a question that flashed. Forget it please.

Prior to your response above, you wrote:

If US think they are really international police, why supporting Israel? Any pressure from wealthy Jews in US?

We live (in the US) in a world of identity politics, where statements such as racism and xenophobia are tossed out like candy. I suspect that you do not realize this, but had you made that sort of statement as a US politician (Trump) you would now be vilified by the media for making an appalling anti-Jewish remark. It is unfortunate, that here in the US, we have word vultures ready to descend on anyone whose words can be purposely misconstrued in a negative manner to denigrate them.

 

[Deleted member 147267]

There is a reason we froze those assets. Unless you think we did it just to be pricks.

No, I don't. Care to enlighten me/us as to why they were? I thought it was to get them to the bargaining table and to achieve a non-proliferation agreement, which suggests that once signed, they should be released if the US was going to hold up their end of the deal. Was there a different reason that you know of?

 

[Steve R.]

There is a reason we froze those assets. Unless you think we did it just to be pricks.

I don't think that I will have time to fully review this topic. Bed Time. The US had an excellent reason for freezing the Iran assets. It was because the Iranian Revolutionary Guard violated international law by holding US diplomats hostage. Additionally, if I remember correctly, that money was being held hostage by the US government pending resolution of how the hostages would be compensated. I do not know what happened in that regard. However, it would appear that Iran was not interested in resolving those issues as the US still held the money.

A question that needs to be asked. Did Obama even have any authority to return that money to Iran?
Let me digress into Trump's impeachment. At the impeachment hearings Trump was accused of "violating" long standing US policies. Well Obama in returning the money to Iran and even establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba "violated" long standing US policies. Funny how the press did not care about Obama's actions. (PS: Trump could not actually be accused of violating US policy, because as President he makes US Policy. His accusers were wrong.)

The nuclear agreement was a "private" agreement between Obama and Iran. The nuclear agreement was never ratified by the Senate. Once Trump took office, the agreement "died". Trump was under no obligation to maintain it.

The nuclear agreement also had a sunset provision in it. When the agreement expired (had Trump kept it), Iran would have been free to construct a nuclear device. The agreement did NOT stop Iran from eventually constructing a nuclear device.

The nuclear agreement in a sense was incomplete, as it allowed Iran to continue it missile testing plus some other points that I forget. But my point is that this agreement was not crafted from a holistic perspective, but from a very narrow point of view.