Coronavirus Outbreak...

[seanD]

For those interested in what Pelosi is actually doing, here is a less skewed report about it. It's not a task force in the sense that Trump has created a task force. Pelosi and the House are smart enough to know running the response is not in their purview. It is, instead, an oversight committee to keep an eye on the response and especially the money being dedicated to the effort. Personally, I'll sleep better knowing someone is looking over Trump's shoulder.

And your damage control for Sciff's actions is...

[carpedm9587]

And your damage control for Sciff's actions is...

It's not clear to me that "damage control" is needed for either. I simply corrected a mischaracterization. Congress, and specifically the House, is charged with oversight of the executive branch by the constitution. It is part of our balance of powers. $2T has just been allocated and is mostly under the control of the executive. I would hope the House would do its constitutional duty and "keep and eye on things." That is especially true given the tendency of this executive to play fast and loose with the law and continually enrich themselves by way of their office.

I also hope the press is dogged in pursuing the money and ensuring that none of it is diverted from its purpose. I would hope this would be a bipartisan effort by both parties in the house. Here is a slightly less skewed report on the proposed commission

[rogue06]

Nancy Pelosi announces the House will be putting together its own China virus task force headed by Jim Clyburn.

For the record, Clyburn recently said, "This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/reagan...yburn-n2566214

I have no trouble at all with Congress naming their own task force but to appoint the guy who even admitted that it's something to exploit for political advantage is more than just a tad worrisome. A living embodiment of Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel's philosophy: "Never let a crisis go to waste." Something that Emmanuel even repeated wrt the Chicom coronavirus while on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday.

They really are disgusting.

[seanD]

It's not clear to me that "damage control" is needed for either. I simply corrected a mischaracterization. Congress, and specifically the House, is charged with oversight of the executive branch by the constitution. It is part of our balance of powers. $2T has just been allocated and is mostly under the control of the executive. I would hope the House would do its constitutional duty and "keep and eye on things." That is especially true given the tendency of this executive to play fast and loose with the law and continually enrich themselves by way of their office.

I also hope the press is dogged in pursuing the money and ensuring that none of it is diverted from its purpose. I would hope this would be a bipartisan effort by both parties in the house.

It comes across as more of the same bullying and conniving they've been doing for the last three years. How will the voters perceive it I wonder? Voter perception's everything. And your damage control for Sciff's actions is...

[Mountain Man]

For those interested in what Pelosi is actually doing, here is a less skewed report about it. It's not a task force in the sense that Trump has created a task force. Pelosi and the House are smart enough to know running the response is not in their purview. It is, instead, an oversight committee to keep an eye on the response and especially the money being dedicated to the effort. Personally, I'll sleep better knowing someone is looking over Trump's shoulder.

Headed by a guy who has already said they want to use this situation to promote the Democrat agenda -- and as we saw with Pelosi's bailout plan, that agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with combating the Chinese coronavirus.

You don't trust your President for whatever reason, fine, but are these really the people you want looking over his shoulder?

[carpedm9587]

I have no trouble at all with Congress naming their own task force but to appoint the guy who even admitted that it's something to exploit for political advantage is more than just a tad worrisome. A living embodiment of Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel's philosophy: "Never let a crisis go to waste." Something that Emmanuel even repeated wrt the Chicom coronavirus while on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday.

They really are disgusting.

And suspending EPA enforcement and fuel efficiency regulations is not "taking advantage of a crisis?"


Be that as it may, Rahm Emanuel was right. During a crisis, forces are at work that make possible achieving things formerly thought impossible or hard. Amazon and grocery stores are seeing that now. Businesses that sell/support VP technology are booming. Studies have shown that businesses that use the time they are "down" due to a crisis planning not only their survival but their post-crisis strategy end up being more successful. A company that uses the down time of a recession to train its force usually emerges from the recession stronger and better positioned against their competition.

The phrase can be turned ugly: kick them while they are down (as you are doing). Or it can simply reflect a business (and personal) reality that is not ugly in the least. I'm sheltering in place, so using this time to step up my exercise routine and fix my house - attempting to "not let a good crisis go to waste."

[Mountain Man]

I have no trouble at all with Congress naming their own task force but to appoint the guy who even admitted that it's something to exploit for political advantage is more than just a tad worrisome. A living embodiment of Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel's philosophy: "Never let a crisis go to waste." Something that Emmanuel even repeated wrt the Chicom coronavirus while on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday.

They really are disgusting.

Seems like a case of "Don't trust that fox to guard the hen house, trust this fox instead!"

[carpedm9587]

It comes across as more of the same bullying and conniving they've been doing for the last three years. How will the voters perceive it I wonder? Voter perception's everything. And your damage control for Sciff's actions is...

I'm sure to you it seems like bullying, because Trump's base has signed on to the proposition that Trump should not be held to account for anything - which has led to the GOP in Washington doing exactly that. To the rest of us, holding Trump responsible and accountable, especially given his shady history and temperament, is prudent. How will the voters see it? I guess we'll know in November. The results of elections since 2016, however, is pretty encouraging.

I think I already answered the Schiff question...

[seanD]

I'm sure to you it seems like bullying, because Trump's base has signed on to the proposition that Trump should not be held to account for anything - which has led to the GOP in Washington doing exactly that. To the rest of us, holding Trump responsible and accountable, especially given his shady history and temperament, is prudent. How will the voters see it? I guess we'll know in November. The results of elections since 2016, however, is pretty encouraging.

I think I already answered the Schiff question...

It's not about holding a potus accountable, it's about Russian conspiracies, inquires based on FBI malfeasance, impeachment hearsay hearings, and on and on for three years that proved to be fruitless and costly. Yeah, that comes across as bullying and conniving, even if subsequent inquires are justifiable, and that's a result of crying wolf for so long. And it will be interesting to see how the voters perceive it. I suspect this is more of the same of the Dems politically shooting themselves in the foot, assuming this has all been a careless accident.

[carpedm9587]

It's not about holding a potus accountable, it's about Russian conspiracies, inquires based on FBI malfeasance, impeachment hearsay hearings, and on and on for three years that proved to be fruitless and costly. Yeah, that comes across as bullying and conniving, even if subsequent inquires are justifiable, and that's a result of crying wolf for so long. And it will be interesting to see how the voters perceive it. I suspect this is more of the same of the Dems politically shooting themselves in the foot, assuming this has all been a careless accident.

Sorry, Sean, but most of these have been asked and answered multiple times:

Russian conspiracy: I accept that the Trump campaign did not explicitly engage Russia for the 2016 election, but they also did nothing to help their cause - working to obfuscate at every step instead of simply providing all required/requested information and demonstrating "nothing here." And I would still like to know why Trump is continually cozying up to Putin instead of his own intelligence agencies.

FBI malfeasance: Investigated and resulted in basically "nothing there." A few irregularities in how some documents were managed and passed around - other than that this whole thing has about as much substance as the accusations about IRS targeting conservative groups - which has long since been discredited.

Impeachment hearsay: The impeach was a valid process validly executed and demonstrated to my satisfaction that this president used the power of his presidency to try to further his political goals. He should have been removed from office, but the GOP is sweeping everything under the rug. While most of the evidence presented was hearsay, two things come to mind: first, hearsay evidence is more accepted than rejected in most courts of law due to the wide array of exceptions that exist permitting its use. Second, not all of the evidence was hearsay, what was direct aligned with the hearsay, and perhaps there would have been less hearsay if Trump did not obstruct every effort to hear from those directly involved. Be that as it may, I am glad he was impeached and also glad he was not taken out of office. If he had been, Pence would be president now, and that is even more frightening to me than Trump.

I didn't find any of this to be fruitless or "crying wolf." It kept a spotlight on Mr. Trump, diverted him from other issues, and exposed him for the kind of leader he is. Hopefully, all f that will factor into decisions made on 11/3 and Mr. Trump will be shown the door.

And I don't plan on going back and forth on any of these issues. I recognize that Mr. Trump's base is "locked in." As far as Mr. Trump is concerned, I probably would not vote for him on a policy basis alone, but I will do everything in my power within the law to ensure his failure in November mostly due to the kind of person he is. As I have said before, n man will ever get my vote who has the moral and personal character exhibited by this man. If that character were to change, I would probably be less "anti-Trump" and would simply vote based on policy. But I doubt that will ever happen - so I am adamantly anti-Trump. I actually agree with the OMB mantra: Mr. Trump is not a good man - he is actually a quite evil one.

Last word to you.

[rogue06]

And suspending EPA enforcement and fuel efficiency regulations is not "taking advantage of a crisis?"


Be that as it may, Rahm Emanuel was right. During a crisis, forces are at work that make possible achieving things formerly thought impossible or hard. Amazon and grocery stores are seeing that now. Businesses that sell/support VP technology are booming. Studies have shown that businesses that use the time they are "down" due to a crisis planning not only their survival but their post-crisis strategy end up being more successful. A company that uses the down time of a recession to train its force usually emerges from the recession stronger and better positioned against their competition.

The phrase can be turned ugly: kick them while they are down (as you are doing). Or it can simply reflect a business (and personal) reality that is not ugly in the least. I'm sheltering in place, so using this time to step up my exercise routine and fix my house - attempting to "not let a good crisis go to waste."

The way Emanuel meant it when he first used it and when he repeated it was that it is something to exploit in order to push through things that you could never get away with otherwise. It's not like taking of a bad situation to clean your house like you would like everyone to believe but more like taking advantage of a bad situation to burglarize your neighbor's house.

In the case of the Democrats in Congress, as we have already seen, it was a chance to stuff the economic aid bill with pork for pet projects and attempt at passing a social agenda -- neither of which had anything to do with fighting the Chicom coronavirus or helping people and businesses financially devastated because of it.

[firstfloor]

The front line:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/podca...-the-pandemic/

[carpedm9587]

The way Emanuel meant it when he first used it and when he repeated it was that it is something to exploit in order to push through things that you could never get away with otherwise. It's not like taking of a bad situation to clean your house like you would like everyone to believe but more like taking advantage of a bad situation to burglarize your neighbor's house.

Provide the context, and I'll look at it. But I'm afraid I'm too used to you guys ripping a sentence or two out of context and then using it to beat your opponent on the head with.

In the case of the Democrats in Congress, as we have already seen, it was a chance to stuff the economic aid bill with pork for pet projects and attempt at passing a social agenda -- neither of which had anything to do with fighting the Chicom coronavirus or helping people and businesses financially devastated because of it.

And this surprises you? Each party packs bills with things that are tangential to the main need to do exactly that. Often, much this becomes fodder for the debate to allow the party to drop things in the negotiations. It's called "politics." That's why we call them "politicians." Republicans and Democrats both do it. Do you have this kind of outrage when the Republicans do it? Have you seen some of the things the Republicans put in the bill? Sunscreen? Really?

Neither party is innocent on this front. Much as I would love it if bills were "clean" - they almost never are.

[seanD]

Sorry, Sean, but most of these have been asked and answered multiple times:

Russian conspiracy: I accept that the Trump campaign did not explicitly engage Russia for the 2016 election, but they also did nothing to help their cause - working to obfuscate at every step instead of simply providing all required/requested information and demonstrating "nothing here." And I would still like to know why Trump is continually cozying up to Putin instead of his own intelligence agencies.

FBI malfeasance: Investigated and resulted in basically "nothing there." A few irregularities in how some documents were managed and passed around - other than that this whole thing has about as much substance as the accusations about IRS targeting conservative groups - which has long since been discredited.

Impeachment hearsay: The impeach was a valid process validly executed and demonstrated to my satisfaction that this president used the power of his presidency to try to further his political goals. He should have been removed from office, but the GOP is sweeping everything under the rug. While most of the evidence presented was hearsay, two things come to mind: first, hearsay evidence is more accepted than rejected in most courts of law due to the wide array of exceptions that exist permitting its use. Second, not all of the evidence was hearsay, what was direct aligned with the hearsay, and perhaps there would have been less hearsay if Trump did not obstruct every effort to hear from those directly involved. Be that as it may, I am glad he was impeached and also glad he was not taken out of office. If he had been, Pence would be president now, and that is even more frightening to me than Trump.

I didn't find any of this to be fruitless or "crying wolf." It kept a spotlight on Mr. Trump, diverted him from other issues, and exposed him for the kind of leader he is. Hopefully, all f that will factor into decisions made on 11/3 and Mr. Trump will be shown the door.

And I don't plan on going back and forth on any of these issues. I recognize that Mr. Trump's base is "locked in." As far as Mr. Trump is concerned, I probably would not vote for him on a policy basis alone, but I will do everything in my power within the law to ensure his failure in November mostly due to the kind of person he is. As I have said before, n man will ever get my vote who has the moral and personal character exhibited by this man. If that character were to change, I would probably be less "anti-Trump" and would simply vote based on policy. But I doubt that will ever happen - so I am adamantly anti-Trump. I actually agree with the OMB mantra: Mr. Trump is not a good man - he is actually a quite evil one.

Last word to you.

It doesn't matter how much YOU as a partisan hack meticulously scrutinizes every detail about these situations in favor of your political belief, because the common low information voter doesn't see the details, nor care. They see three years of a political party trying to remove a potus over and over again with no success. To them, it looks like crying wolf. And now with the polls in Trump's favor over this crisis that wasn't his fault, the Dems will keep digging their ditch deeper and deeper as they keep prodding and probing up to November, when the choice for the general voter is either a guy they believe did a pretty decent job of this crisis, or a guy with the obvious signs of senility as the alternative. Anything can happen in an election, but it looks pretty bleak for your case.

[carpedm9587]

We are now past 1M cases worldwide, and the U.S. has more cases than Spain and Italy combined, though they still have far more deaths. However, today we have had over 1,000 deaths in a single day for the first time, and the growth is relentlessly climbing. The average growth in the death rate for the last two weeks averages 27% per day. However, the doubling rate (currently every 4 days) seems to be slowing. Hopefully that trend continues. However, if hospitals hit the end of their supplies and resources this weekend as some are predicting, that could easily change.

Meanwhile, the wild-wild-west of PPE and supplies continues unabated. Massachusetts ordered 3M masks from China only to have them confiscated at the port of NY. So they whipped together another deal in a single day and the Patriots sent their private jet to go get them today. Creative. Sad that it has to be done this way...