Credit to our Right-Wingnuts

STANV said:

Why would a Trump supporter want to attend UC Berkeley or Howard?

Because the former may be the best school for the buck if you’re a Californian? And even better if you’re a contrarian?


There are plenty of Trump supporters at UCB.  I doubt they make many friends outside of their own circle but, if you spend any time on campus, you see them around.


DaveSchmidt said:

Because the former may be the best school for the buck if you’re a Californian?

Whoops. No offense, GS.


STANV said:

Speaking of Trump supporters this is weird.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-capitol-siege-immigration-biden-riots-d8aa6f0963921500fe2ca68ae8ebd8b1

What's weird about it? When caught out traitors and rats will go to where they are welcome. Someone will always find a use for them.


ml1 said:

tjohn said:

GoSlugs said:

terp said:

Or the girl who wanted to go to college and was harrassed because she had a Donald Trump sign

Explain?

Pro-Trumpers aren't made to feel particularly welcome on a lot of campuses.

I don't have the interest to do the research on a story from 3 or 4 years ago, but my recollection is that a young woman claimed to have had her admission to a university rescinded because other accepted students had her "canceled' due to her tiktoks.  My vague memory of it is that like so many of those stories there was a lot less to it than she claimed.  

She claimed she was harrassed as her acceptance was discussed.  She was also harrassed by students on social media.  You indicated that it was fair to assume she was a racist based on her support of Trump.


ml1 said:

sprout said:

terp said:

Frankly, the efficacy has been a moving target.  Yet people treat what Fauci and Walensky said as gospel.  And anyone who questioned them were heretics or members of a"death cult".

That you come into arguments with this type of premise is what makes you seem irrational.

Strawberry also seemed irrational, as he believed people on the board were acting the opposite of your premise.  

Redfruit said:
I really get bothered when people like you attack Fauci and Gottlieb and all the top sciences and all the top doctors. It’s just a dangerous game you want to play but luckily MOL has very few readers so it’s hard for you to do much damage.

Many of us have nuanced discussions based on the information we have available, and update our assessments of the risks/benefits as information increases or changes. Approaches/behaviors can be modified in tandem. I don't think either you or Strawberry understand how to do this.

one of the things about the statements of public health officials that actually makes me NOT treat their word as "gospel" is that they are not typically in the business of presenting all the nuance of the science. What is to be gained by Fauci talking about probabilities and confidence intervals, and hedging about whether or not the current learning will hold up under when new data or new conditions are observed?  His job is to give guidelines that will maximize positive public health outcomes.  He doesn't have the luxury of telling us to wait for more data.  People have to know what is best for them to do right now for their health.

IMO, he did a poor job.   And this whole this whole idea of panic now get the data later is misguided.  There were experts, top experts, sounding the alarm early on.  Unfortunately they were written off as quacks with an agenda.


terp said:

ml1 said:

sprout said:

terp said:

Frankly, the efficacy has been a moving target.  Yet people treat what Fauci and Walensky said as gospel.  And anyone who questioned them were heretics or members of a"death cult".

That you come into arguments with this type of premise is what makes you seem irrational.

Strawberry also seemed irrational, as he believed people on the board were acting the opposite of your premise.  

Redfruit said:
I really get bothered when people like you attack Fauci and Gottlieb and all the top sciences and all the top doctors. It’s just a dangerous game you want to play but luckily MOL has very few readers so it’s hard for you to do much damage.

Many of us have nuanced discussions based on the information we have available, and update our assessments of the risks/benefits as information increases or changes. Approaches/behaviors can be modified in tandem. I don't think either you or Strawberry understand how to do this.

one of the things about the statements of public health officials that actually makes me NOT treat their word as "gospel" is that they are not typically in the business of presenting all the nuance of the science. What is to be gained by Fauci talking about probabilities and confidence intervals, and hedging about whether or not the current learning will hold up under when new data or new conditions are observed?  His job is to give guidelines that will maximize positive public health outcomes.  He doesn't have the luxury of telling us to wait for more data.  People have to know what is best for them to do right now for their health.

IMO, he did a poor job.   And this whole this whole idea of panic now get the data later is misguided.  There were experts, top experts, sounding the alarm early on.  Unfortunately they were written off as quacks with an agenda.

That article is ridiculous. To criticize the lack or quality of data regarding Covid in 3/20, when the pandemic had barely gotten started is ludicrous - much less criticizing the actions taken at that point.

Action needed to be taken, using whatever was known at the time. OBVIOUSLY.

What were we to do instead, exactly? Should we have just done nothing but collect data for 3 months? 6 months? a year? And to what end?

Idiocy.


That article was incredibly prescient.  The idiocy was following a narrative that included a bunch of knee jerk reactions and calling people out.  We should have seemed guidance from a more diverse set of experts.  Instead we dealt with all time high suicides, overdoses, missed cancer screenings, students behind on academics, business closures, etc


we've had a million people die. what do you think should have been done instead to decrease that number?

Or do you think that's even the proper metric? Maybe we should have lived more "normally" and let 2 million die? 3 million?

what?


drummerboy said:

we've had a million people die. what do you think should have been done instead to decrease that number?

Or do you think that's even the proper metric? Maybe we should have lived more "normally" and let 2 million die? 3 million?

what?

There are pages and pages that cover this.  I think we should have taken steps to protect the vulnerable as the disease was fatal to specifically identified demographics.  


terp said:

drummerboy said:

we've had a million people die. what do you think should have been done instead to decrease that number?

Or do you think that's even the proper metric? Maybe we should have lived more "normally" and let 2 million die? 3 million?

what?

There are pages and pages that cover this.  I think we should have taken steps to protect the vulnerable as the disease was fatal to specifically identified demographics.  

what pages and pages?

I asked a simple question. How many deaths were ok?

Answer it, cause I'd really like to know.

As for the part you answered, how exactly do you propose protecting vulnerable populations without affecting the activities of everyone else? Put us into camps?


terp said:

ml1 said:

tjohn said:

GoSlugs said:

terp said:

Or the girl who wanted to go to college and was harrassed because she had a Donald Trump sign

Explain?

Pro-Trumpers aren't made to feel particularly welcome on a lot of campuses.

I don't have the interest to do the research on a story from 3 or 4 years ago, but my recollection is that a young woman claimed to have had her admission to a university rescinded because other accepted students had her "canceled' due to her tiktoks.  My vague memory of it is that like so many of those stories there was a lot less to it than she claimed.  

She claimed she was harrassed as her acceptance was discussed.  She was also harrassed by students on social media.  You indicated that it was fair to assume she was a racist based on her support of Trump.

IIRC, I may have expressed that it was fair to assume she was bigoted against immigrants because she posted videos expressing prejudice against immigrants. 


It seems we can add exploitation of the weak minded to the list of the Flu Trux Klan's sins.

I regret going': Protester says he spent life savings to support 'Freedom Convoy'


Did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? It was canceled by the woke progressive left. For a small donation to my Free Speech American foundation, though, I'll send you a patriotic dictionary that has nothing BUT the word gullible in it.


PVW said:

Did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? It was canceled by the woke progressive left. For a small donation to my Free Speech American foundation, though, I'll send you a patriotic dictionary that has nothing BUT the word gullible in it.

Brightened my day there.  Thanks!


GoSlugs said:

It seems we can add exploitation of the weak minded to the list of the Flu Trux Klan's sins.

I regret going': Protester says he spent life savings to support 'Freedom Convoy'

What a fool. They played him. Telling him he's going to get 13,000 while also telling him in the meantime to keep helping (to spend more of his money). 

A fool and his money ...


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business