Why would he suggest this?
While younger people are generally more resilient to the ill effects of the virus, they are not completely safe nor immune.
How do you get kids to maintain 6 feet distance from one another?
People seem to forget that asymtomatic children can still pass the virus to more vulnerable adult populations. Parents and siblings?
Will the kids be required to wear masks?
Seems to me that although we are all in a hurry to get things back to normal, as part of the process, this is not a good place begin. The importance of compliance with any moderation of these lockdowns is crucial and I am more confident with adults participating, as understanding that and taking the lead.
There are others parts of the economy that can be opened more carefully.
This seem like just another bad idea stack upon several others.
A little background.......
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-urges-gove … 55235.html
I can only conclude from Trump's words and actions that he does not want the virus to be mitigated. Every step of the way, he has either ignored or minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted the experts, or actively took steps to make the situation worse,
What else can we conclude?
Seems to me the adult thing to do to not allow children to be placed in harms way.
Conservatives complaint to the President about a shortage of Kool Aid with their red meat is reported, the President responds, "let them drink bleach".
Not want the pandemic mitigated? He had better reverse course, because if the Economy is in a shambles by next November, there will be hell to pay.
Children as a rule are not as adversely affected by this virus but it would be nearly impossible to get them to follow social distancing and hand washing/face touching guidelines. They would inevitably spread it to their families, teachers and school staff and many more people would die,
Trump has been told this, I'm sure. Does he want more people to die? I'm beginning to think so.
As much as I loathe Trump, I wouldn't say that. He wants the states to open, so he needs kids at schools. He's only capable of thinking in terms of money and ratings. He knows his only strong point to run the election campaign was "the economy" and now that's gone. Yes, it would be a disaster. And yes, it is going to be counterproductive to his goal. But I dont think he can help it. Not enough matter (or decency and common sense) there.
Two months ago, I would have agreed that is his only motivation. Now, I am not so sure, He is a very sick man.
Psychiatrists would agree with you.
Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale conference:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … oJX7nW37hA
I used to think that the guy was just unusually dumb for the things he said and did, but with these latest screw ups, I am beginning to believe that it may well be more, the psychiatrist sofa?
This is a highly disturbing article.
https://www.salon.com/2020/04/25/psycho … yEXJ5wafTw
You are right, it is a highly disturbing article, and just as disturbing is that someone would feel affirmed by it. I think it is a safe bet that Salon readers consider Fox as a fake and biased source—yet they promote an article like your link. *Geesh
Just look at the lead-in photo:
Sure looks like a purposely biased message to me.
Then there is the first subtitle:
"Leading psychotherapist and author on Trump's worsening sadistic "addiction" to causing harm, pain and death"
". . . sadistic "addiction" to causing harm, pain and death"
That doesn't sound like the voice of a scholarly observation to me. It doesn't add to a credibility trust—right from the start.
And then there was the tone of the article, as illustrated by the author's word choices.
But, that is just my opinion. If you want to present that article as a credible comment then have at it. I sure wouldn't.
It just looks like a nasty opinion hit-piece to me, and if such a piece were offered by a Trump supporter they would be crucified for it.
I agree with much of what you said. I also think Trump is a sadistic m@otherfuc!er and that my opinion is backed up by his actions over the course of decades, not to mention what is known about malignant narcissists in general.
I "get" that it is hard for many to swallow, but there is way more evidence that Trump is a malignant narcissist than that he is a selfless crusader who loves America and its people.
You know me by now, I think. I have been sounding the alarm from the beginning and there has been nothing but mounting evidence to support my initial fear that he is a dangerously mentally ill person.
So, yeah, the article is a hit piece on a sick man who needs to be hit.
Some of y'all will eventually figure this out but I fear it will be too late. It probably already is too late.
I see him as a sociopathic personality. Not having a conscience or able to take responsibility for his words and actions.
Yep. Some people can't see it. Some people see it and it initially made them uncomfortable but they decided to go all in since they see him as using his sociopathy in their favor. Some people see it and love it. Their own personal hit man to stick it to the Dems, the Globalists, the Chinese, the immigrants, the intellectuals, etc.
It's pretty sick, actually.
Yes, you have been "sounding the alarm" all along. And I have never faulted you for that opinion. But . . . when you post a link to an article like that Salon piece and promote it as "highly disturbing" as if it was anything more than an opinion hit-piece it is a different thing.
I don't recall saying it was anything more than an opinion hit piece but I do understand your disdain for it. You think it is unnecessarily inflammatory and biased, I think, in time, we will all know how truly disturbed Trump is and how much damage he has done to us. I wonder how this "hit piece" will look then?
I think it will look the same—a biased opinion article.
Maybe you will l like this one better.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog … ent-really
Yes, I did like that one much better as a credible piece to consider.
I especially liked this blurb:
"Does This Fit President Trump?
Some mental health experts say “Yes;” some say “No;” and many say they can’t say because they have never done a clinical interview with him and so it would be unprofessional to state an opinion about his mental health. "
This author did a fair and balanced job.
I tend to agree. You've posted a couple of those and presented them as "a credible comment" in the past and made a forum/thread out of them.
What you see, we already saw.
Anyway, those that keep whining about "mortality rate is not high", "social distancing is not worth it", "flu is worse", wah wah. Just, go outside. Really, you should go and mingle with idiots like you. Go ahead.
And maybe go and whine how unfair it is to you to the families of the more than 61Ks americans (Almost 230K global) that died because of that non existent threat.
"You've posted a couple of those and presented them as "a credible comment" in the past and made a forum/thread out of them."
Hmm . . . I will have to think about that. I am assuming you are talking about my The Conservative Imagination and Dan Mitchell posts.
I don't remember speaking to them as anything more than an idea to consider, or a thought to debate. But maybe my intentions weren't as unbiased as I thought they were. Even though I think I generally admitted or pointed out they came from biased sources. *shrug
However, I am fairly certain none of my posted links were ever "hit-pieces" to the degree of that Salon article.
Maybe you could remind me of one?
You can't fault them, the propaganda has been non stop for four years now (before he was President).
What have the likes of CNN, MSNBC, even the NYT done if not put out hit piece after hyperbolic hit piece against him?
CNN host Chris Cuomo, during the presidential race, argued that while it was “illegal” for citizens to look at WikiLeaks emails, the media was afforded special protection with illegally obtained documents. “It’s different for the media,” Cuomo explained, “So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us.”
Maybe he was just alluding to the hoped for goals and plans they had in store had Clinton won... you know, it being illegal for people to seek the truth for themselves, just accept what CNN tells you is the truth.
Then there was the time CNN's Don Lemon compared Trump to Hitler during his primetime show. Lemon claimed that the Holocaust began with "little lies," and implied that the president shouldn't have a platform.
Russian collusion, Putin's puppet, going to start WWIII with North Korea, it just never ends... they have ben comparing him to the worst figures in history for four years.
They always take the worst angle on his gaffes, and often take his words out of context, to paint him in the worst possible light.
So its no surprise that those who watch CNN or MSNBC are colored by the bias in those networks, even if a person recognizes that they are biased and that they report falsehoods... even knowing that, exposing oneself to such consistent animosity will have an impact, and that is exactly how propaganda works.
I agree with your take that seems to be yet another terrible idea, Credence. The children are still vulnerable, and as you mention, they can certainly bring home the virus to infect even more susceptible parents, grandparents, and other family members.
It's likely another moronic Trump rambling that his administration will scramble to make look somewhat coherent. With children back in school, it will also be easier to try and force parents back to work.
I'd love to see the call for a general strike gain more traction, and for workers to demand some concessions from the government and large corporations before getting back on the treadmills. However, people need to eat and that's a major complication in urban areas. It's the usual American dilemma, workers lose traction as they work more hours with little to no time off, benefits, or saving--backed into their respective corners. And with a President urging them to put their children into harm's way.
"I'd love to see the call for a general strike gain more traction, and for workers to demand some concessions from the government and large corporations before getting back on the treadmills. However, people need to eat and that's a major complication in urban areas. It's the usual American dilemma, workers lose traction as they work more hours with little to no time off, benefits, or saving--backed into their respective corners. . . "
Wow. . . That sounds familiar.
Well, Eastward, I have to think that there is some sinister intent here. I said from the beginning that Trump does not care about people over the economy which will determine his reelection chances which is tied into that monster ego of his.
At first I just thought Trump only viewed the world in terms of what benefited him, Credence. As things progress, and as the psychiatrists from the link I replied to Pretty Panther with hold, sadistic tendencies are likely part of the Trump abomination.
So the corona virus is why we should keep the schools closed? Why because of the death rate or how contagious it is?
That data for the flu is now known to be worse than COVID-19 so imagine there was no COVID-19 You’d be keeping the schools closed for the flu? We’ve never done that before in recent times, why now?
I don't know if you have noticed, but we have yet to get a handle on this thing.
I am not a pandemic disease expert, but neither are you or Trump.
This malady is killing people at rates beyond previous flu outbreaks, it is relatively easy to transmit and can infect its host and be infectious to others without their showing symptoms for days. Kids could spread the virus much more widely than, say, warehouse workers under modified lockdown.
It is irreponsible to throw our most vulnerable into the breach based solely on the advice of our stable genius. The schools should be the very last institutions removed from restrictions, not the first.
A little background......
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ … -syndrome-(SARS)
I'm surprised some Trump enablers cannot look at the numbers and realize it's worse than the flu. Others....not so much....
Like the old movie line, "they can't handle the truth".
I’m not surprised at the ignorance of the TDSyndromocrats to try and blame everything on Trump and just “shoot the messenger” whenever they can’t accept the facts.
Rather than just parroting headlines From their favorite fake news media they’d know the truth if they actually looked at study results:
The study from New York I just heard about is a remarkable new development in what we know about the Wuhan Coronavirus.
One in four New Yorkers may have already contracted the illness and not known they had it. That’s not even close to the result we expected. And it’s not the only study to find stunningly widespread infections. There are many such studies, from around the world. This new evidence means that the virus is far less deadly — a full order of magnitude less deadly — than authorities told us it was. At the same time, the same research also suggests that the virus is incredibly easy to spread between adults — which is another way of saying, the Wuhan coronavirus is nearly impossible to control. We know that because we haven’t managed to control its spread. Our national mass quarantine hasn’t worked.
You’d never know that from listening to the people in charge. Given the suffering and disruption their policies have caused, you’d think our politicians would be staying up late double checking their assumptions. They’re doing the opposite. They’re ignoring the science, because it indicts their judgements. A recent analysis published in the Wall Street Journal found virtually no correlation at all between how quickly a state locked down and how deadly that state’s coronavirus outbreak was. You’d think that would be breaking news on every channel. Needless to say, it’s not.
From Australia, meanwhile, we have new evidence that for huge segments of the population, this virus poses no meaningful risk. Researchers there tracked 18 students and staff who contracted the coronavirus, across 15 different schools. They concluded that about 850 people had come into close physical contact with the virus carriers. Yet they found only two cases of secondary coronavirus infections at school. None of them involved students infecting adults. In other words, this strain of coronavirus is extremely mild in children: It's hard for kids to get, and hard for them to spread. If they do get it, their risk of dying is, mathematically, almost zero. Keep in mind, this is all in dramatic contrast to ordinary influenza. Children contract and spread the flu very easily. The annual flu is much more dangerous to young people than the coronavirus is.
Why is this relevant? Because we’ve shut down education nationwide. Many schools are considering staying closed next fall. For kids and their families, it’s been a complete disaster. Who exactly has been saved by doing this? They don’t even bother to tell us. “Shut up and lock down. You’ve saving lives. People will die if you don’t.” But those are political slogans. They’re not science. Increasingly, people fluent in the actual science of epidemiology are asking hard questions about what we’re doing. Here’s a physician and researcher from California called Dr. Dan Erickson. He and a partner just delivered a 50-minute briefing on the latest numbers in their state. The video has since been viewed millions of times online. After looking carefully at the data, they’ve concluded that California should end its shelter-in-place order:
Dr. Dan Erickson: "We've seen 1,227 deaths in the state of California, with a possible incidence or prevalence of 4.7 million. That means you have a 0.03 chance of dying from COVID-19 in the state of California. 0.03 chance of dying from COVID in the state of California. Does that necessitate sheltering in place? Does that necessitate shutting down medical systems? Does that necessitate people being out of work?"
In other words, are the lockdowns worth it? What’s the answer of that? Many politicians couldn’t seem less interested in asking. Just today, the San Francisco Bay area announced it will be extending its lockdown until the end of May, five weeks from now. What’s the scientific justification for doing that? None. There isn’t any.
You may remember what they first told us, back in February and March: We’ve got to take radical steps in order to quote, "flatten the curve." Six weeks later, the curve has been flattened, but not because of the lockdowns. The virus just isn’t nearly as deadly as we thought. Hospitals never collapsed. Outside of a tiny number of places, they never came close, at least not from an influx of patients. Instead the opposite happened: thanks to the lockdowns, hospitals have begun to collapse from a lack of patients. Politicians who couldn’t pass ninth-grade biology decided that practicing physicians shouldn’t be trusted to calculate the risk of transmitting the virus. So they banned so called “non-essential” procedures, many of which are in fact essential. The result: In many hospitals, entire floors have been mothballed. Doctors and nurses are being furloughed. In the middle of a pandemic. This is insanity. How long will we have to live with it?
Earlier this month, Doctor Anthony Fauci, whom we’re required by law to respect no matter what he says, suggested that, in fact, we may never be allowed to resume normal life:
FAUCI: if back to normal means acting like there never was a corona virus problem, I don't think that's going to happen until we do have a situation where you can completely protect the population. (edit) if you want to get to pre corona virus, you know, that might not ever happen in the sense of the fact that the threat is there.
Other "experts" on TV warned that full-blown lockdowns will be necessary until a vaccine or treatments are found. What they didn’t mention is that scientists have never produced a single approved vaccine or anti-viral drug for any other strain of Coronavirus. So it could be a while. That seemed to please frequent television guest Zeke Emanuel.
EMANUEL: Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications. (edit) Is all that economic pain worth trying to stop COVID-19? The truth is we have no choice.
When a political operative like Zeke Emanuel, someone with a long history of lying, begins a sentence with the phrase, "the truth is,” you ought to be on guard. When he ends that sentence with, “we have no choice," you should to be terrified. In fact we've always had a choice. Other countries made different choices. They’re not waiting for a vaccine to open their societies. Why should they? There’s no precedent for doing that. We spent millions of dollars and more than 15 years trying to develop a vaccine for the SARS virus. Scientists never found one. Did we halt life in the United States? Of course not. You may not even remember it happened. The science hasn’t changed much since then. Unfortunately, American politics have changed a lot. And that’s the difference.
From the Article:
"I had a breaking moment where I had to lock myself in the bathroom and cry," Yarlin Matos, with seven young kids at home, told The New York Times. "It was just too much."
Sadly, many people who are parents, shouldn't be.
I agree with you Credence, there is no reason to have our kids go back to school until after the summer break.
If we are going to put over 30 million people out of work, have Farms and Businesses take billions in losses, why on earth would we send our kids back to school now, with just weeks left in the school year?
For the schools to act as daycare. A rationale I disagree with.
Of course, it will also employ some janitors and such, but that seems a pretty slim reasoning, too.
So Ken, Even though we now know putting 30,000,000 people out of work was obviously a mistake (read this)
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/347 … ost4135778
You think we should continue making the same mistake? Tit for tat is your reasoning for a solution? That doesn’t sound like the Ken I know.
Did you mean to link back to this thread?
Having kids go back to school should be the last thing on the list.
Opening up businesses, putting people back to work, all for it.
There are 3 weeks left to the school year here in Florida, it doesn't make much sense to go back now, the State has already determined that school would be completed online for the remainder of the year, everything else has been mothballed.
I have no idea what you mean with the "tit for tat" comment.
Ken did you read that link? Yes it was factual studies I posted about. If you read it you should know everything about what I’m talking about!
“If we are going to put over 30 million people out of work, have Farms and Businesses take billions in losses, why on earth would we send our kids back to school now,”
In light of the studies what you said there represents tit for tat. You don’t see that?
Read the link Ken like this:
“This new evidence means that the virus is far less deadly — a full order of magnitude less deadly — than authorities told us it was. At the same time, the same research also suggests that the virus is incredibly easy to spread between adults — which is another way of saying, the Wuhan coronavirus is nearly impossible to control. We know that because we haven’t managed to control its spread. Our national mass quarantine hasn’t worked.“
Which means saying we have to keep schools closed because even though it didn’t work since we did the economic shutdown We have to also not open schools means to keep them shut down Solely because we shut down the economy is tit for tat.
That MAY all be true, its far less deadly, etc.
MY point is, the schools are already shut down, in my state (FL) they have already come up with an alternative for the rest of the school year.
WE as a Nation have already paid the price... people are out of work, they have only just begun to open up a small amount of what was closed.
So, in what world does it make sense to send kids back to school to risk any exposure, when we have already paid the price to keep them safe?
Maybe in some other State they have two months to go and want to get that time in... but in Florida it would make no sense, school ends on May 27 and that last week of it is for the teachers, not the students... so essentially 3 weeks of kids going to school.
You have a point, what in the world could they learn in three weeks?
We have the best high school education in the whole world but you have to go to college to get it, so yeah, three weeks of high school
is nothing of value.
Interesting that you have such a positive outlook on our school systems, and feel so much can be learned in 3 weeks...
The Kids will never recover, never be able to learn that information in another way, or in another class next year... it has to be these three weeks, right now, and in school!
Even if 5% of the kids that return to school die, because we miscalculated, or because the virus mutated, its worth it!
Very interesting position for a person who is afraid that someone is going to stalk them through the internet, or hunt them down in a deranged and delusional state... I'm not one of those people that fears such things...
"These are intelligent, informed and well-spoken, thinking, patriotic Americans who know the risks of the internet and deem it worth the risk to take credit for what they say and think, feeling their background and/or credentials lend important weight to their expression and they are loath to allow any small threat of "nut cases" to stifle their freedom of speech in any way. (Frankly, I pitty any "nut case" who would dare tangle with their ilk). These people deserve our respect and our prayers, but admittedly (with respect to taking credit, :-) I am not one of them, especially when it concerns controversial subjects which can be hot buttons for the "mentally deranged".
I don't see the value of risking my kids for three weeks of school, feel free to send yours.
Agree Ken, I think that subjecting our kids as the first line of attack against this pandemic is cowardly, at best.
We can do better than that.
I don't look at it as "cowardly", I think it is nonsensical given how little time left remains for school this year, here in Florida anyways.
Another issue, in addition to what I typed above in another response, is that they have worked diligently (the government state/fed and media) to create this hysteria over the virus... you can't just snap your fingers and reverse it in one day and say 'OK go back to school'.
I would say at least half the parents would not send their kids... who suffers for that decision? How is that 'enforced'?
Not only that, but kids become lethal bullets for their older parents and grandparents.
This is sad but too true. Would feel bad for all the liberals.
well, Mike, psychologically speaking, and generally speaking, those who possess the personality characteristics that lead to unwavering support of authoritarian leaders are not liberals.
Let's just say...it is conservatives leading the protests against the out of control authoritarian governors in each state. It is the liberals believing anything told to them by their leaders and following them like sheep. So psychologically speaking, it's obvious, based on recent events, liberals are more likely to accept authoritarian leaders than conservatives.
Sure, if one took Mike's description as accurate while ignoring the many studies done by actual experts.
Isn't it obvious based on recent events that it are liberals who "possess the personality characteristics that lead to unwavering support of authoritarian leaders."
No. And which authoritarian leader are you referring to? The one whose own guidelines for "opening" haven't yet been met by a single state?
Waiting to see links to your alleged studies.
Politics & personality
For decades, political psychologists have explored why we are drawn to the views and values of one party over another. Examining data from more than 200 such studies from around the world, Jost and colleagues explored the relationship between political ideology and multiple categories of motivation, including dogmatism, personal need for order and structure, and tolerance for uncertainty. Across studies, conservatives score higher than liberals on tests of dogmatic thinking and cognitive rigidity. To a lesser degree, conservatives also have higher needs for order and structure. Liberals tend to have a higher tolerance for uncertainty and a greater need for cognition, which researchers measured with statements such as “I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours” (Political Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2017).
Jost’s research also suggests that a preference for authoritarian leadership styles is associated with Republicans—and with support for Trump in particular. Since at least the 1960s, research has shown that voters who prefer authoritarian styles are more likely to favor Republican presidential candidates, and 2016 was no different. But Jost and his colleagues wondered how that preference might describe voters who favored Trump over other Republican primary candidates.
They found that Trump supporters scored higher than other Republican supporters on two particular facets of authoritarianism: authoritarian aggression and group-based dominance (that is, a preference for group-based social hierarchies). These voters were more likely to support statements asserting that the country needs more law and order and that some groups are naturally inferior to others (Womick, J., et al., Social Psychology and Personality Science, Vol. 10, No. 5, 2019).
Over the past three decades, Americans who are high in authoritarianism have increasingly shifted into the Republican Party, Federico says. Many left-leaning authoritarians have responded by becoming less politically engaged, he and his colleagues found—paying less attention to politics and choosing not to vote, for example (The Journal of Politics, Vol. 79, No. 3, 2017).
From the study provided.
"The research on politics and personality is not without critics, who have suggested that a liberal bias in the field of psychology paints conservatives in a negative light. In recent years, scientists have begun studying this assertion. In one example, psychologist Jay Van Bavel, PhD, of New York University, and colleagues recruited a politically diverse sample of U.S. residents to code 194 original social psychology studies for ideological slant. Then the researchers examined published replication attempts of those studies...they found evidence that research aligned with liberalism was less replicable or less statistically robust than research aligned with conservatism (Reinero, D.A., in press).
Research has shown that social psychologists are more likely to identify as liberals."
Nice selective editing. Why did you do that? Here is the entire section on liberal bias. The bold indicates the section you intentionally edited out.
The research on politics and personality is not without critics, who have suggested that a liberal bias in the field of psychology paints conservatives in a negative light. In recent years, scientists have begun studying this assertion. In one example, psychologist Jay Van Bavel, PhD, of New York University, and colleagues recruited a politically diverse sample of U.S. residents to code 194 original social psychology studies for ideological slant. Then the researchers examined published replication attempts of those studies. They found the average rated ideology of the research was fairly centrist. And they found no evidence that research aligned with liberalism was less replicable or less statistically robust than research aligned with conservatism (Reinero, D.A., in press).
Research has shown that social psychologists are more likely to identify as liberals. But that doesn’t mean that their science is skewed, Jost says. “The whole point of our research methods is to separate characteristics of the researchers themselves from the findings.”
Still, scientists are human, and they are vulnerable to having their judgments tainted by their political feelings just like anyone else, Ditto notes. “Whenever a field is intellectually homogeneous on some dimension, it opens the door to potential bias—for some findings to be more welcome and thus less carefully scrutinized than others, for certain kinds of behavior or people to be seen as the exception rather than the rule, for basic assumptions to go unexamined because everyone shares them,” he says. “Given the subtle power of political tribalism to influence our judgments, social psychologists would be wise to be vigilant about the potential for our political affinities to shape our scientific conclusions.
"And now you know . . . the rest of the story"
Mike, you got owned on this one.
Okay, from your response...
"Still, scientists are human, and they are vulnerable to having their judgments tainted by their political feelings just like anyone else, Ditto notes.
“Whenever a field is intellectually homogeneous on some dimension, it opens the door to potential bias—for some findings to be more welcome and thus less carefully scrutinized than others, for certain kinds of behavior or people to be seen as the exception rather than the rule, for basic assumptions to go unexamined because everyone shares them,” he says. “Given the subtle power of political tribalism to influence our judgments, social psychologists would be wise to be vigilant about the potential for our political affinities to shape our scientific conclusions."
So, it's obvious the study is pretty worthless, but they're honest about it.
Liberals being honest about lacking objectivity and their political bias...that is one for the books.
LOL, by definition that is not true.
They don't call the well-known study into why some people are prone to follow authoritarians (from trying to understand why so many otherwise intelligent people followed Hitler (and now Trump) to their graves) Right-wing Authoritarian Followers for nothing.
Probably about 85% of people who have this trait are conservatives. The other 15% are far Left liberals.
You are funny. You misinterpreted the meme. The fact you also saw liberals as I suggested speaks volumes.
So the meme isn't commentary on liberals paying attention to social distancing and stay home orders while conservatives seem to want to defy these things? I could mostly care less about labels like "liberals" or " conservatives" when the real camps are already constructed in most Americans minds. Divide et impera.
I trust you are not one of the sheeple and are hosting large family get togethers, inviting your friends over for beer and BBQ, and hosting sleepovers for your kids' friends. I imagine you are also going shopping at every whim and ignoring social distancing when you do. Masks? Not for Mike. He's too smart to fall for that.
Am I right? We're jealous of all that freedom you are experiencing due to your independent thinking. I'd love to hear about it. Care to share?
"We're jealous of all that freedom you are experiencing due to your independent thinking."
No you're not.
You're angry because there are so many people who have the courage to not give into the fear the hype. You're angry because not everyone is mindlessly obedient to the dictates of the government.
You hate the fact there are people who are willing to stand up for their rights and call out the inaccuracies in the media and other news sources.
You're not jealous at all.
All of you are envious of all the people who have the courage and conviction to stand up for what they believe in.
It's a shame the rest of you don't have this. Nobody can help any of you with that one but yourselves.
lol, your post sounds kind of angry. I just want to hear about all the good times you are having because of your freedom. How many people have you seen socially this week? Were there plenty of hugs and back slapping? Did you offer your friend a taste of that new beer you're drinking? Did your Kids enjoy playing with their friends?
I mean, here is your chance to share how your courage is making your life so much better than ours. Educate us. The sheeple need you!
No reason to further anger already angry people. It serves no purpose.
Aw, I never realized how considerate you are. Your concern for the feelings of us sheep is touching. I like how you know that referring to us as cowardly sheep will not bother us at all, but sharing the joy you are experiencing because of your courage and freedom will really piss us off.
Mike, are you and conservatives that are so anxious to open it ALL up willing to take the lead, intermingle, go without masks, subject yourselves to the risks first and foremost or is it like that Lt. Governor in Texas who ask specific demographics, the seniors, to be willing to risk their lives first, so that Walmart can return to normal business hours? Is it all OK as long as it is not you or yours on the firing line, up front?
This has nothing to do with government control. Nations across the globe have been using quarantine methods like this. But only the rightwingers seem to want to defy medical science and pout like toddlers about realities most of us have long accepted as necessity.
Give me liberty or give me death? I will believe you much more when more of you are willing go to the scaffold rather than just tell others to do so.
Isn't always easy to talk when you have no skin in the game?
"Are you and conservatives that are so anxious to open it ALL up willing to take the lead, intermingle, go without masks, subject yourselves to the risks first and foremost . . . "
Mike can answer for himself but speaking for myself, yes. I am willing to risk my health to reopen the economy.
For the record, neither I or my wife ever left the front lines, but if I had, I certainly would be willing to return to them.
I commend you for your willingness to stand up for what you believe in, no matter the odds or the consequences. That's the type of spirit that once made this country great.
Ken, I always have respect for anyone who puts their money where their mouth is, even if I am on opposite sides of the fence. I, grudgingly, will cheer them on not wanting them to face the enemy short of everything being done to balance the scales on a calculated risk.
That is very commendable, GA. It is good to see some that have the most vested interest in maintaining the current system being willing to defend it with their lives rather than allowing the poor and those otherwise more susceptible to infection and death with little to be gained from their economic standpoint, reviving the national economy and being "pushed" into the forefront.
That feels like sarcasm Cred. If it's not then my response may be off-kilter.
I don't know that I have any more of a "vested interest" in seeing our nation recover than any other citizen. And I don't know what you mean by the poor being "pushed into the forefront." Unless it is that you think the well-off can just continue to stay safe in their homes with no financial worry and access to delivery of anything they want. Is that what you mean?
As a senior citizen with less than excellent health, I am probably at least as susceptible as those poor folks you mentioned.
However, to be clear, my comment wasn't meant to imply I would be jumping into any rugby scrums or rubbing shoulders in a bar, or shaking hands with everyone I meet.
Did I misinterpret your comment? Do you disagree with any reopening under the plan that has been discussed?
Sorry, don't mean to be sarcastic, you are a hero as the first to make the commitment that you have.
I think that people who are willing to do this deserve all the support and reasonable preparation we can give.
As for the poor pushed to the forefront, I mean the people who cannot sit at laptops but have to work as bus drivers, chicken pluckers and the like. They generally have a higher death toll and are greater risk for infection beforehand simply because of the environment they have to function within. Yeah, don't the rich always have the option of sitting things out and just worry about their portfolio?
Sorry, you may well be more susceptible, but the poor have less of an incentive to see everything roar back to life as they have been functioning on a limb, anyway.
if you are going into the breach, you should be adequately equipped and armed with the law and modifications of the lockdowns taking the sacrifice that people make toward this end into consideration. Are the powers that be taking your sacrifice seriously?
I now understand what you mean by the folks at the forefront, but that's life bud. Bus drivers, janitors, servers . . . those are all essential jobs and only a foolish person would diminish their importance.
That they are typically low-paying jobs done by the less financially secure folks is just a fact of life. That shouldn't be a knock against folks that can work from home, (laptops?), because I suspect many of them are as financially distressed as the janitor that is glad to be able to get back to work. So I disagree with your thought about who has an incentive to get the economy going so they can get back to work.
My perception of your comment is that you hold a thought that influenced your perception of this issue. It has nothing to do with the "poor" or those most susceptible, but everything to do with a perception of status and inequality.
If I needed a paycheck to feed my family I would be glad to have a janitor's job and would not at all feel like I was being pushed "to the forefront" in doing that job.
To be fair there is validity to Credence's point.
The system rewards those with Brilliant minds and Entrepreneurial spirit.
It rewards those with cutthroat efficiency and calculated risk taking.
The Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos types didn't become the wealthiest men in the world because they were 'average' intellects or shied away from risks.
The system rewarded them based on the disruptive technologies and new business models they created that are transformative to the world we live in.
When you do away with the system that rewards the likes of Musk and Bezos, the advancements of technology, medicines, and quality of living will falter.
What the janitor does is a valuable service, but anyone can do it, and therefore it is one of the lowest rewarded jobs available. Compared to what Elon Musk can do, which only a handful of minds alive today could accomplish.
Yes, GA, inequality is just life? "That's life"according to those that find stability within the status quo. Inequality is why certain people and groups are disproportionately affected by the pandemic, but that is the way the "cookie crumbles", Right?
It is the theme that is at root of my disatisfaction with the current system. But, that is OK, you can acquiesce as it works for YOU and it always has. It is the theme that attracts me to the Sanders/Warren point of view and one that I can never dismiss. I never believed that this system is truly merit based but we all have to eat, so let's bring the economy back. Just recognize that all of us do not bubble over with enthusiasm at the prospect.
I do not diminish the importance of anyone, it is just that they OPEN the economy taking the risks of everyday without the luxury of having the ability to make the conscious decision to do so or not.
All the while, I have to watch rightwingers with their disgusting rebel banners and paramilitary outfits intimidate Governors to OPEN, but they are not the ones willing to take the risk associated with that, they just go around with their banners and guns kicking up dust.
Yep, that is the way the cookie crumbles Cred. That is the way of human nature—regardless of the system of societal structure.
How would you argue with the generations of studies showing that humans are hierarchical animals?
I also think inequalities should be addressed as much as possible, but your world is one of participation trophies and the real world is one of winner's trophies.
As this is not really a meritocracy, this system of social structure needs to be changed and I work along with those that see this as a necessity as well. Thus, my affinity for the left and its ideological linchpins. So, I would have the cookie crumble in a different manner or fashion, if I had my "druthers".....
Yes, often times you can win easily if you cheat, look at Donald Trump? My world is somewhere in between participation trophies and the declared winners within a "rigged system".
I will have to say that "addressed as much as possible" may not mean the same to you as it does for me.
Participation trophies are "feel good" awards for trying for kids. Personally, I would rather have a kid rewarded for "trying" to do something rather than simply give up because they think they can't win. The alternative is to forever mark a kid as a "loser" because they are not as athletically endowed as those who "win" all of the time.
Conservatives, as a general rule, think winning is everything (fortunately, I believe most of them want to win honestly and in an ethical and moral way). That is why they tend to be social Darwinists.
What about the ones that win without cheating? What about the ones that don't even try? The best of human nature is based on meritocracy. It is the worst of human nature that is based on cheating.
You can't fix that Cred. It is what it is and it will always be what it is until our entire species evolves into something else. The very best that you can hope for is to do all you can to keep the playing field level and catch the cheaters.
I am all for your "druthers," where we differ is in how to pursue them. I don't envy the rich and I don't want to take from the rich—unless they are cheaters. There will always be inequality, and I think there should be. That is how life works and how our society advances. Without the rich we would all be serfs. Without motivation, (reward), for achievement, we would just be an advanced stage of the stone age.
The best of human nature is based on meritocracy and that is the only acceptable justification for inequality outcomes in my opinion. And to the point that we drift away from that standard, I must continue to make note, agitate and make others aware and probably uncomfortable. Other advantageous factors certain people (groups)have as a "high chair" are to be eliminated, mitigated, or otherwise compensated for.
Allowing the rich unrestrained control in our society will reduce the rest of us to serfs. We need to strive for equal opportunity as more than just words that sound good with nothing done as I believe that the powers that be would never really want a level playing field, I mean a REAL one, as they could not be sure that they could maintain their advantages without it.
What you say, "it is what it is", is not good enough. Stephen Douglas used the same reasoning against Lincoln's debate point speaking of a nation that could not continue to exist half slave and half free, in 1858. It is the standard line used by all oppressive systems and oppressive people both today in in the past.
At one time not so far into the past this society was content with having "that boot" strategically place upon the necks of others to keep them down, many of those were saying then that that was how "life worked" and how society advances?
Sorry, GA, I don't buy it. Most among our groups including all our enlightened friends and allies understand my perspective on this matter.
I won't be satisfied until there is more, better, faster....
So, if that makes me a Socialist, I guess I will wear the badge.
That "real" level playing field, where everyone has identical opportunities, is another fiction that is impossible to ever attain by the human race.
Whether environment, innate personal abilities, different goals or motivation, there will always be differences. Even the chance event (a car accident, perhaps, with severe injuries) will make unequal opportunities, and that is only the smallest of differences between people.
That is an easy explanation as long as it is YOUR tribe that maintains the unearned advantage over others. Of course, you will say that change is impossible. It is completely natural and expected, but it is still unacceptable.
"That "real" level playing field, where everyone has identical opportunities, is another fiction that is impossible to ever attain by the human race." - AND THERE goes Wilderness Falsely characterizing the issue again.
Putting it in STARK black-and-white terms when it clearly isn't nor meant. Inserting words like "identical" when he knows very well that is not what was meant.
Very dishonest of him from where I sit.
Perfection is unattainable so we should just accept the status quo.
No, thank you. I prefer steady progress.
Steady progress...in attempting (and failing) to eliminate the natural and innate differences in human beings.
Not sure I can go along with this. Particularly as it so often means "lowering the bar" for both expectations and results from the rest of the population.
"Steady progress...in attempting (and failing) to eliminate the natural and innate differences in human beings."
Another total mischaracterization. It is not possible to "eliminate the natural and innate differences in human beings." It is, however, possible to change systemic inequalities for the better. That is what we are focusing on.
You will never do that, either. We will never have a nation with identical housing for everyone, identical parentage skills for every child, identical schools and teachers for every student. We will never have identical crime rates everywhere or identical political leadership.
A huge part of that is because not everyone wants that white picket fence in the suburbs, not everyone wants (and is willing to pay for) that top school, or the (obviously superior ) conservative leadership.
Right. Perfection is not attainable. We get it. I'm happy to always look for improvement. Are you not?
Guess that depends. Is it worth adding $50,000 to the price of a $20,000 car to achieve an additional 1% MPG of efficiency?
There comes a point when we're just spinning our wheels, at enormous cost, to try and achieve that mythical perfection level of equality. Keep in mind that the "cost" is not just economic; will you take kids from parents that don't help them with homework or participate in their school activities? Will you arrest and imprison anyone convicted of theft, whatever their race (BLM says no)? Will you put kids that skip school into fenced boarding schools where they cannot leave campus? Will you regulate (somehow) the diet of all children, requiring parents (somehow) to fix only what you consider "healthy" meals? Will you fire any teacher (including tenured ones) that does not bring every child in the classroom up to grade level?
Perhaps most important, will you ignore the political realities, and the social ones, of tearing down every slum, every tenement, in the country?
Too much of a tangent for me. You offer outlandish examples. As with any proposed improvement, reasoned and careful analysis is necessary to determine efficacy.
Why do I have to keep stating the obvious?
That's kind of the point. Nearly everything left requires an "outlandish" effort to fix.
The problem will never be solved by simply throwing money at it, no matter how much liberals want it to be. It will require good parentage, a crime free (or nearly so) environment, children taught (by parents) that school is a good thing and good nutrition.
Fix those things, and you will have fixed the problem. Poverty will disappear within a generation because children will no longer accept it, and education will improve enormously. But throwing money at it will solve nothing, for there is nothing there that money can solve. The root of the problem lies in people no matter how un-PC it is to say such a thing. It lies in missing fathers, parents unwilling to work with the school, poor diet, an acceptance of high crime rates and a demand it not be changed, an acceptance of living in squalor rather than doing something about it. It lies, mostly, in the people themselves, not in a lack of money.
Yes, you will pick apart any new proposal. The only hew proposal for spending money I've seen you support in the ten years I've been on these forums is the billions needed for a border wall that the vast majority of experts agreed was a waste of money.
I guess efficacy is in the eye of the beholder.
Yes it is. To some, "efficacy" means binding the recipient to the chains of charity. It means taking from one, whether money, opportunity or rewards, and giving it to someone else that will not use what they receive to improve their lot in life.
To others it means an actual improvement of living standards and attitudes, a self-sustaining improvement because the recipient has changed behavior and attitude.
But you were proud to get your stimulus check, right? Or did you decide to send it back because of your belief of it not being earned by you?
And there you have it. Never let a crisis go to waste. Use emergency life saving measures to justify binding the recipient to the chains of charity! With some innuendo attached like he knows what makes you proud.
Just so predictable, he need never comment, we know just what twisted logic he will use, we can comment for him!
What did you do with your check, little turtle? Are you "bound to the chains of charity?" In other words, did you voluntarily accept the check? But you don't answer queries.....I forgot.
Never answer stupid queries from felons who think they are entitled to ask personal questions and get answers, answers that inevitably lead to conversation with an idiot who asks the stupid question.
Not surprised you didn't answer.You're too embarrassed after your last comment. You cashed it right away.
What is predictable that in time of need these so-called conservatives turn into Socialists, lol - gladly accepting handouts from the government (which isn't socialism at all, of course)
You forget, the money the government has came from our taxes - they took our money, giving it back is not socialism - maybe you would do well to look up the definition of socialism because you obviously have no idea what it is.
What does that have to do with equalizing opportunity for all? Specifically, equality of education, parentage, environment and other "systemic" inequalities?
You're as bad as the little turtle answering a direct question, Dan. Did you send the unearned money back?
When you've learned to consistently answer questions rather than go off on a Trump bashing tirade I'll do the same.
What does it have to do with equalizing opportunity for all? A pretty direct question, I think.
When you've learned to consistently answer questions rather than go off on a diversionary excuse for not doing so, I'll answer yours.
Hey, this works. Simply divert until they stop asking. I've learned a lot from you and the little turtle--not to mention other Trump enablers on these forums--so thanks. Brilliant tactic. Trumpian-like!
LOL I learned long ago to not answer your diverting questions, Randy! You were a good teacher, although all by example rather than instruction.
Yes, it's all my fault you don't want to answer if you took the check after criticizing people who take freebies from the govt., while you do it yourself. Gotcha!
Don't want to accuse the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" Wilderness of submitting to Socialism....
Yep, he is deflecting again because he is embarrassed he is a socialist at heart, lol.
Trump bashing is something Trump earned and should be continued vigorously in self-defense. I would bash Hitler the same way although I suspect you would not.
Of course you suspect that! I'm not on your bash Trump bandwagon; I am therefore evil. Or stupid, not sure which.
Yes, a good self defense tactic is to post public messages spinning, twisting and lying about what Trump did. Self defense, after all.
No, you won't bash Trump whatever he says or does. You helped put him in office and will defend him no matter what. I think I can safely say no one is surprised at this point.
How quickly you forget (or conveniently?). I have made it clear several times that he has been wrong. Opening schools, for one. Pushing purely religious matters into the political field for another. And he's made some really stupid statements as well - perhaps 1% of what you claim, but still quite a few.
See, what did I say, the pot smuggler is so predictable we could comment for him! Watch, next he will whine, as he always does, that I don’t answer his inane questions that never have anything to do with the topic. Oh and of course he’ll bash Trump in every comment he makes just to stay true to TDS.
Who cares if you answer them or not, little turtle? I don't expect anything intelligent to come from a 60 score hubber.
Better a 60 hubscore which measures nothing to do with intelligence (and has dropped from the 90’s with plenty of fans and accolades because I haven’t written anything in years, unpublished most of my articles) while your self evidenced arrested brain development awards you with about a 60 IQ discernible from your own comments like this one:
Randy Godwin posted 8 years ago
“LOL! Sometimes I cannot resist being a smartass, Kim! Of course, the rest of the time I'm a dumbass!”
You make things up about everyone while the worst things about yourself come out of your own mouth like:
“ I can also pause the movie when I need to replenish my adult beverage or smoke a doobie. Something else you can't do in a public theatre.”
“Cool! I once knew a couple of pot smugglers who were professors at MIT. Seriously! They made mucho dinero...”
“Being caleed a pot smuggler is a badge of honor for me, T. The two professors I referenced in my story were importing pot for cancer patients taking chemotherapy. As you may not know, pot is excellent for no preventing the terrible nausea associated with the treatment. I accepted nothing for my role although I was offered $10,000 per shipment.”
To offer some context for that last statement Randy made. He himself said that the pot smuggling (a felony btw) by “MIT PROFESSORS” which he says he participated in (re:his own hp article about it) occurred over 40 years ago at which time no one was researching or using pot for treatment of nausea and even if there was no MIT professors would be funding pot smuggling of tons for it...he just made that up recently while saying nothing about medical marijuana on his pot smuggling escapade when he bragged about it on hp about it nearly a year ago! All he said about them was “They made mucho dinero” despite my bringing it up multiple times.
If you're up to counting 16,000, I retract the statement. More like .1%. Out of your 16,000 there might (might!) be 16 that were.
Wanta bet your stimulus check on it?
Actually it's probably closer to 18,000 lies by now.
Nope, I don't think you are evil, just blind to reality.
And as I have said before no spinning etc is needed. Trump provides everything that is needed - he is a self-basher.
You keep falsely claiming that we are "spinning" yet you fail to show where we lied about anything, made false claims about anything, mislead about anything. Where is your proof?
Oh, yeah, sure. That's exactly how we define efficacy. Uh huh.
It wasn't that simple say 60 years ago, do you really believe that YOU all are SO much better now? Yeah, right.
So, there is no room for improvement on patriarchal attitudes and white supremacy as your answer. It is the status quo that remains to your advantage so why not leave well enough alone?
Come on, Wilderness can you dispense with your Archie Bunker playbook for just a little while?
Why is the status ok, when primarely only one demographic overwhelmingly benefits? That is just the attitude that contributes as to why I never allow rightwingers to suggest to me to just "let bygones be bygones."
I tried to explain these circumstances to you in detail at another thread, did you listen?
There can never be peace and cohesion within this society while these problems remain on the docket.
Confusion. When that demographic consists of those willing to support themselves, to do what is needed to accomplish that, the answer seems apparent.
Find a way to teach people to remain as a family. Teach them that charity is NOT the primary method of supporting ones self - it is not a goal to reach towards. Teach them the value of education, and not to join gangs or commit crimes. Teach them the pride of self support.
And you will have achieved your goal. On the other hand, giving them money will teach them to depend on YOU for what they want and teach those you take that money from that there is no reason to work hard because you will simply take what they build away from them, whereupon all will suffer.
This truly seems so simple and self evident as to not require that it be said, but a great many still seem to believe that the primary route to self sufficiency is to create dependence on the Great Father in Wash. D.C.
So, what are you implying Wilderness, that the outcomes that are stark in adversity for those that are non-white are due to all THOSE people not willing to support themselves, quite stereotypical, don't you agree?
If that is how conservatives think, we are never going to be on the same page.
Your "Dick and Jane" primer approach does not begin to approach the complexity of the reality. But, it is palatable red mean for the conservative mind.
No, he is not. He would have to admit he is human.
THere you go with that "identical" mischaracterization again. Almost as bad as you just making things up.
But I don't want your "random and natural inequality" so strongly correlated in relation to gender, race or ethnicity.
Conservatives are crap in my opinion.
You are the one with mischaracterization.
“That "real" level playing field, where everyone has identical opportunities, is another fiction that is impossible to ever attain by the human race.”
Is not a mischaracterization of what you said. Your stating “It is... possible to change systemic inequalities for the better. That is what we are focusing on.” is based on a mischaracterization of what he said. He never referenced Changing systematic inequalities for the better and you certainly have not identified your so called systematic inequalities.
If there is any failing here it is in your ambiguity.
No. I entered the topic by giving a specific systemic example. He then referenced trying to eliminate natural and innate differences among human beings.
If you gave a specific systemic example I completely missed it. Can you repeat it?
By the way, did YOU cash your free money, Wilderness?
What does that have to do a specific systemic example of inequality? Or are you changing the topic to imply that Conservatives are all wrong (again)?
The question was, did you cash your free money - which you are obviously afraid to answer.
As to conservatives "all" wrong. First, there you go with your famous mischaracterizations again. Second, there are several of Kirk's ten conservative principles that make sense.but most don't. The problem with his theory is it doesn't prohibit bad social behaviour and as a rule conservatives abuse the latitude their principles allow - for example slavery.
While liberal principles prohibit slavery, conservative principles do not. In fact, a "liberal" reading of the principles imply that once slavery is established, with its hierarchical structure, it should continue.
You have to realize that "T" is an It. No known gender or identity.
Why do progressives have to constantly explain to those determined to assuage their portion of guilt and responsibility for conditions in our society by simply ignoring that that they simply do not want to hear.
https://www.thebalance.com/structural-i … on-4174727
Sounds like Wilderness wishes for a return to slavery when the bar was higher.
But then he is probably one of those who claim slaves loved all that protection and free food and houses. It was the slave-masters taking all the risk and doing all of the work.
I guess we can fairly state that slave owners are responsible for America's welfare state, eh?
Progress, which is antithetical to conservatives - they, for the most part, oppose progress. I bet they secretly wish we were back in the stone ages when it was OK to pull women around by the hair. Oh, wait, some conservative religions still condone that when needed.
I must take issue with your characterization of credence's world (which I believe is very close to my world) as one of participation trophies.
Absolutely not. My world would be one where a talented poor person would have, for example, the same educational opportunities as a talented wealthy child. In our current society a mediocre wealthy child has access to the best education while the potential of a bright, but poor, child is usually not fulfilled.
We would all be better off if this world really was about winner's trophies. It isn't. It's about who has the most money at birth.
I acknowledge that this will always be true, but we as a society would be wise to make sure that true talents are fully cultivated and not wasted. It would benefit all of us.
For understanding my "beef" and explaining it from another angle. I never had any doubt that you "get it".
I wonder how the 30+ million newly unemployed people are going to get by in an economic system that is failing?
Better the system that offers some upward mobility than one the oppresses all that are not of the "elite" class equally.
I wonder, where else can you go in the world where you can get a better shot at improving your position in life than America?
Perhaps, but that does not mean that we can't do better and strive seriously to do so.
lets get the "system" back in motion as the alternative is unacceptable, but that does not mean that my issues with that "system" has gone away.
And if things weren't depressing enough, I made the mistake of watching Planet of the Humans today.
Depressing to find out that all the "Green Movements" are funded and controlled by the likes of the Koch Brothers, and that Biomass plants that have sprung up around the country are worse for the environment than coal plants, and are destroying the forests for fuel.
Just more proof that the politicians and organizations that you think are championing your causes are really your biggest enemies... liars and sellouts.
I can't claim that I have a lot knowledge about the concepts of biomass verses fossil fuels, but I do know that if the Koch brother(s) are behind it, it has to be no good.
I don't like to make comments on topics where I am not properly informed to pass a judgement one way or the other.
No... not at all.
Trump comes out and he says he supports coal, for instance.
Where-as someone like Pelosi or Biden "champion" "Green initiatives" but it turns out those "green initiatives" are lies, they are worse for our health and global warming than coal is... because 95% of these "green initiatives" are Biomass burning plants that burn toxic rubbish and nearby forests.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/sasha-stas … bad-health
https://publicintegrity.org/environment … -so-clean/
https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/danger … gy-source/
Please allow me to make you wonder...
The US is one of the countries with low social mobility. It is a myth that America offers good possibilities to improve life position.
Think of it like a lottery. Is more attractive to people if the jackpot is bigger, even if the probability is lower. - And - the probability in the US is lower. With due caution about wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility
Ok Wikipedia man. Put up or shut up. Name some countries that offer better possibilities to improve one’s life position and explain how they are better.
Chris, that is what I have read, as well.
So, what social mobility?
May be the Wikipedia article is a bit theoretic.
Let me draw your attention to the "Great Gatsby Curve", as displayed in the Wiki article. "Social" or "economic" mobility is about how easy it is for someone with humble family background to move up the economic ladder.
In this context, the US is at best to be found somewhere in the middle.
Best are Skandinavian Countries, worst is South America.
E&IR=T#nordic-countries-are-closely-grouped-together-at-the-low-inequality-high-mobility-part-of-the-curve-2">https://www.businessinsider.com/great-g … he-curve-2
Ken wrote: I wonder, where else can you go in the world where you can get a better shot at improving your position in life than America?
Yes, there are places. Go to Scandinavia. The Jackpot may be smaller, but the probability to win is much higher. Just saying..
"My world would be one where a talented poor person would have, for example, the same educational opportunities as a talented wealthy child." - SPOT ON!
Amen sister. You will get no argument from me on your comment.
But . . . see my response to Cred for an expansion of my thoughts.
And speaking specifically of Cred, (not just his "progressive ilk"—;-)), our past discussions assure me that Cred is in the middle of the participation-winners trophy spectrum—as he says.
“ I will believe you much more when more of you are willing go to the scaffold rather than just tell others to do so.”
And on what information do you base that bogus statement? By any poll or study you can find conservatives are always the ones most willing to “go to the scaffold,” volunteer their time and money to charitable causes and to make such a statement as you have is prejudicial and tells a whole lot more about you than any conservative.
Liberals? Yeah they’ll “go to the scaffold” as long as they are using (or wasting) other people’s money and resources (by way of the government) to do it.
What is bogus, T?
And what information do you have to support that conservatives are so much more generous than progressives and liberals, besides your own opinion?
I am not beating up on conservatives, specifically. I am just saying that since the drive to open the economy short of proper medical preparations and precautions are driven by them, they should be on the front line leading the charge and not pushing the weak and the more vulnerable from behind.
I always like to ask the question of what will anybody do when the money runs out? It will run out if the economy doesn't get moving. What then? What happens when the government can't afford to provide services or pay or its bills? Would you prefer a world where we have millions of people without a place to live or food to eat, but, nobody has the corona virus?
I have a belief that part of being liberal involves having not concept of economic reality. Most liberals I ask such questions give me a blank stare and can't answer it.
Should we wait until the money runs out before starting the economy?
"I have a belief that part of being liberal involves having not concept of economic reality."
This I can agree with. My view of the liberal philosophy on economics is much the same: "There is always somebody that has money that we can take from them". And when the money runs out (as we saw as manufacturing left the country in droves) they will borrow from another country.
Of course, I am concerned about the problem of the economy being stagnant for too long. I am with the states and municipalities being in charge of safely opening different sectors of the economy, taking whatever precautions necessary to minimize risk in the process.
For example, a disaster in Indiana regarding Tyson chicken processing plants. Over 40 percent infection rate of 900 persons among approximately 2,000 employees. The President considers this as a necessary industry, but who does the plucking? No real leader should ask others to do what he or she is not willing to do. A failed approach to say the least for those unfortunate enough to work in the poultry processing business.
Yes, lets get it open. But lets do it in a way that things do not backfire.
We libs are aware of economic reality, but we are also aware of recklessness, negligence and just jumping into the breach taking irresponsible risks that are unnecessary and could have been avoided with just a little more planning and preparation from the beginning.
My goodness. The two righties who enjoy pontificating on what liberals believe are at it again. Such fun!
I am only speaking for myself, but I do believe we must open the economy, but in a smart and methodical way based on science. Let me remind you that if we had not taken steps to flatten the curve, the highly contagious nature of this virus would have resulted in an exponential explosion of illness and death, which also would have crippled the economy at a much higher cost.
Instead, because most states and citizens followed the advice of experts, we slowed the spread to a more manageable pace. Now, we should look at ways to gradually open the economy and continue to keep the infection rate manageable. It is a balancing act, and people will inevitably disagree on the methods and pace of opening, but I believe we should listen to those who know what they're talking about and follow their recommendations.
While I agree whole heartedly, there is a problem with the concept.
Most, if not all, of the "experts" I hear on the subject approach it from one, and only one, side. Health care workers don't care about the economy and have no idea what can (and will) happen if we stay shut down too long.
Economists don't care about starting the pandemic all over - all they care about is a viable economy
Business cares only that they re-open before bankruptcy - they don't care about either economy OR re-infection.
And bored people sitting at home care only that they get out and have fun again.
The problem is that there are many, many facets to the problem, and our "experts" typically address only one of them when making recommendations. Which leaves it to a politician somewhere, probably ignorant in all the areas, to make the call...and most of them care primarily about their re-election, setting aside the economy, business bankruptcies, re-infection and anything outside of their political power.
I think you are not giving the smart and knowledgeable people enough credit. Most governors are listening to a range of voices from all sectors. Most, if not all, have or are developing a plan to reopen, using real data. Sadly, national leadership is lacking and some governors will put their people at unnecessary risk.
That's what I said; it is up to the politicians, ignorant of any of the facets of the problem to make decisions. Yes, they listen to various experts, but then still have to decide. Some will decide right, and some will pay attention to the demonstrators that provide for their next election. Some will take the plan developed by that "national leadership" you say is nonexistent, modify it to meet their specific needs and problems, and use it; some will listen to the screams of other people ignorant of either and use that.
If you're suggesting that a central government could ever design a plan for every location, well, I would highly disagree. States, and even cities, is where the decision must be made. Where the "boots on the ground" are, not where a far off committee makes decisions based on politics.
In case you missed it, here is the basic Trump plan; a plan that most states are using as the root of their own plan: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/1 … lan-191959
Sigh.... I used the word "lacking," not "nonexistent. "
Yes, politicians make certain decisions and we hope they listen to the experts and intelligently listen, learn, and synthesize their data and advice into a reasonable plan. That is how our system is set up. Obviously.
That is why it is so important for us to do our due diligence as responsible citizens and select leaders with enough humility, compassion, and intelligence to do their jobs in a competent and caring manner.
I suppose there could be a different meaning to "lacking" than "not there". If you meant "marginal" or "minimal", I apologize.
Yes, that's how it's set up. And then we complain about every move they make because it isn't what we want them to do, because they didn't have the hindsight we now have, because they are not polished speakers or have orange hair.
"That is why it is so important for us to do our due diligence as responsible citizens and select leaders with enough humility, compassion, and intelligence to do their jobs in a competent and caring manner."
LOL Leaders like Hillary, Trump and Biden, right? Maybe I'm just old and jaded, but it seems more and more that the "responsible citizens" of the country will elect whoever has the most charm and promises them the most money from federal coffers. Those "bread and circuses" are far more important than the needs of the nation.
Yes, you are jaded. And, your "whoever has the most charm" comment elicited a hearty guffaw.
Good going on leaving the "old" out of the equation, Sandy.
By the way, Island Bites has received a ban for some unknown reason. Anyone witness any bannable action she performed? Or is this another "bickering" ban? Whatever the F**K that means on a political thread ...
I am sorry to hear that. I can't imagine any possible reason for a ban. Did she tell you this?
Yes Gus, she emailed me as to how she could contact someone to see why she was banned. A lot of folks know I've been banned a few times and have a...shall we say repertoire.. with Matt.
I've assisted a few people with moderation problems on HP. I do help people in need, Gus.
Sorry, I just now saw this. I didn't see anything that should warrant a ban. And no bickering, either.
It should, for it's a sad state of affair when we pick a president based on how neat their suit or hair is, how much they remind us of royalty, or how pretty they speak.
And an even sadder thing when we pick based on how much we personally will benefit from whatever it is being promised to us.
That's not how I pick but to each their own. I do want them to be at least as articulate as my neighbor's ten-year-old, though.
Oh, you mean like:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women are created, by the, you know, you know the thing,” Biden said.
Later in the speech, Biden mistook “Super Tuesday” for “Super Thursday.”
"And you know, you have no idea how expensive it is to make those things. They’re all made in China and Germany, by the way, just in case you’re―we don’t make ’em here, essentially. We don’t make ’em here. And by the way, the carbon, and all those things flying up in the air, you know the carbon footprint? President Obama used to talk about the carbon footprint, and then he’d hop on Air Force One, a big 747 with very old engines, and he’d fly to Hawaii to play a round of golf. You tell me, the carbon footprint.”
Its hysterical... except that he is running for President. And then there is Trump... and Pelosi... yeah, we're pretty much doomed.
I don't even mind poor articulation (as I grow older, I am finding the pathways from my brain to my mouth are breaking down). But I do require intelligence.
We must have an intelligent President
We must have a knowledgeable President
We must have a President who understands how government works
We must have a President who cares more about US than themselves
We must have a President who is thoughtful
We must have a President who has organized thinking
We must have a President who is not dangerously mentally ill
We must have a President who puts the Constitution first
We must have a President who will abide by the Constitution
With Trump, we have none of those!
Finally, Wilderness wrote something I can agree with.
That plan looks reasonable to me. I think leaving the decisions up to states and localities is the smartest choice.
I think we have to, GA. The federal government simply is not capable of either:
1. Knowing and understanding the needs/problems of all localities in the country
2. Removing politics from their decisions
3. Making timely decisions
While 2) may not be true of all localities either, it is my feeling that they will come a lot (a lot closer to it than the feds will. Can you imagine a bi-partisan committee (has to be bi-partisan because we don't trust either party to make decisions) fighting over when coffee shops can open in Paducah, Ky? It would be years before people could exit their doors, let alone open a business or go to school!
I have to concur with your reply to Wilderness' comment, Panther.
Yes, IT can be done when saner heads prevail and unfortunately, none of those heads are found as part of the Executive Branch in Washington.
Yes indeed, you guys had excellent success under Dubya. Who cleaned up THAT mess, Mike?
What Mike purposefully forgets is that conservatives do much poorer, historically, at economic good times in America than liberals. (I have to phrase it like that since Democrats were conservatives prior to 1937 while Republicans were the liberals.)
Conservatives were responsible for roughly one 2008-sized recessions or bigger roughly once every 5 - 6 years from when the nation was created to the Great Depression in 1929 - ONE EVERY 5 or 6 YEARS!!! Think about it.
Ever since the introduction of Keynesian economics, that rate dropped to ZERO, until the Conservative recession of 2008 when Republicans dumped Kaynes in favor of a system that never worked well.) Between 1938 and 2007, no recession was as big as the one in 2008.
I'm sure Mike will disagree with this, Scott. Or simply avoid commenting on your post. After all, he's out partying with his pro-Trump cronies about this time. While we cowards continue to follow safe guidelines, so pray for him....
I do take some comfort in knowing that these idiots who keep congregation will, over time and through natural selection, reduce in numbers as they get sick, with some dying; dying because of their own stupidity.
Worse though are those people who will get sick and/or die because these really stupid people infected them from their thoughtless actions.
I track Covid cases daily and have noticed that since April 27, each succeeding day has produced an increasing number of new cases, both worldwide and in America. I wonder if today's numbers will break that trend.
You guys are funny. Not a fact just an opinion.
Not a clue as to what happened to cause the 2008 recession.
"It originated as a result of the subprime mortgage crisis—and in Western Europe."
It is something that is owned by Democrats and Republicans.
Now, a little honest research, if that is possible by anyone on the left, would show the subprime mortgage crisis is something that developed over years and different administrations. I suggest you not look too deeply into it. This is a bit complicated and I'm sure it would probably make you more confused history than you already are at this point.
But...if you want to try....
"Not a clue as to what happened to cause the 2008 recession." - Now THAT is funny. I wrote a book on it and discussed that one, and many others in well sourced detail.
""It originated as a result of the subprime mortgage crisis—and in Western Europe."" - THAT is not even close to being correct - those are Opinions and not Fact.
The 2008 Great Recession didn't "originate" for either of those two places or reason. In FACT, Western Europe was a victim of our collapse. In FACT subprime mortgages facilitated the housing collapse but wasn't responsible for it. What WAS responsible was the relaxation of financial regulations (a perennial conservative goal) which permitted subprime mortgages to flourish.
It is NOT A FACT that "the subprime mortgage crisis is something that developed over years and different administrations. ". It developed from bad law by the Republican Congress in 1999 - 2000, with a little help from Clinton, and the Republican Congress and President from 2000 to 2006. YOU need to do some real research Mike rather than rely on conservative talking points.
Thank you for providing nothing more than your opinion. There are many in the world of economics who disagree with you. I value their opinion over yours.
Again, you are funny.
But Mike, he wrote a book on it with sources! That put forth as his primary proof means his opinion has to be true, don’t you know? Shame on you, any left winger who writes a book proves their opinion has to be the the last word, don’t you know?
Of course writing the book is all that is necessary, doesn’t matter that no one ever read it or reviewed it.
Funny I don’t see his book listed here: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article … psugar.com
"Thank you for providing nothing more than your opinion. " - AND THAT is just an opinion based on nothing since you have haven't read my well sourced book.
And no - "many" is a gross overstatement. Those that do disagree are conservative economists who are wedded to their PROVABLY failed theories.
This is the point in a conversation with you where I wish you well with the delusional world you have created for yourself. That delusional world is not a place I wish to visit, but I wish you great health and happiness with the delusions you have have created. I know they're important to you.
Damn. This thread has gotten mean.
Tell you what . . . I will light a campfire around dusk and we can all Zoom in for some marshmallow toasting?
I am partial to chocolate, how about smores?
S'mores are over-rated. Just gimme the chocolate and marshmallows. I will save the Grahams for a crunchy snack.
I have to say I am a smores man. I prefer an a fire and making them yourself.
Put me down as someone is pro-smores!
I just hope no anti-smores jerks respond looking for a debate. They'll get one!
I am a purist. Roasted marsmallows: yes. S'mores: No.
Each item--the marsmallow, the Hershey bar, the graham cracker--stands perfectly alone and is diminished when combined with the others. ;-)
Absolutely! Chocolate and crackers have no business associating with a perfectly browned and softened marshmallow. Perfection stands alone; anything more can only diminish it.
So, you are against the free association of chocolate, graham crackers and softened marshmallows? This is something that has been a staple of American campfires since the late 1920s! There are those of us who refuse to give into the dictatorial belief of keeping these groups separate from one another. The integration of graham crackers, chocolate and marshmallows is a statement of what it means to live in a free America.
Absolutely! While chocolate and crackers are OK as long as they stay on their side of the tracks, they are not welcome to hobnob with their superiors.
Marshmallow supremacy forever!
Well, as long as you anti-smores types don't make a move to bring legislation to control our smores, there will be peace throughout the land. We will not give up our right to life, liberty and our right to pursue smores!
Those are two different tastes bud. You are right about the glory of a nicely roasted campfire marshmallow, but you are wrong that a soft chocolate combination isn't a step-above.
I am going to make you guys jealous. I have a supply of marshmallows and Herxeyh bars, and a campfire ring in my back yard. It's dusk here now, (8pm Eastern), and I am going to light up a campfire, grab my martini, and have some soft chocolate and roasted marshmallows. Eat your hearts out.
I might even post some pictures to rub it in.
Yuck, marshmallows. You guys can keep them, but give me all the chocolate.
This was fun, but I enjoyed the dog in the video looking at the people. It was like he was saying "Will you people stop this and give me some graham crackers or a marshmallow?"
I agree, except for the sans-chocolate part. Hot marshmallow and soft chocolate is a heavenly taste.
Sure you agree, but you both are still wrong. S'mores are an over-rated Girl Scout bit.
First, they never tell you that the best S'mores happen when you let the Hersey bars get soft—they must be soft for a good S'mores! Otherwise, you just get a double crunch of graham crackers and hard chocolate bars with hot marshmallow oozing out onto your fingers.
If you want a really good S'mores, (and have to have the Grahams), then make sure your Grahams have been opened long enough to soften slightly, (usually overnight), and that your Hersey bars are also soft enough to be pliable. Then you have a great S'mores.
Been there, done that, dozens and dozens of times. My method: open the Graham packs to air the night before use. Set the Hersey bars near the campfire so that the radian heat softens them. Then toast your marshmallows and make your S'mores. If you doubt my method—try it once just once and you will become a believer. ;-)
Put me down as someone who is not a food segregationist!
I believe in the s'mores brown, black and white joining together to create something incredible.
It's the American way.
Hmm. Would you approve of white chocolate, or dark, in a s'more? Or must it be the brown kind? Would pink or green marshmallows be acceptable?
https://www.amazon.com/Ziyad-Halal-Mars … NrPXRydWU=
We in the S'mores loving community openly respect the diversity S'mores can provide our community. We believe strongly in a S'mores lovers right to create the S'mores of their choice. Freedom to create the S'mores of your choice is a hallmark of our community!
Freedom, yes. Just keep it behind closed doors so that the rest of can enjoy properly made marshmallows in peace, not having to look at your disgusting abomination. Not having to be a part of the destruction of the perfection of a perfectly done marshmallow.
by crankalicious 2 years ago
Has President Trump been compromised? Does Russia have something on President Trump that would cause him to say things and create policy that favor Russia?After Helsinki, it's hard not to wonder if something is terribly wrong. Real Americans everywhere, regardless of party affiliation, should be...
by Yves 2 days ago
Will Biden's Party choose to keep him out of the debates rather than have him go through the rigors of elucidating his public policy proposals, etc., in a formal debate against Trump, in lieu of recent polls in which up to 55% of Democrat voters believe Joe Biden may be in the early stages of...
by Scott Belford 21 hours ago
This forum is to catalogue the many lies, distortions, deceptions, and misinformation Donald Trump has made about his administration's effort to combat the coronavirus. He is doing his damnedest to make you think is doing a 10 out of 10 job when, in fact, it is more like 3 or 4 out of 10...
by crankalicious 3 months ago
After basically admitting that state governors had the authority about when to reopen their states and backing off his claim of having the authority to make them open at the will of the President, President Trump issued the above tweets.Given that protests in Michigan pitted people wanting the...
by Credence2 2 months ago
see this Market watch article for background:https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump … 2020-04-13I think that Trump again is out of bounds, making demands that State Governors "open" the economies of their respective states regardless of each Governor's responsibility for the...
by Jack Lee 3 years ago
Trump latest poll is 48% approval. His highest since election.At what point will liberals give up their protests and obstruction and enjoy the rise?The economy is finally kicking into high gear.I noticed gas prices rose by 10 cents in one day near my neighborhood...A clear sign of increased...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|