In terms of how you talk about women, you have, I'm afraid.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/

"Overall, we rate the Washington Free Beacon Right Biased based on story selection that favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading and false claims."

No, he's the mirror image of the guy he claims we'd have to be Nazis to support and you're playing the apologist because it's your guy and not a Republican.

Without a consistent line neither of you have any credibility.

Now that Frank has morphed into Trump, maybe he'll change his vote?

"Vote Dem. We hate women too!"

This is a really sick post.

Exactly. Unfortunately, some are incapable on that score.

Maybe someone who joins a philosophy forum to write thousands of posts in support of their political hero within a few months. Some of us have criticized Trump, but none of his critics here come even remotely close to that level of religious fervour.

Shhh, it's just the flu.

I used to think communism meant the "same for everyone". When I was six years old.

Comparing yesterday to today, the number of new cases of COVID in New York fell by 30%. The number of cases in Georgia nearly tripled. Wonder why... ? :chin:

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-24/georgia-allows-barber-shops-and-gyms-to-reopen-offering-a-preview-of-life-after-lockdown

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Trump considers it a compliment? Wouldn't surprise me: "I rape the best women. Nobody rapes women like I do."

I tell you what's not a hard choice, not bending the knee now when you've got nothing. At the very least, withdraw your support and act like you want something. You can always still vote for the useless git in the end. You are doing the only thing that will guarantee the DNC will completely ignore progressive priorities.

I think Trump just recently banned you @NOS4A2 :wink:

and it was tried in 2016 — Xtrix

Yes, and in 2016 the Dems didn't listen because they were sure Hillary would win. They ain't so sure now, I can tell you. And: Never ever give something away for free that could be used as leverage to get something in return.

I'm advocating for progressives to say this to the Dems:

"Give us what we want or fuck off."

It's clear, simple, and the only thing that has a hope of getting the weasels in the DNC to take on significant progressive policies.

in a system which essentially will be a choice A or B? — Frank Apisa

Only because you make it so. You're caught in the circular logic of saying you need to do what makes it necessary for you to do what you do.

even if you think Biden is a pile of trash, which he is, if you live in swing state not voting for him has the same effect as voting for Trump, who is a pile of radioactive trash on fire. — Pfhorrest

I did laugh. :lol:

Your mistake is mixing the two above strategies up completely and using that confusion to leverage some absurd objections to what's being done. Stop doing that, please.

@Hanover

To save you reading the whole thing:

"Option 2: Mitigation Strategy [Herd immunity strategy]
Mitigation goes like this: “It’s impossible to prevent the coronavirus now, so let’s just have it run its course, while trying to reduce the peak of infections. Let’s just flatten the curve a little bit to make it more manageable for the healthcare system.” [ What you're talking about and what's been largely rejected globally ]

Option 3: Suppression Strategy
The Mitigation Strategy doesn’t try to contain the epidemic, just flatten the curve a bit. Meanwhile, the Suppression Strategy tries to apply heavy measures to quickly get the epidemic under control. Specifically:
Go hard right now. Order heavy social distancing. Get this thing under control.
Then, release the measures, so that people can gradually get back their freedoms and something approaching normal social and economic life can resume. [ What I'm talking about and what's happening around the world"

Flattening the curve obviously helps to keep health services from getting overwhelmed but that's subsumed under the primary goal of the suppression strategy (as opposed to the herd immunity strategy), which is to reduce and eliminate the number of infections thereby reducing and eliminating fatalities. Success in terms of the suppression strategy means less infections and less deaths overall than otherwise would have occurred, and obviously not having your health service overwhelmed aids that, which is why you aim to modulate the degree of suppression to be below that level (the degree, not the fact of suppression). Success in terms of the herd immunity strategy, on the other hand, means getting enough people gradually infected so that you reach a point where the disease can't spread because most people are immune (ideally this is also done without overwhelming the health service, the difference being in the former case, you not only flatten the curve but aim to eliminate new infections, whereas in the latter continued infections are required). As I said, this is not hypothetical. If, as you claim, they are both the same thing, then 800 million people will eventually be infected in China (an absurdity if you look at the data) and this will not only happen but will be considered a success as long as their health system isn't overwhelmed. Pure nonsense because, of course, the difference was made clear here and all over the news over a month ago. The global consensus is suppression and this is why economies were shut down so severely. The result will be less overall deaths than a herd immunity strategy. How many less will depend on when we get a vaccine, what else we do to mitigate spread when we open up and so on.

Posted before. Here posted again. This is what New Zealand is doing to the letter. And it is working.

"Strong coronavirus measures today should only last a few weeks*, there shouldn’t be a big peak of infections afterwards, and it can all be done for a reasonable cost to society, saving millions of lives along the way."

*Unfortunately, most countries were too late starting for it to be a few weeks. Blame the politicians who delayed.

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

In summary, first you were confusing preventative measures with curative measures and now its suppression with herd immunity. Anyway, if I'm wrong and you're right, the world will hit billions of infections and hundreds of millions of deaths, including close to a billion infections in China and India, respectively, despite all the shutdowns. Come back to me when that happens.

Wrong. The idea of suppression is to beat the virus as China and others have done. Take a look at New Zealand. If they did nothing, 60-80% of their population would likely have been infected. Right now, they're at 1,500 cases with only 8 new cases yesterday and 18 total deaths because unlike your leaders and pundits (and you) who were downplaying this the whole time, they are not anti-science and followed the best strategy available. So, they're in a position to open up in phased way within a month or two with proper track and trace and other measures in place that mean they will never get to 60-80% infection, just like China won't nor any country who also knows what they're doing. I mean, this is not all hypothetical, you can look around and see what's happening. Do you think China is going to reach 800 million infected (which would mean millions of deaths). If not, why? Your theory says they'll get there. Your theory is wrong.

This:

We've premised the closing of the entire world's economy on the principle that we needed to be sure there was sufficient healthcare for the infected — Hanover

is what I object to. And you know it because it keeps being pointed out to you. The primary reason we shut down the economy was to suppress the spread of the disease and lower fatalities. Whether or not there was sufficient healthcare, we needed to do that because we knew not doing it would result in massive amounts of death, regardless of healthcare effectiveness, which can only ameliorate or exacerbate the situation, not solve it. Take a hypothetical country with no healthcare at all, it would have needed to shut down. Take a hypothetical country with excellent healthcare, it still would have needed to shut down because a) not everyone can be saved by treatment and b) no country no matter how good its healthcare system is would be able to handle the number of patients an unimpeded spread of the disease would lead to.

So, you are trying to leverage the uncertainty about healthcare into uncertainty about whether we should have shut down or not and it doesn't work because the uncertainty regarding healthcare, e.g. re ventilators, would have had zero influence on whether we needed to shut down. If you have a disease that has a circa 1% mortality rate and is likely to infect 60-80% of your population in a short period of time if you don't shut things down, then, in the absence of a similarly effective alternative, you shut down. Period. The fact that it's a new disease means you will then have to make some common-sense medical decisions on stuff that you haven't had time to fully research yet. Like, if someone can't breathe by themselves, you put them on a ventilator rather than allow them to die. You also need to consider exactly when they need to go on a ventilator. If you put them on too early could it be harmful etc?

The point is that you're mixing up levels here and you keep doing it. Yes, let's talk about the effectiveness of ventilators, but stop trying to link it to the broad question of whether suppression was necessary or not. It's a completely different argument.

Load of bum. Google "coronavirus models". That's how many people would have died and that's why things needed to be shut down. All this blathering about whether ventilators are 50 or 80% effective is not going to change that.

Why in the world would the DNC offer anything when the apoplexia of "imagine the other guy" causes people to fall in line no matter how terrible the line is? (case in point: this thread). — StreetlightX

Yes, as I've said before, nobody pays for a free hamburger. There is zero incentive for the DNC to do anything for progressives unless the left desert them en masse now. Therefore, that's what they should do, leaving two possible outcomes.

1) Dems come to their senses and change their policies.
2) Dems lose and realize they're going to have to come to their senses and change their policies if they ever want to get their guy elected again.

Alternative: They win and never come to their senses and change their policies.

It's you and Frank Apisa who are helping to reelect Trump by hurling abuse at anyone who feels like they should vote for someone who actually represents them. What you should be doing is calmly outlining what it is that Biden offers progressives apart from not being Trump. Some of these people don't want your poisonous two-party system and don't feel that in areas that matter, Biden as President will make a substantial difference to their everyday lives, certainly not one substantial enough to allow themselves to be harassed into voting for him. So, why are they wrong. Make the argument. Stop the shouting.

So, can we go back to the details of Biden's record?

Forget who will or won't vote for him. Can anyone tell me what he offers progressives?

It's exactly analogous. And I censored street's comments, not him. Anyway, please just stop it now. We're talking about Biden's record here. Accusations or provocations like that will be deleted.

Yes, when someone suggests their interlocutor is a racist for no reason whatsoever but merely to try to smear them, I would agree that is disgusting.

I don't remember you ever denying being a pedophile, tim. Can you direct me to where you did that?

See what you're doing? Don't do it.

:love:

Never mind, I think we got it covered. :wink:

Yours is junk-yard dog rhetoric with rabid overtones — tim wood

And this is?:

That comment is so fucking nuts...that anyone attempting to comment on it further than what I am saying right here, is also fucking nuts. — Frank Apisa

But, fine, have a look at street's latest post and I'd also be happy to list sources and quotes therein that explicate why Biden is so unpalatable to much the left. Let's debate it on that basis.

Reading some of the stuff going on in the Joe Biden thread right now, I'm tempted to become a convert to TDS-realism.

That comment is so fucking nuts...that anyone attempting to comment on it further than what I am saying right here, is also fucking nuts.

Comment further if you want, Baden, but I won't. — Frank Apisa

And the specific policy positions mentioned? You agree Biden took those positions or not?

Tell you what, frank, stop talking about everything outside the US and I might take you seriously, otherwise it just sounds like you are sore because of a few things street said.

No, Baden...people like you are the problem. — Frank Apisa

People like me, whether in America or elsewhere, will vote for politicians who represent what they believe in. Biden does not represent what progressives or the left believe in. Ergo, many of our ilk won't vote for him (some will, but many won't). So, if he and his supporters want more of the left's vote, he needs to give the left something of substance. The Nazi angle is not going to work just from a pragmatic viewpoint (leaving aside the absurdity of it for a moment).

In terms of having a vote, correct. In terms of knowing what I'm talking about, those tables are turned.

The unique fauna of Oz have apparently eaten your brain. — Frank Apisa

Have you got any substantive defence against @StreetlightX's statements about Biden's policy positions? It's possible to have a conversation about that.

People like you, not just on this forum, but across America will get Trump reelected. You are his greatest asset and are doing everything he would want you to do. For free. Congratulations.