Here's an idea: stop whining and do something to help someone. Some person who lives near you.

It doesnt have to be dramatic like the guy who delivered tablets to hospitalized people so they could communicate with loved ones who aren't allowed to visit.

Remember, its not just covid people who are cut off from family and friends, its everybody in the hospital.

It's obviously difficult to see my point with your politically partisan glasses on. — Harry Hindu

I’ll admit your point is foggy. State government decided when to impose restrictions so if they did it too late for an optimal outcome that’s their fault, although perhaps not entirely.

The criticisms directed at the White House regarding corona span a variety of issues, many of which aren’t really comparable to state government.

Here's an idea: stop whining and do something to help someone. Some person who lives near you. — frank

My wife is making masks. I’m making stupid paintings (surely unhelpful). What are you doing?

It’s the other way about. It appears Trump has become the scapegoat once again, as has been the case from everything to climate change to mistrust of the media. Yet the fact is that President Trump has utilized all power and assets of the federal government—too much in my opinion—to support the states during this emergency. FEMA, the military, the CDC, and even much of the private sector have been mobilized to tackle the crisis. The sheer amount of proclamations and executive orders for this purpose have been astounding.

So which actions exactly should he be responsible for?

Secondly, I think it’s time critics should say what they would have done differently. What would you have done differently?

^ Anti government nutjob licks balls of head of government.

Yes. It’s in our best interest to have a properly functioning health authority, especially during a pandemic.

Can't wait to go to a restaurant

Oh look, an offended commie.

You mispelt entertained, bootlicker.

Your mispelt entertained, bootlicker.

Lol quick to edit that one, weren’t you?

Yes, I care about getting things right :)

But do go on about how much the state sucks while you fellate the head of state...

If Trump bottled his farts NOS4A2 would buy a jar and smell it 100%

Yes. It’s in our best interest to have a properly functioning health authority, especially during a pandemic. — NOS4A2

How is de-funding them going to make them function any more properly in the short term? You're advocating market solutions to a non-market problem.

How is de-funding them going to make them function any more properly in the short term? You're advocating market solutions to a non-market problem.

They are not being defunded. The US is withholding its funding pending an investigation.

How does withholding its funding pending an investigation during a pandemic make it function more properly in the short term?

The investigation can help recognize structural and perhaps even political failures. I see no reason to continue funding until that process is complete. How does continuing to fund it resolve any of those issues?

Why the rhetorical questions Vega? Blaming the WHO is meant to deflect attention to the total failure of Trump's leadership and give fodder to his servile peons - like NOS - to spew out instead.

The usual litigious American blame game begins (or more accurately: continues)...

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/opinions-china-should-be-legally-liable-for-the-pandemic-damage-it-has-done/ar-BB12oS9V

It's not the worst idea. Only it ought to be coupled with repayments from the US for the damage done for their imperial endeavours in the last 100 years too. Say, 30% of GDP to Iraq, an additional 30% to Afganistan, and maybe another 300% or so to central and south America. American interventions being more directly attributible to American agency than a non-human entity. The UK can probably join in as well for all the evil it wrought on its colonies.

How does continuing to fund it resolve any of those issues? — NOS4A2

It doesn't resolve any of those issues, but you're not answering my question.

I am insinuating that withholding funding may comprise their ability to function in the short term.

Do you think that withholding funding from the WHO will not affect its ability to function in the short term?

Would you withhold funding from a fire-department during a period of extreme fire hazard in order incentivize them to work harder?

Here are some tangents for you to bounce off instead of answering the above:

What do structural and political failures have to do with anything? Are you advocating for a random fishing expedition? What's with the timing here? I thought witch hunts were bad? Why are investigations good when Republicans suggest them and bad when Democrats suggest them? Why can't we let COVID wash over the nation?

Perhaps it's boredom, but there's something oddly satisfying about the contorted responses that must follow...

Like watching raw pasta extruded through a narrow and misshapen orifice...

Mostly I just want clear responses though, so that I have something solid to throw back when Donald inexorably flip-flops.

Ah, but why should accountability go both ways?

If the fire-Department was actively covering for the arsonist, then yes, withholding funding would be prudent as would an investigation. Yes, withholding funds would affect its ability to function in the short term.

I understand the push back, but it’s not about getting them to work harder. It’s about holding the leadership accountable for their dereliction of duty .

So, is Trump the helpless victim of China and the WHO here or is he the strong leader with total authority? It seems you're just going to keep playing whichever card suits your spin. I mean, I just don't know why you would think that's convincing.

So, is Trump the helpless victim of China and the WHO here or is he the strong leader with total authority? It seems you're just going to keep playing whichever card suits your spin. I mean, I just don't know why you would think that's convincing.

I never said Trump was a victim. I never said he has total authority. I’m not sure why one would try to lie about that but I’m sure spin has something to do with it.

Arsonist?

China is an arsonist in this analogy?

Yes, withholding funds would affect its ability to function in the short term. — NOS4A2

Can't we have an investigation while also continuing to fund them? If you want the leadership to be held accountable, then hold them accountable; withholding funding from the organization does not hold leadership accountable.

In keeping with the fire analogy, you would shut down a component of the fire department, mid-blaze, on principle, figuring that accountability is more important than putting out the fire.

This seems to speak volumes about your ideology. Saving Trump's face is worth more than human lives?

I think the difference in my “ideology” is that I’m not into applying utilitarian principles. But if I were to do so I would say your assumption that funding an ineffectual fire-Department to protect us from fire is also dangerous.

When you go out for a run or fast-paced walk or whatever try to avoid being in the slipstream of other runners/walkers

I think the difference in my “ideology” is that I’m not into applying utilitarian principles. — NOS4A2

Utilitarianism is more palatable than virtue ethics run amok though, wouldn't you say? Why must the slaves be buried alongside the failed lords?

You could accuse any argument that appeals to saving lives as being utilitarian, but it's not a very persuasive counter-appeal (you might as well accuse the WHO of being too socialist). When we're dealing with broad, general, and hard to answer issues, utilitarianism often wins out even our legal system. No matter, after-all, holding people accountable and all that is much more important than putting our existing fires, right? (they're the arsonists who keep intentionally setting the fires, right?).

BUT WAIT! Wait just one stock-pickin' minute...

How do you know the WHO is corrupt, ineffectual, or derrelicted their duty before an investigation has been carried out?

Wouldn't we be rather stupid to compromise one of our defenses to an existing attack, even if it is not perfectly effectual?

If we withhold funding from the WHO, conduct the investigation, and then find that the WHO was actually acting responsibly and effectually, and that the funding cuts resulted in decreased performance, would we then be allowed to hold Trump accountable?

got my stimulus check & bought a cot. Now I'm primarily living in the walk-in closet off my main bedroom (does have a window, at least, I'm not crazy enough to forego that yet.) I don't know why, but it feels more synced up with my mood and the general mood. Provisional and simple?