Finally. So there's no lame street media either and you can accept all those facts reported in the past years.

Then I can only conclude you must suffer from early onset dementia. You used to be an intelligent poster. That reply wasn't it.

I suggest you read my post again. Slowly this time. And try to filter out the assumptions you're making on what I'm trying to say and then try to reply to what I'm saying. There's too much in your post that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Especially what you think "my biggest beef" is. Where did that come from?

Some things that are remarkably ideological from my point of view.

it would relate to raising taxes specifically on the wealthy and corporations, because I'm tired of the class warfare, which is how this usually plays out. — Hanover

You go from raising taxes on the wealthy and corporation to class warfare without any intermediate steps. Let's assume it's true. What do you think about Warren Buffet when he said this:

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”?

How do you relate that to the declining labour share of GDP development and income inequality?Or the fact CEO pay has risen by 940% since 1978 but worker pay only by 12%? This while GDP grew with nearly 90% since then?

Do you see all these facts as illustrating a problem or do you think it's fine and normal? If so, what exactly are CEOs doing today that they weren't doing in 1978 that justifies a 940% pay increase? Or that debt funded asset inflation was behind the 2008 recovery leading to big profits for banks and their CEOs even though regular people were no way better off before covid-19 happened than before 2008?

I know we're not going to agree on this in any way, shape or form but at least I'd like to know the thinking behind it.

I'm also opposed to campaign finance reform because I'm close to an absolutist on free speech. — Hanover

Why should having more money effectively give you a bigger voice and more influence? Shouldn't it just be one man, one vote? Or you don't think there's any tit-for-tat involved with campaign donations? Or do you think because it's legal, it's not corruption?

I couldn't rightly say. I had a quick glance at Alabama on wiki and it looks like it used to be rural but now the largest employers are the army and various State or Federal employers. We don't have communist countries in the EU. :razz:

In any case, the most logical place for me would be somewhere in the Elzas/Alsace as I speak French and German, land is cheap and arable. It's also only a 6 hour drive away.

Maybe don't make so many assumptions. I live in the European Union and can buy land anywhere. Since I speak three languages, I have a couple of options.

Nothing. I'll have gotten it all in place already.

I don't care about what people say, I care about what they do. If neither party takes meaningful action but one is marginally better, neither of them are looking after your interests.

If other countries can do it, so can we. — Xtrix

I think you're grossly overestimating what other countries are doing. I live in one of the more progressive countries in the world. It's not enough. Corona lock down will be a joke compared to the costs we will be confronted with once climate change really hits. I've already started looking for a plot of land with enough arable land, a self-sufficient modular home and I'll be advising my kids to study agriculture.

OK thanks

You're right about the distinction between impeachment and impeachment proceedings. Of course it had been going on for some time with the house judiciary committee.

With the WH knowing about it in November, I must be missing something. I can't find in your link that the WH (and does that include Schiff as a result?) knew late November. The first mention of it in Dutch news was in January.

Even so, let's assume Schiff knew some new virus was active in Wuhan on the 18th of December, it was contained to China and the severity was unknown as was the method of spreading as well. The reported cases on January 22 for China was 557 (earliest date I could quickly find). So to say Schiff thought impeachment was more important than the coronavirus is rather misleading, as the coronavirus wasn't a thing on 18 December.

What is the stellar track record of the Democrats that makes you believe they will actually take action here? Surely you don't mean Obama's plan allowing to replace one carbon fuel for another as long as it is less polluting? That will be a fantastic energy transition to ... nowhere?

That's not true. The impeachment proceedings were started on 18 December, well before Covid-19 was known.

There's no argument here. Which is sad, because I explicitly asked for one. You then just assume I don't know the difference between the US and Dutch system. I thought you were over 80? Where's the calm and time that's supposed to come with that age and actually take the time to explain it?



See, the problem is you think this is a difference of persons. It's not. I already explained the power in the USA is held by the respective parties. The "great" differences you see, are a reflection of which party is bought by which interests. It's not meaningful to say "they're both corrupt but he's destroying the environment". So you'll save the environment by losing your privacy. What kind of choice is that?

I totally get that you feel you have to make a choice but to think you're a moral actor with agency in this story is what I think is delusional. It's like having a gun to your head with someone demanding you shoot someone or they will shoot two persons. Morally, it makes no difference what you choose as the choosing has already been done by the person with the gun. In this analogy your two parties are holding a gun. You don't have actual choices only the illusion of one.

The upside to Trump and even 4 more years of Trump, is that the Western automatic acquiescence to US interests is waning as it should be. Respect has to be earned instead of assumed. Voting a senile old bat because he isn't Trump isn't going to change that.

Why is it bullshit? It seems to me that if you have a politically corrupt system any vote for the establishment candidates is voting in favour of corruption. Heads, you lose, tails, monied interests win.

You might as well not vote.

The difference between Trump and Biden is marginal from any perspective but the US perspective. That's because those differences are played to maximum effect in US media to give voters a feeling that they have a choice. It plays right into the identity politics of being Republican or Democratic.

I've voted for a Conservative Liberal party, greens, Labour Party, animal rights party and Christian party (not in that order) due to changing personal views over time but mostly because of policy proposals I wanted to support. I don't see this flexibility with US voters; Dems think Reps are stupid and vice versa. Meanwhile, both parties serve you policy turds and you thank them for the privilege depending on which party had your loyalty.

This is a great op-Ed by the WSJ editorial board detailing Schiff’s hypocrisy. The man who tried to impeach the president for stonewalling, crying coverup, is now stonewalling. What is Schiff hiding? — NOS4A2

Where were you complaining when Trump was stonewalling? Oh wait. Your were making excuses for it. Unitary executive theory!

What does Trump have to hide, hmmm?

They are just as evil. The power of a President will go sofar as the Senate allows and since that's entirely partisan, it's the two parties that are in control. But those are just two sides of the same coin. If you think there's a meaningful policy distinction between Democrats and Republicans then that would just go to show how limited the gamut of policy options is in the USA. From the Netherlands the only meaningful differences between Republicans and Democrats are gay marriage, abortion and a somewhat tougher stance on immigration.

See, I can critise what you say by staying on point instead of crying "dishonest" every other sentence. Do you like playing the victim?

You used a term incorrectly, I pointed that out. You whine that's a single sentence reply. I expound. You suggest I was reacting because of TDS or something. I ask what gave you that idea. You then whine and bitch about dishonesty. It's that your idea of an argument?

What's the spin exactly, when I say "You don't get to decide what words mean."? It's not as if you didn't have a chance to reply, was it?

Butbutbut... He isn't Trump!

can't we get you to move to the Netherlands or something? You'd be a welcome addition to our wonderfully flat country.

Brilliant system that manages to offer two evil options two elections in a row!

I've voted as well as if I could. I voted third party.

Can someone explain to me how it's possible an industrial producer of bleach is registered as a fucking Church in the USA?

I wasn't defending anyone, I was pointing out what I consider an annoying mistake: using a term differently from how it's used and then trying to justify it with personal anecdotes.

so ask yourself why you are operating under the assumption I was talking about you when referencing TDS. — DingoJones

What part of what I wrote makes you think that as a Dutchman I feel you were talking about me? :chin:

Agustino wasn't blind to Trump's faults but accepted them as a necessary evil to shake up the system so it would finally change (in something I wouldn't want to see if his vision came true).

So Trump cancelled his daily conference because he's a whiny little bitch that can't handle critical questions. "nothing but hostile questions" indeed. Maybe stop lying and gettinf a clue will get him less hostile questions.

Yes, it's not interesting to hear you think people are deranged. But hey, it isn't so bad, because you mean it in a non-medical way. Meanwhile, it's not clear at all what the substantive difference is between medical derangement and non-medical derangement. I suspect the only difference is that one is established by a medical professional but in the end the judgment is the same, but we can question yours more easily when you do it. Doesn't make the judgment a light hearted thing.

At the same time, what TDS means is quite clear from how it's used: a way to discredit any criticism by discrediting the person. It's an ad hom.

My neighbour is running the ventilators for the covid-19 patients when he's on duty (he's an anithesiologist (or however your write that in english)). And it's the only thing he's doing for 28 patients. It's complicated and requires constant surveillance and tweaking of, if I recall correctly, five different variables. Ventilators that are set appropriately aren't killing people, badly set ventilators will.

So thats what I mean when I say TDS. — DingoJones

You don't get to decide what words mean.

It’s an aspect of anti-trumpism. — NOS4A2

Your go-to phrase when confronted with a narrative that contradicts your lies.

Thanks for the compliment. I don't think Dutch people are smarter per se but the average educational level is higher and the country is smaller which means some knowledge of international affairs becomes necessary for almost every business.

As to Dutch stupidity: there's a conspiracy theory that g5 is causing covid-19. So people are lighting up communication towers here (where no 5g is installed yet but whatever).

Yes, especially if you have a shortage and high pressure on your ICU system, people will get their ventilator at the latest possible. But the later you start, the more exhausted the body they less likely it is the immune system gets a chance to recover.

Not specifically but what holds for other respiratory failures will hold here as well.

closet gay, — Punshhh

Once he goes to prison he'll be someone's bitch. Does that count?

There's plenty of literature on how ventilators can increase the likelihood of death because it's a complicated piece of machinery and every person is different and everyone infection is different. Too high pressure for the healthy parts of the lungs is a common cause for instance.

Really? Because it's the existing protocol, it must be based upon good science? It's just a tautology? Maybe show me the study you're referencing instead of just repeating that's what everyone happens to be doing. — Hanover

It's not a tautology and I'm not inclined to explain why there is already an existing protocol what to do in case of acute respiratory failure. Suffice is to say, this isn't the first disease causing respiratory failure.

As frank said, it's not a treatment but it's to buy time. In the case of covid-19 to allow the immune system to do the work. High death rates despite ventilators are to be expected as you don't get a ventilatoe unless you end up on the ICU (at least that that's in the Netherlands, protocols might differ). So 12% recovery isn't even that bad considering we don't have an effective treatment and people are put in an induced coma on the ICU.

This is a clinician giving his general assessment based upon what it feels like on the ground. Second, it's entirely possible he's treating patients who were never going to deteriorate anyway, so he's providing unneeded treatment. What standard does he have to show that a particular patient was one of the rare ones who was going to exhibit serious symptoms and so he therefore ventilated prior to their being critical? Has the protocol of random testing in order to obtain early diagnosis and then immediate hospitalization with ventilation been tested against another protocol?
And has any of this analysis been tested against a better cross-section of people other than the German population so that we can screen for populations that happen not to be in their 40s and in generally good health? — Hanover

This is based on existing protocol which is science based. Try again.

When I first heard Trump at the press conference, it seemed like he was taking a more questioning tone than anything else. He said disinfectants hurt the virus, as do heat and light, and he wanted to know if there was a way to replicate these effects somehow in the form of a treatment. "Maybe we can, maybe we can't. I'm not a doctor... But maybe it's worth looking into." I'm not a Trump apologist either, but I think if a normal person hears that such and such has been found to hurt the virus, their next thought might be, "I wonder if there's a way we can use that somehow." I think the idea that he is suggesting injecting bleach into people, or something like this, is an uncharitable, not to mention inaccurate, interpretation of what he was saying. It doesn't really add anything to the discussion unless the goal is to just pile more hate onto the bandwagon. — Wolfman

I'm a normal person and I still know it's a fucking stupid suggestion. I'd expect that the most serious problem affecting the US at the moment would have the president's undivided attention, meaning he should know at least as much as I do. In fact, he should be better informed, with what little time I spend on the subject next to a full time job, a wife and two kids who are at home all the time at the moment.

I didn't miss it because it's not what I referred to. It's not greater acces but earlier access and your article doesn't prove the opposite at all because it doesn't go into when people are admitted into the hospital and the severity of their symptoms at the time.

They might suggest hospitalization, even to a patient who has only mild symptoms; the chances of surviving that decline are vastly improved by being in a hospital when it begins.

You must have missed that. To answer this:

My question is what would the death rate from the virus alone be in a country with no hospitals? — Hanover

Higher.