Coronavirus Outbreak...

[carpedm9587]

Good point. It will not be easy to balance the impact of the lockdown(s) and the devastation of the virus itself.

But one thing is sure. Pretending things will be 'ok' and ignoring the data and the science is an almost guaranteed means finding ourselves confronted with total failure.

The problem here is not that Trump is wrong to be concerned about the economy and to look for ways to avoid killing it. The problem is he will ignore anyone and everyone that has the knowledge required to construct a viable path through this situation.

I think the problem is the priority of the economy. This is something I have never truly understood about so many on the right, the GOP, and especially the religious right. The economy is mammon. How did it come to be the raison d'etre for so many? There are many things I value well beyond the economy. I can deal with hardship if I am dealing with it with friends and loved ones. Maybe our country is overdue for a little financial hardship. Maybe it will re-awaken an American spirit that has been lacking for so many years (decades?) now.

[carpedm9587]

This argument that they haven't "been able to substantiate the report" is not at all convincing relative to the things they do push, including trivial and unsubstantiated stories, to keep the Orange Man bad narrative going. Considering the weight and importance of this action, considering that Politico is fairly reputable, and considering they could easily get Congress people off the record to comment about it (their infamous "sources say" they always use as a credible source for past stories about the president) makes this argument even less convincing.

So why do you think it is not showing up in the major news outlets?

[carpedm9587]

Seriously, what are you talking about? It is a fact that early case mortality rates for epidemics/pandemics are always high early on until folks get a handle on exactly what they're dealing with, and then the numbers drop, often substantially, to more realistic levels.

Why do I get the feeling you're almost disappointed that things may not be as bad as initially reported?

I'm talking about the trend lines, MM. Trump downplayed the virus, and his base and the right media supported him and the "chicken little" narrative started - Dems are overblowing this as their new hoax, etc. Trump converted to "we have a problem" and the "chicken little" narrative paused for a few days. Now Trump says, "maybe we're over-reacting," and many on the right fall right back into line and parrot the narrative.

This is the dynamic I am seeing. Trump says "Chinese Virus" and his base begins to parrot it almost across the board, though now it's "Chicom," apparently. Essentially, what Trump says becomes holy writ that is seldom questioned and seldom criticized. Their is a kind of cult forming before our eyes. Nothing else could explain, AFAICT, a man like Trump being more popular in the Republican Party than a man like Reagan or even Lincoln. Indeed, I don't know of any Republican President in history that is viewed better by modern Republicans than Mr. Trump.

It is a sad commentary on what the Republican Party has become.

[carpedm9587]

I do hope it is some sort of far left nuttery rather than fact. Nevertheless, I'm wondering how he can perceive that as somehow not incriminating Barr and the DOJ itself if it is true? Trump and Barr would be driving this if it was real - yes?

Presumably...

[seanD]

So why do you think it is not showing up in the major news outlets?

Maybe for the same reason the House Dems -- who complain nonstop that the occupant in the WH is a tyrant, a traitor, a Russian asset, corrupt, above the law, must be stopped and removed at all cost, etc. -- gave that same occupant of whom they criticize incessantly about all the power of the NDAA and even more money than his defense budget asked for, including passing the Patriot Act with flying colors. Maybe because their Trump partisan outrage is phony? I don't know, how else would you explain the contradictions in their actions?

[Mountain Man]

I'm talking about the trend lines, MM. Trump downplayed the virus, and his base and the right media supported him and the "chicken little" narrative started - Dems are overblowing this as their new hoax, etc. Trump converted to "we have a problem" and the "chicken little" narrative paused for a few days. Now Trump says, "maybe we're over-reacting," and many on the right fall right back into line and parrot the narrative.

This is the dynamic I am seeing. Trump says "Chinese Virus" and his base begins to parrot it almost across the board, though now it's "Chicom," apparently. Essentially, what Trump says becomes holy writ that is seldom questioned and seldom criticized. Their is a kind of cult forming before our eyes. Nothing else could explain, AFAICT, a man like Trump being more popular in the Republican Party than a man like Reagan or even Lincoln. Indeed, I don't know of any Republican President in history that is viewed better by modern Republicans than Mr. Trump.

It is a sad commentary on what the Republican Party has become.

The liberal media was calling it the "Chinese coronavirus" and "Wuhan virus" for months, long before hypocritically criticizing Trump for using the common term that they had drilled into the public consciousness. I make a point of using it now not because Trump did it but because it annoys liberal busybodies.

And, yes, the Chinese coronavirus may not be nearly as bad as initially projected. I'm sorry this upsets you, but you'll get over it. Probably.

[carpedm9587]

Maybe for the same reason the House Dems -- who complain nonstop that the occupant in the WH is a tyrant, a traitor, a Russian asset, corrupt, above the law, must be stopped and removed at all cost, etc. -- gave that same occupant of whom they criticize incessantly about all the power of the NDAA and even more money than his defense budget asked for, including passing the Patriot Act with flying colors. Maybe because their Trump partisan outrage is phony? I don't know, how else would you explain the contradictions in their actions?

I'm not feeling a need to explain it because I'm not seeing a contradiction. News outlets today are profit centers. A major factor that goes into their choice of stories is the number of eyeballs it will capture. This story apparently doesn't rise to that level (yet). You may have noticed that the news cycles are pretty busy. So far what you have presented is a set of proposals coming from the DOJ that has to clear the House to go anywhere. I suspect the vast majority of Americans have no clue what "Habeas Corpus" even means. There are far more stories with a simpler plot line that are occupying the news cycles.

I also don't accept your premise: that the MSM is in nonstop "we hate Trump" mode. That is a right wing narrative I simply don't buy into. Is there bias in our news outlets? No question about it. Some are fairly center, some lean right, some lean left, some lean WAY right, and some lean WAY left. Reader beware. Mostly, when the news reports on the activities of government, they report on what gets eyeballs. This president constantly provides a narrative that gets eyeballs, and constantly behaves in ways that defy norms. I suspect most parents, faced with a child who talks and acts like Trump would quickly intervene. I would never have let my children call names. I never tolerated my children telling me lies. I never tolerated or encouraged my children to seek vengeance and always get even. But that behavior is now widely accepted AND widely parroted. We elected an Internet troll to the White House and trolling has now become a national pass-time. That the press is reporting doesn't make them biased or skewed. They are reporting what he does, some with more slant than others. Fox slants to support, CNN slants to anti-Trump. FOrtunately, there are still a few outlets that tend more to center-left and center-right.

[carpedm9587]

The liberal media was calling it the "Chinese coronavirus" and "Wuhan virus" for months, long before hypocritically criticizing Trump for using the common term that they had drilled into the public consciousness. I make a point of using it now not because Trump did it but because it annoys liberal busybodies.

And, yes, the Chinese coronavirus may not be nearly as bad as initially projected. I'm sorry this upsets you, but you'll get over it. Probably.

Yeah - like I said - Internet and public trolling has become a national pass-time. Congratulations - you've achieved the social maturity of an adolescent.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah - like I said - Internet and public trolling has become a national pass-time. Congratulations - you've achieved the social maturity of an adolescent.

As this post shows, you're just as eager to crawl into the sandbox with the rest of us.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think the problem is the priority of the economy. This is something I have never truly understood about so many on the right, the GOP, and especially the religious right. The economy is mammon. How did it come to be the raison d'etre for so many? There are many things I value well beyond the economy. I can deal with hardship if I am dealing with it with friends and loved ones. Maybe our country is overdue for a little financial hardship. Maybe it will re-awaken an American spirit that has been lacking for so many years (decades?) now.

[carpedm9587]

As this post shows, you're just as eager to crawl into the sandbox with the rest of us.

MM, calling a behavior for what it is does not constitute "crawling into the sandbox." Your description of why you use the term "Chinese virus" (or one of its variants) is the very definition of "trolling." I simply gave your acknowledgement the appropriate name. It is adolescent behavior whether done by someone occupying the oval office, someone claiming the title "Christian," or someone living in their parent's basement harassing other on the Internet. No reasonable parent would tolerate such behavior from a child, I see no reason not to call it out when it is done by a presumed adult. If you don't want to have the behavior called out, I suggest you consider changing it.

Or not...

[carpedm9587]

[Mountain Man]

MM, calling a behavior for what it is does not constitute "crawling into the sandbox."

Come now, you didn't simply "call out the behaviour for what it is", you had to get your own dig in with "Congratulations - you've achieved the social maturity of an adolescent," and you now double-down with the insulting rhetoric (implying that I'm really not a Christian, and that I live in my parent's basement). As long as you're "calling out the behavior for what it is", you could at least be honest about your own conduct.

[lilpixieofterror]

[oxmixmudd]

That is no excuse. All you need to do is look at the data to realize this is real.