I was about to ask if ships can even get the virus but then I remembered what just happened to that aircraft carrier.
Even though I'm sure that Captain thought what he did was right, it was really a stupid move. And sure, he is going to have support of his crew for thinking of their interests, but when you are in leadership, it is your duty to act to act above the popular support and do what is essential to the mission.
Like in private companies we don't get the luxury or honor of recognized service (no one except ourselves will cry over each other or even know who we are), but everyone there knows what they are there for, and are well aware of the risks. Even if we have to sit in hazardous environments for longer than expected, everyone still does it because we know others are depending on our role and getting the job done. You break protocol to save a few lives, you can inadvertently end up risking many more lives through a domino effect. Especially if you aren't in a position of strategic control and you don't see the big picture and won't fully appreciate the consequences. Admittedly today PMC's are a lot more selective and most in combat oriented roles are chosen from combat vets so you are starting with a higher standard of personnel out the gate than normal, but still.
I remember my senior telling me about the cold war and sacrifices people did (on both sides), and saying how few today have dedication needed to win a real war. The Coronavirus isn't that dangerous overall, but can you imagine how screwed we would be if someone used fully developed bio or even chemical weapon on us? The hysteria would break down the chain of command and kill us before the actual agent would.
I fail to see how making a plea to your superiors that the situation aboard your vessel that you command is beyond critical is a stupid move. I don't believe that there is anything that approaches a 'worthy sacrifice' when your commander-in-chief is more concerned about the optics than the lives on the ground.
I mean Trump's response was "This isn't a literature class, why is he writing a letter." The man is out of touch with reality.
Apparently only 155 on board have been infected. Out of a crew of thousands. The navy really has no response? No quarantine procedures? No medivac? They have to try and get the President involved? I thought NBC doctrine was well established during the Cold War, or was that only in Clancy novels?
CVN-71 has access to all of it's on board facilities and personnel. All of the facilities and personnel within it's strike group. And everything Guam has to offer.
And they're freaking out? That's not exactly inspiring.
Apparently only 155 on board have been infected. Out of a crew of thousands. The navy really has no response? No quarantine procedures? No medivac? They have to try and get the President involved? I thought NBC doctrine was well established during the Cold War, or was that only in Clancy novels?
To the Navy command, that got leaked to the press by an unknown party. They accused the Captain, but I don't think it was him. Since the Naval Secretary then had a PA announcement that got leaked to the press, long after the Captain was fired.
I fail to see how making a plea to your superiors that the situation aboard your vessel that you command is beyond critical is a stupid move. I don't believe that there is anything that approaches a 'worthy sacrifice' when your commander-in-chief is more concerned about the optics than the lives on the ground.
I mean Trump's response was "This isn't a literature class, why is he writing a letter." The man is out of touch with reality.
There is clear and well defined protocol for these circumstances, protocol that the captain of the USS Roosevelt chose to ignore. As the captain of a USN Supercarrier, he had access to a hotline with the Pentagon, which by protocol he should have used because a pandemic outbreak qualifies under Navy protocol as a CBRN incident. He didn't, using that hotline leaves a record on both sides, and both are clear he didn't. By protocol, the moment he realized there was an outbreak on the ship, he was to immediately make steam for the middle of the ocean, raise quarantine flags, and get on that hotline to declare the situation. This is STANDARD OPERATIONS for Ocean Going Vessels, even merchant marine ships have this standard (although they don't hotline the Pentagon, they have other agencies they are obligated to contact). Hell, technically speaking even private Yachts are supposed to follow this (although not the middle of the ocean, for them). The captain did none of this, he tried to contact his direct superior, but didn't even indicate the situation was an emergency. You don't send an e-mail to the admiral with the subject line 'RE: Covid-19' and then give up because you don't get a timely response, even if you didn't have the hotline you get on the damned horn and call up the chain of command until you get someone who will listen. There are methods to every system of madness, even the US Military bureaucracy. (edit 2: this is in reference to what he did before the 'leaked' letter, and the e-mail bit is hyperbole)
PotUS Trump's response in this incident is correct and isn't even the tiniest bit out of touch with reality: the man shouldn't be writing a letter - especially not to his hometown media (Edit: Let's scratch that and assume that his letter was intended to the Chain of Command like he claims) . He has access to the ears of Navy Command all the way up to the White House directly, he should have made a call - and one is all it would have taken, as I alluded above.
The Former Captain of the USS. Roosevelt should never have held a command position, the moment pressure was applied he shattered and forgot the protocol which was established specifically for these sorts of circumstances. That's just the facts.
Steak said:
The navy really has no response?
The US Navy has protocols for the containment of pandemics and infectious disease outbreak aboard ships. The Captain chose to follow ignore these guidelines (or just pay lip-service to them) and instead panicked, which is one of the many reasons the Navy determined loss of confidence in his ability to command and removed him from his position.
I don't have much faith in the navy in this case. Their decision to call the Captain naive or stupid, then have to walk back what they said, on top of firing him before the conclusion of an investigation (as is procedure to do), which in of itself was not done with proper consultation according to what we know.
It all points to a Naval command that bungled the situation aboard the Roosevelt, and when the matter became public, they looked to attack the messenger and hope this blows over.
PotUS Trump's response in this incident is correct and isn't even the tiniest bit out of touch with reality: the man shouldn't be writing a letter - especially not to his hometown media. He has access to the ears of Navy Command all the way up to the White House directly, he should have made a call - and one is all it would have taken, as I alluded above.
The punishment toward the captain was actually harsher than it should have been and clearly an overreaction by the leadership. They've screwed up and only succeeded in painting a picture that they do not care about the health and safety of the personnel under them, and succeeded in making the captain appear as a martyr who was punished for doing the "right thing". I say that in quotations, because clearly he did screw up with this as well, but it is clear that those above him have clearly screwed up on this too and if they continue with their current course they're just going to succeed in destroying confidence in their ability to command during this crisis.
Additionally the Acting Secretary of the Navy, a career businessman, attacking the former Captain in an address to the crew of the ship is also clearly a failure in the current leadership.
I don't have much faith in the navy in this case. (etc)
Honestly in agreement with you on what you said here and don't have anything else to add.
NWF_Renim said:
The punishment toward the captain was actually harsher than it should have been... (etc)
While I disagree about the harshness of the punishment (removal from role is standard for a loss of confidence), I do entirely agree that attacking the Captain in the language that has been thrown at him by certain parties is uncalled for and is in fact a direct violation of the UCMJ, which even the civilian parts of the military must abide by.
And absolutely the Navy themselves have fucked this entire thing up royally. There is a good chance the Captain would have known and followed the infectious disease protocols if the Navy had properly trained their commanding officers. This is moreso a failure of training on the part of the Navy than it is a failure of the Captain to follow protocol, BUT he still did fail to follow protocol which IS a loss of confidence.
I fail to see how making a plea to your superiors that the situation aboard your vessel that you command is beyond critical is a stupid move. I don't believe that there is anything that approaches a 'worthy sacrifice' when your commander-in-chief is more concerned about the optics than the lives on the ground.
I mean Trump's response was "This isn't a literature class, why is he writing a letter." The man is out of touch with reality.
The coronavirus is not a death sentence. We aren't talking about something like nerve gas exposure. There was no need to panic. In addition, there are proper ways to bring up concerns, not by trying to spread a notice to whoever he can. It was extremely unprofessional. Its not about optics, it is about maintaining command and control, and that doesn't happen when you have one guy thinking he has priority.
Again, being a leader means not simply being a proxy for popular opinion. Sure it sounds cool to say "I'm thinking of my men" but that doesn't afford you the leeway to do what you want. Individual initiative has to be within the bounds of the intended goal. Leadership has to be calm and collected to look at the big picture, that is why they are afforded that position and why decisions are not up to popular vote. I've worked with guys who powered through illnesses and painful stuff like toothaches or fractures because they had a job to do. You don't abandon ship because people get sick. Does that sound cold? Sure, but there is a job to do, and that is why it is called service.
Trump and the Navy's issue goes beyond the complaint itself. This isn't like sending a letter to loved ones, opsec is a real thing, and being one who has dabbled in information dissemination, I know how small stuff can actually be a pretty big deal. Now I doubt the Captain intended for the letter to leak (although the numbers he was sending over unsecured pathways kinda made it inevitable), and maybe whoever leaked the letter had a grudge against the Captain, but regardless, his actions ended up causing way more problems than it had to.
Trump tends to be right more times than wrong, but if he was just only thinking of politics, why wouldn't he be on the side of the Captain and sailors to cash in those populist brownie points? Because the decision was not about politics, it was about SOP.
79248cm/s said: Trump tends to be right more times than wrong, but if he was just only thinking of politics, why wouldn't he be on the side of the Captain and sailors to cash in those populist brownie points? Because the decision was not about politics, it was about SOP.
Because he can have it both ways with his base. He gets someone who made his administration look bad (which is priority no. 1 for him) fired, then he can come in and protest the decision and get the boost for following what the people want. Its the same thing with everything he does. He'll be against, 100 percent, something when its popular to be against it, then reverse. Look at his views towards China any given week. Its completely mercurial and what he wants out of that week.
And please, this is the man who attacks his own administration daily over reporting the facts.
To the Navy command, that got leaked to the press by an unknown party. They accused the Captain, but I don't think it was him.
The thing is his emails were over unsecured communications. Even if he specifically did not bring the letter to the press or intend for it to do so, he is responsible for the leak by breaking protocol. That kind of trust is pretty much impossible to get back once you lost it.
Saladofstones said:
...
Trump has no loyalty to foreign countries like China. If China does something he likes, he will praise them. If they do something he doesn't like he admonishes them. He has no obligation to always praise or always hate a certain country. Their standing with him is constantly up for review, and that is a good thing.
Same deal with his administration. Most presidents are just puppets to their cabinet/buddies, Trump is not afraid to choose sides even if it is not popular. You can't tell me that firing a Captain who is loved by his crew is going to win Trump support. That doesn't even make sense. If he wanted to look good, he would just do whatever the media wanted him to do, then he would get constant positive news coverage, and not the non-stop stream of hit pieces on him.
If he wanted to look good, he would just do whatever the media wanted him to do, then he would get constant positive news coverage, and not the non-stop stream of hit pieces on him.
There has literally not been a single world leader in recent times that has successfully done that unless they also had tight control of their own media.
Tell me with a straight face that if he'd kept quiet and simply followed protocol that the news headlines wouldn't be "Whistleblowing Sailor Reveals Captain Covering Up Pandemic Aboard Nuclear Carrier."
There has literally not been a single world leader in recent times that has successfully done that unless they also had tight control of their own media.
Obama's presidency was a mess in every way, but the media towed the company message and spun the outcome for him. The media's biases are pretty blatantly obvious as to how they lean.
OOZ662 said:
Tell me with a straight face that if he'd kept quiet and simply followed protocol that the news headlines wouldn't be "Whistleblowing Sailor Reveals Captain Covering Up Pandemic Aboard Nuclear Carrier."
If he followed protocol it wouldn't have leaked to begin with. The issue the Navy had was that he panicked and went on unsecured communications. He also spammed it to multiple people which further complicates tracing who the leak is.
That being said, the military really should not concern themselves with media approval. The military shouldn't cater to political correctness.
The US Navy has protocols for the containment of pandemics and infectious disease outbreak aboard ships. The Captain chose to follow ignore these guidelines (or just pay lip-service to them) and instead panicked, which is one of the many reasons the Navy determined loss of confidence in his ability to command and removed him from his position.
The thing is, that's all pretty obviously beside the point. This isn't a story about what proper protocol was or whether it was a proper response under navy guidelines because the firing was obviously not done according to navy procedures, as they would have otherwise actually finished the investigation before taking action.
This is a pure story of Streisand Effect - Trump saw a story he didn't like, and had the person fired because of it, only to find that overtly attempting to bury the story only makes it explode.
So, what, first, the regulations don't matter because this SEAL guy had a sympathy piece on Fox News, but now they do matter because it's a way to get rid of this guy who says things Trump didn't want being said? The constant here isn't whether the regulations are on Trump's side.
And on the subject of Streisand Effect, this is basically analogous to the firing of Comey kicking off the Mueller Report; This wouldn't be a story but for the blatant overreach. Sort of like how Romney really stepped in it when he said that he told a landscaping company that "We went to the company and we said, look, you can't have any illegals working on our property, I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals," the problem isn't whether it's right, but that it reveals the mindset of the one in charge. Romney didn't do anything wrong, but his stated reason confirmed all the worst of what people already believed about him - that his position on immigration was a fake one, just a display to get votes from conservatives. (Or to be even more on-point, like Trump saying he didn't want to let Americans on a cruise ship stricken with Coronavirus return because he wanted to keep 'his numbers low' and that he didn't want 'his numbers to double because of a ship that wasn't his fault'.)
And that's why the facts also don't matter to the die-hard Trumpers, because they are pure tribalists who see absolutely problem with this kind of deliberate destruction of institutions to create a fiat-driven Dark Ages-style monarchy, since they have no belief in law or principle or institution or morality or anything but their own tribe taking power no matter the costs, even if they constantly cry wolf about the other side doing even the slightest whiff of anything remotely like this.
You know, this entire comment may have been worth as much as piss in the wind if it wasn't for the fact that Trump originally supported the Captain until several Admirals called him (through the proper channels) to explain what the issue was with the Captain's actions, where he immediately backed down from his earlier stance and sided with the Navy.
And that's why the facts also don't matter to the die-hard Trumpers, because they are pure tribalists who see absolutely problem with this kind of deliberate destruction of institutions to create a fiat-driven Dark Ages-style monarchy, since they have no belief in law or principle or institution or morality or anything but their own tribe taking power no matter the costs, even if they constantly cry wolf about the other side doing even the slightest whiff of anything remotely like this.
Rather they've come to the correct conclusion that those institutions do not have the best interests of the people of the United States at heart. They either have a, shall we say, broad view of things or are flat out antagonistic. Trust has been lost because many Americans feel like they've been exploited, taken for granted, or flat out abandoned.
And I'm not sure how you can argue against that.
Besides which, everyone else around the world is nation first. If you have one country that cares about itself and another country that cares about it's neighbor, which country is in a better position? I'd rather have a world with redundant nation states than one where everything can be knocked out like a line of dominoes. Or played like a fiddle.
Rather they've come to the correct conclusion that those institutions do not have the best interests of the people of the United States at heart. They either have a, shall we say, broad view of things or are flat out antagonistic. Trust has been lost because many Americans feel like they've been exploited, taken for granted, or flat out abandoned.
And I'm not sure how you can argue against that.
Besides which, everyone else around the world is nation first. If you have one country that cares about itself and another country that cares about it's neighbor, which country is in a better position? I'd rather have a world with redundant nation states than one where everything can be knocked out like a line of dominoes. Or played like a fiddle.
Yet, by exasperating the problem they only create a larger sinkhole in which they fall into this nihilistic view of the world. I'm not saying that the world itself is all sunshines and rainbows, but if you've lost trust in your institutions then it seems counterproductive to put in someone that furthers that distrust. Irregardless of whether Trump is "sticking it to the man" so to speak, all he's accomplished is to alienate more people instead of bringing them together. Whether by revolution or revision, one must tackle the problems in a pragmatic manner instead of simply throwing their hands up and saying "This is the way the world is so why bother?". If Americans had done that in the past the strives we've achieved would never had materialized.
It's easy to tear things down that don't work. It's hard, seemingly nigh-impossible, to recreate them in a way that benefits all. The world is becoming more global, whether one believes that's a benefit or not or whether they believe it's for the benefit or a single nation or the nations as a whole. if one does not adapt to that understanding then they fall to the wayside.
Instead of coming to the conclusion that something should be distrusted because of what it is, we instead need to look at what actions it takes that make it distrustful and how we can both cope with those actions and then ultimately change those actions so that distrust isn't bred within.
I find it amazing you managed to turn a fault of a Captain into Trump's fault. Even before Trump got involved it was pretty obvious the Captain messed up and this and this opinion was shared by others. If Trump wanted to bury the story, he just would not comment on it. Again, it isn't like what the Captain did is Trumps fault, Trump could easily bypass any criticism of removing the Captain by ignoring it. People who don't like Trump are trying to make a clear cut decision into a political controversy, because there isn't much else to attack Trump on.
As far as Eddie Gallagher, the war crime charges were completely ridiculous. It says a lot about some people that they want to go after the people stopping the terrorists. The firing of Richard Spencer if anything validates Trump. Richard Spencer tried to establish and under the table deal that he would let Gallagher stay in the SEAL team if Trump stayed out of over watching the process. That's a pretty blatant corruption and Trump called him out on it rather than just getting what he wanted in secret. Again, I find it amazing it is Trumps fault by default, even for doing the right (and legal) thing.
Firing Comey was entirely within Trump's right. Not to mention Comey wasn't investigating Trump on Russia, so it kinda makes it hard to imply corruption on Trump's part. Comey was fired for the really bad handling of Hillary Clinton where she clearly violated the law (ironically, also another information security issue). Comey also refused to talk about Obama wiretapping then candidate Trump (which is ironically what the democrats then accused Trump of doing with Biden). Just because the outcome was not to your liking, doesn't make it an overreach.
I don't like Romney but if he said he didn't want a company hiring illegal aliens (which is a crime) I don't see how you find that to be a bad thing.
I don't think anyone wants people infected with coronavirus to be coming into the US without first knowing where they are going to be. Some cities (including where I live) has protested against the housing of coronavirus patients without first knowing how the infection control is going to work. Trump not wanting to increase those infected is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Trump supporters are pretty clearly on the stance of law and order, in a political spectrum where the left is on record supporting things like illegal aliens and even trying to make secret deals with Russia for their conspiracy to oust Trump. You can try and spin him and his support as the spawn of evil, but the stances are pretty clear to the contrary. Conservatives aren't the people who start riots and burn down cities, support felons, or other immoral activities. Conservatives are also the exact opposite of supporting monarchies, it is the left leaning side that is pro-government over individual freedoms.
Yet, by exasperating the problem they only create a larger sinkhole in which they fall into this nihilistic view of the world. I'm not saying that the world itself is all sunshines and rainbows, but if you've lost trust in your institutions then it seems counterproductive to put in someone that furthers that distrust. Irregardless of whether Trump is "sticking it to the man" so to speak, all he's accomplished is to alienate more people instead of bringing them together. Whether by revolution or revision, one must tackle the problems in a pragmatic manner instead of simply throwing their hands up and saying "This is the way the world is so why bother?". If Americans had done that in the past the strives we've achieved would never had materialized.
It's easy to tear things down that don't work. It's hard, seemingly nigh-impossible, to recreate them in a way that benefits all. The world is becoming more global, whether one believes that's a benefit or not or whether they believe it's for the benefit or a single nation or the nations as a whole. if one does not adapt to that understanding then they fall to the wayside.
Instead of coming to the conclusion that something should be distrusted because of what it is, we instead need to look at what actions it takes that make it distrustful and how we can both cope with those actions and then ultimately change those actions so that distrust isn't bred within.
Tried being nice for 30 years. Things kept getting worse and worse, and no matter how reasonable you tried to be, no matter how many compromises were made, the goal posts kept shifting and the other side kept becoming angrier and louder. The simple fact of the matter is that there are traitors in this country, and they can't be reasoned with because they've committed terrible crimes both here and abroad. They can't afford to stop what they've been doing.
No, the world is not getting more "global". People are fast figuring out that "going global" means no longer having a home and people to call your own. And if you don't have a people, there's no one to help you defend yourself when the chips are down. Going global breeds dependence and isolates people. There's no sense of obligation to one another. No common interests. Not so much that you'd stake your life at any rate.
It's very quite strange. I keep hearing about how wonderful diversity is, but those who champion such a things advocate the elimination of nations. If there are no longer distinct groups of people with their own cultures and histories, what diversity are we actually talking about here? They advocate race-mixing, which only leads to the destruction of races.
Nationalists might not like other nations for one reason or another, but that's not the same as wanting those nations to be wiped out which is what happens when groups are encouraged or outright forced to mingle.
Honestly speaking, Trump didn't alienate anyone. People who hate Trump still hate him, people who like him, still like him. Trump has been a good step in the right direction to fight the institutional corruption and bureaucracy. He literally could not care about party lines, he is an equal opportunist, he attacks or praises anyone based on how he views their actions rather than their background. He will even attack and fire his own administration if he thinks they are messing up. He is the kind of president people on all party lines have claimed they wanted for years.
Again, the whole thing wasn't political despite the attempt to make it such. The Captain was at fault and the Navy had him removed from command. I can understand what the Captain was probably thinking, but I don't agree with it at all.
Having only worked with some, but not being in the military, I can only rely on kibehisa's opinion on the lack of training aspect (since it sounds he is/was in the Navy), but personally I find it really hard to believe that the Captain didn't know that he going off the rails when he spread those messages. I think he just thought defying the rules was for the greater good. In my experience, SOP, laws, and safety was drilled into our heads before we are even assigned any job. From what I have seen of servicemen, the military is even more of a stickler on stuff like death by powerpoint and strict on detail oriented personnel. I doubt they would give someone command without telling him how to react in an emergency.
You know, this entire comment may have been worth as much as piss in the wind if it wasn't for the fact that Trump originally supported the Captain until several Admirals called him (through the proper channels) to explain what the issue was with the Captain's actions, where he immediately backed down from his earlier stance and sided with the Navy.
This isn't something I've seen, but I guess it's entirely plausible, considering who we're talking about. So now the defense to Trump's knee-jerk reaction is that he at first made his usual uninformed knee-jerk reaction the other way before being told a tiny bit about its implications being actually bad and made a wild swing in the other direction? Truly, a stellar example of leadership at work, and a wonderful reason to support government by fiat like this, if I ever saw one.
Trump never sided with the Navy, he overruled the Navy in both instances, blowing away their regulations. Again, if he'd given a damn about the Navy's regulations, he would have let them perform their investigation and come to a conclusion on their own.
Steak said:
Rather they've come to the correct conclusion that those institutions do not have the best interests of the people of the United States at heart. They either have a, shall we say, broad view of things or are flat out antagonistic. Trust has been lost because many Americans feel like they've been exploited, taken for granted, or flat out abandoned.
And I'm not sure how you can argue against that.
So because someone lies to you some of the time, you shouldn't even try to address the problem, and instead put absolute blind faith in someone known to lie to you all of the time? Genius!
There's absolutely reason to hold faulty institutions to account, but this is blatantly a way to make all those problems worse. It's logic like that which says that if you stub your toe on your dresser when walking in the dark, the best solution is to light your house on fire and be homeless.
Steak said:
Besides which, everyone else around the world is nation first. If you have one country that cares about itself and another country that cares about it's neighbor, which country is in a better position? I'd rather have a world with redundant nation states than one where everything can be knocked out like a line of dominoes. Or played like a fiddle.
And here we swing for what should be ludicrously off-topic, but, well, really is the heart of the matter, now isn't it? We need to support firing a Navy captain because Trump's the only way to stop the Jewish New World Order from... making all food Kosher or something(?), and therefore we can't ever admit he's wrong about anything!
(And Trump's definitely only ever put "America First" when prioritizing whatever nations give him money through his emoluments with absolutely no regard to America's interests, right?)
There is absolutely no logical through-line with any of these statements. "Firing a navy captain through overturning American democracy into a feudal society is necessary because we had to put the nation we're destroying because it doesn't support us first or else there would be a New World Order that would destroy the nation if we didn't destroy it first!"
He will even attack and fire his own administration if he thinks they are messing up.
His yardstick for "messing up", instead of being something sensible like "not competent", is "disagreeing with me in any way".
This is a guy whose level of privilege has insulated him from any and all negative consequences and criticism of his decisions his entire life. The notion of himself being wrong is incomprehensible to him.
So Trump is the bad guy no matter what decision he makes? He took notice of a possible injustice, was corrected by Navy leadership, and amended his stance. Is that not the "presidential temperament" people have been claiming they wanted from Trump? Again, I'm still amazed this somehow turned into a bash Trump session when the whole deal is about the Captain.
Steak is more commenting on the fact that nations exist for a reason. Nations have their own culture, their own economy, and standings. Trying to pretend all nations are one big happy family breaks down once someone needs or wants more than others are willing to provide. Keep in mind globalism is what lead to both world wars (former being basically unconditional alliances, the latter assuming international law means anything to anyone, or that bigger countries won't sacrifice the little countries to buy time).
No one even brought up Jews, not to mention Trump's family is Jewish.
Also there is no democracy in the military. There is a chain of command and rules. People don't get to vote on what they do or how they are treated, they have a duty once they sign those papers. America also by the way is a Republic, which is fundamentally different than just a democracy, it is a refined version that avoids mob rule and recognizes the inability of all citizens to vote on all decisions, all the time. It is why we have representatives
Arcana55 said:
His yardstick for "messing up", instead of being something sensible like "not competent", is "disagreeing with me in any way".
This is a guy whose level of privilege has insulated him from any and all negative consequences and criticism of his decisions his entire life. The notion of himself being wrong is incomprehensible to him.
Really, privilege? You don't get rich just by coming from money. That kind of concept is only believed by paycheck receivers, not paycheck writers. There are tons of rich brats who have squandered their family wealth (or heck, even wealth they only got from a lucky break such as actors or lotto winners), just as there are poor people who worked their way up the ladder to good or excellent standing. Claiming someone's success on privilege is just sour grapes.
This situation with the Captain was literally a situation where the Navy disagreed with Trump's original opinion. Trump changed his mind and agreed with the Navy, that is specifically contrary to your assessment of him.
I don't like Romney but if he said he didn't want a company hiring illegal aliens (which is a crime) I don't see how you find that to be a bad thing.
While your entire screed is just made of Fox News talking points, this line in particular is just perfect in that you don't even for a moment consider the actual meaning of the statements I made. That might actually require the slightest amount of critical analysis, much less self-reflection after all!
No, you don't like Romney, but the reason why has apparently all gone down the Memory Hole by this point, hasn't it? You hated him for that statement, but apparently now, you've completely forgotten why because it's outside the current political moment.
79248cm/s said:
Trump supporters are pretty clearly on the stance of law and order...
No, they very clearly aren't. They don't believe in anything but Trump.
If they were a party of law and order, you would have stuck by what the courts said with Gallagher. But that didn't matter because Fox News said it was a bad thing he was being demoted for some reason, and supporting law and order is siding with the terrorists, but as soon as the subject changes, you're "the party of law and order" all over again. Who cares why Comey was fired, or if it was a blatant obstruction of justice so long as a flimsy legal justification can be thrown up, and a new attorney general can be thrown in to bury the results? No so-called principle will not be betrayed here, so long as it gets you to the conclusion you want to get to. Black is white, up is down, and two plus two equals five if Fox News says so.
You've even said yourself in the past that you not only don't have, but can't have loyalty to any principles or concepts like nations, you only have loyalty to a person. You can't hold that view and then say that you are on the side of a principle like "law and order".
My opinions are my own (and Fox News regularly bashes Trump by the way because he isn't establishment Republican)
Again, Romney found out the business used illegal aliens and told them not to when he found out. I still can't see what you are finding bad about that, and I never said I hated him for that statement.
I'm obviously a Trump supporter, but you seem to believe you know my stance better than I do. Gallagher's entire trial was a mess, and this was evident in the review where much of the testimonies were hearsay, or personally motivated against him out of jealousy. Law and order doesn't support witch trials or lynch mobbing.
I never said I don't/can't have loyalty to principles or concepts like nations... (I'm literally someone who risked his life solely for US interests). I'm seeing this trend with you that I have mentioned in our PM's and other discussions, you frequently lump all your opposition's opinions together and do not differentiate between who you are speaking to. Not that I entirely blame you, my username is not exactly recognizable or easy to remember, being just a bunch of numbers. But if you are going to recall someone's past you have to remember it accurately.
Dammit ya'll, isn't there a rule here that political debate is forbidden in the comment sections?
There is no ban on political debate. No subject is forbidden on danbooru. The only mandate is to keep discourse civil. Frankly this is one of the fun things about the website. An anime image can get a bunch of weebs to talk about serious stuff.
There is no ban on political debate. No subject is forbidden on danbooru. The only mandate is to keep discourse civil. Frankly this is one of the fun things about the website. An anime image can get a bunch of weebs to talk about serious stuff.
Saladofstones said:
Generally the rules are don't get personal/attack people, and don't insert unrelated political screeds onto images.
I do understand that 500 posts about politics on a Mongolian Throat Singing board can get annoying, though.
Is that so, i thought it is forbidden because i kinda remember the Pepe the frog mimikyu post from way back that have the same discussion.
(and Fox News regularly bashes Trump by the way because he isn't establishment Republican)
Fox News only did exactly that until Trump's presidential nomination was secured. Now? The most-watched segments on Fox defend him at every opportunity, practically giving Trump-biased coverage.
Call it "bashing" or whatever, but the only outliers vocally criticizing Trump administration as a whole can be counted with one hand: Andrew Napolitano (contributor/guest), Chris Wallace, Shepherd Smith (already resigned) and maybe Neil Cavuto when the economy stock market takes a hit. If you have more names, then be my guest.
Fox News only did exactly that until Trump's presidential nomination was secured. Now? The most-watched segments on Fox defend him at every opportunity, practically giving Trump-biased coverage.
Call it "bashing" or whatever, but the only outliers vocally criticizing Trump administration as a whole can counted with one hand: Andrew Napolitano (contributor/guest), Chris Wallace, Shepherd Smith (already resigned) and maybe Neil Cavuto when the economy stock market takes a hit. If you have more names, then be my guest.
On top of that, several anchors have done direct appeals to Trump that he then heeds, and a good amount of contributors ended up joining his administration. Fox News sold itself out once they realized Trump had a base they could latch onto.
Hell, even Trump's obsession with those unproven drugs comes from some segment from Fox news. It's not every day that the snake oil salesman is the president.
kibehisa said:
You know, this entire comment may have been worth as much as piss in the wind if it wasn't for the fact that Trump originally supported the Captain until several Admirals called him (through the proper channels) to explain what the issue was with the Captain's actions, where he immediately backed down from his earlier stance and sided with the Navy.
I would like to note that this has gone full circle with Modly Resigning and Trump going back to supporting the Captain.
Apparently only 155 on board have been infected. Out of a crew of thousands. The navy really has no response? No quarantine procedures? No medivac? They have to try and get the President involved? I thought NBC doctrine was well established during the Cold War, or was that only in Clancy novels?
CVN-71 has access to all of it's on board facilities and personnel. All of the facilities and personnel within it's strike group. And everything Guam has to offer.
And they're freaking out? That's not exactly inspiring.
The fact that they're sending samples to USFK so the Koreans can test them shows just how "prepared" USN is for this crisis.
Fox News has regularly bashed Trump, thing like saying he shouldn't tweet, that he isn't acting presidential, or saying his actions on trade (specifically tariffs) aren't good, even when it has shown that they are. Tucker regularly bashes Trump on foreign policy. The only one who is really pro Trump the majority of the time is Hannity and that Greg guy, but the Greg guy runs comedy. That is like getting your news from Jimmy Fallon.
In contrast look at other news medias in how they treat Trump vs Obama. The bias is blatantly clear, there is no way you can say that Trump has the media on his side.
Saladofstones said: ...
As far as the Malaria drugs and Z-pak, it isn't unproven. It has shown pretty effective success in studies. I should also note that Fox has actually had some contributors who have not suggested the combination, they clearly are not all in one way or another. Frankly it is unscientific to simply label something as snake oil when there hasn't been any conclusive evidence that the treatment is worse than the virus or ineffective, especially when the whole point isn't to use it as a treatment for everyone, but those already severely affected by the viruses symptoms to where they are at an increased risk of dying from the virus. If this combination is found to be effective enough for FDA approval and Trump had not taken steps to explore the option, you can be sure the media would say Trump is responsible for all deaths due to the virus.
Trump has not reversed his stance on the main subject. He only condemned the language used against the captain, which you can scroll up and see that this view was also publicly agreed by the Navy (I personally however do view the Captains actions as stupid, for the reasons previously outlined, and I believe Modly's leaked speech is probably closer to how the rest of the Naval brass feels about the subject than the PC veneer). The captain has not been given command back. Trump has also said that Modly did not have to resign. And actually, after reviewing Trump's response, he reinforced the fact that the Captain was wrong in his actions, there wasn't any circling around done in anyway.
It is also notable how the media tries to spin the situation as the Captain "sounding the alarm" and not drawing attention to the fact that he was not removed from command simply for asking for help, but doing so outside protocol.
There's a difference between saying someone said or did something stupid and saying they are stupid. Smart people do and say stupid things all the time for one reason or another. In fact, I'm often confronted with people who fail to recognize the distinction, either because they lack comprehension, or assume implication regarding their ability.
I view it as "stupid is as stupid does". People aren't condemned to always be smart, dumb, good, bad, etc., but they establish their position in the spectrum by what they do.
As far as the Malaria drugs and Z-pak, it isn't unproven. It has shown pretty effective success in studies. I should also note that Fox has actually had some contributors who have not suggested the combination, they clearly are not all in one way or another. Frankly it is unscientific to simply label something as snake oil when there hasn't been any conclusive evidence that the treatment is worse than the virus or ineffective, especially when the whole point isn't to use it as a treatment for everyone, but those already severely affected by the viruses symptoms to where they are at an increased risk of dying from the virus. If this combination is found to be effective enough for FDA approval and Trump had not taken steps to explore the option, you can be sure the media would say Trump is responsible for all deaths due to the virus.
Mate, there have been zero major studies regarding the drugs. All we have is a study of 30 people by a fringe French scientist, and anecdotal evidence. Trump had at least 2 months before the virus hit Stateside to prepare the country for COVID-19 and he squandered it, and now he's hocking some unproven shit because there is nothing else to do.
At most the drugs can help the body in the initial stages of infection, in theory. They do nothing, as I understand it, once the Coronavirus has already been established. Most of the guidelines are to give it to already-stricken and symptomatic patients. Ergo, the application and the research are in pretty stark opposition.
Its Snake-oil to be promoting the drug as much as he has as if there is any proof that it does anything. As it stands, there are 10,000 American graves that can be laid at the base of Trump's legacy since he spend months maintaining it was just a 'flu' and that it won't hit stateside.
Fox News has regularly bashed Trump, thing like saying he shouldn't tweet
It'd probably be easier for Fox News to defend Trump if only the person himself stopped changing the narrative through his whimsical tweets every now and then, but what do I know.
that he isn't acting presidential
What does that even mean?
or saying his actions on trade (specifically tariffs) aren't good, even when it has shown that they are.
Tariff and protectionism are good, but trade war is not. Trump's tariff sparked the latter because of how he implemented it (with arrogance and bluster, saying that "trade war is easy to win") and pretty sure that American consumers are the ones paying the price for Trump's personal "victory" of "sticking it up to Chinese government" as he claimed that China would be hurt more when that was untrue. American farmers inevitably became the collateral and subsequently requiring bailout from Trump admin because China stopped buying their agricultural products.
Tucker regularly bashes Trump on foreign policy.
Only on foreign policy, correct? Tucker's anti-interventionist stance has been largely correct (though I may disagree with his reasoning) and he doesn't have to resort to being over-reaching hack when it comes to the matter, unlike when he does his usual "culture war" segments.
In contrast look at other news medias in how they treat Trump vs Obama. The bias is blatantly clear, there is no way you can say that Trump has the media on his side.
Funny you say that since the same thing actually can be said about Bernie Sanders. Trump at least still gets free coverage no matter what he does, unlike the cold indifference they treat Bernie with.
Just to be clear, I don't give two shits about Obama or media obsession of him (nor he deserves all that creepy adoration). The only difference is that under Trump, corporate-backed medias get to cash in the outrage on top of benefiting from the tax cuts and corporate deregulation, but that is just capitalism working as intended, no? You can say that profit motive trumps doing real journalism (heh).
So again, science means to further investigate the option before you just dismiss it without reason. I find it amazing how people who supposedly fall into the hysteria of thinking this virus is the end of the world, will also immediately turn their nose up to possible solution without having any reason that it doesn't work. Also you misunderstand. We already know that nearly all deaths involve pulmonary disease. So people already at risk (like due to smoking or shortness of breath from other pre-existing conditions like I said) are the ones this treatment would be ideal for. Again, Trump never said he was going to give this to everyone (especially since most people don't need any treatment at all and survive the virus with mild to no symptoms).
Even if you want to for political reasons, you can't blame Trump for the coronavirus when he was the first one to take action by blocking travel (the one thing WHO claimed not to do but has found to be successful for Russia and Japan). When Trump blocked travel people said he was fear mongering and racist. His actions have been validated, and now his opposition wants to spin the situation.
Frawnkenstein said: ...
I don't know what "being presidential" means either. It some stupid standard of acting the Democrats and never-Trumpers came up with and constantly whine about, because they don't have any other criticism of Trump's performance.
A trade war is good when the US is on the losing end of economic trade. It makes zero sense to outsource production to a foreign country which leads to your own people to be out of work, paying for products whose dollars are going to a foreign country. In these situations you could block trade and be better off because then the opportunity for domestic business flourishes. This is something Democrats and Republicans have wanted, only Democrat and Republican politicians have defended outsourcing trade as a good thing.
Non-domestic businesses have also demonstrated how inflexible it is at responding to supply shortages like we see today. With foreign production, naturally the supplies will be diluted among foreign markets due to the logistics of the matter (see the issue with 3M), while domestic manufacturing will naturally benefit the host country in terms of jobs and supply.
Tucker's anti-interventionist polices have been wrong. To people sitting at home and don't see threats outside our borders, sure, the choice to fight overseas or not seems inconsequential compared to just pull back all influence. But the fact of the matter is that very deadly threats are stopped pretty much daily all over the world. The US could take a laissez faire approach if we cut down on immigration, international trade/travel, and military support of our allies. This is not possible for the US of today. If you do not address threats as soon as you detect them, you will lose them as your intelligence becomes outdated.
There is a saying in SOF, that can be applied to the situation: "Competence cannot be created during emergencies." By the same token, intelligence doesn't work by just summoning information made to order. You have to actually establish and maintain networks, and that involves physically going all over the world and finding out what is going on. Most information you get is useless, but it is only when that info is disseminated and looked together in one big picture does intelligence happen.
Anti-interventionist stances are actually very similar to the Captain's mindset. Sure you sound like a great guy saying you are protecting servicemen by pulling them from combat, but the fact of the matter is the military does not exist to look good, they exist to do good. Our military cannot fulfill their role if we put politics in front of the mission. The only aspect I do agree with Tucker is that the world depends way too much on US protection. Our military budget is big because we are pretty much defending several countries as well as our own. Countries need to develop their own military competence.
For sure, Trump and Bernie Sanders are hated by the media. Aside from the whataboutism, it seems you agree that Trump does not have media support like previously claimed. The difference however is Trump actually works and Sanders just kinda lazes around and rots. Sanders really has no intention of winning the presidency, and this was most evident when Hillary stole the election from him and he just laid back and took it. For Sanders the presidential campaign is just an opportunity to expand his wealth. Anyone who seriously thought Sanders wanted to win the 2020 presidency got Berned.
Tax cuts and deregulation for businesses is a good thing. For one, I never understood the idea that someone getting richer is somehow bad for other people. No one gets gainful employment by working for an impoverished person. Americans should want all businesses to thrive, as the more successful businesses are, the more opportunities people have for upward mobility either through employment or self-employment. Jealousy and greed have a tendency for people to attack the rich rather than to work on self-improvement to become rich themselves.
There is a classic Buddhist story about this. Condemned people are stuck in hell (basically) and a monk lowers a magical thread. The monk warns that while everyone can climb out, only one can come out at a time or the thread will break. The damned fight and claw over each other over who is first and as soon as someone starts climbing, the rest starts to pull him down. As a result the thread breaks and no one is saved. This is the kind of behavior many take when they assume "attack the rich" positions. The way to wealth is not to make other people poorer, but to make people richer.
Going back to the topic at hand, just like abandoning duty for the "welfare of your men", welfare and handouts to impoverished may sound good in the short run, but if you really want to help those people you expand job opportunities, not "redistributing" wealth. Everyone always wants to tax the rich, until they become rich. See Bernie Sanders, 4 years ago he was the enemy of millionaires, after becoming one himself, he is now the enemy of... billionaires!
79248cm/s said: Americans should want all businesses to thrive, as the more successful businesses are, the more opportunities people have for upward mobility either through employment or self-employment.
There is a darling naivety in thinking that businesses getting more money translates to anything for the average employee. Yeah all the money Bill Gates made means a lot for the programmer on a fixed income. Then these same people who advocate for tax-cuts for the rich say that raising the minimum wage will hurt the economy. As it stands, all the gig workers being fucked right now is proof enough the system isn't working for the employees benefit.
It would have been better if he stopped travel earlier in a much broader fashion. The policy never applied to U.S. citizens and residents, who were not monitored for symptoms as they returned. Thousands of people left Wuhan alone for the United States during January, which had internal travel suspended on the 23rd. Hundreds of thousands left China for the U.S. during January and another 18k people arrived in the two months after. This ignores the entry routes through other countries sustaining early epidemics: Italy, Iran, S.Korea, etc. The touted benefit is dubious, if not so brazen as China's claims to have borrowed the world time to prepare.
As for recommending anecdotally effective substances, it is exactly that: an anecdote. The immediate effect of the attention given by various media outlets and Trump already presents shortages to people who have a clear need for chloroquine and such. Blithely suggesting people take these substances will include side effects, which will have been for nothing if they do not prevent or ameliorate the coronavirus disease. Sorting results from controlled DBTs will take some time, but we need to be patient.
A business making more money does not necessarily mean an employee is going to make more money, because business expansion often means the capacity to hire more people, not just raising wages. Again, you don't get rich by settling for the status quo, I worked tons of jobs throughout my relatively short life, that is how I and others get ahead of the rest of the population who settles for the 9-5 grind. Taking money away from businesses have never helped working class people. It is far more naive to think cutting others down to your level will help anyone. That is what children think when they think everything should be "fair" and "equal" rather than allowing the possibility for ranking by merit. I never think that my conditions are the responsibility of others. I improve my own standing. America isn't like Japan where it is socially unacceptable to jump jobs. If a business/agency does not appreciate what I have to offer, I find other avenues of employment, and I always learn new skills to expand my worth in the workplace.
Meddy-san said:
...
It was like pulling teeth to just get the federal government to enforce existing laws like illegal aliens drug trafficking at the border. The politics behind the slow closing of the borders cannot be blamed on Trump when he isn't even on the side of open border policy. It is not dubious that blocking travel works. I find it astounding that some people (specifically WHO) will embrace the benefits of "social distancing" but at the same time claim that limiting border passage is ineffective.
You cannot say it is an anecdotal when we haven't determined yet if the combination of malaria drug and Z-pak is ineffective, and we have already seen success with the combination. It is not scientific to simply dismiss something without evidence. Side effects do not necessarily invalidate a treatment, especially when the alternative is death for those who have high susceptibility to pulmonary disease. Again, it is strange how people are so quick to condemn the possible treatment, just because Trump has pushed for studying it.
Also, Trump has not suggested people randomly taking the drug combination. Again, all he has done is set the stage so the US is prepared to use the treatment if it gains FDA approval for those at high risk of death from the virus (again, this isn't intended for everyone). His opposition is desperate to put politics in front of people, they are already trying to blame him for what ultimately was the fault of China, also like how Bush was blamed for Katrina. If he did not take these steps and it is later found that this combination is effective, you can be sure the left will cry out that he failed to take action to protect Americans.
I don't know what "being presidential" means either. It some stupid standard of acting the Democrats and never-Trumpers came up with and constantly whine about, because they don't have any other criticism of Trump's performance.
Van Jones once said Trump finally became a president when he ordered missile strike to Syria that one time. Maybe something along those lines? Being a warhawk apparently is presidential for both sides.
It makes zero sense to outsource production to a foreign country which leads to your own people to be out of work, paying for products whose dollars are going to a foreign country.
This sentiment I agree, but I don't trust Trump to champion on anti-outsourcing because his family business ventures have been known use cheap labors to make their products overseas and still continue to do so. I recall that even Trump's "Made in America Week" still has sneaky loopholes, like allowing the use products made by our allies.
Tucker's anti-interventionist polices have been wrong. To people sitting at home and don't see threats outside our borders, sure, the choice to fight overseas or not seems inconsequential compared to just pull back all influence.
American people have been lied into cheering multiple ongoing offensive wars and kept ignorant on the shadow ones. We're not much safer now just because we've killed a whole lot of brown people in Middle East and god knows where else, even going as far as covering up for war crimes, inhumane tortures and civilian casualties we've incurred. As end result, we're just creating more threats for ourselves to face than reducing them.
I'm fine with peace-keeping missions, of course, but last time we assassinated an Iranian general who was in peace-keeping mission himself, citing lies like "imminent threat" as justification, when killing him means we're doing IS jihadists' job for them.
Claiming our military actions as noble and just is the politically correct thing to say, but that's beside the point.
Our military cannot fulfill their role if we put politics in front of the mission.
You don't need to worry about this at all, really. Our dumpster fire medias are actually very good at selling just about anything as "national security concerns" instead of questioning them, and will continue to subserviently do so. Bombs away.
Aside from the whataboutism, it seems you agree that Trump does not have media support like previously claimed.
You seem to misunderstand me. I still stand by my words that Fox News is still pro-Trump and it remains the most watched cable TV out of all corporate medias. Whether that is enough or not for Trump and his supporters is another matter. Saying that Trump has no media on his side is an exaggeration and I was simply using media treatment of Bernie as comparison to challenge that notion. That's all.
The difference however is Trump actually works and Sanders just kinda lazes around and rots.
Trump was born rich and his true accomplishment is how he somehow stays rich after multiple bankruptcies, something that businessmen crawling from the bottom can only dream of. Also, Trump had a fake university and reality show people thought was a real deal.
In the other hand, Bernie is a veteran legislator who also happens to write best-selling books on the side. The guy has been consistently fighting for the working people throughout his career. Far cry from "lazing around and rot" like how you described. For someone fighting the tides from both sides, I think he's been doing pretty well.
For Sanders the presidential campaign is just an opportunity to expand his wealth.
It seems to me that you're perfectly describing Trump family instead I almost thought it was a projection. But if you can tell me how much richer Bernie got off his election bid, then be my guest.
Also, please don't tell me that the "already rich guy" like Trump doesn't want to get richer and therefore immune to corruption, because that's a load of bull. It's even worse that Trump hasn't completely divested from his family business, essentially allowing foreign dignitaries to curry favor with him through his owned properties, like that one time Saudi lobbyist paid for 500 rooms at Trump hotel right after 2016 election, raising ethic concerns. Trump tariffs also strangely exempts clothing items made in China and do you know who has such products made there? Ivanka Trump.
For one, I never understood the idea that someone getting richer is somehow bad for other people.
Sorry if this wasn't meant to be a reply to any of my point, but I can only see this sort of statement as strawman. Wealth is not the problem, hoarding wealth is. The more you hoard, the more power you have. You can buy influence with that power (like Bloomberg) and shape the system for you to preserve that wealth. If we tax rich people, they will still be rich. But let's not go to hacky area like "taxing 100%" as if it were a real position.
See Bernie Sanders, 4 years ago he was the enemy of millionaires, after becoming one himself, he is now the enemy of... billionaires!
...Who haven't paid their fair share in taxes. That's the qualifier for that statement. Don't lower your level to the likes of partisan hacks from CNN and MSNBC, please.
It's not some "gotcha" moment, either. Bernie still wants to include taxing millionaires including himself with his own tax plan. It's just that when you have billionaire like Bloomberg capable of buying his nomination with his enormous wealth, then you have bigger problem to face.
I've largely said my piece, so any further than this is going to be a waste of time for both of us. I'll just end it here and say agree to disagree. Have a good day, Sir.
Enlightened facts to appeal to even the most gun-shy Trumpers to make them realize they've been led astray by Herr President.
Excellent retorts. You did a villages' work in righting the wrongs in this comment thread that has apparently become a prototypical /chan/ pool of chaos.
When the government has been favoring outsourcing via regulations for decades, it makes sense to outsource because everyone else is doing it. Trumps products being made in China doesn't change the fact that we prefer it to be made here in the US. Hence why Trump is using tariffs and trade deals for other countries to adopt our regulations so outsourcing isn't simply a cheaper option for businesses. And again, this is an economic trend that has been decades in the making, there are many kids here in the US who don't even know how to operate a drill press, we cannot flip a switch and go to all US manufacturing immediately. Just like with the SOF truism, competence cannot be made in an emergency/on-demand. It takes time to educate, train, and then the hiring and business can flourish.
Trump has already been successful at bringing some production back to the US, that is why our GDP has risen past what was previously claimed as the the maximum possible in the previous administration.
American people have been lied into believing terrorists are just misunderstood people, that there aren't foreign threats, and that we are the bad guys. To date, people still believe the lie that there weren't WMD in iraq, even though back in 2005 public proof of the nuclear and chemical agents was available, and Canada even uses Iranian nuclear materials for power we seized from the region during that time.
Worrying about civilian casualties is pretty silly, considering terrorism and insurance naturally involves the enemy among the civilian population. News media sources do not have the intelligence (I do not mean they are dumb, but they lack the military intelligence) to know if some dude that we smoke is either an innocent noncom, or some dude who just planted an IED. This is the same disconnect from the professional mindset that causes headlines like "cops shot an unarmed man!" to sound right, even though actual cops know that being unarmed does not mean one is necessarily any less dangerous to cops or innocents in the area. I should also note the US has one of the best records in the world as far as reducing collateral damage, and that's something the news media doesn't want to talk about.
You aren't creating threats by engaging threats. If you become scared to react to a clear threat because of retaliation, you lost at the mind before you even fought. Outside of the western culture, no one respects turning the other cheek. If you give up ground, the enemy will take it and continue to advance. We learned this consequence back in WWII. The Allies back then were also afraid to incite Nazi Germany's wrath and so they chose politics when the situation screamed for action. Again, this is another disconnect that civilians have over professionals because most civilians have never been in a combat situation, and frankly most in the military have never served in strategic level decision making.
What you you see different between war and peace keeping missions? Just because it says "peace" does not mean violence is not involved. They are one in the same. Keep in mind that attempts to make peace with violent enemies have almost always ended up in escalation tensions rather than reducing it, because the enemy sees you as weak, as do your allies, which then causes your allies to stop trusting your judgement when you pull a Poland on them and sacrifice them to the wolves because you want to be nice to the bad guys and hope the problem goes away. This was a problem we saw with the transition from the Bush to the Obama admin, and we lost a lot of good guys because priority changed fro supporting our allies, to trying to appease the opposition.
An Iranian general who was killing our guys is no friend of us, even if he was an enemy of ISIS. People need to realize that the enemies of our enemies are not necessarily our friend. Some factions hate each other and everyone else.
Given your comment, it is clear that no, the media is not on the side of our military. They have convinced you and others, for example to believe in a reality that does not mesh anywhere close to people who have actually been there and done that. Like my Senior told me decades ago, if we went to war today with a serious enemy, we probably wouldn't win because next to no one today has the mindset that will win conflicts. We have too much self-defeatism programmed into our culture.
Fox news is not pro-Trump based on what we have established, outside of Humanity. Even Tucker is on the fence as we went over. Fox doesn't like Trump because he is not establishment, and won't fall in line with what politicians on both sides want but the people don't want.
Like I said before, being born into wealth does not mean one will maintain it. There are tons of rich brats who lost their family wealth, and that tends to be the norm than the exception. So many people talk about Trump's bankruptcies without ever actually knowing what they were about. You can look it up yourself, and it isn't surprising why he was able to still become rich.
As far as the Trump University, the graduates of the program gave it good reviews. The only reason they sued was because they failed in life. The only reason Trump didn't win the case was because the Judge was obviously biased against them. You can see the double standard if you imagine if I sued UCLA (or any of the other universities I took various classes in) after I graduated simply because I didn't succeed in life. They would laugh at the absurdity of the lawsuit. An education does not guarantee success, it doesn't even guarantee graduation.
Bernie berned his own support. There isn't anything he has done that has actually benefited his base, and this is evident in how he is a career politician with a long history in Washington, and yet the same kind of people are still complaining about their SES. Who is more likely to be corrupt? Someone who has the ability to make money via the private market, or someone who has never seen the real world and only knows politics? Bernie Sanders didn't want to become president, he just wanted the perks of running and this was plainly obvious from the moment he just let Hillary steal the election from him (because seriously, who really thought the democrats wanted Hillary over Bernie?).
The problem with Bernie Sanders is that his idea of fair share is directly variable to his own income. 2016 Bernie was all for raising the taxes on millionaires. Millionaire 2020 Bernie wants to raise taxes on billionaires, you see the discrepancy? Sure, he will tax himself, but he just doesn't group himself among the "billionaires" which are his new target. There is always someone else above him he wants to point the blame to, even though the truth is our wealth isn't the consequence or responsibility of anyone but ourselves.
Hoarding wealth is of no consequence to anyone. Simply having money isn't power, spending money is power, and that is contrary to the believe that hoarding wealth is power. You point out the flaw in your statement by pointing out Bloomberg. Even then, money can't buy you everything. It is clear money isn't as powerful as people think, as Bloomberg spent a ton and couldn't even win his own party. Jeb Bush outspent Trump and couldn't beat him (and Bush had the backing of Republican politicians). Hillary outspent Trump and couldn't beat him.
And actually, due to the government constantly printing money due to FDR taking us off the gold standard and causing non-stop inflation, hoarded wealth devalues over time, which actually means those who hoard wealth are making the rest of us richer, by taking more of the currency out of the economy, and raising the value of the dollar.
And again, how rich some dude in New York or San Francisco is has absolutely no bearing on my own bank account. I make my own money, I don't look for handouts. I don't get enraged if some dude made a lot of money due to big business, hell, I'm happy for my fellow American and think to myself, I'm going to make myself rich as well. I don't scheme up justifications in why I think his money should belong to me.
"Taxing people because they will still be rich" is awful. What happened to equality? The rich pay the vast majority of taxes and most of the country doesn't pay income tax at all. For all the talk about fair share, there is a lot of freeloaders not paying their fair share... and it isn't the rich.
Taxing the rich is a perspective driven by jealousy and greed. You only want to tax the rich if you believe you will never be that successful yourself, and that is a poisonous mindset on the road to prosperity. If you truly care about people in poverty, you pull out restrictions on hiring, you allow more businesses to expand, and you don't regulate entrepreneurs to where you need to get formal education just to start a business correctly. Opportunity is the key, not welfare.
I don't view this as a waste of time. It is always good to hear the opinions and arguments of other people who disagree, even if you aren't convinced, people are better for hearing each other out. In my own work, I have been much more effective in understanding how people, even enemies, think rather than to just pin them as "bad" people who need to be shot. Sometimes we still had to shoot them, but sometimes we could find a common ground to avoid conflict, a preferred outcome that cannot happen if people don't first put aside preconceived notions.
L_of_Shame said:
Didn't take long to see your true colours pal.
I've been pretty clear from the start that I stand on the right side of politics. I don't think anyone would mistake me for a democrat. lol And I haven't been distracting anyone, I replied to everyone's comments and all their points, even when they strayed off from the Navy topic and onto a blame Trump spree (which I am still amazed people were able to somehow pin the blame of all troubles on him).
Political pushback and organization at points of entry aside, Trump can still order travel restrictions unilaterally. There were many exceptions made without monitoring persons returning, weakening the effect of travel restrictions. The delayed reaction leaves us with a viral-whack-a-mole, catching up to a virus that already had plenty of opportunities to enter the U.S. The dubious point is the slow piecemeal reaction that is still too generous.
There were and are already controlled trials underway for investigation of azithromycin, chloroquines, and others without President Trump needing to promote them publicly. As of this moment, it still is, by definition, anecdotal. It is still anecdotal now even if the effectiveness is established later. The lack of counterevidence now reflects that too little is known about any of its interactions with COVID. The label of "snake oil" is not justified, but there is nothing for it either.
Sure legally it is within his power, but we are at a point where many people in the federal government blatantly aren't following law anymore. Trump could legally also do an EO to deport every single illegal alien, or undo every single gun control restriction, there wouldn't be a need to debate it because it already established by the law. However there are enough politicians and bureaucrats breaking the law that the law itself no longer has power alone. Trump can't be blamed for not being able to do something because of others. He especially can't be blamed when everyone called him racist for blocking travel but he still did it for public safety, even though it wouldn't gain him political favor.
There is no need for Trump to promote any treatment, just like there is no need for media to talk about the spread of the virus. However both do it in order to let the public know what is going on. It isn't need to know info, but people still want to know. Trump is well within his bounds to talk about treatments he thinks could be beneficial to saving people. And again he isn't suggesting people just take it willy nilly. Some of the commentators saying it was irresponsible of him to promote it don't seem to realize the malaria drug and Z-pak are prescription only drugs. You can't get it without a healthcare professional knowing (and consequentially being responsible) for what it is going to do to you. There is absolutely zero risk for Trump to talk about it.
We also don't necessarily need to know the mechanism, or why it works. Coronavirus isn't very deadly, most have mild to no symptoms and survive easily, and the few who do die almost always die due to complications involving the health of their lungs. This narrows it down pretty well who the high risk cases are, and getting an option on the table for them is a higher priority than worrying about complications down the line. What is longer lasting, a chronic disorder, or death? Again, no one has ever suggested this as a general treatment for everyone.
This is like when I first started out in security, when we were taught first aid we were told not to use tourniquets because it would cause necrosis and require amputation. Packing, pressure, elevation (if possible) was all we were told to do. This was taught by a practicing surgeon and nurse hired to train us. It was not until I got to work with Marines that they told us that was stupid. Why the hell would you worry about a limb, when the dude is freaking dying due to blood loss?! There are higher priorities in an emergency. (Of course now we have clear evidence that tourniquets can be applied for a very long time without causing necrosis.)
The primary risk factors observed so far are hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes. Patients with respiratory conditions, given what data exists, compose fewer of the severe cases than might be expected [1][2]. Heart disease tends to be aggravated by chloroquines as is, and severe COVID-19 cases lead to heart injury.
The FDA has allowed emergency usage for remdesivir (developed for Ebola) and chloroquine for severe COVID-19 cases. The problem comes down to the sharp and general increase in demand for chloroquines, the drugs in particular that the President has been promoting. This leads to doctors giving more prescriptions at this time, being overly generous to people who are not particularly ill. This feeds shortages for people with lupus and arthritis, where the effectiveness is clear, unlike the effect on COVID-19. In short, I am saying Trump is being reckless with his suggestions.
The point of drugs requiring prescriptions is to ensure the doctor, not the patient makes the decision to use it. If the doctor prescribes something it is because based on what they see with their patient they believe it is an appropriate treatment. We cannot say that we should limit doctors because they are choosing a certain option more than others, that completely severs the point of the doctor's expertise, and would be us saying that we know their patient better than they do. People who graduate from medical school are typically not dummies, and they are well aware of the legal ramifications of prescribing drugs recklessly.
The concern about shortages are exactly why Trump has taken steps to make orders to stockpile and increase production of these drugs so there is enough. Again, if Trump did not do this, you can bet people would say deaths are on his hands if it is ever conclusively found to be the treatment for the virus.
I don't know what happened to those two long and meaningless posters (the Google copy-paster one and the weapon freak with no sense of honor nor empathy), but it's a nice break to the site they went away since the COVID outbreak.
Still, as annoying as they are, I hope the pandemic didn't reach them in some serious way and they only gave us a rest.