8 8
Phil1111

President Biden, critics corner

Recommended Posts

(edited)

trump on Ukraine"the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were."“And another country, wants to come in and join—they love Russia," ..."Well, you know, guess what? They want to form with Russia." 

At the Freedom Summit, Trump argued that the pro-Russia movement in Crimea was real and not a "setup."

"Russia is, like, I mean, they're really hot stuff," he said. "And now you have people in the Ukraine, who knows, set up or not, but it can't all be set up. I mean, they're marching in favor of joining Russia. I mean, you know, you can send some people in."

“So he has the Olympics," Trump said that May. "The day after the Olympics, he starts with Ukraine. The day after. How smart? You know, he didn’t want to do it during the Olympics. Boom. The day after. So our athletes leave, we all leave, and the day after. And you know, when he goes in and takes Crimea, he’s taking the heart and soul because that’s where all the money is. I was surprised. I heard that the other day. They were saying, most of the wealth comes right from that area.”

Biden has sent hundreds of millions in military aid to Ukraine. He also has led the international coalition and NATO response. Contrary to what his apologists have represented.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Stumpy,

Sometimes known as:  The Truth Hurts

Jerry Baumchen

The truth is that the Biden administration has yet to create a single job.  Until the number of employed exceeds pre-pandemic level, any newly employed can only be characterized as jobs recovered NOT jobs created.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Finally, great statement. Both parties have problems.

No one here hates Trump, or consider him unfit for office, for other than the obvious reasons. No Biden supporters here believe he's the absolute finest choice. Again, and again, we've stated he's not Trump and that means we all win. How have you missed that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Finally, great statement. Both parties have problems.

No one here hates Trump, or consider him unfit for office, for other than the obvious reasons. No Biden supporters here believe he's the absolute finest choice. Again, and again, we've stated he's not Trump and that means we all win. How have you missed that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billeisele said:

Finally, great statement. Both parties have problems.

While it is true that 'both parties have problems', that's a pretty standard "both-siderism".

To pretend that 'both sides' have similar problems is pretty silly.

One party is having issues getting everyone on board for legislative issues.
The other party is being heavily investigated for trying to overturn the presidential election.

One party is having trouble getting people to follow the protocols to manage the pandemic (and its not even slightly funny that the people whining and crying the loudest about Biden's handling of it are the ones petulantly refusing to do anything he asks).
The other party has members blatantly flouting those protocols.

When one party has Nazis, the KKK and white supremacists on it's side, they aren't the 'good guys'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

While it is true that 'both parties have problems', that's a pretty standard "both-siderism".

To pretend that 'both sides' have similar problems is pretty silly.

One party is having issues getting everyone on board for legislative issues.
The other party is being heavily investigated for trying to overturn the presidential election.

One party is having trouble getting people to follow the protocols to manage the pandemic (and its not even slightly funny that the people whining and crying the loudest about Biden's handling of it are the ones petulantly refusing to do anything he asks).
The other party has members blatantly flouting those protocols.

When one party has Nazis, the KKK and white supremacists on it's side, they aren't the 'good guys'.

Hi Joe,

You and I have been living a lie. Like puppets on a string. Lockdowns did nothing but create State imposed victims of despair.

 

Re; Deaths of Despair there's dozens... Every town has them but mostly in Democratic lock down cities.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/deaths-of-despair-spiked-in-washington-in-2020-exceeding-deaths-from-covid-19/

As for your last sentence... LOL I'm out to smoke that fatty.I'll be Back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Masking, on the other hand, not only probably reduced COVID deaths, it demonstrably reduced flu deaths as well, from an average of 30,000 to very few. 
With a new enemy, sometimes it’s better to try new tactics. 
This is as new a disease entity to us as smallpox was to the Native Americans in the 15th century. That didn’t end well for them. 

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, richravizza said:

Hi Joe,

You and I have been living a lie. Like puppets on a string. Lockdowns did nothing but create State imposed victims of despair.

 

Re; Deaths of Despair there's dozens... Every town has them but mostly in Democratic lock down cities.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/deaths-of-despair-spiked-in-washington-in-2020-exceeding-deaths-from-covid-19/

As for your last sentence... LOL I'm out to smoke that fatty.I'll be Back

0.2% of 900,000 (and counting) is still a lot of non-corpses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kallend said:

0.2% of 900,000 (and counting) is still a lot of non-corpses.

When one considers the deaths caused by the lockdowns (deferred medical treatment, overdose, suicide, murder)  the lockdowns may very well have caused more deaths than they saved.

https://www.gmjournal.co.uk/experts-fear-thousands-of-additional-lung-cancer-deaths-caused-by-covid-lockdowns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I just noticed the above and cannot delete... :-(

https://www.fox13news.com/news/johns-hopkins-study-shows-lockdowns-only-reduced-covid-19-death-rate-by-2

BTW John, 2% is a large number but 7,500 people die everyday in the US for lots of causes and this is not necessarily in addition to...

 

Edited by danornan
can't delete.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, richravizza said:

So I actually read that study.  (Sorry.)

First off its conclusion is that shutdowns aren't worth it because they cause economic damage.  This is not surprising as it is written by economists and political scientists: Jonas Herby, special advisor at Center for Political Studies, Lars Jonung, professor emeritus in economics and Steve H. Hanke, Professor of Applied Economics.  Good people to evaluate economic fallout; terrible people to evaluate effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions.

Second this is not a study.  It is a "meta-study" which means it uses many other studies as its input.  How did it select those studies?  By looking at all the studies that looked at lockdown effectiveness then rejecting almost all of them.  There were 117 studies in their pool and they rejected 83 of them for reasons like "used modeling" or "used time series approach."  They even reject any study that looked at the effect of "well-timed shutdowns."  By excluding all the studies showing well timed shutdowns, they are left with the studies of poorly or randomly timed shutdowns.

They were left with 34.

I looked at the first study they listed of the ones they looked at.  Their summary of that study was "that shelter-in-place orders are - for the average duration - associated with 1% (insignificant) fewer deaths per capita."  I looked up the study, and the study actually concluded that "a longer duration of a shelter-in-place order is associated with lower cases and deaths per capita from COVID-19."

Keep in mind that this is from a study they did NOT reject, even though it looked at well-timed shutdowns.

So sorry, not going to take this economic study seriously when it comes to medical results.  It cherrypicked results, and then was not honest about the remaining studies they looked at.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, billvon said:

So I actually read that study.  (Sorry.)

First off its conclusion is that shutdowns aren't worth it because they cause economic damage.  This is not surprising as it is written by economists and political scientists: Jonas Herby, special advisor at Center for Political Studies, Lars Jonung, professor emeritus in economics and Steve H. Hanke, Professor of Applied Economics.  Good people to evaluate economic fallout; terrible people to evaluate effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions.

Second this is not a study.  It is a "meta-study" which means it uses many other studies as its input.  How did it select those studies?  By looking at all the studies that looked at lockdown effectiveness then rejecting almost all of them.  There were 117 studies in their pool and they rejected 83 of them for reasons like "used modeling" or "used time series approach."  They even reject any study that looked at the effect of "well-timed shutdowns."  By excluding all the studies showing well timed shutdowns, they are left with the studies of poorly or randomly timed shutdowns.

They were left with 34.

I looked at the first study they listed of the ones they looked at.  Their summary of that study was "that shelter-in-place orders are - for the average duration - associated with 1% (insignificant) fewer deaths per capita."  I looked up the study, and the study actually concluded that "a longer duration of a shelter-in-place order is associated with lower cases and deaths per capita from COVID-19."

Keep in mind that this is from a study they did NOT reject, even though it looked at well-timed shutdowns.

So sorry, not going to take this economic study seriously when it comes to medical results.  It cherrypicked results, and then was not honest about the remaining studies they looked at.

I looked at it, too. Just a paper title search on Google, mostly. The search returned 18,590 likely titles that were selected down to 34 papers actually read or.........0018% of the total. So, I guess if 2% is a meaningless number.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billvon said:

So I actually read that study.  (Sorry.)

And this actually shows the asymmetry of effort - they just find random article titles that agree with their point of view, make absolutely no effort to read the actual meat of the article (much less verify it).

But they just take it as gospel and repost it here - then somehow they're not the sheep :rofl:

Well done on the study review though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, olofscience said:

And this actually shows the asymmetry of effort - they just find random article titles that agree with their point of view, make absolutely no effort to read the actual meat of the article (much less verify it).

But they just take it as gospel and repost it here - then somehow they're not the sheep :rofl:

Well done on the study review though.

I'm not a scientician, but I do my best to at least do a cursory read of any study that the anti-X post as "proof" that they're in the right - including this one.

Without fail, they never, ever say what the poster is claiming. Not ONCE in the last 2 years has the actual study backed up their claim. 

I was ready to put up a rebuttal but Bill already did a far better job than I could have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

8 8