President Biden, critics corner

[Phil1111 1,149]

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 January 25, 2022 by Phil1111

[brenthutch 444]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Since 1945, trying to be the world's policeman has not worked out so well and has cost the US a lot of lives and $trillions.

As compared to prior to 1945?

[richravizza 28]

On 1/25/2022 at 12:04 PM, SkyDekker said:

If/when Russia invades Ukraine, how do you think the US should respond?

During these tenuous times,  words from Kamala ring true.

"It is time for us to do what we have been doing and that time is everyday"

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, richravizza said:

During these tenuous times,  words from Kamala ring true.

"It is time for us to do what we have been doing and that time is everyday"

It’s even better to hear it out of the horse’s mouth 

 

[Stumpy 284]

Facts are inconvenient for Fox.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

1 hour ago, Stumpy said:

Facts are inconvenient for Fox.

Hi Stumpy,

Sometimes known as:  The Truth Hurts

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 444]

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.

[billeisele 130]

On 1/13/2022 at 12:41 PM, SkyDekker said:

It is indeed a sorry state when Trump and Biden are the best a country can manage. Can't imagine wanting to gloat about that.....

Finally, great statement. Both parties have problems.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

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?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

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?

[brenthutch 444]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

No one here hates Trump, or consider him unfit for office

???

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

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'.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

???

Sorry, I was being a bit elliptical. The qualifier of: "for other than the obvious reasons" was supposed to convey my true feelings. I guess I should have posted a cartoon instead.

[richravizza 28]

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.

 

Johns Hopkins University study finds lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2%

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

[wmw999 2,447]

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.

[kallend 2,027]

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.

 

Johns Hopkins University study finds lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2%

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.

[brenthutch 444]

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

[danornan 79]

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 February 5, 2022 by danornan
can't delete.....

[billvon 2,991]

14 hours ago, richravizza said:

Johns Hopkins University study finds lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2%

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.

[ryoder 1,590]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

So I actually read that study.  (Sorry.)

I already saw this study shot down on another forum yesterday.

And Bill Maher cited it in his "New Rules" segment last night. [groan]

[JoeWeber 2,720]

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.......

[olofscience 480]

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 

Well done on the study review though.

[mistercwood 287]

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 

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.

[ryoder 1,590]

From a discussion on another forum:

National Post (Canada): Scientists criticize flaws in study that found lockdowns do little to reduce COVID deaths

Science Media Centre (UK): expert reaction to a preprint looking at the impact of lockdowns, as posted on the John Hopkins Krieger School of Arts and Sciences website

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 minutes ago, ryoder said:

From a discussion on another forum:

National Post (Canada): Scientists criticize flaws in study that found lockdowns do little to reduce COVID deaths

Science Media Centre (UK): expert reaction to a preprint looking at the impact of lockdowns, as posted on the John Hopkins Krieger School of Arts and Sciences website

It was posted by Rich, I'm heading out back to smoke a fatty, Ravizza. No real surprises, as ever.