Arizona Man Dies After Using Fish Tank Cleaner To Treat COVID-19

There has been legitimate criticism of some of the statements made by President Donald Trump during the coronavirus outbreak as overstated or inaccurate. However, there has also been a continuation of the type of “Gotcha” stories that seem to be so reflexive for many in the media. An example is the slew of recent articles on how an Arizona man died of taking the anti-malaria drug repeatedly raised by Trump as a potential treatment for COVID-19. Trump has discussed Chloroquine as a drug which has shown promising results, which is true, in other countries. Indeed, a variation, hydroxychloroquine, has shown remarkable success but still needs to be fully studied for safety. However, the Arizona stories omit that this elderly couple did not take prescriptions of either drug but rather home remedied with chloroquine phosphate used to clean fish tanks.

The Arizona couple were in their 60s and concerned about having COVID-19 symptoms. They read on the Internet that you could just use aquarium products to combat coronavirus. The New York Post and others posted the reference to fishtank cleaner. The dosage however was the equivalent to several days of treatment and the husband died shortly later. The wife is still being treated in Phoenix and remains in serious condition.

There is no question that drugs can lead to fatal overdoses as shown recently in Nigeria. This is a very powerful drug and there are clearly high risks as flagged by China and other countries. However, France has reported early success with the drug. One study recently published results in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents that found that the combination of hydroxychloroquine, sold under the trade name Plaqenuil, and antibiotic azithromycin (aka Zithromax or Azithrocin) is particularly effective in treating the COVID-19 coronavirus and reducing the duration of the virus in patients.

447 thoughts on “Arizona Man Dies After Using Fish Tank Cleaner To Treat COVID-19”

  1. Any inaccuracy, omission or lie by the media is acceptable when fighting evil “fascists” such as Donald Trump or his supporters, right? Kind of reminds me of the pictures of 12 year old Trayvon Martin which were shown non-stop in the MSM while vilifying George Zimmerman.

    Comrade Lenin said you have to break some eggs to make an omelet, so therefore the ends justify the means. And if you disagree you are an evil fascist too.

    antonio

    1. antonio, I’ve never called anyone here – or anywhere – an evil fascist. It’s not 1968 anymore. But how do you pretend to care about inaccuracies, omissions, or lies and still support Trump? The guy is world class! WTF?

        1. And the pictures the media showed of him were not current. They were taken five years earlier. They may have been snookered by Crump / Julison in this regard, but reporters ought to know better than to take the work of hustlers at face value. It took some time for current pictures of Martin to start circulating. Those pictures were… an education.

          They also circulated a picture of Zimmerman taken seven years earlier after being arrested consequent to a bar fight. There were current pictures of Zimmerman posted by the insurance office which employed him.

          Only the obtuse have to ask why they did this.

      1. But how do you pretend to care about inaccuracies, omissions, or lies and still support Trump?

        Because the notion that Trump is peculiarly mendacious is another political fiction.

        1. Fiction that Trump lies to a unique extent? Only to Trumpsters. It really, really matters what he lies about, and currently, the lies about COVID-19 are causing people not to take the threat seriously. When someone occupies the Oval Office and speaks about a crisis, it is immoral to spew lies under the notion of reassuring people. At first, he said it was a “hoax”, and when facts showed this was not true, Kellyanne came up with a way to spin it as Democrats were politicizing this crisis to bring down Trump, and that was a hoax. That’s not what he said.

          When he said there were 15 cases,, all getting better, and “soon” there’d be 0 cases, that was a lie that misled people into believe there was little to no risk of contagion, but even if you got it, you’d get better. This was early on, when he absolutely knew better unless he zoned out everything he had been told by American Intelligence due to his ADD or narcissism because they know more than he does. If he had said that this virus spreads quickly and easily and that people should avoid crowds, engage in social distancing, stop international travel, wash their hands often, that schools should be closed, all of that that would have made a difference.

          Then he said that a vaccine would be available “very quickly”, because it had already been prepared, something that Dr. Fauci corrected. It’s hard to know whether Trump didn’t understand that all that had been done on vaccine prep at that time was getting some elements of the virus isolated, replicated and into a solution that could be available for human trials soon, but he shouldn’t have said anything at all, other than a vaccine was being worked on. Since Trump isn’t entitled to the benefit of a doubt due to his pattern of chronic lying, he probably lied or didn’t even pay attention to the details when someone tried to explain how vaccine development works.

          He said “anyone who wants a test can get a test”. That wasn’t true weeks ago when he said it, and it isn’t true now. Even very sick people can’t always get tests. However, asymptomatic Karen Pence can not only get a test, she gets immediate results. Others must wait for days on end.

          He also called the chloroquine and hydrochloroquine plus azithromycin a “game changer”, which gives people false hope. He shouldn’t have spoken about this at all because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. There was a small trial group in France that got better, but these drugs need to be tried on a large scale with controls, with statistically significant improvement proven after a double blind, placebo-controlled, cohort matched study in order to call it a “game changer”. He tried to walk it back somewhat by saying he hoped it would work, but we don’t know, but he nevertheless painted a rosy picture of a “game changing” drug treatment that hasn’t been proven yet. Even saying there is drug therapy out there that could be a “game changer” is nothing short of immoral. He phrases things in a manner calculated to downplay this crisis. Yesterday, Dr. Fauci was absent. It’s only a matter of time before he’s gone for good because he is trustworthy and will contradict der fuerher when he lies.

          I want you to tell me what POTUS has ever engaged in a consistent pattern of lying about critical facts during a crisis? You say it is “political fiction” to describe Trump as especially mendacious, so back up what you say with facts. Put the facts into the same context–a life-threatening public health emergency.

              1. If you want your questions answered, you need to quit importing one text from one thread to another with endlessly repeated false claims. No one actually reads your rants line-by-line anymore.

                1. Yes, Trump’s mendacity is all about me. I’d still like to know what POTUS you are claiming has lied to this extent about a public health crisis.

  2. I heard that the cleansing stuff he drank was made when Jimmy Carter was the President.
    Blame Jimmy not Trump. And don’t drink the Dem coolaid.
    Meanwhile, I am clairvoyant and Trump’s wife has talked him into retirement and Pence will be the Repub nominee. He is only 60.

    1. It cannot be seriously disputed that the reason these people ingested the fish tank cleaner was because of Trump’s claim that a drug preparation with a similar name could be a “game changer”. He shouldn’t have said anything at all about this because there are still people out there who don’t really understand that he will tell any lie to make it appear that he is successful He bears responsibility for this.

      1. It cannot be seriously disputed that the reason these people ingested the fish tank cleaner was because of Trump’s claim that a drug preparation with a similar name could be a “game changer”.

        Not only can it be disputed, your complaint is nonsensical.

      2. he bears zero responsibility for a foolish old person eating fish tank cleaner. there is no a juror or judge in the world who would agree with such a claim of liability.

        the lack of seriousness is in making such a wild assertion. but that’s par for the course from user Natch

        1. He’s the president, not a defendant or party to a law suit – that will come later.

          He should know that of our 350 million people, some are not very bright and actually listen to him.

          1. The logic above is incredibly lacking. There are stupid people in the world and one cannot protect them from all their stupidity. I guess if a doctor tells a patient that he lacks iron and needs to take an iron pill he is responsible if the patient swallows iron nails.

            1. Yeah, Diaper Man, presidents, and all responsible leaders, have to account for stupid people when making public statements. Most consumer products come with warnings to cover every dumb thing a consumer might do with the product.

              1. Paint Chips, there is a limitation as to what a person will read or listen to. When the warnings cover too much the important things are never read. As a rule dumb people don’t listen to the warnings. I’ll bet the fish medicine likely had a warning not to be used by humans.

              2. presidents, and all responsible leaders, have to account for stupid people when making public statements.

                You certainly are a gift to this blog, Chips. What pray tell would you suggest any President do to account for these people? What for instance do you need? I ask, because I haven’t the foggiest idea what it takes to account for you.

              3. “Most consumer products come with warnings…”

                – Mr. Shill
                ________

                Funfact:

                Congress has the power to regulate only the value of money, the flow of commerce among jurisdictions and land and naval Forces.

                Congress has no power to regulate anything else or any aspect of the lives or property of free Americans.

                When America declares the extant principles of the Communist Manifesto in the United States null and void, restructures the Supreme Court and re-implements the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, the actual “manifest tenor,” sans broad regulation, will hold dominion.

            2. exactly

              of all the things to criticize Trump about in his response to the pandemic this one is a trifle. I can’t understand why some people get wound up about oddities. Turley too. this one wasnt even worth a comment

              chloroquinone and hydroxychlroquinone or whatever are also used for rheumatoid arthritis and lupus not just malaria. they are easily overdosed and dangerous and should only be used under the care of a physician.

              https://reference.medscape.com/drug/plaquenil-hydroxychloroquine-sulfate-343205

              but if fools want to overdose they can easily find something to do it with.

              the main thing, is that it’s great news there may be something which helps suppress the virus in patients.

              1. Kurtz, I don’t think the therapeutic window and toxicity are that close. Most medicines are dangerous when not used correctly.

          2. preposterous. it’s like saying that someone who ODs on heroin can blame an authority who says that opiates are also medicine and not just substances to be abused.

            1. Kurtz, presidents are usually careful in what they say because of the power of their words and how many people they reach. Of course Trump is partly responsible when he says indiscriminate BS, which he does all the time. There are plenty of stupid humans everywhere, including in the US, and he should know that. If what he said had any offsetting positive purpose you might justify it. It didn’t. It was just more sunshine pumping against the advice of medical experts in an effort to make things seem better than they are.

              1. Indeed, Book. Historically presidents spoke in measured, diplomatic language for good reason.

                On any given day there are ‘X’ number of functional lunatics receptive to stupid messages on radio and TV. Followers of Alex Jones, in particular, are known as dangerously stupid. And sadly Trump appeals to many Jones followers.

              2. “Of course Trump is partly responsible when he says indiscriminate BS, which he does all the time.”

                ***************************
                Sounds like a mentor for ya.

              3. presidents are usually careful in what they say because of the power of their words and how many people they reach.

                It should be abundantly clear by now that the issue is not what this President is saying, it’s that he is in the position to be saying anything. I would say for the most part, those on this blog are of average or above average intelligence. Our disagreements aren’t rooted in anything more than ideological differences. The clearest indicator of bias is to see this President as a positive or a negative. No President is always one way or another. That’s rational. That’s reasonable. To think otherwise is to not think at all, more Pavlovian than anything else.

                1. Olly, those are measured words coming from you, but I hate to inform you that he has been wrong virtually every time he has opened his mouth since this began and doesn’t care.

                  That’s a fact.

                  1. it’s not a fact at all. you have taken a few errors and mistakes and are magnifying them

                    one could get out a transcript of these pressers and go phrase by phrase and most of the things he says line up with the experts

                    that is not to say he hasn’t made mistakes. he’s made mistakes all right. and maybe he’s going to make some more. like getting all antsy and opening things back up too fast. Mistake! And when is anybody going to start telling the public to wear masks including field expedients like scarves? it helps in asia it will help here too. helloooooooo out there!

                    probably it didnt help that when he should have been tuning into this issue early on the impeachment farce was still winding down.

                    that’s my opinion for a while now but i see the wapoo is flinging the issue back and forth now

                    here’s my thinking, pretty close to this guy

                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/23/lets-be-honest-impeachment-hurt-trumps-response-coronavirus/

                    “President Trump has been roundly criticized for allegedly failing to prepare for the coronavirus crisis before it arrived in the United States. Those critics conveniently overlook something else that could have been distracting the president’s attention during that crucial period: impeachment.

                    It seems forever ago, but Trump’s impeachment was the major story in January and early February — the same time that disease was forcing China to lock down cities. Despite the near certainty that Republicans would not vote to convict the president, Democrats and most of the major media were almost entirely focused on impeachment. As a result, the White House was focused on addressing this threat to its survival, not on preparing for a threat from China that might never even materialize.

                    Trump’s efforts to prepare the nation for this pandemic has been far from perfect, but the one thing the president did do to stop the virus’s spread to the United States during that period — stopping air travel from China — was heavily criticized. Even former vice president Joe Biden criticized the president’s ban as “hysterical xenophobia.” At the time, partisan vituperation had reached a fever pitch because of impeachment. Given that impeachment managers were regularly calling Trump a king or incipient dictator, a more forceful response against the virus in January or early February likely wouldn’t have gone over well.

                    In fact, the situation could be even worse today had the Democrats gotten their way. Imagine if Republicans had buckled under the pressure and backed the Democratic move to subpoena witnesses. The Senate would have spent most of February interviewing witnesses in depositions and probably fighting in court to force recalcitrant witnesses to testify. It’s extremely unlikely that the matter would have been over by the end of the month, yet the markets started to decline on Feb. 24 as it became clear that Europe and the United States would not avoid the virus’s spread. Would the House Democrats have suspended their attempt to remove the president at this crucial time, or would they have redoubled their efforts instead?

                    Impeachment’s lingering stain is damaging the country even today. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the president have not spoken during this crisis, nor will they. Their hatred is deep and mutual, and impeachment made their breach irreparable.

                    The fact is that nearly four years of irrational Trump hatred has brought us to the point where any action he takes is subject to criticism. Had he acted decisively in February when he had time, many surely would have accused him of manufacturing a crisis to distract the public from impeachment. Now that we are suffering from that month’s relative inaction, he is attacked for failing to act in advance. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.”

                    1. The responses you’re offering presume Natacha and Gainesville are normal adults engaged in processing data the way an ordinary person might. This is in error. They draw only on their own pathologies in these discussions.

                    2. Kurtz:

                      The Senate trial ended on Feb 5
                      He deserved to be removed from office and only a chicken s… GOP senate majority – which also refused to allow witnesses for a Senate trial for the first time in our history – saved him. As Schiff said – “You know you can’t trust him.” and he’s proven that in spades during this crisis.
                      Virtually everything of substance Trump says is false, sunshine pumping, intended to make him look good, and is dangerous in a real crisis.
                      He was not widely criticized for closing travel from China – which was not complete – and he frittered away whatever time was bought by that action.
                      Trump is damned for being a selfish lying dick who when faced with a real crisis continues to act in his own interest, not that of Americans.

                    3. Trump is damned for being a selfish lying dick who when faced with a real crisis continues to act in his own interest, not that of Americans.

                      What actions (be specific) that President Trump is taking, serve his interests and not the American people? Your body of work on this blog, and by body, I mean your nonstop outrage that every effort Democrats have taken to remove him from office and/or to influence the electorate against his reelection, has failed. That’s the root of your obsession (delusion). Here is a more accurate statement, given this latest effort by Pelosi to pork up this recent spending bill:

                      Democrats are damned for being selfish, lying dicks, who when faced with a real crisis continue to act in their own interest, not that of Americans.

                      Americans are seeing Democrats true motives, and that is without knowing what will inevitably be released in the Durham investigation. Don’t forget, the American people will also have the opportunity to compare and contrast leadership abilities once Biden and Trump get on the debate stage. 🙂

        2. As far as I recall, Trump never mentioned Fish Tank Cleaner – that was the press and other people making a connection. Everybody knows we need sodium in our diet, but I don’t see anybody pouring sodium hypochlorite on their potatoes.

          While there’s really no point in explaining things to people afflicted with tds, it’s always good to raise the volume on reality for everyone else’s benefit.

          Absent competition, a lie will always win.

          1. em, tds is a condition based on the same kind of medical information Trump promotes.

            Trump promoted the drug Chloroquine as a miracle cure. as if it could end all our covid 19 problems. He went on and on in one task force and the next day tweeted about how great it combined with some other drug is. It turns out that in the standard warnings for these drugs, the risk of mixing them is “severe” and can result in death.

            Were these people either dumb, gullible, or both? Yes. Did Trump cause these people’s death? Well doubtful – if he could be prosecuted – that it would stand. If he could be sued, maybe, but probably not. Has he been promoting dangerous information he’s not qualified to comment on, and has he painted a false and rosie picture that makes some people think it’s OK to pack a church? Should he shut the f..k up? The answer to all three is yes.

            These people are dead. The point and focus on this story should be that Trump needs a muzzle and short leash, but there is no one who can do that except the public through disapproval. Join in.

            1. but there is no one who can do that except the public through disapproval.

              Hmm. Using your logic, the President should continue with what he is doing, because:

              KEY POINTS
              – The latest Gallup poll, released Tuesday, has Trump’s approval rating hitting 49%, matching his best performance in the poll.

              – The poll was conducted from March 13 to 22, around the time that Trump began responding more seriously to the coronavirus, which has roiled markets and infected hundreds of thousands of people globally.

              – Sixty percent of Americans indicated in the poll they approve of the way the president is steering the country in response to the pandemic, with 38% saying they disapprove.
              https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/24/trump-approval-rating-rises-amid-response-to-coronavirus.html

              So according to you: Join in.

                1. Today’s briefing mentioned the cycles of this virus and whether it we likely be seasonal. Dr. Fauci believes that is probably true, especially as countries in the southern hemisphere are beginning to see cases as they enter their winter season.

                  This will certainly be on the minds of voters as they have to consider changing leadership in the middle of this war on this virus.

            2. Trump mentions chloroquine.

              The media comments chloroquine is a common ingredient in fish tank cleaner.

              There’s a public run on fish tank cleaner.

              Someone ingests fish tank cleaner and die.

              The media points the finger at Trump and says, “he did it.”

              I disagree with the rest of your points too. Not because I’m a Trumper, but because I’m willing to consider the full context, and the other side of the picture. Taking the full context of these conferences, I do not believe dangerous information is being promulgated. Gov. Cuomo has been repeating Trump on chloroquine all week long, and the press doesn’t twist his comments out of shape simply because he’s a democrat. Trump makes upbeat comments. So does Cuomo.

              My point isn’t to compare the two – rather to contrast the Left’s treatment of the two. If we swapped remarks, and put Cuomo’s words in Trump’s mouth, and Trump’s words in Cuomo’s mouth, the Leftists would still be freaking out over every (carefully selected) word and (meticulously isolated) phrase that came out of Trump’s mouth and cheering on Cuomo.

              1. em, overselling and underselling are the difference between dangerous sunshine BS and sober but hopeful information. Americans need and will do the best with the latter.

                “At a Thursday news briefing, Trump trumpeted that chloroquine had shown “very, very encouraging early results” and said “we’re going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately.”

                …On Saturday morning, Trump tweeted: “HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine,”

                “Two clinical trials are set to begin in the state as early as this week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced Monday morning ahead of the president’s briefing…..

                “It’s only a trial, it’s a trial for people who are in serious condition, but the New York State Department of Health has been working on this with some of New York’s best health care agencies,” Cuomo said at a morning news conference. “We think it shows promise, and we’re going to be starting that this week.”

                https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/23/trump-touts-new-york-coronavirus-trials-as-progress-against-pandemic-145714

                1. Anon, while you stimulate yourself with your underwhelming knowledge others are working to save lives. They are trying multiple treatments all of which are encouraging (not guaranteed) or else they wouldn’t be tried. With nose in the air you would wait for the final decision of FDA testing weeks or months away while the deaths mount up. Those that have far superior brains to your own are acting and if any or all of those promising treatments work lives will be saved while you count the dead.

            3. “Trump promoted the drug Chloroquine as a miracle cure.”

              Anon, that is a lie. Trump said the drug looked promising and based on some of the evidence that is totally correct. In fact many physicians agree with him and are therefore using the drug. Earlier you mentioned prolongation of QT interval on the EKG which can be dangerous. You screwed up that one as well. That was an adverse reaction or perhaps a contraindication for certain people. You don’t know what you are talking about and you compound that problem with lies. Most people will not run into the QT problem you mentioned.

              ” It turns out that in the standard warnings for these drugs, the risk of mixing them is “severe” and can result in death.”

              Yes, Trump brought up the use of both drugs together and yes that rarely leads to death but if that combination is needed to save lives then the risk has to be taken. You have absolutely no understanding of risk and benfit.

              “Did Trump cause these people’s death?”

              This is a question that only an idiot would ask. I wonder what idiot wrote that and in what leftist journal it was written. Please give the citation where it was written unless you made it up. If the latter save yourself embarrassment and provide a phony link.

              “The point and focus on this story should be that Trump needs a muzzle and short leash”

              Actually Trump has done a phenomenal job. You read leftist hit pieces that want to destroy him but you don’t seem to learn as time goes on. Trump’s Chinese travel ban was met with cries of racism and xenophobia that you swallowed. Your type of mindset cause a NYC health commissioner to tell New Yorkers to attend the very crowded Chinese lunar New Years Festival 1 week later. Don’t you get it. Those people who you think are so smart are killing people.

              1. Anon, that is a lie.

                What’s grossly amusing is that it’s a blatant, obvious lie. Meanwhile, Natacha is pushing the idea that Trump is somehow responsible when some people of exceedingly poor judgment ingest fish tank cleaner. Media Matters is not sending us their best.

                1. “At a Thursday news briefing, Trump trumpeted that chloroquine had shown “very, very encouraging early results” and said “we’re going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately.”

                  …On Saturday morning, Trump tweeted: “HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine,”

              2. “Actually Trump has done a phenomenal job.”

                Well, actually, Trump has proven himself to be a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States. His one pointed focus on immigration and the building of an ineffectual border wall led him to completely drop the ball on the diagnostic testing portion of a pandemic response — something other countries are far more successful with than the United States.

                Yes, Trump’s internal advisers have recognized the mistake and stepped up testing in the last couple of days…, but it’s too late. We’re too far behind and have lost the time where diagnostic testing would’ve been a preventative. Now, as we see in the nation’s hotspots, testing can only be a confirmation signal while the entire population is forced to treat themselves as if they indeed have Covid 19.

                Trump’s refusal to properly activate defense preparedness around the manufacture of ventilators, respirators and PPE is criminal. He deserves to be removed from office — today — over his refusal to act. It’s unclear whether the refusal to act is due primarily to hostile intent, sheer incompetence, or a combination, but at this point it really doesn’t matter…

                What we are witnessing is probably the biggest bungling of a national security event in the history of the nation. This will take it’s place next to the genocide of indigenous tribes, slavery, and the internment of Japanese American citizens in WWII in the darkest chapters of American history.

                Just to be clear.

                1. We all hope you’re wrong on that prediction, but the cogent point that goes to this incompetent response is that you may be right. Trump is gambling on sunshine.

                2. The way you provide your opinion as proven conclusions without proof shows the fact that you rely on the talking points of others with little if any other knowledge. Since you are so willing to have an in depth discussion I will help your desires along. We can take one idea at a time.

                  We know how Trump faced the problem and how the left represented by the newsmedia and the leaders of the left faced the problem.

                  Let’s start at Trump’s Chinese traveller ban. That saved us from a much worse disaster. Your side unless you agree with Trump called it racist, xenophobic and stupid. In fact leaders of your side encouraged people to mingle in huge crowds as seen in NYC which is now the epi-center of the disease.

                  Your turn.

                    1. I am waiting for you to argue in favor of what the MSM and Democratic leaders are saying. You are afraid to argue the points because once you delve below the talking points you are an empty shell.

                      Point one. Let’s start at Trump’s Chinese traveller ban. That saved us from a much worse disaster. Your side unless you agree with Trump called it racist, xenophobic and stupid. In fact leaders of your side encouraged people to mingle in huge crowds as seen in NYC which is now the epi-center of the disease.

                      You can agree or disagree and then you can provide one of your points from above or elsewhere that are of similar magnitude to the Trump decision. Your rambling seen above doesn’t say much until one delves into the details. Pick your poison. Maybe you will find something we agree on.

                  1. Trump’s Chinese traveller ban – Americans returning returned without screening – was the beginning and end of his consequential actions. He was not criticized by Democratic leadership for this act. He was rightly criticized for xenophobia when he insisted on the pointless “Chinese flu” campaign, which was just another attempt to avoid responsibility.

                    1. . He was rightly criticized for xenophobia when he insisted on the pointless “Chinese flu”

                      Again, liberal scolds manufacture controversies. No ordinary adult pays attention.

                    2. Of course he was criticized by Dem leaders and the MSM media with terms of xenophobia, racist, and actions that were inappropriate. Last time you lied about this I quoted Biden’s statement and you ran away.

                  2. Totally. It was the height of irresponsibility when “my side” talked of being in churches for Easter…

                    No wait.

                    Allan, you’re legit delusional. Seriously.

                    1. Allan…, since you’re insisting on making this partisan, and for your own education…

                      Tell me which states are isolating now and which ones aren’t???

                    2. “Allan…, since you’re insisting on making this partisan, and for your own education…”

                      This doesn’t have to be partisan. You can act as an independent. You are the one claiming Trump has done a lousy job. I think he has done a great job. Retrospectively could some things been done better? I think so but I am looking for those other ideas but you keep referring to the newsmedia making things partisan.

                      Now back to point 1

                      The Chinese travel ban.

                      Then point 2

                      Easter and churches or another point if you desire. I’m letting you lead the points against Trump.

                    3. Point one was the Chinese travel ban. Let’s finish up with that and if you wish we can use churches for Easter as your major point as point 2.

                      Why is it you cannot stay on one point at a time?

                    1. “Screw it. I’m done.”

                      Of course you are done. You were done before you started. You have very little to say except for what is pumped into your mouth on a daily basis.

                      Now back to point 1.

                      The Chinese travel ban.

                    2. It’s your one and only point, Allan…

                      -No one disputes the Chines traveler ban was a good idea. No one. Biden did not say it was a bad idea. Way back when, I asked you to provide written or visual proof of him saying it. Crickets. Then I even posted a Breitbart article where you no doubt got your information. Breitbart is toilet paper.

                      -My post was about Trump’s completely mangling the diagnostic testing portion of pandemic response. The other part of pandemic response other than travel bans and quarantining and social distancing. Trump deserves to be removed from office for dereliction of duty on this issue, and also on the issue of refusal to properly move forward on defense preparedness in relation to the manufacture and distribution of PPE, ventilators and respirators. Trump is playing Hunger Games with state governments forcing them to bid against each other, and the federal government, for things like ventilators. Collective bargaining on the part of the whole country is an absolute necessity right now and he’s failing miserably. Epic failure.

                      -Seriously??? We’ve had enough “discussions” where you’ve asked me to come back with proof about something, which I then do, and then you say I’ve posted a “long” article not worth reading, or that what I’ve posted proves nothing, etc. So you’re conversing in bad faith. Nothing I could post matters. Not to mention you don’t understand the principles of good science so even if you weren’t dedicated to arguing for the sake of arguing, you wouldn’t recognize a true answer if it came up and bit you in the ass.

                      -And what’s up, bud? The other day, in another thread, you promised to spare me of the rancid butt breath of your nonsense just on general principle. I’m okay with that resolution. Just saying.

                    3. “No one disputes the Chinese traveler ban was a good idea.”

                      Bull, that was disputed from day one and continues till today with remarks of racism. Today it is so hard for you to admit this but you don’t admit what the left said or what the MSM said. You have no answer. The leftist hit pieces haven’t covered such an answer.

                      In fact another point in Trump’s favor is that he did the same to a number of countries in the EU. We can call that point 2. What did the left say? All sorts of things and they said them right on top of their awful words having to do with the Chinese travel ban. They called that Trump’s bias or getting even. I think they left out the words racist but they did say that Britain should have the ban as well. Did they bother looking at the numbers of infections. No. But we can get to point 3 because Trump did the same to Britain. All of these things have one thing in common. Trump relying on his experts banned travel based on the likelihood of disease from specific nations affecting the United States. One major thing in common held by Democrats and MSM was that all these bans were racist, based on bias etc without any mention of the scientific evidence. We can go to point 4 with Trump protecting our borders from the north and the south. He wants to protect America from the disease from those entering the country while the other side of the aisle and the MSM keep talking about open borders.

                      I’ll call all of these actions based on scientific knowledge and common sense as point 1 despite the fact that the complaints were non stop and based almost only on politics.

                      Now it is time for you to bring in your point stating exactly what the President didn’t do right. Try and pick one of your ideas and make sure to tell us why the President is to blame while keeping in the back of your mind what other Presidents didn’t do or did do when they shouldn’t have. Your basic idea is the Trump should be removed from office but that idea is no different than it was before his term even started. Remember if based on your mostly petty complaints this President should be removed then I fear that we would have to execute the previous holder of the office. I don’t think that is a good idea.

                      Try to stay focused and on one point. It might make things go smoother. I await a singular point. You agreed with my point 1 A but there is also B,C and D along with with a unitary explanation.

      3. It cannot be seriously disputed that the reason these people ingested the fish tank cleaner was because of Trump’s claim that a drug preparation with a similar name could be a “game changer”.

        Are you sure about that?

        The Valley couple, both in their 60s, were concerned about symptoms and reportedly saw information online suggesting aquarium products could be used to combat coronavirus.

        Now unless you have evidence President Trump told people that it was safe to ingest several days worth of fish tank cleaner, you would do well to just STFU. But you won’t.

  3. Most of the readers of this blog are morons as is their dear leader. He daily spews nonsense on national television – a complete embarrassment to watch. He talks like middle school boys and has a rock-bottom fragile ego to boot.

    But cults will be cults – and so the followers keep marching to their graves. The blogger himself should know better, but hey someone has to keep the pretense of both-side-ism going.

    1. The irony is you’re the “cultish moron spewing nonsense like a middle school boy with a rock-bottom fragile ego to boot.”

  4. This President didn’t create this virus, but he ignored it, denied it, minimized it, joked about it, weaponized it, politicized it, and exacerbated it. He is culpable for the chaos and unnecessary illness, and yes, the preventable deaths because of it. And his supporters are too. This is the human cost of the MAGA cult delusion, and we’re all paying for it now equally. John Pavlovitz

    1. China created the WWI 1918 “Spanish Flu” delivering it through Chinese laborers crossing Canada in sealed-door boxcars causing Europeans to believe that flu originated in America – the only news being available from war-neutral Spain, given general war-time secrecy in participating nations.

      China created the “Wuhan Flu” either wittingly or unwittingly in a bio-weapons lab or in its uncontrolled and ubiquitous “wet markets.” China has no plausible defense of its culpability. China is demonstrably the cause of global outbreaks and is financially and criminally responsible. China must be sued and/or prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in courts of jurisdiction.

    2. The people “weaponizing and politicizing” this virus are you and your ilk. Thankfully, the public is now inoculated against your endless smears.

    3. Dumb as a door-nob, not you FishWings but the idea that was passed onto you. February 2 or thereabouts Trump’s ban of travellers from China was laughed at by your same friends that provided you this idea. I seem to remember you as being one of those that criticized Trump for the travel ban. Maybe not. Who can remember but we all remember what was said at the time by so many of those whose policies were based on party rather than critical thinking.

      In NYC two officials, at least one from the health department, called this ban crazy and told New Yorkers to attend the lunar festival in Chinatown or they were missing out on something. If you look at the pictures you can see how close these people all were. Don’t you think some of them had the virus and spread it to thousands that lived all over the city and in the suburbs along with the masses of NY visitors that are almost always present at such events?

      I believe you are smart enough to know how viruses spread. Do you think that was a good idea?

  5. “Arizona Man Dies After Using Fish Tank Cleaner To Treat COVID-19”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    “918 People Died After Drinking Cyanide-Laced Kool-Aid As Followers of Jim Jones in Jonestown, Guyana”

    – Wiki
    _____

    Shhhhhh!

    It happens!

    1. George: I said “Don’t drink the coolaid” in a comment below. Then I saw this comment And the history of koolaid. Good to know things.

  6. Senator Ron Paul Diagnosed Wihh Coronavirus. Only A Week Ago Paul’s Father Poo-Pooed Threat

    Both Rand Paul, and his father, Ron Paul, were medical doctors by profession before achieving fame as Libertarian politicians.  The senior Paul was a congressman from Texas while the junior is currently a U.S. senator for Kentucky.

    Yesterday, Senator Paul announced he has the Coronavirus.  Yet he was seen on Sunday morning using the Senate gym and swimming pool.  Now it emerges that only last week, Paul’s father wrote a column questioning the pandemic lockdown.  Paul labeled the response ‘martial law’ and attacked Infectious Disease expert Dr Fauci.  Paul called Fauci a ‘fearmonger’; an unusually strong term considering that both Paul’s are doctors.

    Here is an excerpt from Ron Paul’s column from Monday, March 16:
    …………………………………………………………………..
    The chief fearmonger of the Trump Administration is without a doubt Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. Fauci is all over the media, serving up outright falsehoods to stir up even more panic. He testified to Congress that the death rate for the coronavirus is ten times that of the seasonal flu, a claim without any scientific basis.

    On Face the Nation, Fauci did his best to further damage an already tanking economy by stating, “Right now, personally, myself, I wouldn’t go to a restaurant.” He has pushed for closing the entire country down for 14 days.

    Over what? A virus that has thus far killed just over 5,000 worldwide and less than 100 in the United States? By contrast, tuberculosis, an old disease not much discussed these days, killed nearly 1.6 million people in 2017. Where’s the panic over this?

    If anything, what people like Fauci and the other fearmongers are demanding will likely make the disease worse. The martial law they dream about will leave people hunkered down inside their homes instead of going outdoors or to the beach where the sunshine and fresh air would help boost immunity. The panic produced by these fearmongers is likely helping spread the disease, as massive crowds rush into Walmart and Costco for that last roll of toilet paper.

    The madness over the coronavirus is not limited to politicians and the medical community. The head of the neoconservative Atlantic Council wrote an editorial this week urging NATO to pass an Article 5 declaration of war against the COVID-19 virus! Are they going to send in tanks and drones to wipe out these microscopic enemies?

    People should ask themselves whether this coronavirus “pandemic” could be a big hoax, with the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profit – financially or politically – from the ensuing panic.

    That is not to say the disease is harmless. Without question people will die from coronavirus. Those in vulnerable categories should take precautions to limit their risk of exposure. But we have seen this movie before. Government over-hypes a threat as an excuse to grab more of our freedoms. When the “threat” is over, however, they never give us our freedoms back.

    http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/march/16/the-coronavirus-hoax/

    1. Those celebrating Rand Paul’s coronavirus diagnosis are sick in the head. Look at the comments sections at any left wing web site and they’re all celebrating.

      1. Ivan, both Paul’s have distinguished themselves by preaching ‘the evils of big government’. But in a crisis like this, one can see how crucial government is, or isn’t.

      2. Ivan you can’t blame the deranged hatred shown by Paint Chips on him. Blame it on the lead that is in paint.

        1. Diaper Man would have us believe that a small, Cooledge-size government could deal more efficiently with this crisis.

          1. Paint Chips, I understand that you require the assistance of many people to prop you up. Most of us can stand by ourselves.

          2. Actually regulatory agencies have modest budgets across the board. The CDC’s budget is more extensive, but they squander money on mission creep and they have a bureaucratic culture that’s proved problematic in this circumstance.

            It isn’t the size of the agencies in this case that’s the problem, but their habits of mind.

  7. 1. Follow the advice of the NY Times?
    2. Follow the successes of the French?
    3. Line up to see the next Michael Moore Movie?

    Stupid is as stupid does

    1. Michael, Professor Turley referenced The New York ‘Post’, not The New York Times. The Post is owned by the Murdoch family, owners of Fox News.

    1. If the Federal Government, run for decades by Dims, stopped enabling Americans to live with government subsidies then yes Darwinism would be allowed to proceed. Otherwise most Americans are kept alive in spite of themselves b/c of such subsidies.

      A $2 Trillion COVID “stimulus package” is being negotiated in the US Senate with Chuck Schumer leading the “negotiations”. And no one bats an eye.

      But don’t call it socialism

      1. The package was a big giveaway to the corporations that previously got bailed out, and without conditions. The part that was for real, living, breathing humans was paltry and came with lots of conditions. Just more of the same old bs from the Republicans.

  8. It was November 1975. Enlisted for 3 years in the Army.

    Went to Ft. Dix, NJ for basic training. Something went wrong. It was the Swine flu.

    This affected respiratory, stomach & intestines. I was about 160lbs going in & 115lbs after 8 weeks of basic training. Eight trainees died, while the base commander kept a direct order, “if you are alive, you are healthy, if you are dead, then you are sick.”

    Troops were bused into a vaccination area & had a shot to arm. Even president Gerald Ford got a shot in oval office. There is a picture of Gerry getting the shot.

    Since then, I haven’t had a cold or flu for 40 years.

  9. President Trump’s “overstatements” don’t bother me nearly as much as those by the media and certain university web sites. For example, the media relies to a large extent on the John Hopkins web site. As of right now, the site is showing 0 recoveries in the US. However, there have been at least a dozen here in the Houston area alone (there are less than 100 reported cases in the area.) As anyone who follows the media should know, they NEVER get anything right at first. Unfortunately, much of the “data” that’s being posted comes from the media. The only true information is that found on the various state and county health department pages, and a case is not truly confirmed until it’s been confirmed by a Federal or state lab. Incidentally, I seriously doubt that the Arizona couple had the virus. Since testing started, only 10% of tests show positive. Many of the “reported” cases are being diagnosed by doctors, not test results.

    1. So then sem, you look for us to be down form 15 to zero cases pretty soon. Is that what you’re saying?

    2. recovery is defined by the doctors however they define it. probably not a lot of people have had it long enough to technically be considered fully “recovered”

      or we could just lie and cook the books like china?

      its bad enough that its been slow to ramp up testing. but its coming along

      stay home

      and PLEASE START WEARING MASKS. the experience in China and Asia shows that it helps. Hardly anybody in US is wearing masks. this is stupid. the initial hoarding is done; massive production is being ramped up here; so there is no excuse not to start wearing them if you must go out and be anywhere near people.

      even scarfs and expedient masks if you dont have them. part of what we try to do is not cough all over stuff! reduce spread of you spit and mucus, to be very clear about this.

      1. i see so much stupid stuff now. saturday someone’s eyeglasses broke and had to make a run to the drugstore and went into the big box store. old guy about 80 greeting people. why? just send this old guy home before he gets sick, please!

        TOTAL LACK OF COMMON SENSE. INCLUDING CORPORATIONS NOW
        H R DEPARTMENTS WAKE UP! ACT IMMEDIATELY DONT WAIT FOR A BUREAUCRAT TO TELL YOU IT’S OK~!

    3. From Slate:

      “U.S. intelligence agencies did not mince words. Throughout January and February they repeatedly warned President Donald Trump and other top administration officials about the growing danger of the coronavirus and how it could quickly spread around the world, reports the Washington Post. Starting in January, Trump began receiving reports warning that Chinese authorities appeared to be downplaying the severity of the virus amid information of how covid-19 appeared to be spreading rapidly.

      The reports never predicted when the virus might hit the United States nor did they recommend things the administration should do to prepare but when looked at as a whole, they made it clear that the virus was possibly heading to become a global pandemic. Despite these warnings though, Trump continually played down the severity of the virus and officials struggled to get him to focus on the issue. “Donald Trump may not have been expecting this, but a lot of other people in the government were—they just couldn’t get him to do anything about it,” an official said. “The system was blinking red.” Case in point, when Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar was finally able to get Trump to speak to him about the virus, the president interrupted him to ask about vaping.

      Hillary Clinton tweeted out a link to the article, accusing the Trump administration of failing to act “for fear of spooking the markets,” which led to “losing weeks of time to prepare that we won’t get back.”

      The Trump administration was told in January that coronavirus was likely to become a pandemic.

      They refused to act for fear of spooking the markets, losing weeks of time to prepare that we won’t get back. https://t.co/By195ltXMt
      — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 21, 2020

      Trump went on the offensive against the Post when he was asked about the story during a news conference Saturday. “I think the Washington Post covers us very inaccurately, covers me very inaccurately,” Trump told reporters. “I saw the story. I think it’s a disgrace but it’s the Washington Post and I guess we have to live with it. It’s a very inaccurate…” When a journalist tried to interject, Trump said: “Quiet, quiet.” Trump went on to condemn China for expelling journalists for U.S. media outlets but he added that “I also think it’s terrible when people write inaccurately about you and they write inaccurately about me every single day, every single hour.”

      OANN’s @JennPellegrino: The Washington Post ran a story suggesting you delayed taking action … What do you say to the Washington Post?

      TRUMP: I think that’s such a nice question. I think the Washington Post covers us very inaccurately. I think it’s a disgrace. pic.twitter.com/CIOWvIwryY
      — August Takala (@RudyTakala) March 21, 2020″

      Trump attacked Peter Alexander of NBC when he asked what Trump would say to those who are worried about the numbers of infected and those who have died, accusing Alexander of being a very bad reporter, a fearmongerer or words to that effect. Trump’s endless lies are what is creating fear in this country. People are entitled to know the truth. People are entitled to confront a POTUS to account for his conduct and his rhetoric. He owes America honest responses.

      1. Trump has been slow to the task

        He was told by some people, mostly those who he had fired years ago, like Steve Bannon., that covid was coming and he should get out front of it. Some flunkies in his current staff obviously downplayed this, and did not advise him properly. They should be fired and bring people like Bannon who had their thinking caps on back into the NSC asap

        https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/why-some-early-maga-adopters-went-against-trumps-virus-doctrine

        There will be plenty of time to blame Trump later, particularly in November. Now the pressure should be just to encourage strong action.

        Not just by Trump but all of us. Stay home and if you must go out wear a mask if you have one. or a scarf even.. It’s time people quit denying reality and just do it. At a minimum it will help you not accidentally cough all over other people in case you have it and are an asymptomatic case

  10. Look, people ate tide pods here in the States and sat back as an idiot with a rat pelt on his head slithered into the Oval Office. Everything’s on the table.

    1. Says the man who cast a ballot for Barack Obama, whose cardinal accomplishment in life was to spend 12 years drawing a salary from the University of Chicago Law school while not producing a single scholarly article (while running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge into the ground).

      1. The past president of the Harvard Law Review, professor at Univ Chicago Law, and 12th best US President according to polling of US Historians was also elected by the American people twice, unlike the current occupant who has never been elected by the American people. Obama also led us out of an international crisis while the current occupant is following events into an international crisis.

        1. 1. The ‘President’ of the Harvard Law Review is an office political position, not analogous to the Editor’s position at other law reviews in how it is chosen and what it does. See Wm. Dyer on this point, who noted that it took some detective work to locate the solitary unsigned case note Obama had written while on the law review. You can also recall the remark of one of the other editors, who said that Obama seemed to want to be the President of the Review rather than accomplish anything in the job.

          2. He wasn’t a professor at the law school. He was a lecturer. That was his title. He never had to be examined for tenure and if news accounts are correct he was hired in contravention of standard procedures. His defenders will tell you, when his publication record is remarked upon or his history of service at the law school is remarked upon, that producing scholarship and serving on faculty committees was not incorporated into his contract. Those are his defenders, Gainesville. You legal scholar produced no scholarship.

          3. Quoting a supposed ‘poll’ of historians is Peter Hill – level stupidity (and he’s quoted the same study). We don’t know what the sampling frame is, no historian of any degree of prudence would make such a judgment absent years to gain perspective, and we all know history departments are shot through with partisan Democrats.

          ==

          What’s amusing about this is that you seem to fancy that faculty-certified quality trumps actual accomplishment.

          1. Trump’s jealousy and dedication to taking out Obama accomplishments says everything you need to know about presidential accomplishment.

            I know every day is a constant reminder to you of this, Absurd. So I feel your pain. Ha.

            However, you’re on own with the academic bitchery.

            1. What ‘accomplishments’? A botched scheme of financial sector regulations (written in the course of bull sessions in Barney Frank’s office)? A botched scheme of medical care finance (whose deficiencies in some strange alchemy are all the opposition’s fault)? Palettes of cash to Iran? Lois Lerner? A pig-headed inability to negotiate compromises with the opposition legislature?

              The Federal Reserve did manage to perform satisfactorily. So, he didn’t put some kook in charge of it, which is agreeable enough.

              1. Car company bailout, subsidization of the solar market, ACA (just because you don’t like it, or are from a state that didn’t capitalize doesn’t mean it wasn’t a huge step forward, I actually would’ve preferred single payer myself) the Fed’s lowering of rates and working with them, beginning the draw down of troops in the middle east, then ramping up SF operations to effectively deal with the inevitable ISIS blow back from doing so, the Paris climate accords, the Iran agreement…

                While by no means perfect, just a sampling of what effective government can look like and what Trump and his administration haven’t been effective at (although a case can be made that the *lasting* accomplishments of Trump policy have been continuance of Obama policy preceding it.( In keeping with some of the roots of some of the military success can be traced to the very *last* days of Bush jr’s reign.)

                And, as we know, Trump was handed an economic recovery in full swing when he took office and did some things creatively to carry it on further than its natural course (although not helpful in the long run…i.e. forcibly leaning on the Fed to artificially hold rates down, would’ve been nice to have some more room to move with interest rates right about now.

                Just a few.

                1. Pauly J:
                  “And, as we know, Trump was handed an [anemic] economic recovery i̶n̶ ̶f̶u̶l̶l̶ ̶s̶w̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶when he took office and did some things creatively to carry it on further than its natural course (a̶l̶t̶h̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶h̶e̶l̶p̶f̶u̶l̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶).”

                  https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/05/news/economy/us-recovery-slowest-since-wwii/index.html

                  There I de-lied it for you, Pauly, and gave you a citation. Where do I send the tuition bill?

                  1. beginning the draw down of troops in the middle east,

                    Again, there was no accomplishment there. It was made possible by the surge in 2007-08. He wasn’t the President then.

                    1. Inter tribal warfare was just as responsible as “the surge” in 2007-08. Nothing like neighbors raping neighbors with power tools to quiet a neighborhood down.

                      Not to discount the “surge”…, I coached a handful of guys who later did SF time during this time in the neighborhoods most active. A wildly mixed bag that can’t be boiled down to either/or ism.

                      All in all, drawing down troops to at rotate in more SF, wildly good move. That happened when Obama was president.

                      You want to discuss real policy? Bring something more reflective of reality rather than something off of a right wing op ed.

                    2. Obama smartly opposed the Iraq war. Dollars to donuts these guys all voted for W.

                      He was a state legislator in Illinois at the time. Who cares?

                    3. I did actually vote for W the first time but not the second.I left it blank or voted for third party, can’t remember who. In large part because of the war in Iraq. Which I always opposed. To this day I believe the US would have been better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I think i can make a good argument about that from the endless mess that’s there now. It took a tyrant to tamp all the miscreants down and keep them out of trouble. It’s also precisely why I oppose regime change in Syria.

                      I also didn’t vote for Romney. I can’t even remember if I voted in those federal elections for anybody. I have been a consistent local voter but often have skipped the federal elections because there wasnt a soul I liked. Until Trump.

                      Trump’s made some mistakes, and he’s liable to make some more. You guys better hope he makes fewer mistakes not more. Maybe don’t be too gleeful when he makes a mistake? Just suggestion.

                    4. Kurtz, I don’t wish for the impossible. He’s a completely incompetent and doesn’t know it.

                  2. I’ll read this when I have a bit of time…, bet ya a buck fifty it doesn’t cover Obama’s original stimulus being too small and the spending freeze he suffered in his second term.

                    Still, comparatively speaking, quarterly growth rates and new job growth compare favorably to Trump’s.

                    1. Obama’s original stimulus being too small

                      Obama’s stimulus was a set of Democratic Party wish-lists stapled together. ‘Stimulus’ was the excuse, not the purpose. Martin Feldstein offered that if you want a rapid fiscal stimulus, speed up the tempo of replacement of damaged military equipment, but the military isn’t a Democratic Party constituency.

                      The trouble can be seen in what Megan McArdle alluded to at the time. A bibliography of studies of the efficacy of fiscal stimulus suggest that the multipliers associated with it are generally not that high; your best guess as to the value of the multiplier is 0.6. Just not much bang for the buck. Paul Krugman contended the country required stimulus because it was in a liquidity trap, an assertion of dubious validity. (IIRC, Arnold Kling contended that ‘liquidity trap’ is a theoretical construct, not a real world phenomenon).

                      At the same time, the Democratic majority in Congress (with the connivance of George W Bush) enacted measures which reduced hiring, exacerbating the ailments of the labor market. Casey Mulligan did quite a bit of blogging about this very point, with particular emphasis on the effects of Obamacare, with a secondary emphasis on the ambivalent effects of extended unemployment compensation. You also had minimum wage hikes and general regime uncertainty.

                      NB, things Democrats advocate for a prioristic reasons will generate more dysfunction in labor markets. They cannot be argued out of these positions because they put no value on well-lubricated labor markets (which are injurious to certain Democratic constituencies).

                      And, of course, politicians in general have an allergy to making costs transparent, in part because ordinary people commonly have a neuralgic reaction to it. So, we spend 60 years running federal deficits, which might be justified one year in three. We don’t enact simple schemes for putting Social Security on an actuarially sound footing. We tolerate a system of medical finance riven with opaque pricing. We refuse to rely on road tolls and gasoline excises to finance road maintenance, its pareto efficiency notwithstanding.

                    2. Review of the 9 best studies of the Obama stimulus (links to each):

                      It worked (econometric):

                      Feyrer and Sacerdote.
                      Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston.
                      Wilson.
                      It worked (modeling):

                      Congressional Budget Office.
                      Council of Economic Advisors.
                      Zandi and Blinder.
                      It worked a little bit (modeling):

                      Oh and Reis.
                      It didn’t work (econometric):

                      Conley and Dupor.
                      Taylor.

                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html

                    3. Review of the 9 best studies of the Obama stimulus (links to each):

                      And we have that on your authority.

                  3. “Creative” as in write a $1 trillion hot check and that scored 1 quarter of just barely over 3% – Obama had several of those. Otherwise we’ve been in the same 2% economy as we have been for 9 years now and consensus forecasts even before covid 19 was for slowing and possible recession. Job growth over Obama’s last 2 years was better than Trump’s 1st 2 years.

                  4. The Great Recession was international and the US and Germany – neck and neck – easily led the rest of the developed world in their recoveries. Those countries which practiced the GOP’s recommended policy of austerity are still struggling.

                    1. hose countries which practiced the GOP’s recommended policy of austerity are still struggling.

                      Define ‘austerity’. And show me where ‘the GOP’ recommended such a policy.

                    2. At least here you admit your general ignorance about the reality outside your fantastical constructs.

                      Look it up doofus.

                2. Car company bailout, subsidization of the solar market, ACA

                  The first two are accomplishments if your snout is in those troughs. Very few people’s are. Again, ACA if anything added to the extant problems in medical finance.

                  1. Good explanation for bazooka Joe on a bubble gum comic. Wildly simplistic and elitist on pretty much every other level.

                  2. Yeah, the entire upper midwest had their nose in the trough when they should have been moving to SC and Mississipi where god and the GOP intended them to live.

                    1. I’m going to have to research this “nose in the trough” thing. Sounds like it needs a martini and a pipe to even utter the phrase.

                      I suppose it’s better to have one’s nose in the trough than, say, wedged into Republican orthodoxy stuck between the rancid butt cheeks of Donald Trump.

                      Absurd? Mespo? A little help on this? Bahahahaha.

              2. By the way, thank your lucky stars for what happened in Barney Frank’s office, especially during the current rocket ride down.

          2. “Obama seemed to want to be the President of the Review rather than accomplish anything in the job.”

            Exact same could be said for Obama’s eight years as POTUS.

          3. 1. Bradford Berenson Harvard Law, class of ’91; associate White House counsel, 2001-’03, past officer The Federalist Society

            “…You don’t become president of the Harvard Law Review, no matter how political, or how liberal the place is, by virtue of affirmative action, or by virtue of not being at the very top of your class in terms of legal ability. Barack was at the very top of his class in terms of legal ability. He had a first-class legal mind and, in my view, was selected to be president of the Review entirely on his merits….”

            https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html

            2. “…From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. …”

            https://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

            to follow

              1. Obama’s legacy is on the shore of Martha Vineyard, a $12 Million mansion all so white

                But yes, Obama was one of the best presidents in US history using the metric of doing absolutely nothing for Americans except steal their money and put it in his pocket

                    1. “If you’re half right, you’re half wrong.

                      If you’re half wrong, you’re all wrong.”

                      – Drill Sergeant, U.S. Army

                    2. No one in the States is.

                      Isn’t it a wild characteristic of American reality that having one’s ancestors raped and assaulted by owners more than the next person as being particularly high status?

                  1. And he was black!!! The horror!!

                    No, Michelle is black. Obama is sui generis. Gov. Blagojevich’s crack (“I’m blacker than Obama”) is pretty much true. Blagojevich worked as a shoe-shine boy. Obama tried to learn about being black from listening to an oddball like Frank Marshall Davis and watching episodes of Soul Train; he had little or no contact with rank-and-file blacks until he was 20. Of all the pastors in Chicago (AME, Convention Baptist, and Holiness) to which he might have attached himself, he latches onto Jeremiah Wright, a peddler of Africanisant scrapple for which most American blacks have no time.

                    1. Sorry. I’m going to venture that having dark skin and walking about in public with it teaches one more about being black than anything you can muster in an academic study.

                    2. Sorry. I’m going to venture that having dark skin and walking about in public with it teaches one more about being black than anything you can muster in an academic study.

                      Like most vociferous liberals, Gainesville’s self-concept is crucially dependent on what he fancies are the racial attitudes of others.

                      It doesn’t matter what you imagine his life’s been like or what you imagine the lives of other blacks have been like. There’s a social reality out there that isn’t responsive to the fancies you manufacture in your cruddy self-aggrandizing exercises.

                      He was born in 1961 and grew up in Honolulu in an agreeably bourgeois family. He went from there to Occidental College, thence to Columbia, and, after about five years with one rather dull and petty job and one rather stupid job, he enrolls at Harvard Law School. He was mistreated by no one in any systematic way (aside from the kids in one of the schools in which his mother enrolled him in Indonesia) and he does not claim to have been. And he knew little or nothing about the daily life of black wage earners until he was in his young adult years. Even then he got a distorted perspective.

                1. Anonymous;
                  “Obama’s legacy is on the shore of Martha Vineyard, a $12 Million mansion all so white.”
                  ********************
                  Well, that purchase did put to bed the “rising seal level due to global warming” canard. Ever met a guy who knowingly bought a swamp in training for a cool 12 mil. Even Obama, his mortgage company and insurers aren’t that stupid.

                  1. Oh, he might have. The rap on BO and Mooch is that over the course of their marriage they sank deeper and deeper into debt until the windfall book deals in 2004. (Steve Sailer has, I think, done a troll through their financial disclosure forms). Supposedly, they got a condominium as a wedding present from Madelyn Dunham. No clue why they were relying on Tony Rezko to arrange for financing for the purchase of a home so and so many years down the road. Not a great deal of business sense there.

                    1. The Turley Twits are hard at it, today — making America great again, one comment at a time.

                  2. Pauly J:
                    “Let me know when you actually stumble across them”
                    ***************
                    That you can’t see the facts when stated in the comments sort of says it all about you.

                2. He said, as anti-constitutional, anti-American citizens completely ignore fundamental law which requires the president to be a “natural born citizen.” Obama is and was a fraud, his legacy is fraudulent and his actions, with emphasis on Obamacare, were and are illegitimate. Don’ get me started.

                  “We hold these truths to be self-evident,…”

                  Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

                  Barack Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of his birth.

                  – A “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

                  – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

                  – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

                  – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

                  – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

                  – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations,1758, did.

                  ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

                  Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

                  Book 1, Ch. 19

                  § 212. Citizens and natives.

                  “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

                  ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

                  Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

                  “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”

                  ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

                  To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

                  From John Jay

                  New York 25 July 1787

                  Dear Sir

                  I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

                  Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

                  Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

                  which sailed Yesterday.

                  Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

                  provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

                  administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

                  of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

                  Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

                  Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

                  I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

                  John Jay

            1. Barack was at the very top of his class in terms of legal ability. He had a first-class legal mind and, in my view, was selected to be president of the Review entirely on his merits….”

              He was? Other students at the school said he was notable for his verbosity.

              I’m fascinated to know how someone is ‘at the top of his class in legal ability’, but never lands a clerkship after graduating, lands no position in the profession for a year after graduating, then lands a 40% time teaching position (it is reported) in contravention of normal hiring procedures. Or how you are to be considered top talent when you don’t produce any scholarship. One unsigned case note over a period of 15 years. Or how you are top talent when your time as a working lawyer consists of three years as an associate at a 12 lawyer firm. Bradford Berenson wouldn’t offer this horse piss if it were anyone else.

              His title was lecturer, no matter what sort of retconning you try.

              1. Who are you going to believe? TIA or an accomplished and conservative Obama classmate (Federalist member for C… sake and in the W administration) and The University of Chicago. You know, the guys who hired Obama as a professor.

                1. Bradford Berenson Harvard Law, class of ’91; associate White House counsel, 2001-’03, past officer The Federalist Society

                “…You don’t become president of the Harvard Law Review, no matter how political, or how liberal the place is, by virtue of affirmative action, or by virtue of not being at the very top of your class in terms of legal ability. Barack was at the very top of his class in terms of legal ability. He had a first-class legal mind and, in my view, was selected to be president of the Review entirely on his merits….”

                https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html

                2. “…From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. …”

                https://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

                1. For TIA, here’s the rest of Berenson’s comments on Obama and Harvard:

                  “… I never regarded him as kind of a racial special pleader, or a person looking for race-based benefits, either for himself or others. I think as a policy matter, he supported affirmative action and believed in the arguments for it. But unlike many people on the left, he was also willing to acknowledge that it had costs, and he could at least appreciate the arguments on the other side. …

                  Just in a political sense, what kind of a person were you looking for [to serve as president]? …

                  The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation’s top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left.

                  But there were a number of people that would have met that criterion. There were at least a large handful who probably had the intellectual and personal characteristics to be good leaders of the Review. From among those, the conservatives were eager to have somebody who would treat them fairly, who would listen to what they had to say, who would not abuse the powers of the office to favor his ideological soul mates and punish those who had different views. Somebody who would basically play it straight, I think was really what we were looking for.

                  Was that hard to find?

                  It was very hard to find. And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. …

                  We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category. …

                  [After Obama is selected,] he does a very able job as president. Puts out what I think was a very good volume of the Review. Does a great job managing the difficult and complicated interpersonal dynamics on the Review. And manages somehow, in an extremely fractious group, to keep everybody almost happy.

                  Some of the people who are not as happy as others, I think much to their surprise, are some of the African American people who believe that now it’s their turn.

                  Absolutely right, absolutely right. I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there’s an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it’s our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in.

                  And Barack was reluctant to do that. It’s not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. And he was not going to let politics or ideology get in the way of doing that. …

                  He had some discretion as president to exercise an element of choice for certain of the positions on the masthead; it wasn’t wide discretion, but he had some. And I think a lot of the minority editors on the Review expected him to use that discretion to the maximum extent possible to empower them. To put them in leadership positions, to burnish their resumes, and to give them a chance to help him and help guide the Review. He didn’t do that. He declined to exercise that discretion to disrupt the results of votes or of tests that were taken by various people to assess their fitness for leadership positions.

                  He was unwilling to undermine, based on the way I viewed it, meritocratic outcomes or democratic outcomes in order to advance a racial agenda. That earned him a lot of recrimination and criticism from some on the left, particularly some of the minority editors of the Review. …

                  It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters.”

                  Do you want to see the CSPAN History Prof polling placing Obama as our 12th best president again?

                  1. It is absolutely of no interest. Over a period of 35 years, Barack Obama did x, y, and z. And he didn’t do a, b, and c. That’s what tells you what his skills are, not the impressions of a verbose man who was somewhat acquainted with him 30 years ago.

                    1. Any facts (most of them) which contradict TIA’s meticulously constructed fantasy are of no interest to him. The rest of us can believe him or people and institutions with no bias and first hand information and authority.

                    2. You haven’t provided any facts. In fact when the question of Obama’s accomplishment’s arose solar energy was right at the top of the list yet no data could be provided to draw that conclusion and the proof given was in a hit piece that didn’t seem to agree that solar was one of Obama’s accomplishments.

                    3. 1. Bradford Berenson Harvard Law, class of ’91; associate White House counsel, 2001-’03, past officer The Federalist Society

                      “…You don’t become president of the Harvard Law Review, no matter how political, or how liberal the place is, by virtue of affirmative action, or by virtue of not being at the very top of your class in terms of legal ability. Barack was at the very top of his class in terms of legal ability. He had a first-class legal mind and, in my view, was selected to be president of the Review entirely on his merits….”

                      https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html

                      2. “…From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. …”

                      https://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

                    4. btb – at the time Obama got on the Law Review, they had switched from being selected by professors only to selected by professors and selected by students. Barack was in the latter group. He might have had a first class legal mind but his professors did not see it. Then, after a contentious 8 hour meeting of all the selectees, Barack was chosen to head the Review. If it took them 8 hours, he was not the overwhelming choice.

                    5. Here Paul, argue with someone who was there and later was employed in W’s White House and became an officer in conservative The Federalist Society. I don’t have any patience with people who can’t accept reality.

                      “… I never regarded him as kind of a racial special pleader, or a person looking for race-based benefits, either for himself or others. I think as a policy matter, he supported affirmative action and believed in the arguments for it. But unlike many people on the left, he was also willing to acknowledge that it had costs, and he could at least appreciate the arguments on the other side. …

                      Just in a political sense, what kind of a person were you looking for [to serve as president]? …

                      The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation’s top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left.

                      But there were a number of people that would have met that criterion. There were at least a large handful who probably had the intellectual and personal characteristics to be good leaders of the Review. From among those, the conservatives were eager to have somebody who would treat them fairly, who would listen to what they had to say, who would not abuse the powers of the office to favor his ideological soul mates and punish those who had different views. Somebody who would basically play it straight, I think was really what we were looking for.

                      Was that hard to find?

                      It was very hard to find. And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. …

                      We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category. …

                      [After Obama is selected,] he does a very able job as president. Puts out what I think was a very good volume of the Review. Does a great job managing the difficult and complicated interpersonal dynamics on the Review. And manages somehow, in an extremely fractious group, to keep everybody almost happy.

                      Some of the people who are not as happy as others, I think much to their surprise, are some of the African American people who believe that now it’s their turn.

                      Absolutely right, absolutely right. I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there’s an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it’s our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in.

                      And Barack was reluctant to do that. It’s not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. And he was not going to let politics or ideology get in the way of doing that. …

                      He had some discretion as president to exercise an element of choice for certain of the positions on the masthead; it wasn’t wide discretion, but he had some. And I think a lot of the minority editors on the Review expected him to use that discretion to the maximum extent possible to empower them. To put them in leadership positions, to burnish their resumes, and to give them a chance to help him and help guide the Review. He didn’t do that. He declined to exercise that discretion to disrupt the results of votes or of tests that were taken by various people to assess their fitness for leadership positions.

                      He was unwilling to undermine, based on the way I viewed it, meritocratic outcomes or democratic outcomes in order to advance a racial agenda. That earned him a lot of recrimination and criticism from some on the left, particularly some of the minority editors of the Review. …

                      It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters.”

                      https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html

            2. Perfect.

              “Minorities are at the tops of their classes.” Of course, they were ensconced but we can proceed assuming that fiction.

              Now that that’s settled, may we abrogate, with extreme prejudice, generational welfare and affirmative action, nay, the entire unconstitutional, redistributionist American welfare state? May Americans hand down to their children their full estates.

              Oh no! Private property, real property, moveable property, cash, income, dividends, corporations, companies, businesses, enterprises, organizations and estates are the domain of world-wide communism, right?

              Invaders, illegal aliens, illegally held-over freed slaves and various and sundry other hyphenates don’t become anything
              but that it was taken from Americans.

              Obama, “You didn’t build that.”

              You got that right, fool! You stole it.

          4. Good post DSS. I don’t know how many times you have repeated these things without getting a response only to having to repeat the same thing over and over again. These people that can’t move forward are in an endless loop and never want to leave it.

        2. Obama also led us out of an international crisis while the current occupant is following events into an international crisis.

          He didn’t. All the rescue measures had been put in place before he took office and were for the most part superintended by the same people. Henry Paulson and Christopher Cox were replaced. Sheila Bair and Dr. Bernanke remained in place. Timothy Geithner was shifted to a different position but otherwise remained in place. Production levels hit bottom in May of 2009, too early for it to be attributable to the Democrats’ porkulus bill. The one signature was the crooked auto industry bail-out, wherein they crafted a settlement to steal from secured creditors in order to benefit Democratic Party clients.

          I see you and Peter Hill consult the same talking point mills.

      2. Damn right, Spanky.

        I’d venture to say getting the ACA in place and the solar power industry off the ground in the States ranks a bit higher than what he did at University of Chicago law school…

        But that’s just me. Feel free to continue to posture uselessly though.

        1. I’d venture to say getting the ACA in place and the solar power industry off the ground in the States ranks a bit higher than what he did at University of Chicago law school…

          Gainesville knows perfectly well that solar technology has existed for nearly 50 years, so it’s curious his alter-ego pretends otherwise. Having Steven Chu operate the Department of Energy as a venture capital concern isn’t the brightest idea, but it is what you’d expect of a full-of-himself lawyer who came of age at a certain time.

          As for the ACA, it did a great job of building actuarially unstable markets in household medical insurance.

          1. As my dad wrote the early material on how solar power was going to be integrated into the economy for NASA in the 70’s I’m well aware of how long solar power has been around…

            And that point of view completely enables me to appreciate the work the Obama administration did to get the industry into a more cost effective reality.

            Oh and I forgot about Obama’s guiding the economy out of the recession/depression before the one sure to eclipse it now. Hey! I’m noticing a theme about republican control of the executive branch! I know you’d need some help through your blind spots on the topic…, glad to help!

            The ACA, the one that the Obama administration had to bring in when Ted Kennedy died and they had to usher in what was previously known as Romneycare and was endorsed by the Heritage Foundation and was what Bob Dole was planning on when he ran against Clinton? The plan that ensured many who couldn’t afford any care previous? The one that enabled people like me who couldn’t even put shoes on without dislocating a hip to have surgery after hobbling around miserably for 2 years?

            Yeah, thanks for the reminder!

            1. Paulie, this will be the SECOND financial panic that Millennials experienced under a Republican president. No generation has ever seen 2 such disasters under the same party in such a short span of time.

                    1. “Repetitive soundbites do not make or promote a discussion”

                      Nor does that thing that some people have termed “Allanonsense.”

                    2. Anonymous the Stupid why don’t you explain what you are talking about? Can’t? Too Stupid?

                    3. I’m not sure which soundbites you are talking about, but If you have one in mind we can discuss it in depth. I’m waiting.

            2. As my dad wrote the early material on how solar power was going to be integrated into the economy for NASA in the 70’s I’m well aware of how long solar power has been around…

              You’re making this character you’ve created rather elaborate.

          2. No, Absurd, Republican obstructionism led to inconsistent markets. Kentucky’s ‘KentuckyCare’ became a national model that Republicans were forced to dismantle because it embarrassed them in a red state.

            1. No, Absurd, Republican obstructionism led to inconsistent markets.

              This is a nonsense phrase, of course.

              That aside, you had a 3/5ths majority in Congress and the co-operation of a couple of Republican senators atop that.

              Own it, chump.

              1. Absurd, our host, Professor Turley, argued against Obamacare in a lawsuit brought by Republicans. Republican Attorney Generals in almost half the country filed various lawsuits against Obamacare. One case, still pending a SCOTUS decision, could negate Obamacare. So dont tell me Democrats ‘won’t what has become of Obamacare. That’s an absolute falsehood!

                1. The actuarial pools were unstable for reasons baked into the scheme. Hasn’t much to do with Republican objections to various aspects of the plan, other than the lack of a penalty exacerbates the instability.

                  1. Absurd, Obamacare was designed on the principle that if everyone buys in, the risk is evenly distributed amongst the general population. Republicans attacked that component first. Republicans also attacked subsidies Obama used to make ACA more affordable to the poor. By attacking those subsidies, Republicans made Obamacare more expensive than intended. The truth is Republicans sabotage largely perverted Obamacare from its original design.

                    Absurd, are you on record as saying our healthcare system was better ‘before’ Obamacare?? Show me polls and data to support that.

                    1. Absurd, Obamacare was designed on the principle that if everyone buys in, the risk is evenly distributed amongst the general population.

                      It wasn’t.

    2. Paulie, dont start it up with acrimony and trolling that adds nothing to the conversation., it drags everything down

      1. Kurtz, are you kidding? 3/4 of the posts here everyday are content free trolling by right wingers and you never complain. Paulie is smart, funny, and except for some occasional sarcasm – hey, the set-ups are just too good to resist – and always provides substance and rational thought.

        1. Thanks, Book. You as well.

          Much like noticing a theme with what happens during Republican control of the executive, I notice a pattern of right wing responses on this blog. There’s almost never an interest in discussing on the merits, a progressive point of view will immediately be met with insults directed toward intellect…

          While it’s fun to crack back on Allan because, hey, he’s Allan, I never crack back on someone’s intellect…

          But I was born in Queens and, oddly enough, have made a dollar or two with dark humor, I will come back with the term ‘mutants’ when talking about Trumpers. It’s a term of endearment on some strange level. i try to avoid f bombs whenever possible.

          This place in a lot of ways is not actually a bastion of open mindedness and sometimes the cage just gotta get rattled, you know? Nothing personal.

          But please stop with the holier than thou self righteous indignation. Better yet, right wingers, stop being such snowflakes about your precious point of views. Look, a lot of the world thinks exactly opposite to you. It’s actually not a threat to hear opposing views. Listen. Take what you like and leave the rest. If someone comments on what the Professor says, it’s not your god given right to jump in and insult their intelligence and their belief system…

          But if you do, just be ready for what comes back, aight???

          1. “There’s almost never an interest in discussing on the merits, a progressive point of view will immediately be met with insults directed toward intellect…”

            That is because you are unwilling to engage in principled discussion. Understand, if one takes a progressive mindset that is not Marxist or fascist with political ends one hears about certain problems that exist and they feel need to be dealt with. The funny thing is that many of those things are things non-leftists / non-progressives think about as well.

            The major disagreements are not the ends but the means to the ends. Logical solutions based on economics, science, etc. are easy to discuss in a logical fashion but I haven’t seen you do much of that. What I see is the negative. Trump is wrong based on a comparison with a dream that will never be real. If you want to discuss governing principles and logical solutions to problems we all agree with then go ahead. The only thing stopping that type of discussion is yourself.

            1. Allan we’ve had several discussions on what constitutes good science i refer you back to those.

              As to whether or not you agree with how i discuss policy a) if you want to discuss along those lines, maybe begin with how I respond to the Professor’s articles, just a thought, b) realize I don’t have to make myself acceptable to you in terms of what I say, and c) bottom line, I’m rather busy and pop in and out of here, not really having time to do much more than respond to the original blog post.

              i promise I won’t tag along on any threads that are just too easy to tee off on.

              1. I haven’t seen you do more than superficially discuss anything and when points are raised you seem to disappear. I even looked over this specific thread and found virtually zero.

                You did superficially answer what Obama’s acheivements were. You gave three so I suppose they must be at the top of Obama’s list of acheivements.

                Let’s deal with your answer “subsidization of the solar market”

                Tell us why you consider that an achievement and how it benefitted the nation. I’m sure you can squeeze out some type of positivity there and then we can debate it based on scientific, economic, and policy principles leaving party and Obama out of the discussion. That is the type of discussion you said you wanted so let’s go for it. I’m waiting.

                1. Brought the price of mass producing down to the point people could afford to put them in. And in areas of the country friendly to having fair net metering policy it made the prospect of sustainable energy a reality where previously it hadn’t been.

                  1. Solar panels generate about 1.8% of electric power produced in this country. There is no reason in the world for the Department of Energy to be playing venture capitalist. Private capital is ample in this country and less likely to be invested in error as its holders have skin in the game.

                    1. Except venture capital has subsidized oil and gas into existence previous. There is literally no way around the fact that, whether it be with no subsidies, or equal subsidies, that an energy generation system that does not have to generate the power it collects and distributes is far above the system that has to generate the power it collects and distributes. It’s more efficient and cost effective across the board.

                      And the main stumbling blocks are actually not in generation, it’s paying the piper to break into distribution…, just like any business on the planet.

                      The problem with your 1.8 % market share stat is that it just reflects an energy generation market that has combustion of fossil fuels subsidized in for many years already being held in a head to head comparison of a fledgling new technology. In other words, it just reflects history, but not market potential.

                      And of course, the thing about sustainable energy in general is there are many ways to diversify the system (wind, solar, wave, large scale composting, etc) the potential is immense and largely untapped…

                      I live next to the first offshore wind development in the country and, of the five windmills, they rarely can all run concurrently because they generate so much power the grid can’t handle it and they can only run a few at a time much of the time.

                      No better time to tap it in a big way is coming off a a depression that will require a Marshall plan of development. Ringing any bells?

                      I mean, that’s obvious right? if we can’t agree on that there’s really no point going further because we won’t share the same fact base.

                    2. No, venture capital has not ‘subsidized’ anything, except in the liberal lizard brain where any investment is a ‘subsidy’.

                      The federal tax code is littered with sectoral preferences. Get rid of the preferences, don’t add more preferences by giving Steven Chu an investment portfolio.

                      Federal policy also fails to give due attention to externalities and to aligning the benefits and costs of a given activity. OK, do that. Don’t slather some competing sector with money.

                  2. I like DSS’s response so you can go into depth and rebut his response. You can also explain how he brought the price of solar panels down. I remember Solyndra which he subsidized. It went out of business.Of course such a subsidy didn’t do any good for Solyndra’s competitors.

                    Why don’t you tell us more about this thing you believe was an accomplishment.

                    1. That’s because Fox sniped the failure of Solyndra like it was this huge waste. In reality the venture stimulus of the Obama program funded many more solar businesses. In fact, in a heads up comparison of success rate of a diversified venture capital program overall, Obama’s program in solar beat the averages of success of like diversified initiatives.

                      Really successful program in other words, and it literally put solar panels into the realm of competitive pricing that gave the business its foothold.

                      Trump (and the oil and gas lobby) have dedicated to ruining that foothold by lobbying for local moratoriums to block the price advances the industry made in the Obama years.

                      Much material to back this up if you venture beyond the Fox world.

                    2. “That’s because Fox sniped the failure of Solyndra like it was this huge waste.”

                      Ludicrous to blame Fox reporting. Solyndra was a bad investment and by giving subsidies to Solyndra the government made it difficult for better companies to compete and push solar into the marketplace. If the competition was too great for solar the subsidies don’t help. Large private investment can scale future profitable industry at a loss for greater profit in the future much better than simple government subsidies. Private investment does that all the time.

                      Do you think capital investors get their financial and stock tips from Fox? Try again. I won’t beat you up on the rest of this response of yours because it goes from bad to worse. One has to be careful when they think subsidies are good. If there are good investments in the marketplace subsidies can be terrible because they can push investors in the wrong direction and waste a lot of money.

                      What put solar panels into a better pricing range was that for some tasks and locations solar panels are a good investment. You seem to there is an objection to solar where it works. There isn’t.

                      Pre Obama I installed solar panels for a specific task. I think 14 large ones (not the most efficient). I bought them because they did the job. They saved me a lot of money. At a later time during the Obama years I replaced a solar panel elsewhere that supposedly was saving money. I later ran the numbers and the costs were abominable so I ended up getting rid of it even though the solar panel was operational.

                    3. Regarding my initial question: “Tell us why you consider that an achievement and how it benefitted the nation.”

                      So far you haven’t proven anything and history demonstrates a failure unless you can demonstrate how that failure was actually a success. I am waiting. If you wish you can substitute one of the other so called achievements so we can discuss them in detail instead.

                    4. Here’s a quick middle of the road assessment, the thing of note to take into account is that the loan guarantee program was more than just the Solyndra deal.

                      All in all, moving into programs is not even a choice. It’s the future of energy development, like it or not. The species needs to move away from combustible fossil fuels to survive. Literally.

                      https://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/obamas-solyndra-problem/

                      What this piece doesn’t take into account is an active comparison against other forms of subsidy, namely toward fossil fuels.

                    5. Why should I be reading from a spin machine whose job it is to put a good light on the left and a bad light on the right. It’s a long article so if it had merit you would at least told us the merits and then provided the article and location. You didn’t. That means you are grabbing at straws.

                      I will however, copy the first and last sentences from the spin machine that you say demonstrates an Obama success.

                      “President Obama exaggerated when defending his administration’s approval of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, a now-defunct solar company.”

                      “A time may come when the program can be called a “success,” but doing so now may be premature.”

                      A time might come when you will be President of the United States but at present you aren’t and most of us clearly recognize that you will never be.

                      I think the article proves that one of your three sucesses was a failure. One also has to assume that the three successes you picked would be among the top of Obama’s successes. Therefore at present you are proving Obama to be a failure.

                      When you quote an article try quoting one that proves your point.

                    6. No shortage of Fox, Newmax, right wing world sniping though. I think we can agree the right wing universe is no fan of sustainable energy development….

                      Funny thing is, they were at one point. Back in my dad’s day at NASA, Exxon put more money into sustainable than anyone else. They changed their tune after the Reagan election in response to their pedal to the meddle effort to drill as much and as fast as possible…

                      Actually, true conservatives were almost all environmentalists back in those days. The science denying, drill baby drill crew is a relatively new phenomenon.

                    7. ” I think we can agree the right wing universe is no fan of sustainable energy development….”

                      How can you say that? I’m what you would call a conservative and I used solar panels late 70’s or early 80’s and loved them. They saved me a fortune because their ability at that time could produce savings based on their use.

                      What has happened is the Liberal mindset has gone off the wall. The Liberal bases his conclusions on dreams that may never be realized. I love alterntive energy but one has to look at the cons as well as the presumed benefits.

                    8. The world’s industrialized countries run their economies on fossil fuel to the tune of about 85% of their total energy consumption. There is no viable substitute or combination thereof for fossil fuels and won’t be for 50 years. Even then the transitions to more difficult to produce alternate energy platforms will take decades not years. That’s the assessment of the research. So let’s get real about the Green Revolution.

                    9. Not true, Mespo. I respect your citing history back at me, but the future entails sustainable after a period of diversified conversion. 5 years ago, the estimate for going almost toatally sustainable was 40 years. Gets shorter every year with further development.

                    10. Paulie J:
                      Mine are 2018 figures. Your old data is an optimistic assessment assuming the industrialized nations met the UN Millennium Goal #7 which not one signatory has accomplished. The timeline is closer to 50 years than 35 and the progress to sustainable energy has lagged with the cheap oil of the past three years. That doesn’t even begin to count the transitions time for each mode of green energy that is a maze of problems given the myriad of alternatives from nuclear to wind to solar to biofuels etc. it will never happen in our lifetimes.

                    11. Europe gets about half of it’s electricity from nuclear power, with France at 85%.

                      Nations are mostly driven by short term goals but humans are pretty good at ramping up for a crisis. May be too late to avoid serious global climate change and however that impacts civilization, but change will be necessary one way or the other.

                    12. “Europe gets about half of it’s electricity from nuclear power, with France at 85%.”

                      Without commenting on the above numbers nuclear power isn’t renewable in its present fashion. Liberals don’t like it despite the fact that it is a clean and a wonderful powersource. They would rather push other types of energy sources whether appropriate or not. We have huge windfarms created by cutting down all the trees and when producing energy they have a tendency to also produce large amounts of chopped bird.

                      The costs to mine the materials along with the gas used and then to manufacture the product costs a lot of money. They have a lifespan and add to the massive amount of garbage. Same with solar except for the chopped birds. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be used. I am only saying that their use should be based on reality and not dreams. Obama’s dreams were not a reality.

                    13. There is no need to introduce unnecessarily fallable state planning into investment choices in re modes of energy production – so long as conventional policy tools are applied to address externalities and national security considerations. Just addressing those two sets of considerations provides quite enough work for the military and the federal civil service.

                      In venues where wind and solar are cost-effective, those investments will be made unless you manufacture institutional impediments to so doing. No need for Dr. Chu’s investment funds, for politically-connected business enterprises, for tax preferences, for any of it.

                    14. Btb:

                      Your figures on the EU’s use of nuclear power for electricity is dead wrong. I can prove it but to what end. All you’d do is lie more.

                    15. mespo was correct. My figures were wrong for electricity from nuclear in Europe. However, it is still a significant part of their production, and just as important, sustainable sources provide almost 30%. Fossil fuels are at less than half. The trend and the necessity toward alternatives to fossil fuels is clear.

                      “….In the EU in 2017, 44 % of the electricity consumed came from power stations burning fossil fuels and 31 % from renewable energy sources, while 25 % came from nuclear power plants. Among the renewable energy sources, the highest share of electricity consumed came from wind turbines (11 %), hydropower plants (10 %), biofuels (6 %) and solar power (4 %).

                      The sources of electricity production vary among the Member States: around 90 % of electricity production came from fossil fuels in Cyprus and Malta, while almost three quarters (71 %) of electricity production came from nuclear power plants in France, followed by 55 % in Slovakia. In Luxembourg and Austria, around 60 % of electricity production came from hydro power plants, while 48 % of electricity production in Denmark came from wind energy….”

                      https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/energy/bloc-3b.html

                    16. Obama favors more nuclear power.

                      “As detailed in the Climate Action Plan, President Obama is committed to using every appropriate tool to combat climate change. Nuclear power, which in 2014 generated about 60 percent of carbon-free electricity in the United States, continues to play a major role in efforts to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector. As America leads the global transition to a low-carbon economy, the continued development of new and advanced nuclear technologies along with support for currently operating nuclear power plants is an important component of our clean energy strategy. Investing in the safe and secure development of nuclear power also helps advance other vital policy objectives in the national interest, such as maintaining economic competitiveness and job creation, as well as enhancing nuclear nonproliferation efforts, nuclear safety and security, and energy security.

                      The President’s FY 2016 Budget includes more than $900 million for the Department of Energy (DOE) to support the U.S. civilian nuclear energy sector by leading federal research, development, and demonstration efforts in nuclear energy technologies, ranging from power generation, safety, hybrid energy systems, and security technologies, among other things. DOE also supports the deployment of these technologies with $12.5 billion in remaining loan guarantee authority for advanced nuclear projects through Title 17. DOE’s investments in nuclear energy help secure the three strategic objectives that are foundational to our nation’s energy system: energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental responsibility….”

                      https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/06/fact-sheet-obama-administration-announces-actions-ensure-nuclear-energy

                    17. “Obama favors more nuclear power.”

                      Congratulations. That makes his subsidies on solar even less productive.

                    18. Always love the ‘chopped bird’ talking point the right uses to advocate their distaste for wind energy. You know what kills more birds than windmills?

                      Planes, birds and windows.

                      Look it up. Fun information.

                    19. “Always love the ‘chopped bird’ talking point the right uses to advocate their distaste for wind energy. You know what kills more birds than windmills? Planes, birds and windows.”

                      Your use of statistics is abominable. Almost all homes, businesses, forms of transportation, boats, etc. have windows, but only a tiny amount of energy comes from windmills. If we were to increase the use of windmills for energy to degree that we use windows don’t you think the number of chopped birds would rise and perphaps exceed that of windows? But that is not the reason we don’t get most of our energy from windmills. There are loads of other reasons not to but they don’t fit into your agenda so you forget all about them.

                      Just as an aside if during certain times of the year you are killing a lot of birds either close your blinds or put tape on your windows and protect the birds.

                      In the meantime I await more of your proof of Obama’s success in solar power.

                    20. Confused as always, Allan. Although I join you as an advocate of solar panels. I’ve lived off the grid to some degree or other (either totally or hybrid) for upwards of 20 years.

                    21. You live off the grid. Congratulations the local street bum that sleeps in the street doesn’t fly a plane, have windows or use a plane. You join the man lying on the sidewalk.

          2. There’s almost never an interest in discussing on the merits, a progressive point of view will immediately be met with insults directed toward intellect…

            Meet us halfway. Offer one. What we get is verbose emotional rants (Natacha), talking points mixed with cribbed text walls (Shill), and random expressions of contempt (Gainesville). Natacha and Gainesville are very invested in political fictions (courtesy the Weismann / McCabe / Schiff gang) and Shill’s interested in the daily news cycle. Neither of these are all that interesting, nor are their status anxieties or their emotional problems interesting. You have not perspective on policy. Enigma has a perspective on historical questions, but not all academic interests interest others.

            1. Sorry, initially I respond to the professor and aren’t really interested in your thoughts on the matter. I find them cliched and one dimensional. I totally respect your right to have whatever opinions you may have, they’re just not mine and really don’t figure much into where I come from on things.

              So I don’t really care much what you think about what i respond to Turley with, or whether you find Natacha too emotional.

              I’d be much more interested in you telling me who the hell “Gainesville” is. Every time you say the name (?) I wonder whether you might be hallucinating and frothing at the mouth.

              1. You say you want x, y, and z. You make it plain in your comment that you haven’t a clue as to what that might look like.

          3. Paulie, your participation on these threads is annoying the Trumpers in a very big way. The last thing they want is a smart guy joining the liberals.

            There was a period, not too long ago, when the Trumpers were able to gang up on me whenever I ‘dared’ to comment. Diaper Man enjoyed that! The blog was almost a Trump-friendly echo-chamber for a couple months. But now you and Book are making the Trumpers feel like their chamber lost its echo. And Diaper Man is not happy with this change!

            1. Paulie, with regards to Absurd, he is chronically disengenous. Absurd is primarily concerned with crafting catty put-downs. It’s something he can’t stop. I suspect he’s the local ‘intellectual’ in a s.aller than average city.

                1. And thanks! I’m always impressed with you and Book and Natacha in steadfastly avoiding the sniping while presenting alternative and progressive view points. You guys have way more patience than I do. Lol!

                  1. And thanks! I’m always impressed with you and Book and Natacha in steadfastly avoiding the sniping while presenting alternative and progressive view points.

                    Rah rah. Quite puerile, Gainesville. I’ll remember how classy Natacha is the next time she begins whinging about Ivanka Trump’s breasts.

                    1. Paulie J – I am only interested in discussing Ivanka’s breasts if they come with a slide show of actual photos of the breasts.

                    2. Paul – while you’re over here discussing Ivanka’s breasts, I’m getting nailed up to the wall for my antics in Italy. I can’t win here. It’s like someone took their glove off pre duel and did a one-two and then put there glove back on nonchalantly.

                      maybe I should tell them about all the nekkid parties at St Peter’s. Just kidding. Those are underground. Okay, now I’m really joking here.

                    3. WW33 – over the years there are reported be have been lots of nekkid or near nekkid parties in the Vatican, then they got super conservative.

                      BTW, I really don’t want to know about Ivanka’s breasts. I think Natacha is just jealous.

                    4. Paul – Ah hah, I was right then, the nekkid parties went underground. I had some spidey sense suspicions…

                      I’m not familiar with Natacha’s infatuation…but I knew you were and has always been on the straight and narrow, so case closed. I just need a gavel and a wig to make it official.

                    5. WW33 – from diaries that we have from various periods it appears they were not putting up posters for the parties. 😉

              1. Paint Chips, I have had my run-ins with DSS (Absurd) but he has always been a straight shooter defending his position. You and your friends might not realize it but DSS is really smart. Furthermore, he acts as a word of the day for those who only have an abbreviated vocabulary.

                1. Furthermore, he acts as a word of the day for those who only have an abbreviated vocabulary.

                  🙂 No kidding. His vocabulary is awesome for anyone willing to look words up and understand them in context. His commentary is routinely precise, like a surgeon. His detractors, thuggish.

                  1. The problem is that sometimes to get a point across it is better to write in the language more people understand even if one has to degrade their own.

                    1. I understand your point, but we all have a particular style of writing we identify with. I’m fine with the various styles, it’s the substance of particular contributors that are less than compelling. I’m sure mine is of that variety. I have no patience for emotional-based comments; the right-brain thinking that is void of reason and logic. You know the type, truth, not facts.

            2. “The last thing they want is a smart guy joining the liberals.”

              Paint Chips, your approval of anyone only degrades their intellect that others might see. Why don’t you help your friend out on the question of solar energy. It’s only a couple of emails back. You think of yourself as an expert so now you have the opportunity to prove it.

            3. your participation on these threads is annoying the Trumpers in a very big way. The last thing they want is a smart guy joining the liberals.

              LOL! And you think Paulie is now your wingman? 🙂

              I’m not surprised Chips that you’ve once again completely misread the situation. First of all, that period, not long ago, is still present tense. Secondly, conservatives on this blog relish the opportunity to debate anyone with a functional left-half of their brain. You call them smart, we call them normal. Lastly, btb is still the same as Anon1 and his contributions on this blog have not miraculously improved. The archives prove that out.

        2. well book maybe the right wingers should stop the trolling too. how about we try and generate some interesting content which can help each other and not just fence with insults? that’s my idea anyways

        3. Paulie is smart, funny, and except for some occasional sarcasm –

          Gainesville gives a letter of reference for … Gainesville.

    1. Breaks my heart, though. There’s so much fear and desperation right now, ‘specially in the older community, many of whom are glued to their televisions.

      News/noise outlets need to be so careful with the way they’re presenting everything. On the one hand, people need to take this seriously, on the other hand, if there’s ANY hope to be had, they need to hear it.

    1. Is this idiot from Arizona? Looks like the “china virus” gambit worked on him.

      Trump exactly 2 months ago:

      “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”

      Yeah, nobody here vote for Xi again.

      For the Chinese, I’m sure they hate not having those famine frolics that killed millions indiscriminately, or other parts of their impoverished and short lives.

    2. America Arkancided?

      Are the rumors true?

      Did Hillary tell Bill that President Trump was on his way to an historical landslide victory; meaning it’s past time to call in self-destructive “danger close” fire support, according to rumor?

      Did Bill give the universal ruler, global communist Dear Leader Xi Jinping, a call and did “she,” in turn, call the Level Four Bio-weapons Research Lab in Wuhan, China, ordering it to, “Get the bugs out?”

      Was Bill’s second call to the FBI instructing Christopher “Deep Deep State Functionary” Wray, the successor to those honorable public servants, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Rosenstein, Obergruppenfuhrer Weissman, Bruce/Nellie Ohr, et al., to propagate disinformation by floating the rumor that those pesky “White Supremacists” started the “Outbreak.”

      The rest, as they say, is history.

      Rumored Conclusion: The inevitable collateral damage constitutes a measure of acceptable loss in an existential endeavor to rid the world of the Trump virus.

      I wouldn’t put it past the DNC.

      Hey, let’s ask Donna “I Cheat For A Living” Brazile. She’ll most certainly disseminate fact and truth devoid of subterfuge.

    3. America must sue China for knowing, willful and deliberate withholding of early, critical information regarding the COVID-19 outbreak, and for damages, in the initial amount $5 trillion, for willful dereliction and negligence resulting in severe illness, trauma, death and financial disaster, through its failure to monitor and control food acquisition and processing practices in China which resulted in the transmission or “hopping” of the current adaptation of the coronavirus from animals to humans and the subsequent world-wide propagation of COVID-19.

      1. sue them where, under what law? george, there is a thing from the Treaty of Westphalia called “sovereign immunity” which makes a lawsuit like that DOA

        1. I’m not an attorney but I’ve watched some on TV.

          “The U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed a bill allowing families of the victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act was passed unanimously by a voice vote, but the White House has threatened to veto it. Additionally, Saudi Arabia has said it might sell $750 billion in U.S. assets in response if the JASTA becomes law. The debate over this legislation comes at a time when prominent former lawmakers are calling on the White House to declassify the final 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report, which is expected to implicate Saudi Arabia in the attacks.”

          “1,500 9/11 first responders and the families of 800 victims have filed suit against Saudi Arabia, accusing the country of complicity in the terror attacks, PIX11 reports. The suit, filed in a Manhattan court on Monday, accuses Saudi Arabia of aiding some the 9/11 masterminds by allegedly helping them settle in the United States. The suit also accuses Saudi royals of funneling money to al Qaeda, and alleges that one Saudi official stayed in the hijackers’ Virginia hotel room the night before the attack. Aviation law firm Kreindler & Kreindler is representing the plaintiffs, and has not specified the damages they seek. Prior to September 2016, Americans were unable to sue Saudi Arabia for its alleged involvement in the attacks. But under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which passed after Congress overrode a presidential veto, 9/11 victims gained the right to press charges against Saudi Arabia.”

          – Daily Beast

    4. China, Derelict and Negligent for 100 Years, Was the Origin of 1918 “Spanish Flu” and the 2020 “Wuhan Flu.”
      _______________________________________________________________________________________

      “1918 Flu Pandemic That Killed 50 Million Originated in China, Historians Say
      Chinese laborers transported across Canada thought to be source.”

      Dan Vergano, January 24, 2014

      “The global flu outbreak of 1918 killed 50 million people worldwide, ranking as one of the deadliest epidemics in history.

      “For decades, scientists have debated where in the world the pandemic started, variously pinpointing its origins in France, China, the American Midwest, and beyond. Without a clear location, scientists have lacked a complete picture of the conditions that bred the disease and factors that might lead to similar outbreaks in the future.

      “The deadly “Spanish flu” claimed more lives than World War I, which ended the same year the pandemic struck. Now, new research is placing the flu’s emergence in a forgotten episode of World War I: the shipment of Chinese laborers across Canada in sealed train cars.

      “Historian Mark Humphries of Canada’s Memorial University of Newfoundland says that newly unearthed records confirm that one of the side stories of the war—the mobilization of 96,000 Chinese laborers to work behind the British and French lines on World War I’s Western Front—may have been the source of the pandemic.

      “Writing in the January issue of the journal War in History, Humphries acknowledges that his hypothesis awaits confirmation by viral samples from flu victims. Such evidence would tie the disease’s origin to one location.

      “But some other historians already find his argument convincing.

      “This is about as close to a smoking gun as a historian is going to get,” says historian James Higgins, who lectures at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and who has researched the 1918 spread of the pandemic in the United States. “These records answer a lot of questions about the pandemic.”

      – National Geographic

    5. “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

      – William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

    6. I have no problem with people calling it the China virus or wuhan virus or covid 19 or sars-co-2 or whatever., just so long as people know what we’re talking about its good enough. However, I thought Wuhan virus was a better name than the Chinese virus. The debate over this is a big distraction.

      However, that guy kind of goes overboard about “The CCP is directly responsible for all deaths” or whatever he said.

      That is hyperbole and discredits himself by saying it.

      The virus directly causes death not a political party.

      the bad stuff the guy says about the CCP is somewhat fair, a little overstated, a little irrelevant at this point. but why go overboard and say something which is not factual? I love to criticize the CCP but i try and keep it strictly factual.

      I’m also not into this kind of “regime change” talk. We should focus on our system now not worry about them. Most of all, we should not enter into an open military conflict with the PRC at his time. it is certainly possible and should be avoided by both nations.

      1. Whatever you think of those that liked the video why don’t you tell us what was wrong with the video? You either can or can’t and if you can’t then your statement is worthless.

    1. I hear that some call it the CCP virus, after the Chinese Communist Party. I think it is a bioweapon by China, stolen from a lab in Canada, possibly. Zerohedge.com shared a persuasive story about that. After all, Trump forced them to stop cheating us in trade, etc – thank God, and I think this virus is their answer to their very damaged economy- from their slave labor. The oscar winning documentary, “American Factory” now on Netflix, makes clear their utter lack of caring about human beings. They are a very dangerous government.

  11. My husband has been taking Plaquenuil for years for rheumatoid arthritis but it did not prevent him from a sudden acute respiratory distress episode which put him in ICU for a week. The doctor treating him never mentioned anything about the drug during his treatment or recovery. This episode was not attributed to any communicable disease either. No one should treat themselves even for prevention unless directed by a physician. As a retired nurse, I’ve seen many serious, life-threatening mistakes made by patients who self medicate.

  12. I haven’t been able to find any hydroxychloroquine, so I’ve substituted Hydrox cookies. No Covid-19 symptoms so far.

      1. Imagine a world where that information might be readily available at the touch of one’s fingertips…

Leave a Reply