NYCGOBEARS said:

---

Lol
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thebulwark.com/trumps-farewell-address

---

To at least one survivor of the good old days, Carville's laugher channels Art Hoppe's SFcomical column in the 60s / 70s etc. Ahead of class morning drill we'd quick find his column in the "paper" (ask grans) crowding the cereal bowl then it's off we go.
# time flies

from wikiwiki..

Quote:

---

"At the peak of its popularity, Hoppe's column appeared in the Chronicle five days a week and was syndicated in more than 100 newspapers nationwide. His close friends included fellow columnists Russell Baker and Art Buchwald.

Hoppe received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the National Society of Newspaper Columnists in 1996. On his own initiative, he released fellow Chronicle columnist Herb Caen from a mutual vow to accept a special 1996 Pulitzer Prize."

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Hoppe

This administration loaned $700,000,000 to a law-breaking trucking company. I'm sure 45 likes their style.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/01/business/yrc-federal-loan/

BearNIt said:

---

White House position at the present time is to do nothing about the Russians paying Taliban fighters up to $100,000 dollars for a dead American soldier. Gold Star families are pissed and the parents of soldiers in that part of the world who are already worried now have this dropped on their doorsteps. Putin has his hand so far up Captain Catastrophe's ass that the Sock Puppet President can't tell the difference between right and wrong. There is going to be a briefing tomorrow that involves Gina Haspel the head of the CIA, so stay tuned.

---

Indeed. Stay tuned.

Soldiers who served under Clint Lorance in Afghanistan see Trump's pardon as betrayal - Washington Post


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/clint-lorance-platoon-afghanistan/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/clint-lorance-platoon-afghanistan/?no_nav=true&p9w22b2p=b2p22p9w00098&tid=a_classic-iphone

An update on the beautiful wall that Mexico will surely end up paying for:

https://www.propublica.org/article/he-built-a-privately-funded-border-wall-its-already-at-risk-of-falling-down-if-not-fixed

Business as usual (i.e., as corrupt as it gets) from this administration:
https://apnews.com/2edf8670a491a702ecfb7312f507f83a

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

I'll give him "arguably."

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

One of the most successful con-men anyway.

More shady dealings from this administration:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/16/medicare-chief-rules-publicity-contracts-365482

bearister said:

---

" When did America start losing its war against the coronavirus? How did we find ourselves international pariahs, not even allowed to travel to Europe?

I'd suggest that the turning point was way back on April 17, the day that Donald Trump tweeted "LIBERATE MINNESOTA," followed by "LIBERATE MICHIGAN" and "LIBERATE VIRGINIA." In so doing, he effectively declared White House support for protesters demanding an end to the lockdowns governors had instituted to bring Covid-19 under control.

As it happens, the Democratic governors Trump was targeting in those tweets stood firm. But Republican governors in Arizona, Florida, Texas and elsewhere soon lifted stay-at-home orders and ended many restrictions on business operations. They also, following Trump's lead, refused to require that people wear masks, and Texas and Arizona denied local governments the right to impose such requirements. They waved away warnings from health experts that premature and careless reopening could lead to a new wave of infections.

And the virus came." Paul Krugman, NYTimes

---

But then California becomes a difficult example for his argument. So he leaves it out.

Now, the statement "premature and careless" just assumes as a basic fact the main point of the debate. What a lame argument.

And which governors required wearing a mask and was this before or after the health organizations recommended against wearing a mask? And who would impose the requirement? Let's play this out.

Old woman in a wheelchair not wearing a mask - OK, give her a citation.

Young white man who flips off the cop and makes a run for it: Shoot? Tackle? What if he resists? What if he takes the taser and shoots?

Young black man who flips off the cop and makes a run for it: Pursue? Risk escalation?

What if people who saw a white person not wearing a mask and tries to enforce directly?

What if it were white people who saw a black person not wearing a mask?

Do you not see why criminalizing not wearing a mask is not workable? This is coming from someone who wears a mask even outdoors to give others comfort and have confronted people who invade my space at the market not wearing masks. But this is a volatile situation, and criminalizing this is absolutely the wrong thing to do.



So, am I to take these points from Paul Krugman seriously?

With regard to following the shelter in place and other Covid 19 safety protocols in Colombia, the drug cartel enforcement ambassadors simply summarily execute all violators and lets God sort them out.

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

" When did America start losing its war against the coronavirus? How did we find ourselves international pariahs, not even allowed to travel to Europe?

I'd suggest that the turning point was way back on April 17, the day that Donald Trump tweeted "LIBERATE MINNESOTA," followed by "LIBERATE MICHIGAN" and "LIBERATE VIRGINIA." In so doing, he effectively declared White House support for protesters demanding an end to the lockdowns governors had instituted to bring Covid-19 under control.

As it happens, the Democratic governors Trump was targeting in those tweets stood firm. But Republican governors in Arizona, Florida, Texas and elsewhere soon lifted stay-at-home orders and ended many restrictions on business operations. They also, following Trump's lead, refused to require that people wear masks, and Texas and Arizona denied local governments the right to impose such requirements. They waved away warnings from health experts that premature and careless reopening could lead to a new wave of infections.

And the virus came." Paul Krugman, NYTimes

---

But then California becomes a difficult example for his argument. So he leaves it out.

Now, the statement "premature and careless" just assumes as a basic fact the main point of the debate. What a lame argument.

And which governors required wearing a mask and was this before or after the health organizations recommended against wearing a mask? And who would impose the requirement? Let's play this out.

Old woman in a wheelchair not wearing a mask - OK, give her a citation.

Young white man who flips off the cop and makes a run for it: Shoot? Tackle? What if he resists? What if he takes the taser and shoots?

Young black man who flips off the cop and makes a run for it: Pursue? Risk escalation?

What if people who saw a white person not wearing a mask and tries to enforce directly?

What if it were white people who saw a black person not wearing a mask?

Do you not see why criminalizing not wearing a mask is not workable? This is coming from someone who wears a mask even outdoors to give others comfort and have confronted people who invade my space at the market not wearing masks. But this is a volatile situation, and criminalizing this is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

So, am I to take these points from Paul Krugman seriously?

---

Well said. I never take anything Paul Krugman says seriously.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was dajo9's favorite economist though.

The Trump administration seems to be ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling on DACA:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/despite-supreme-court-ruling-trump-163436086.html

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

" When did America start losing its war against the coronavirus? How did we find ourselves international pariahs, not even allowed to travel to Europe?

I'd suggest that the turning point was way back on April 17, the day that Donald Trump tweeted "LIBERATE MINNESOTA," followed by "LIBERATE MICHIGAN" and "LIBERATE VIRGINIA." In so doing, he effectively declared White House support for protesters demanding an end to the lockdowns governors had instituted to bring Covid-19 under control.

As it happens, the Democratic governors Trump was targeting in those tweets stood firm. But Republican governors in Arizona, Florida, Texas and elsewhere soon lifted stay-at-home orders and ended many restrictions on business operations. They also, following Trump's lead, refused to require that people wear masks, and Texas and Arizona denied local governments the right to impose such requirements. They waved away warnings from health experts that premature and careless reopening could lead to a new wave of infections.

And the virus came." Paul Krugman, NYTimes

---

But then California becomes a difficult example for his argument. So he leaves it out.

Now, the statement "premature and careless" just assumes as a basic fact the main point of the debate. What a lame argument.

And which governors required wearing a mask and was this before or after the health organizations recommended against wearing a mask? And who would impose the requirement? Let's play this out.

Old woman in a wheelchair not wearing a mask - OK, give her a citation.

Young white man who flips off the cop and makes a run for it: Shoot? Tackle? What if he resists? What if he takes the taser and shoots?

Young black man who flips off the cop and makes a run for it: Pursue? Risk escalation?

What if people who saw a white person not wearing a mask and tries to enforce directly?

What if it were white people who saw a black person not wearing a mask?

Do you not see why criminalizing not wearing a mask is not workable? This is coming from someone who wears a mask even outdoors to give others comfort and have confronted people who invade my space at the market not wearing masks. But this is a volatile situation, and criminalizing this is absolutely the wrong thing to do.



So, am I to take these points from Paul Krugman seriously?

---

California is doing better right now than Florida, Texas and Arizona. And we had cases earlier than they did.

The lockdown, the way we did it, was a way of buying time, nothing more. If we were lucky, the virus would wane on its own in the summer. Well, we weren't lucky, but we bought some time.

Enforcing mask-wearing is pretty much impossible, but making it mandatory (or at least pleading with people to do it voluntarily) lets people know it's serious and raises the compliance level.

Big C said:

---

Enforcing mask-wearing is pretty much impossible, but making it mandatory (or at least pleading with people to do it voluntarily) lets people know it's serious and raises the compliance level.

---

And it is possible to enforce laws on businesses that fail to comply.

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

" When did America start losing its war against the coronavirus? How did we find ourselves international pariahs, not even allowed to travel to Europe?

I'd suggest that the turning point was way back on April 17, the day that Donald Trump tweeted "LIBERATE MINNESOTA," followed by "LIBERATE MICHIGAN" and "LIBERATE VIRGINIA." In so doing, he effectively declared White House support for protesters demanding an end to the lockdowns governors had instituted to bring Covid-19 under control.

As it happens, the Democratic governors Trump was targeting in those tweets stood firm. But Republican governors in Arizona, Florida, Texas and elsewhere soon lifted stay-at-home orders and ended many restrictions on business operations. They also, following Trump's lead, refused to require that people wear masks, and Texas and Arizona denied local governments the right to impose such requirements. They waved away warnings from health experts that premature and careless reopening could lead to a new wave of infections.

And the virus came." Paul Krugman, NYTimes

---

But then California becomes a difficult example for his argument. So he leaves it out.

Now, the statement "premature and careless" just assumes as a basic fact the main point of the debate. What a lame argument.

And which governors required wearing a mask and was this before or after the health organizations recommended against wearing a mask? And who would impose the requirement? Let's play this out.

Old woman in a wheelchair not wearing a mask - OK, give her a citation.

Young white man who flips off the cop and makes a run for it: Shoot? Tackle? What if he resists? What if he takes the taser and shoots?

Young black man who flips off the cop and makes a run for it: Pursue? Risk escalation?

What if people who saw a white person not wearing a mask and tries to enforce directly?

What if it were white people who saw a black person not wearing a mask?

Do you not see why criminalizing not wearing a mask is not workable? This is coming from someone who wears a mask even outdoors to give others comfort and have confronted people who invade my space at the market not wearing masks. But this is a volatile situation, and criminalizing this is absolutely the wrong thing to do.



So, am I to take these points from Paul Krugman seriously?

---

California is doing better right now than Florida, Texas and Arizona. And we had cases earlier than they did.

The lockdown, the way we did it, was a way of buying time, nothing more. If we were lucky, the virus would wane on its own in the summer. Well, we weren't lucky, but we bought some time.

Enforcing mask-wearing is pretty much impossible, but making it mandatory (or at least pleading with people to do it voluntarily) lets people know it's serious and raises the compliance level.

---

I would not consider California a success story, with over 9,000 cases just yesterday. And California is not necessarily doing better than Arizona. In any case, if the idea of success is being the fourth worst state, then I am not sure you have the right standard. The point being is that California has a Democrat governor, and his argument that the Republican governors are the ones suffering from increased cases is a bit strange. California had a fairly stable/low daily cases before spiking.

I absolutely agree that the lockdown was a way of buying time to flatten the curve and give hospitals time to adjust for the inevitable second spike. Hopefully they did. If not, what will be different the second time?

You can make it mandatory, but if not enforced (and it cannot really be enforced other than stores kicking people out at the risk of potential violence), then people who were going to wear are going to wear, and people who were not going to wear will not wear. Not very productive.

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

Enforcing mask-wearing is pretty much impossible, but making it mandatory (or at least pleading with people to do it voluntarily) lets people know it's serious and raises the compliance level.

---

And it is possible to enforce laws on businesses that fail to comply.

---

How is that going to work? Put more regulation on small businesses who are suffering already and make them violently confront idiot non-mask wearers? Not loving passing down the burden on those who are already on the edge.

calbear93 said:

---

You can make it mandatory, but if not enforced (and it cannot really be enforced other than stores kicking people out at the risk of potential violence), then people who were going to wear are going to wear, and people who were not going to wear will not wear. Not very productive.

---

businesses failing self-enforcement should be shut down, and good riddance.

smh said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

You can make it mandatory, but if not enforced (and it cannot really be enforced other than stores kicking people out at the risk of potential violence), then people who were going to wear are going to wear, and people who were not going to wear will not wear. Not very productive.

---

businesses failing at self-enforcement should be shut down, and good riddance.

---

Self-enforcing? Have you not seen the acts of violence acted upon employees who try to enforce?

And why is passing the buck to small businesses that are trying to cling on and their owners trying to support their families after SIP and riots a good thing? That does not seem to show a lot of empathy. Would it change things it the shop owners were minorities in lower income neighborhoods?

calbear93 said:

---

Self-enforcing? Have you not seen the acts of violence acted upon employees who try to enforce?

And why is passing the buck to small businesses that are trying to cling on and their owners trying to support their families after SIP and riots a good thing? That does not seem to show a lot of empathy. Would it change things it the shop owners were minorities in lower income neighborhoods?

---

errrrrt, wrong answer, its not like we're playing tiddlywinks 93. covid kills, pass it on, or not.

smh said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Self-enforcing? Have you not seen the acts of violence acted upon employees who try to enforce?

And why is passing the buck to small businesses that are trying to cling on and their owners trying to support their families after SIP and riots a good thing? That does not seem to show a lot of empathy. Would it change things it the shop owners were minorities in lower income neighborhoods?

---

errrrrt, wrong answer, its not like we're playing tiddlywinks 93' # covid kills.. pass it on.

---

I agree. But agreeing that covid kills wouldn't justify putting the burden on someone else. Why not put the burden on you and say, if you don't go out and enforce, we will take your livelihood away? You clearly are passionate about enforcing mask wearing, right? Why shouldn't you and not some other person be responsible? Who is denying the harm of COVID-19? It is a question of who is going to bear the burden of enforcing masks, is it not, and not whether COVID-19 is serious? But who should bear the burden? Should it be the government? Should it be bearinsiders who obviously have time and desire to enforce? Or should we tell the shop owners who are already on the edge that we are going to take away their livelihood if they don't enforce this on our behlaf? Should we tell shop owners that we are going to pass a law and they will be the one punished with economic ruin for not enforcing? Why is that fair? Why not put the burden on other shoppers? If you see someone not wearing a mask and you don't enforce it, you will have to be quarantined and not allowed to leave for 3 weeks. Fair? Or is it just fair to ruin economically small shop owners?

calbear93 said:

---

smh said:

---

errrrrt, wrong answer, its not like we're playing tiddlywinks 93' # covid kills.. pass it on.

---

I agree. But agreeing that covid kills wouldn't just putting the burden on you and say, if you don't go out and enforce, we will take your livelihood away. Who is denying the harm? It is a question of who is going to bear the burden of enforcing masks? Should it be the government? Should it be bearinsiders who obviously have time? Or should we tell the shop owners who are already on the edge that we are going to pass a law and you will be the one punished for not enforcing. Why is that fair? Why not make it the other shop owners, then? If you see someone not wearing a mask and you don't enforce it, you will have to be quarantined and not allowed to leave for 3 weeks. Fair? Or is it just fair to ruin economically small shop owners?

---

you're good with words, fine, spin away. signed, snipers R us
# dinnertime

smh said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

smh said:

---

errrrrt, wrong answer, its not like we're playing tiddlywinks 93' # covid kills.. pass it on.

---

I agree. But agreeing that covid kills wouldn't just putting the burden on you and say, if you don't go out and enforce, we will take your livelihood away. Who is denying the harm? It is a question of who is going to bear the burden of enforcing masks? Should it be the government? Should it be bearinsiders who obviously have time? Or should we tell the shop owners who are already on the edge that we are going to pass a law and you will be the one punished for not enforcing. Why is that fair? Why not make it the other shop owners, then? If you see someone not wearing a mask and you don't enforce it, you will have to be quarantined and not allowed to leave for 3 weeks. Fair? Or is it just fair to ruin economically small shop owners?

---

you're good with words, fine, spin away. signed, snipers R us
# dinnertime

---

It is not just words. It is a matter of fairness. I am not a shop owner. It does not impact me. I do want to see everyone wearing masks, but I don't want to unfairly burden one group of people for something that we all want.

calbear93 said:

---

Self-enforcing? Have you not seen the acts of violence acted upon employees who try to enforce?

---

Simple solution. Business owners arm themselves and shoot these violent criminals.

calbear93 said:

---

smh said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Self-enforcing? Have you not seen the acts of violence acted upon employees who try to enforce?

And why is passing the buck to small businesses that are trying to cling on and their owners trying to support their families after SIP and riots a good thing? That does not seem to show a lot of empathy. Would it change things it the shop owners were minorities in lower income neighborhoods?

---

errrrrt, wrong answer, its not like we're playing tiddlywinks 93' # covid kills.. pass it on.

---

Or is it just fair to ruin economically small shop owners?

---

Do you believe that collective private action will make it possible to save small shops from economic ruin at this point? In the US? Given what you've seen from your fellow Americans?

We are sitting here in the middle of July and averaging 2x the number of new COVID cases than we averaged 3 months ago. I've seen troubling data indicating bankruptcy filings have eclipsed their 2008 peak. It doesn't feel like we are weeks away from in-person commerce returning to normal, the way it has in much of the world.

As I've mentioned before, the longer we allow this pandemic to flourish in our country, the worse it will be for our economy, and particularly for small business. Almost every peer country in the world has already ended their first wave. The economic impacts from the SIP orders are going to be dwarfed by the continuing impacts from voluntary withdrawal by consumers.

At this point, I would be surprised if it happens before thanksgiving and we are going to see armageddon in retail if people can't go christmas shopping in person. We have a very small window to save the economy and I have no confidence that anyone is going to take action to do it. So that means we need some sort of miracle or deus ex machina to save us. It's what Trump has been counting on since day one and it feels like our only hope at this point.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

smh said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Self-enforcing? Have you not seen the acts of violence acted upon employees who try to enforce?

And why is passing the buck to small businesses that are trying to cling on and their owners trying to support their families after SIP and riots a good thing? That does not seem to show a lot of empathy. Would it change things it the shop owners were minorities in lower income neighborhoods?

---

errrrrt, wrong answer, its not like we're playing tiddlywinks 93' # covid kills.. pass it on.

---

Or is it just fair to ruin economically small shop owners?

---

Do you believe that collective private action will make it possible to save small shops from economic ruin at this point? In the US? Given what you've seen from your fellow Americans?

We are sitting here in the middle of July and averaging 2x the number of new COVID cases than we averaged 3 months ago. I've seen troubling data indicating bankruptcy filings have eclipsed their 2008 peak. It doesn't feel like we are weeks away from in-person commerce returning to normal, the way it has in much of the world.

As I've mentioned before, the longer we allow this pandemic to flourish in our country, the worse it will be for our economy, and particularly for small business. Almost every peer country in the world has already ended their first wave. The economic impacts from the SIP orders are going to be dwarfed by the continuing impacts from voluntary withdrawal by consumers.

At this point, I would be surprised if it happens before thanksgiving and we are going to see armageddon in retail if people can't go christmas shopping in person. We have a very small window to save the economy and I have no confidence that anyone is going to take action to do it. So that means we need some sort of miracle or deus ex machina to save us. It's what Trump has been counting on since day one and it feels like our only hope at this point.

---

I don't disagree. I just don't agree that we further punish these small businesses at the edge of bankruptcy with shutting them down all together for not enforcing the mask requirement when these violent idiots refuse to do so. Why is it their burden to further suffer even more of the consequences of COVID-19?

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

Thank goodness those racing to post on twitter have proven to be such reliable source of news.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

smh said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Self-enforcing? Have you not seen the acts of violence acted upon employees who try to enforce?

And why is passing the buck to small businesses that are trying to cling on and their owners trying to support their families after SIP and riots a good thing? That does not seem to show a lot of empathy. Would it change things it the shop owners were minorities in lower income neighborhoods?

---

errrrrt, wrong answer, its not like we're playing tiddlywinks 93' # covid kills.. pass it on.

---

Or is it just fair to ruin economically small shop owners?

---

Do you believe that collective private action will make it possible to save small shops from economic ruin at this point? In the US? Given what you've seen from your fellow Americans?

We are sitting here in the middle of July and averaging 2x the number of new COVID cases than we averaged 3 months ago. I've seen troubling data indicating bankruptcy filings have eclipsed their 2008 peak. It doesn't feel like we are weeks away from in-person commerce returning to normal, the way it has in much of the world.

As I've mentioned before, the longer we allow this pandemic to flourish in our country, the worse it will be for our economy, and particularly for small business. Almost every peer country in the world has already ended their first wave. The economic impacts from the SIP orders are going to be dwarfed by the continuing impacts from voluntary withdrawal by consumers.

At this point, I would be surprised if it happens before thanksgiving and we are going to see armageddon in retail if people can't go christmas shopping in person. We have a very small window to save the economy and I have no confidence that anyone is going to take action to do it. So that means we need some sort of miracle or deus ex machina to save us. It's what Trump has been counting on since day one and it feels like our only hope at this point.

---

I don't disagree. I just don't agree that we further punish these small businesses at the edge of bankruptcy with shutting them down all together for not enforcing the mask requirement when these violent idiots refuse to do so. Why is it their burden to further suffer even more of the consequences of COVID-19?

---

Oh yeah I agree. We've failed small businesses and basically we're just talking about whistling past the graveyard. It's as if an asteroid is hurtling towards earth and people are arguing about whether to wear sunscreen. You look at how every one of our peer countries has been successful combating COVID and then you look at we've done and it's pretty obvious why we're doing so poorly and will continue to do poorly.