***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[boris]

Reckless.

Just reckless? That would be the behavior of a psychopath.

But I'd imagine that the person you are describing would not extend the federal social distancing guidance until the end of April based on the advice of medical experts.

It seems the person I’m describing has regularly ignored intelligence and the advice of medical experts to the point of causing unnecessary deaths.

At this point, I think doctors, governors and mayors are balancing risks.

What risks are these three collectively balancing?

Several states have stay-at-home orders.

What is your suggestion for assuring that people comply with the various local and federal orders?

Heavy fines? Jail time? How would you handle endangering the lives of other people? It would also be great if we didn’t have states still allowing people to congregate and spread the virus.

 

[boris]

Totally not an echo chamber.

Kinda begs the usual question of why do you bother coming here when you dismiss everything you don’t like to hear.

 

[IATT]

dwalk31 look at ya boy lying

I guess ignorance is bliss to you.. cause I won’t deny your boy is ignorant.. but I’m of the the view ignorance can be dangerous

 

[aepps20]

Totally not an echo chamber.

But you TOTALLY are an apologist for disgusting people that hurt children. DISGUSTING

 

[dwalk31]

Kinda begs the usual question of why do you bother coming here when you dismiss everything you don’t like to hear.

I don’t have an issue brushing it off. I don’t ignore y’all or report your posts. It’s not that deep.

But please tell me how I should properly respond when asked “do you ever get tired of acting like a trash human?”

 

[dwalk31]

Just reckless? That would be the behavior of a psychopath.


It seems the person I’m describing has regularly ignored intelligence and the advice of medical experts to the point of causing unnecessary deaths.


What risks are these three collectively balancing?


Heavy fines? Jail time? How would you handle endangering the lives of other people? It would also be great if we didn’t have states still allowing people to congregate and spread the virus.

The risks associated with the coronavirus, mental health risks associated from isolation, lack of ability to enforce certain stay-at-home orders, and realistic measures that people/businesses will comply with.

Your other suggestions are better aimed at big city mayors and governors as they can put orders into place to deal with a lot of what you mentioned. And they have.

 

[IATT]

I don’t have an issue brushing it off. I don’t ignore y’all or report your posts. It’s not that deep.

But please tell me how I should properly respond when asked “do you ever get tired of acting like a trash human?”

maybe reevaluate your choices

 

[elpablo21]

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[Nike Jordan]

If even a guy like Mike Fatcesa can see the light...

 

[Belgium]

dwalk31 You hadn’t gotten around to responding to this so I reposted my question/argument.

I don't have a special definition for a lie. I said that a factually inaccurate statement is not always a lie. A lie suggests intent.

Would you agree that intent to lie can be assumed by default if the person making the statement had knowledge of the truth at the time of making the statement? And no we're not talking about lying in the criminal context of false statements

As in, person A gets briefings on subject Y and then makes a false statement about subject Y that was the complete opposite of what was described in the earlier briefings person A received.
Additionally, I think it's fair to say an aggravating factor in determining intent to lie is whether or not person A has a history of lying, specifically blatant lying. Another aggravating factor is whether or not the false claim benefits the person making the claim.

In Trump's case, there's obviously the thousands upon thousands of false statements and lies that serve as an aggravating factor in determining intent to lie. But what I deem the most important document in this isthe Mueller report. It showed that Trump almost instinctively chose to lie in most situations, with almost no instance where his first instinct was to tell the truth. It also showed that Trump wanted his advisers to operate in the same way. Telling the truth was in fact actively discouraged by the president.


For example, if I make a claim that supposedly came from the Mueller report but was in fact false and the opposite of what was actually described, you should assume I'm lying because you know I have read the Mueller report start to finish, that I am very familiar with the content of both volumes and that I have an excellent recollection.

 

[dwalk31]

dwalk31 You hadn’t gotten around to responding to this so I reposted my question/argument.

Would you agree that intent to lie can be assumed by default if the person making the statement had knowledge of the truth at the time of making the statement? And no we're not talking about lying in the criminal context of false statements

As in, person A gets briefings on subject Y and then makes a false statement about subject Y that was the complete opposite of what was described in the earlier briefings person A received.
Additionally, I think it's fair to say an aggravating factor in determining intent to lie is whether or not person A has a history of lying, specifically blatant lying. Another aggravating factor is whether or not the false claim benefits the person making the claim.

In Trump's case, there's obviously the thousands upon thousands of false statements and lies that serve as an aggravating factor in determining intent to lie. But what I deem the most important document in this isthe Mueller report. It showed that Trump almost instinctively chose to lie in most situations, with almost no instance where his first instinct was to tell the truth. It also showed that Trump wanted his advisers to operate in the same way. Telling the truth was in fact actively discouraged by the president.


For example, if I make a claim that supposedly came from the Mueller report but was in fact false and the opposite of what was actually described, you should assume I'm lying because you know I have read the Mueller report start to finish, that I am very familiar with the content of both volumes and that I have an excellent recollection.

Yes, you can assume the intent is there.

You could also choose not to make that assumption.

But there’s no dispute that some statements are factually inaccurate. Not sure what is gained by referring to the statements as lies based on assumptions instead of just saying they were false statements.

 

[IATT]

Yes, you can assume the intent is there.

You could also choose not to make that assumption.

But there’s no dispute that some statements are factually inaccurate. Not sure what is gained by referring to the statements as lies based on assumptions instead of just saying they were false statements.

 

[Belgium]

Yes, you can assume the intent is there.

You could also choose not to make that assumption.

But there’s no dispute that some statements are factually inaccurate. Not sure what is gained by referring to the statements as lies based on assumptions instead of just saying they were false statements.

How?

If a person had knowledge of the truth before that person made the false statement, how could you make a different assumption?

As far as your last point, the point is that ‘false statement’ can be something innocuous like mistakenly getting the path of a hurricane wrong, or a minor detail in a speech. It’s more likely to be a minor mistake.

Lies tend to be more serious and emphasizes the malice. For example misleading the public about the coronavirus.

 

[whywesteppin]

a distinction without a difference

 

[dwalk31]

How could you choose not to make that assumption?

If a person had knowledge of the truth before that person made the false statement, how could you make a different assumption?

As far as your last point, the point is that ‘false statement’ can be something innocuous like mistakenly getting the path of a hurricane wrong. It’s more likely to be a minor mistake.

Lies tend to be more serious and emphasizes the malice. For example misleading the public about the coronavirus.

How do you choose not to make that assumption? You make the assumption that the intent was not there and/or the knowledge wasn’t there. Or that it was a mistake. You outlined the other assumption when you stated the reasons why lies tend to be more serious.

We both can agree that some of the statements are factually inaccurate. I won’t go as far as to call them lies. But I respect your opinion in that regard.

 

[IATT]

How do you choose not to make that assumption? You make the assumption that the intent was not there and/or the knowledge wasn’t there. Or that it was a mistake. You outlined the other assumption when you stated the reasons why lies tend to be more serious.

We both can agree that some of the statements are factually inaccurate. I won’t go as far as to call them lies. But I respect your opinion in that regard.

 

[Belgium]

No matter how you try to excuse it through minimization, a number of Trump’s coronavirus false statements were blatant lies to mislead the public and make himself look better.

When he said the virus would go from 15 cases to 0 soon, that was a lie because he had prior knowledge of the then-upcoming crisis from intelligence reports, the presidential daily brief (PDB),his health experts, CDC, ...

When he said anyone who wants a test can get one was a blatant lie because before he said it, hewas well aware there was a supply shortage. Prior to that lie, he was repeatedly briefed on the shortages, Mike Pence admitted it a day before Trump’s lie, ...

These examples are unequivocal lies.

 

[IATT]

No matter how you try to square it, a number of Trump’s coronavirus false statements were blatant lies to mislead the public and make himself look better.

When he said the virus would go from 15 cases to 0 soon, that was a lie because he had prior knowledge of the then-upcoming crisis from intelligence briefings,his health experts, CDC, ...

When he said anyone who wants a test can get one was a blatant lie because before he said it, hewas well aware there was a supply shortage. Prior to that lie, he was repeatedly briefed on the shortagd, Mike Pence admitted it a day before Trump’s lie, ...

Washington Post: US intelligence warned Trump in January and February as he dismissed coronavirus threat

President Donald Trump ignored reports from US intelligence agencies starting in January that warned of the scale and intensity of the coronavirus outbreak in China, The Washington Post reported Friday.

edition.cnn.com

dwalk31

 

[Mister Meaner]

I don't want to get banned, so I'll just leave this link and let y'all decide if people from a distance can tell who is who.

We got this traveshamockery of a president and dude in here continues to contort and writhe even more bull**** his bull**** president forces him to come up with, day by day.

I'm gonna sit back and enjoy.

 

[boris]

I don’t have an issue brushing it off. I don’t ignore y’all or report your posts. It’s not that deep.

But please tell me how I should properly respond when asked “do you ever get tired of acting like a trash human?”

Oh yeah, I've noticed you just deflect.

How should you properly respond? If it was me, I'd be self-reflecting about why everyone seems to draw similar conclusions about me.

 

[boris]

The risks associated with the coronavirus, mental health risks associated from isolation, lack of ability to enforce certain stay-at-home orders, and realistic measures that people/businesses will comply with.

Your other suggestions are better aimed at big city mayors and governors as they can put orders into place to deal with a lot of what you mentioned. And they have.

I'd be curious to know which doctors are balancing the risks associated with coronavirus and the mental health risks associated with isolation. I'd also be interested to know how many people are in isolation. I suspect most doctors are concerned with the risks associated with coronavirus considering the coronavirus will kill a lot of people.

Donald Trump could easily help with getting people to stay at home, but he refuses to take this seriously. The GOP will fall in line.

Some mayors and governors are taking this very seriously. Others aren't. Again, Donald Trump could help here, but he chooses not to.

 

[IATT]

dwalk31

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[elpablo21]

Chris got his opening to finally get him back