Trump outrage of the day

[talltexan]

Agreed that many people said they'd leave the country if Trump (unexpectedly) won in 2016. He's not expected to win this time, either.

**I will try to set aside my disclosed TDS and type the following objectively**

In 2016, we had relative peace and prosperity compared to today. We didn't have a dangerous new disease spreading rapidly throughout the country as we do now.

For the years 2016-2018, life expectancy in US has decreased each year. That would suggest something broken in the country. Obviously you cannot blame Trump for 2016's decrease, but many indications are that life expectancy will continue to decrease in 2020. If you oppose Trump, it's fairly easy to believe his re-election will imply several more years of life expectancy decrease.

Why wouldn't you take concrete steps to leave a country that has a persistent, long-term decrease in life expectancy?

[brandon1827]

The life expectancy data is stunning, and something I hadn't even considered yet.

I think I try to keep myself calm by understanding that even if Trump is reelected, if Democrats maintain their majority in the house (extremely likely) and manage to retake the Senate (a fair chance this happens) that Trump will be impeached again and most likely removed from office this time. That puts Pence in charge...and while he is pretty damn terrible, I feel like we'd be at least somewhat better off with him in charge

But yeah...it feels good knowing that we have Canadian relatives should it come down to it

[Tyler durden]

Well I would try and figure out why life expectancies are declining.

If it’s from drugs or being obese well I can avoid those as can my family.

Not saying the info isn’t out there I just haven’t looked.

[sherr]

I think I try to keep myself calm by understanding that even if Trump is reelected, if Democrats maintain their majority in the house (extremely likely) and manage to retake the Senate (a fair chance this happens) that Trump will be impeached again and most likely removed from office this time. That puts Pence in charge...and while he is pretty damn terrible, I feel like we'd be at least somewhat better off with him in charge

It seems very unlikely to me that Trump would win but that Democrats would take the Senate. A lot of the most likely Senate pickups are also battleground states (NC, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, etc), so if the Dems are winning the state-wide Senate race then they're probably also winning the state-wide presidential race and Trump would lose. It's much more likely that Biden would win but the Senate is still controlled by Republicans.

[Psychstache]

The life expectancy data is stunning, and something I hadn't even considered yet.

I think I try to keep myself calm by understanding that even if Trump is reelected, if Democrats maintain their majority in the house (extremely likely) and manage to retake the Senate (a fair chance this happens) that Trump will be impeached again and most likely removed from office this time. That puts Pence in charge...and while he is pretty damn terrible, I feel like we'd be at least somewhat better off with him in charge

But yeah...it feels good knowing that we have Canadian relatives should it come down to it

The biggest 'advantage' to a President Pence is his complete lack of cult of personality, so with a (in this scenario outlined above) congress controlled by the opposing personality, he wouldn't have the ability to rally the base in the same way the Trump has.

The disadvantages are that he is a religious zealot who would like to see the US become the Christian equivalent of Iran.

[talltexan]

The 2016 version of Pence would have been preferable to the 2021 version of him.

I cannot imagine a second impeachment succeeding. If Trump wins in November, why would Republican Senators vote to remove?

[ctuser1]

Well I would try and figure out why life expectancies are declining.

If it’s from drugs or being obese well I can avoid those as can my family.

Not saying the info isn’t out there I just haven’t looked.

<editing out "decreasing" to substitute with "diverging lower compared to other OECD countries". Absolute "decrease" is not a long trend, but only seen in a few spots>

I have partly looked into it.

Life expectancies are diverging lower compared to other OECD countries since Reagan. That is when the US healthcare cost and quality diverged from other OECD nations (i.e. cost diverged upwards, quality diverged downwards), partly due to Reagan's anti-american and racist policies.

I have seen credible-sounding claims that Obamacare slowed down the life expectancy divergance when it decreased the number of uninsured but was overshadowed by the opioid crisis. However, I have not seen any data personally that would conclusively prove this.

With any Republican president (which Trump is) it is a foregone conclusion that life expectancy will diverge even lower or possibly even outright decrease when he weakens Obamacare and increases the number of people without insurance.

[Glenstache]

Would be a good reason to have healthy emergency fund!

I don't worry too much about this president b/c everything he does can be undone by the next more moderate president.

However if our country elects two or three turkeys in a row - especially if each are more extreme in their ideologies - then yeah, Canadian winters here we come.

The bolded part is waayyy too optimistic. It is much easier and quicker to take things apart than to build them. Trump has primarily dismantled institutions, agreements, treaties, and international relationships. Those will all take years to decades to rebuild and it will require a sustained investment of both capital and time. Honestly, what is required is a cultural sea change in which the elements of our country that are isolationist and (with significant overlap) anti science and anti government to recognize that those things directly make their lives better, if more complex. I am not hopeful given that the current trends are things like the GOP having candidates who openly repeat QAnon-type bullshit.

Trump is just one (and a big one) piece of the cultural-political-media ecosystem pushing in that direction. It is outrageous.

[Tyler durden]

Well I would try and figure out why life expectancies are declining.

If it’s from drugs or being obese well I can avoid those as can my family.

Not saying the info isn’t out there I just haven’t looked.

I have partly looked into it.

Life expectancies are decreasing since Reagan. That is when the US healthcare cost and quality diverged from other OECD nations (i.e. cost diverged upwards, quality diverged downwards), partly due to Reagan's anti-american and racist policies.

I have seen credible-sounding claims that Obamacare slowed down the life expectancy drop when it decreased the number of uninsured but was overshadowed by the opioid crisis. However, I have not seen any data personally that would conclusively prove this.

With any Republican president (which Trump is) it is a foregone conclusion that life expectancy will decrease when he weakens Obamacare and increases the number of people without insurance.

Thank you for your thoughts on my question.

Nothing you mentioned impacts me or my family so I guess I’ll stay here and fight the good fight.

[Norioch]

Moving out of the country might not even be possible anymore, since other countries have (justifiably) closed their borders to US residents. My contingency plan was moving to Canada, but who knows when or if they'll ever open up the border again.

[talltexan]

Well I would try and figure out why life expectancies are declining.

If it’s from drugs or being obese well I can avoid those as can my family.

Not saying the info isn’t out there I just haven’t looked.

I have partly looked into it.

Life expectancies are decreasing since Reagan. That is when the US healthcare cost and quality diverged from other OECD nations (i.e. cost diverged upwards, quality diverged downwards), partly due to Reagan's anti-american and racist policies.

Does this mean that life-expectancy today would be lower than it was in 1989?

[Glenstache]

Life expectancy data from the CDC. See plot on page 5 of the PDF.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_07-508.pdf

Overall upward trend, but deflections across multiple categories circa 2016. Those may simply be plateaus though.

[ctuser1]

Well I would try and figure out why life expectancies are declining.

If it’s from drugs or being obese well I can avoid those as can my family.

Not saying the info isn’t out there I just haven’t looked.

I have partly looked into it.

Life expectancies are decreasing since Reagan. That is when the US healthcare cost and quality diverged from other OECD nations (i.e. cost diverged upwards, quality diverged downwards), partly due to Reagan's anti-american and racist policies.

Does this mean that life-expectancy today would be lower than it was in 1989?

No. Thx for catching this.

There are some periods of actual decline (e.g. during the Opioid crisis). But mostly it still is an upward trend - just a slower one compared to other similar countries.

Compared to other OECD countries there is a stark divergence.

I'll try to dig up the data I last dug up a few months ago. 

I see that I phrased my post wrong. I said "decreasing" when I should have used "diverging". I'll edit the language out.

<edited to add>
Here is my post in another thread with actual data + a tiny bit of excel number crunching from me:

Are you sure of this? Just after my off the cuff perusal, I saw that even the study you quoted didn't make that level of a claim: "For many years, Americans have had a shorter life expectancy than people in almost all of the peer countries."

Something flipped since Reagan.
We know costs were in line till then, and soared afterwards.

I don't have details from a credible source (not political think tanks) for all outcomes, but here is the life expectancy data from a government source:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62373/table/ch1.t1/?report=objectonly

Longer report: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62373/

You will notice that in 1950's, for both men and women, US was higher middle of the pack.
By 1980, it was a laggerd. Men live longer everywhere else by now, only women in Denmark seem to have it worse than women in US.
In 2007, the trend persisted and the gap has widened. (Women in Denmark are the only exception again).

From 1980 to now, it is 40ish years.

Does this substantiate the claim that "For many years, Americans have had a shorter life expectancy than people in almost all of the peer countries."?

---------------

You have further questioned if things *will* improve just because they *can*. I did not quite respond to it so far because I don't know how to respond logically to hypothetical situations.

Can you substantiate why you feel there is a unique fear of US somehow failing to not only mimic, but learn from other Single Payer systems and do something at least similar (but quite possible significantly better)?

We have many socialized constructs in the US that have sometimes operated for centuries:
1. US Military. Does it perform worse in your opinion compared to other countries that have socialized military? When you focus strictly on the military operations (and not stupid political decisions to wage war), they seem to be doing a reasonable job so far.
2. Does FDA perform worse compared to other countries? We seem to be one of the standard bearers in this AFAIK.
3. Does US Electricity transmission ISO's perform worse compared to other countries? From what I hear, it is quite the other way around, and my lights seem to stay on (when my stupid AFC switch does not randomly decide to trip, that is).
4. Does medicare, despite having one hand tied behind it's back (in terms of not being able to properly negotiate etc) fare worse compared to just the insurance/financing aspect of other countries healthcare?
5. Does social security not do it's job?
6. Does USPS uniquely underperform other countries postal systems? I seem to never have lost mail pieces, including critical ones - seemingly a regular complaint in some other countries. They certainly "over-deliver" in terms of junk mail - but seem to not lose critical ones, which is my bottom-line.
7. Did US Fed's response to 2008 fall short of other countries? To me it seems to be the other way around compared with the EU.

So can you please give me some reasonable realistic scenario why you are worried that any new healthcare construct in US will underperform, say, Canada, and why? So far, this "fear" seems to be purely ideology driven.

And supposing you had a reasonable fear in this regard, is that a good enough reason to:
1. (not you specifically, but other right wing people) Question observations at every step citing the 2X cost and worse outcome?
2. Deciding we are okay with the situation as is and doing nothing?

Because that is what the rightwing response boils down to.

At least I have not heard anything from the right that makes a reasonable case of how we can re-align ourselves with other OECD peers. Have you?

[brandon1827]

I think I try to keep myself calm by understanding that even if Trump is reelected, if Democrats maintain their majority in the house (extremely likely) and manage to retake the Senate (a fair chance this happens) that Trump will be impeached again and most likely removed from office this time. That puts Pence in charge...and while he is pretty damn terrible, I feel like we'd be at least somewhat better off with him in charge

It seems very unlikely to me that Trump would win but that Democrats would take the Senate. A lot of the most likely Senate pickups are also battleground states (NC, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, etc), so if the Dems are winning the state-wide Senate race then they're probably also winning the state-wide presidential race and Trump would lose. It's much more likely that Biden would win but the Senate is still controlled by Republicans.

Unlikely perhaps, but not out of the realm of possibility with the Electoral College still being utilized. Several battleground Senate races are leaning Dem and even if Trump could somehow pull off an EC victory, the Senate could flip. It is true that Trump seems to be dragging down those races, so if the candidates in battlegrounds begin to distance themselves from him, that could result in the scenario you described.

@talltexan the second impeachment scenario was assuming a Democratically controlled Senate. Obviously if Republicans maintain control there, we most likely wouldn't see another impeachment. However, if Dems do gain control, there are already a plethora of items to bring Trump up on another impeachment. So if he somehow wins, and Dems win the Senate, you can virtually guarantee an impeachment. It may be unlikely, but that's the scenario I was laying out.

[Glenstache]

I think I try to keep myself calm by understanding that even if Trump is reelected, if Democrats maintain their majority in the house (extremely likely) and manage to retake the Senate (a fair chance this happens) that Trump will be impeached again and most likely removed from office this time. That puts Pence in charge...and while he is pretty damn terrible, I feel like we'd be at least somewhat better off with him in charge

It seems very unlikely to me that Trump would win but that Democrats would take the Senate. A lot of the most likely Senate pickups are also battleground states (NC, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, etc), so if the Dems are winning the state-wide Senate race then they're probably also winning the state-wide presidential race and Trump would lose. It's much more likely that Biden would win but the Senate is still controlled by Republicans.

Unlikely perhaps, but not out of the realm of possibility with the Electoral College still being utilized. Several battleground Senate races are leaning Dem and even if Trump could somehow pull off an EC victory, the Senate could flip. It is true that Trump seems to be dragging down those races, so if the candidates in battlegrounds begin to distance themselves from him, that could result in the scenario you described.

@talltexan the second impeachment scenario was assuming a Democratically controlled Senate. Obviously if Republicans maintain control there, we most likely wouldn't see another impeachment. However, if Dems do gain control, there are already a plethora of items to bring Trump up on another impeachment. So if he somehow wins, and Dems win the Senate, you can virtually guarantee an impeachment. It may be unlikely, but that's the scenario I was laying out.

Another potential outcome of D control of Congress and a Trump presidency is a real conflict over checks and balances. Trump would likely double down and work to actively expand use of line item veto, signing statements, and executive orders.

[former player]

Trump's last stand looks like being "election was rigged against me/postal votes are invalid".  If he goes down that route then will it also affect the downballot races and to what extent will the Republican party back him up?  Would that depend on the outcome of Senate races?

The only way to stop Trump from making an almighty mess of the post-election period and transfer of power seems to be to have the sort of overwhelming victory for Biden and the Democrats that even Trump can't plausibly contest (he would of course still implausibly contest).  He will turn any narrow races into a complete shitshow.

[sherr]

Trump's last stand looks like being "election was rigged against me/postal votes are invalid".  If he goes down that route then will it also affect the downballot races and to what extent will the Republican party back him up?  Would that depend on the outcome of Senate races?

The same Republican Party that has spent the last decade gerrymandering, vote-suppressing, and literally committing election fraud to steal elections? Yes of course they would back him. Making voting harder so that they can still win is their idea, not Trump's.

[SunnyDays]

Yup, our border is still slammed shut and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, no matter what Trump wants.  Most Canadians want it that way.  Essential travel is still permitted, so it's not like we feel a lack of anything, except maybe tourism dollars.  You all should have left 4 years ago when you had the chance!

[Norioch]

Trump reportedly 'authorized' and 'encouraged' an op-ed attacking Dr. Fauci, despite the White House's claim to the contrary.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-authorized-encouraged-navarro-op-ed-against-fauci-report-2020-7

[Norioch]

New Report Shows WH’s Ruthless Campaign Against Vindman After Impeachment

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-house-alexander-vindman-pentagon-house-impeachment-testimony

[Gremlin]

@GreenEggs you're with the MMM crowd, so hopefully you have a nice 'stache that can move you into the "expatriot" category, and earn you access to fancy balls, etc.

I'm envisioning something like the grand duchess' lifestyle in "Anastasia".

I originally thought you'd misspelt "expatriate", but thinking about it further, now I'm not so sure...

[Gremlin]

Well I would try and figure out why life expectancies are declining.

If it’s from drugs or being obese well I can avoid those as can my family.

Not saying the info isn’t out there I just haven’t looked.

Probably the biggest issue, if you feel like you aren't directly impacted by the drivers, is that diverging life expectancies impact a nations' ability to grow its economy.  Wage stagnation and declining purchasing power follow.  Real household median income in the US was roughly 10% lower at the end of 2019 than at the end of 2009.  In Australia it was roughly 8% higher.  In the EU, roughly 12% higher.  In other words, the rest of the world gets comparatively richer at the USA's expense.  Diverging life expectancies is not the only driver, but it certainly is playing a significant part.

[Glenstache]

Well I would try and figure out why life expectancies are declining.

If it’s from drugs or being obese well I can avoid those as can my family.

Not saying the info isn’t out there I just haven’t looked.

Probably the biggest issue, if you feel like you aren't directly impacted by the drivers, is that diverging life expectancies impact a nations' ability to grow its economy.  Wage stagnation and declining purchasing power follow.  Real household median income in the US was roughly 10% lower at the end of 2019 than at the end of 2009.  In Australia it was roughly 8% higher.  In the EU, roughly 12% higher.  In other words, the rest of the world gets comparatively richer at the USA's expense.  Diverging life expectancies is not the only driver, but it certainly is playing a significant part.

See also massive upward wealth distribution in the US over the last few decades. That is also not good for either the bulk of citizens (both politically and economically), or for the economy as a whole.

[DaMa]

DH was Canadian.  Our children are sending in their applications to claim Canadian citizenship.  I've been trying to get them to do it for years.  Finally they realize it's a good idea to keep their options open.  2020 has been quite an eye opener.

[meghan88]

Does Ivanka's new tweet re. Goya beans belong in this thread?  Here'a a link to The Poke, where you can see the tweet itself and all responses, as well as the see some of the better takedowns:

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/07/15/ivanka-trump-goya-beans/

[LennStar]

Does Ivanka's new tweet re. Goya beans belong in this thread?  Here'a a link to The Poke, where you can see the tweet itself and all responses, as well as the see some of the better takedowns:

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/07/15/ivanka-trump-goya-beans/

I don't speak spanish, but that "corrupto" in the tweet of a famous women makes it OK for this thread ;)

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1283232003765293057?s=20

[turketron]

Does Ivanka's new tweet re. Goya beans belong in this thread?  Here'a a link to The Poke, where you can see the tweet itself and all responses, as well as the see some of the better takedowns:

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/07/15/ivanka-trump-goya-beans/

Her dad followed it up with a post of his own. Cuomo's take is pretty much exactly how I reacted: https://twitter.com/TheAPJournalist/status/1283573607067791361

[MasterStache]

Does Ivanka's new tweet re. Goya beans belong in this thread?  Here'a a link to The Poke, where you can see the tweet itself and all responses, as well as the see some of the better takedowns:

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/07/15/ivanka-trump-goya-beans/

Her dad followed it up with a post of his own. Cuomo's take is pretty much exactly how I reacted: https://twitter.com/TheAPJournalist/status/1283573607067791361

138K+ Dead in the middle of a Pandemic. Trumps response: "Buy some beans."

[partgypsy]

Well I would try and figure out why life expectancies are declining.

If it’s from drugs or being obese well I can avoid those as can my family.

Not saying the info isn’t out there I just haven’t looked.

Probably the biggest issue, if you feel like you aren't directly impacted by the drivers, is that diverging life expectancies impact a nations' ability to grow its economy.  Wage stagnation and declining purchasing power follow.  Real household median income in the US was roughly 10% lower at the end of 2019 than at the end of 2009.  In Australia it was roughly 8% higher.  In the EU, roughly 12% higher.  In other words, the rest of the world gets comparatively richer at the USA's expense.  Diverging life expectancies is not the only driver, but it certainly is playing a significant part.

See also massive upward wealth distribution in the US over the last few decades. That is also not good for either the bulk of citizens (both politically and economically), or for the economy as a whole.

Yes at least when I was in grad school the studies I read showed a high correlation between health disparities (how healthcare is distributed), and overall public health. The higher the health disparities in the population, the worse the overall public health was. Since most people still depend somewhat on their job for healthcare, the US still has big health disparities based on income. In the US we have seen this even in the last few years, with the wealth gap increasing, and US life expectancy decreasing. We now have this perfect storm of low income but "essential" workers returning to work, basically having to choose income over their personal health. It's a perfect storm to cause an epidemic, and over the long term loss of health and life, loss jobs and lots of economic fallout because those workers WILL get sick.  Anyways there are many reasons you don't want to live in a country with high wealth disparity. This is one of them and yes it does impact you even if you eat healthy, excerise, because your kids is around other kids who are not vaccinated, your tax dollars are going to care for people who have disabilites that could have been prevented with prenatal care, you eat meat contaminated with e coli becuase your overworked meat worker is taking shortcuts, your bus driver or a nearby truck driver has a heart attack while your are commuting to work, your elderly parent in a nursing home get pneumonia because workers are showing up sick. Anyways I maintain our current health system is both unnecessarily cruel AND inefficient.

[Travis]

Does Ivanka's new tweet re. Goya beans belong in this thread?  Here'a a link to The Poke, where you can see the tweet itself and all responses, as well as the see some of the better takedowns:

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/07/15/ivanka-trump-goya-beans/

Her dad followed it up with a post of his own. Cuomo's take is pretty much exactly how I reacted: https://twitter.com/TheAPJournalist/status/1283573607067791361

138K+ Dead in the middle of a Pandemic. Trumps response: "Buy some beans."

And those little stunts with the cans of beans might be illegal endorsements by government officials.

The CEO claimed that his free speech was being suppressed by the boycott. "I visited Obama. Am I supposed to just say "no" to Trump?" Nobody is upset at you visiting him dude. They're upset that you went out of your way to kiss his ass in print afterwards.

[sherr]

The CEO claimed that his free speech was being suppressed by the boycott.

This is a common refrain among the right these days.

Conservatives boycotting companies because they used a gay person in an ad campaign? "We're just using our freedom of speech."

Liberals boycotting companies because the CEO is a blatant Trumper? "They're suppressing our freedom of speech!! Cancel Culture!!!!"

[talltexan]

Really we all ought to buy more black beans at the store now because we shouldn't be going to restaurants. It's a public health message. Mrs. talltexan has a fantastic black bean/hominy/tomatoe salad she can roll out in just a few minutes.

[Kris]

Really we all ought to buy more black beans at the store now because we shouldn't be going to restaurants. It's a public health message. Mrs. talltexan has a fantastic black bean/hominy/tomatoe salad she can roll out in just a few minutes.

Ooohh, I need that recipe.

[Glenstache]

Really we all ought to buy more black beans at the store now because we shouldn't be going to restaurants. It's a public health message. Mrs. talltexan has a fantastic black bean/hominy/tomatoe salad she can roll out in just a few minutes.

I mean, it also seems like a safe lunch for my niece and nephew to take to school in the fall. Whew! Problem solved!

[nereo]

Does Ivanka's new tweet re. Goya beans belong in this thread?  Here'a a link to The Poke, where you can see the tweet itself and all responses, as well as the see some of the better takedowns:

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/07/15/ivanka-trump-goya-beans/

Her dad followed it up with a post of his own. Cuomo's take is pretty much exactly how I reacted: https://twitter.com/TheAPJournalist/status/1283573607067791361

138K+ Dead in the middle of a Pandemic. Trumps response: "Buy some beans."

And those little stunts with the cans of beans might be illegal endorsements by government officials.

Once again the public is tying itself up in knots about whether an action by this administration is techinically legal/illegal.  Lost in the tempest is whether they should be doing such things.

Bottom line as I see it: the Trumps are trolling and using this to divert attention.  That's highly inappropriate for an executive, regardless of whether it breaks laws and if there will be legal consequences.

[jinga nation]

Does Ivanka's new tweet re. Goya beans belong in this thread?  Here'a a link to The Poke, where you can see the tweet itself and all responses, as well as the see some of the better takedowns:

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/07/15/ivanka-trump-goya-beans/

Her dad followed it up with a post of his own. Cuomo's take is pretty much exactly how I reacted: https://twitter.com/TheAPJournalist/status/1283573607067791361

138K+ Dead in the middle of a Pandemic. Trumps response: "Buy some beans."

And those little stunts with the cans of beans might be illegal endorsements by government officials.

Once again the public is tying itself up in knots about whether an action by this administration is techinically legal/illegal.  Lost in the tempest is whether they should be doing such things.

Bottom line as I see it: the Trumps are trolling and using this to divert attention.  That's highly inappropriate for an executive, regardless of whether it breaks laws and if there will be legal consequences.

You called it. There's going to be a Friday Night massacre tomorrow. Fauci on the list. Beans is all diversion theater.

[nereo]

Does Ivanka's new tweet re. Goya beans belong in this thread?  Here'a a link to The Poke, where you can see the tweet itself and all responses, as well as the see some of the better takedowns:

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/07/15/ivanka-trump-goya-beans/

Her dad followed it up with a post of his own. Cuomo's take is pretty much exactly how I reacted: https://twitter.com/TheAPJournalist/status/1283573607067791361

138K+ Dead in the middle of a Pandemic. Trumps response: "Buy some beans."

And those little stunts with the cans of beans might be illegal endorsements by government officials.

Once again the public is tying itself up in knots about whether an action by this administration is techinically legal/illegal.  Lost in the tempest is whether they should be doing such things.

Bottom line as I see it: the Trumps are trolling and using this to divert attention.  That's highly inappropriate for an executive, regardless of whether it breaks laws and if there will be legal consequences.

You called it. There's going to be a Friday Night massacre tomorrow. Fauci on the list. Beans is all diversion theater.

We shall see.  According to CNN, civil-service protections prevent the NIAID director (Fauci) from being directly fired by the President... not that rules have limited his attempts in the past to rid himself of people he no longer desires.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

White House: "Science should not stand in the way" of opening schools - uh, so we should teach our kids about how dumb the White House push to force kids back to reopened schools amid a spreading pandemic is I guess...  I'd teach that class, except I don't want to get infected in a country that has no ER/ICU capacity.

[MDM]

White House: "Science should not stand in the way" of opening schools - uh, so we should teach our kids about how dumb the White House push to force kids back to reopened schools amid a spreading pandemic is I guess...  I'd teach that class, except I don't want to get infected in a country that has no ER/ICU capacity.

Listen to the full quote, starting about there to the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHCUYxjpako#t=50s

Or listen to the first 50 seconds also - just trying to save some time....

[Glenstache]

White House: "Science should not stand in the way" of opening schools - uh, so we should teach our kids about how dumb the White House push to force kids back to reopened schools amid a spreading pandemic is I guess...  I'd teach that class, except I don't want to get infected in a country that has no ER/ICU capacity.

Listen to the full quote, starting about there to the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHCUYxjpako#t=50s

Or listen to the first 50 seconds also - just trying to save some time....

Looking at quotes (because I find watching videos uber-tedious), it sounds like the WH is citing journal articles that covid is no worse for kids than the seasonal flu. I did not chase down the article, but it seems like that misses the point. The issue is transmission. Maybe the kids won't die (I don't know about comorbidities in kids with Covid), but they can transmit it between families. Concurrently, there are groups fighting against having masks at schools if/when they do reopen (see recent stories out of Salt Lake City).

I thought this was a reasonable article on the subject of kids going to school. The transmission data seems to be pretty inconsistent. If there is a *safe* way to get kids back to school, then I'm all for it. In the meantime, I'm skeptical and it feels like the WH is a bit pre-emptive (relative to the science) on demands to open schools fully.

[sherr]

White House: "Science should not stand in the way" of opening schools - uh, so we should teach our kids about how dumb the White House push to force kids back to reopened schools amid a spreading pandemic is I guess...  I'd teach that class, except I don't want to get infected in a country that has no ER/ICU capacity.

Listen to the full quote, starting about there to the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHCUYxjpako#t=50s

Or listen to the first 50 seconds also - just trying to save some time....

So the scare-mongering headline is indeed misleading. This is the crux of the argument:

Of course we can [fully reopen schools], everyone else in the western world is doing it. The science is very clear and says the risk of critical illness for children is far less than seasonal flu. The science is on our side.

Which, riiight, we are the outlier in the western world because of how abysmally we are handling the pandemic. And the concern isn't that the kids themselves are going to die from COVID necessarily (although some small percent of them probably would), but that the kids would then infect the teachers, and parents,  and grandparents, and other people that any of those people come into contact with.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

White House: "Science should not stand in the way" of opening schools - uh, so we should teach our kids about how dumb the White House push to force kids back to reopened schools amid a spreading pandemic is I guess...  I'd teach that class, except I don't want to get infected in a country that has no ER/ICU capacity.

Listen to the full quote, starting about there to the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHCUYxjpako#t=50s

Or listen to the first 50 seconds also - just trying to save some time....

So the scare-mongering headline is indeed misleading. This is the crux of the argument:

Of course we can [fully reopen schools], everyone else in the western world is doing it. The science is very clear and says the risk of critical illness for children is far less than seasonal flu. The science is on our side.

Which, riiight, we are the outlier in the western world because of how abysmally we are handling the pandemic. And the concern isn't that the kids themselves are going to die from COVID necessarily (although some small percent of them probably would), but that the kids would then infect the teachers, and parents,  and grandparents, and other people that any of those people come into contact with.

Thanks for that link.  It goes on to say that we are the peer outlier among Western Nations - which is 100% true if you look at how our cases are spiking and our government is trying to suppress hospitalization data and thinking that less testing is a good thing...   

So, +1 to the above poster

[Norioch]

Coronavirus data has already disappeared after Trump administration shifted control from CDC

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/16/us-coronavirus-data-has-already-disappeared-after-trump-administration-shifted-control-from-cdc-to-hhs.html

[MDM]

Looking at quotes (because I find watching videos uber-tedious), it sounds like the WH is citing journal articles that covid is no worse for kids than the seasonal flu. I did not chase down the article, but it seems like that misses the point. The issue is transmission. Maybe the kids won't die (I don't know about comorbidities in kids with Covid), but they can transmit it between families. Concurrently, there are groups fighting against having masks at schools if/when they do reopen (see recent stories out of Salt Lake City).

I thought this was a reasonable article on the subject of kids going to school. The transmission data seems to be pretty inconsistent. If there is a *safe* way to get kids back to school, then I'm all for it. In the meantime, I'm skeptical and it feels like the WH is a bit pre-emptive (relative to the science) on demands to open schools fully.

All reasonable points.

Saying that the White House said "Science should not stand in the way" is akin to those who made a big deal of "Obama said there are 57 states."

[OtherJen]

White House: "Science should not stand in the way" of opening schools - uh, so we should teach our kids about how dumb the White House push to force kids back to reopened schools amid a spreading pandemic is I guess...  I'd teach that class, except I don't want to get infected in a country that has no ER/ICU capacity.

Listen to the full quote, starting about there to the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHCUYxjpako#t=50s

Or listen to the first 50 seconds also - just trying to save some time....

Looking at quotes (because I find watching videos uber-tedious), it sounds like the WH is citing journal articles that covid is no worse for kids than the seasonal flu. I did not chase down the article, but it seems like that misses the point. The issue is transmission. Maybe the kids won't die (I don't know about comorbidities in kids with Covid), but they can transmit it between families. Concurrently, there are groups fighting against having masks at schools if/when they do reopen (see recent stories out of Salt Lake City).

I thought this was a reasonable article on the subject of kids going to school. The transmission data seems to be pretty inconsistent. If there is a *safe* way to get kids back to school, then I'm all for it. In the meantime, I'm skeptical and it feels like the WH is a bit pre-emptive (relative to the science) on demands to open schools fully.

The issue is also teachers, staff members, and their families. They don’t have a choice unless they want to lose their pensions and healthcare, and they’re far more at risk than the kids, health wise.

This could be as much of a shitshow as anything else related to the pandemic in the US.

[ysette9]

I had forgotten about this part of the election cycle.

The one where celebrities claim they’ll move out of the US if orange man is re elected. Doesn’t seem many had the stones to do it last time but maybe this time will be different ...

Late in responding, but this one caught my eye. In the Bush II years I knew people who talked about leaving but no one actually did. This time I know people who have left, so it doesn’t seem as empty threat-y as previously. Heck, I myself went through the paperwork of getting dual citizenship as a direct response to Trump getting elected.

[MasterStache]

I had forgotten about this part of the election cycle.

The one where celebrities claim they’ll move out of the US if orange man is re elected. Doesn’t seem many had the stones to do it last time but maybe this time will be different ...

Late in responding, but this one caught my eye. In the Bush II years I knew people who talked about leaving but no one actually did. This time I know people who have left, so it doesn’t seem as empty threat-y as previously. Heck, I myself went through the paperwork of getting dual citizenship as a direct response to Trump getting elected.

I have a neighbor who's daughter lives in Toronto. I talked to her when she was visiting some time ago. She said she was planning on moving back to the states as she was offered a good paying job. As soon as Trump was elected she said "hell no." Her exact words.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Looking at quotes (because I find watching videos uber-tedious), it sounds like the WH is citing journal articles that covid is no worse for kids than the seasonal flu. I did not chase down the article, but it seems like that misses the point. The issue is transmission. Maybe the kids won't die (I don't know about comorbidities in kids with Covid), but they can transmit it between families. Concurrently, there are groups fighting against having masks at schools if/when they do reopen (see recent stories out of Salt Lake City).

I thought this was a reasonable article on the subject of kids going to school. The transmission data seems to be pretty inconsistent. If there is a *safe* way to get kids back to school, then I'm all for it. In the meantime, I'm skeptical and it feels like the WH is a bit pre-emptive (relative to the science) on demands to open schools fully.

All reasonable points.

Saying that the White House said "Science should not stand in the way" is akin to those who made a big deal of "Obama said there are 57 states."

At this point, it doesn't really matter if I quote a sensational headline that has been taken out of context or even outright try to deceive you - kids going back to school is simply going to cause a boost to viral spread because we are already spiking and there are no plans to manage (or even track) the outbreak.  The newest tactic is to ignore it and suppress the data, but we are still living in this 'fake news' reality that is getting worse despite the fact Trump thinks 'Keep America Great' is still a good stump to campaign on.

[Kris]

I’ve been waiting for years for Rush Limbaugh to leave the US after Obamacare passed, but no soap.

[RetiredAt63]

I’ve been waiting for years for Rush Limbaugh to leave the US after Obamacare passed, but no soap.

Where would he go?  Not Canada. Socialist hell that we are.    /s