Good discussion today on Beg to Differ, but a couple of points if I may.
First, as to the “seriousness” of the New York trial and the value of a prison sentence (or not). If, as Trump wants, you view this trial as a minor bookkeeping offense rigged up to a felony, you’re right that Judge Merchan should give a suspended se…
Good discussion today on Beg to Differ, but a couple of points if I may.
First, as to the “seriousness” of the New York trial and the value of a prison sentence (or not). If, as Trump wants, you view this trial as a minor bookkeeping offense rigged up to a felony, you’re right that Judge Merchan should give a suspended sentence at most.
However, like the January 6th case, this is an election interference case that should be taken seriously as such. Morever, the January 6th case was about a violent mob that tried, unsuccessfully, to thwart the will of the voters in 2020.
The New York trial was about an election interference conspiracy that highly likely changed the outcome of the 2016 election. That election was decided by fewer than 100,000 votes in three states. Is it possible that, had the shtupping been reported, that many votes would have changed? Definitely. Is it likely? I’d say so.
I’d call the New York trial at least as significant as the other. And added to that Trump’s refusal to take any responsibility, his total lack of remorse, his attacks on the justice system and his endangering of the Court, the jurors and the witnesses. All told, I’d say a prison sentence is called for.
Secondly, as to the House Fauci hearing. You’re right, it was a joke. But what I haven’t heard discussed, here or elsewhere, is the role of government and, more basically, the role of an economy as seen through the lens of Covid and our response to it.
Let’s agree that our response was a bit start-and-stop, a bit too much and too little. Let’s also agree that we were seeing a totally unknown virus that, in a very short time, ripped through New York killing thousands of people. I envy anyone who didn’t have to walk down Park Avenue, passing Lenox Hill Hospital and seeing the line-up of morgue refrigerator vans filled with the overflow of corpses. Or the television images of the few who were hospitalized and survived being cheered by overworked HCP’s as they left the hospital.
Surely the gravity of the situation warranted erring on the side of a conservative approach.
So, some ask, should the government have prioritized economic strength over the well-being of the population? And what is the role of an economy, anyway?
If we were invaded by enemy forces, killing thousands of Americans, would we argue that drafting millions of men and women was hurting the productivity of the economy? I’d say the conservative approach would be to fight the war and deal with the economy later. In essence, that’s what Dr. Fauci and his colleagues did.
An economy, at its heart, is the means by which the population produces the means of survival. Letting the population die is not helping the economy, despite the MAGA clowns’ protests.
Im not sure I understand your position on covid (ok I understand it and agree with the conclusion) but I don’t understand what or how your using the word conservative with respect to the war example or covid. I’m not sure there is a “conservative” approach to covid.
Conservative as in cautious, not in the political sense.
When we're hit with a horrendous and novel pandemic, it's understandable that the medical community won't know how to stop its spread, so the sensible approach is to be as cautious as possible, at least until we know what we're dealing with.
That said, it can reasonably be argued that our caution went longer than was necessary and that some decisions were a bit half-assed (i.e., Newsome's closing churches while letting bars remain open).
I think both are true. Also this has been learned for other countries who have had Ebola, sars, swine flu, etc. they all had very different transition rates and death rates.
It’s also hard to kniw if we actually did lock down right. We could have been more aggressive like Europe and have lower death rates like Europe.
What’s hard is that we did everything kind of worse than everywhere. We locked down fast (good) but really didn’t lock down well. Our lockdowns were nothing compared to Asia, Europe or Australia. But because we locked down bad we had higher death but then we kind of continued too long with lockdown. Also we kind of never really prioritized anything. It was just half ass lockdowns.
I beg to quibble.
Good discussion today on Beg to Differ, but a couple of points if I may.
First, as to the “seriousness” of the New York trial and the value of a prison sentence (or not). If, as Trump wants, you view this trial as a minor bookkeeping offense rigged up to a felony, you’re right that Judge Merchan should give a suspended sentence at most.
However, like the January 6th case, this is an election interference case that should be taken seriously as such. Morever, the January 6th case was about a violent mob that tried, unsuccessfully, to thwart the will of the voters in 2020.
The New York trial was about an election interference conspiracy that highly likely changed the outcome of the 2016 election. That election was decided by fewer than 100,000 votes in three states. Is it possible that, had the shtupping been reported, that many votes would have changed? Definitely. Is it likely? I’d say so.
I’d call the New York trial at least as significant as the other. And added to that Trump’s refusal to take any responsibility, his total lack of remorse, his attacks on the justice system and his endangering of the Court, the jurors and the witnesses. All told, I’d say a prison sentence is called for.
Secondly, as to the House Fauci hearing. You’re right, it was a joke. But what I haven’t heard discussed, here or elsewhere, is the role of government and, more basically, the role of an economy as seen through the lens of Covid and our response to it.
Let’s agree that our response was a bit start-and-stop, a bit too much and too little. Let’s also agree that we were seeing a totally unknown virus that, in a very short time, ripped through New York killing thousands of people. I envy anyone who didn’t have to walk down Park Avenue, passing Lenox Hill Hospital and seeing the line-up of morgue refrigerator vans filled with the overflow of corpses. Or the television images of the few who were hospitalized and survived being cheered by overworked HCP’s as they left the hospital.
Surely the gravity of the situation warranted erring on the side of a conservative approach.
So, some ask, should the government have prioritized economic strength over the well-being of the population? And what is the role of an economy, anyway?
If we were invaded by enemy forces, killing thousands of Americans, would we argue that drafting millions of men and women was hurting the productivity of the economy? I’d say the conservative approach would be to fight the war and deal with the economy later. In essence, that’s what Dr. Fauci and his colleagues did.
An economy, at its heart, is the means by which the population produces the means of survival. Letting the population die is not helping the economy, despite the MAGA clowns’ protests.
Im not sure I understand your position on covid (ok I understand it and agree with the conclusion) but I don’t understand what or how your using the word conservative with respect to the war example or covid. I’m not sure there is a “conservative” approach to covid.
Conservative as in cautious, not in the political sense.
When we're hit with a horrendous and novel pandemic, it's understandable that the medical community won't know how to stop its spread, so the sensible approach is to be as cautious as possible, at least until we know what we're dealing with.
That said, it can reasonably be argued that our caution went longer than was necessary and that some decisions were a bit half-assed (i.e., Newsome's closing churches while letting bars remain open).
Does that clear it up?
Ahhh that makes more sense now. Gotcha.
I think both are true. Also this has been learned for other countries who have had Ebola, sars, swine flu, etc. they all had very different transition rates and death rates.
It’s also hard to kniw if we actually did lock down right. We could have been more aggressive like Europe and have lower death rates like Europe.
What’s hard is that we did everything kind of worse than everywhere. We locked down fast (good) but really didn’t lock down well. Our lockdowns were nothing compared to Asia, Europe or Australia. But because we locked down bad we had higher death but then we kind of continued too long with lockdown. Also we kind of never really prioritized anything. It was just half ass lockdowns.