US Politics



  • @Winger said in US Politics:

    Not a good look for Cuomo. Or anyone who had anything to do with this NY order.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8360381/New-York-Health-Department-website-deletes-order-stating-nursing-homes-shouldnt-deny-admissions.html

    New York Health Department website quietly deletes controversial Cuomo order that forced nursing homes to admit coronavirus patients and 'led to 5,000 deaths'

    and here's the order

    A copy of the page saved by the Internet archive Wayback Machine, however, shows that Cuomo's order stated: "No resident shall be denied readmission or admission to the NH [nursing home] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19. NHs [Nursing homes] are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission."

    Cuomo somehow managed to look good for a while when his early management and opinion of virus control was easily as bad as, if not worse than, many others.

    He's a sham.



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Winger said in US Politics:

    Not a good look for Cuomo. Or anyone who had anything to do with this NY order.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8360381/New-York-Health-Department-website-deletes-order-stating-nursing-homes-shouldnt-deny-admissions.html

    New York Health Department website quietly deletes controversial Cuomo order that forced nursing homes to admit coronavirus patients and 'led to 5,000 deaths'

    and here's the order

    A copy of the page saved by the Internet archive Wayback Machine, however, shows that Cuomo's order stated: "No resident shall be denied readmission or admission to the NH [nursing home] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19. NHs [Nursing homes] are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission."

    Cuomo somehow managed to look good for a while when his early management and opinion of virus control was easily as bad as, if not worse than, many others.

    He's a sham.

    And this.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cuomo-immunity-nursing-home-campaign-donation

    New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who signed legislation granting hospital and nursing home executives immunity from lawsuits related to the novel coronavirus last month, previously received a big-money boost from a powerful health care industry group, according to a new report.



  • This told me a lot about Governer Cuomo. Funny too



  • Trump should put this on his Twitter feed.



  • @Frank said in US Politics:

    Trump should put this on his Twitter feed.

    If this for real?



  • @Frank

    I hope that Biden clip is edited..I really do.

    EDIT: It is edited.



  • @Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:

    @Frank

    I hope that Biden clip is edited..I really do.

    EDIT: It is edited.

    Thank fuck...it did seem pretty odd no one was stepping in or they weren't cutting.



  • @Bones

    Shit like this is why Trump (of all people) may be right in wanting to regulate Twitter



  • @Victor-Meldrew

    Shit like this is why social media is a fucking poison. Every fluffybunny on it is going for clicks, shares, or some other fucking scam. But - and here is the thing - my parents, godfather etc. will share this type of shit because "it's better to share it, even if it's untrue, because if it is true, and I didn't share it, I'll feel bad". Or, "the person who shared it to us is pretty on to it, so it might be true, so I shared it just in case".



  • @Bones said in US Politics:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:

    @Frank

    I hope that Biden clip is edited..I really do.

    EDIT: It is edited.

    Thank fuck...it did seem pretty odd no one was stepping in or they weren't cutting.

    Not that the unedited clip was that much better....



  • @gt12 said in US Politics:

    @Victor-Meldrew

    Shit like this is why social media is a fucking poison. Every fluffybunny on it is going for clicks, shares, or some other fucking scam. But - and here is the thing - my parents, godfather etc. will share this type of shit because "it's better to share it, even if it's untrue, because if it is true, and I didn't share it, I'll feel bad". Or, "the person who shared it to us is pretty on to it, so it might be true, so I shared it just in case".

    Most eventually find out its a fake. (And what % will be fooled by it. Even for Biden it was a bit much)

    And its not a great look for Biden that some thought it might be the real deal.



  • Wow shit is kicking off in the States.

    Twitter have put a wanting note on Trump's bat shit fucking crazy tweet (the one below this, I can't share it).



  • @No-Quarter assume you mean this. Which again - put anyone else's name to it and I'd be "WTF!!!". See it's Trump..."Oh right".

    1c0769d8-72d5-4de2-82e5-a4dad0d80e27-image.png



  • @Bones

    It never occurred to me that anyone would assume that Trump was suggesting shooting (and maybe killing) the protestors. To me it just meant the NG would give a tough and firm response

    Now if the looting starts wasn't immediately before this statement then its different. But in this TDS world Trump (maybe) needs to be more careful. But if Trump walked on water and healed the sick he would be criticized for it so maybe he may as well just go for it



  • @Winger said in US Politics:

    But if Trump walked on water and healed the sick he would be criticized for it

    Maybe you could iron out the creases in that TDS eh.



  • @Winger said in US Politics:

    @Bones

    It never occurred to me that anyone would assume that Trump was suggesting shooting (and maybe killing) the protestors. To me it just meant the NG would give a tough and firm response

    Now if the looting starts wasn't immediately before this statement then its different. But in this TDS world Trump (maybe) needs to be more careful. But if Trump walked on water and healed the sick he would be criticized for it so maybe he may as well just go for it

    Walk on water and heal the sick? The man can't even string a sentence together or act like a decent human being, let alone Jesus. The derangement is in repeatedly defending the indefensible.



  • Well what to do with this sort of brazen looting and destruction of innocent businesses?

    Seriously, how do you protect the innocent in this situation?

    What's a better answer than detaining the ones acting criminally?



  • ๐Ÿ˜†

    These looters are pure scum.



  • @gt12 said in US Politics:

    @Victor-Meldrew

    Shit like this is why social media is a fucking poison. Every fluffybunny on it is going for clicks, shares, or some other fucking scam. But - and here is the thing - my parents, godfather etc. will share this type of shit because "it's better to share it, even if it's untrue, because if it is true, and I didn't share it, I'll feel bad". Or, "the person who shared it to us is pretty on to it, so it might be true, so I shared it just in case".

    It's like chinese whispers gone wild x 1000



  • @Winger said in US Politics:

    @Bones

    It never occurred to me that anyone would assume that Trump was suggesting shooting (and maybe killing) the protestors. To me it just meant the NG would give a tough and firm response

    What else can you take from "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts?

    Even if he didn't mean it literally, it isn't exactly a unifying or calming statement is it??

    The USA has deep rooted racial problems that have been there forever. The George Floyd video is pretty damning, but I've seen similar stuff many times before.

    There is a reason why most black americans seem to have a level of distrust of the Po Po, this is just one of numerous incidents, and nothing ever seems to change



  • @canefan said in US Politics:

    What else can you take from "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts?

    Only thing I can think is that he's implying people start shooting when they start looting, rather than the military will shoot looters. If so, he's made a right Cummings of it.



  • It's such a poorly wooded statement it beggars belief. Trump does well in some areas, but he's been found severely wanting with his leadership for Covid, and he's way the fuck out of his depth when it comes to race issues. He's probably the last person you'd want in charge right now.

    But honestly if these guys were arrested and charged when they should have been there wouldn't be such a big outcry. The system in the States looks badly broken from the outside in.



  • @canefan said in US Politics:

    @Winger said in US Politics:

    @Bones

    It never occurred to me that anyone would assume that Trump was suggesting shooting (and maybe killing) the protestors. To me it just meant the NG would give a tough and firm response

    What else can you take from "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts?

    Even if he didn't mean it literally, it isn't exactly a unifying or calming statement is it??

    The USA has deep rooted racial problems that have been there forever. The George Floyd video is pretty damning, but I've seen similar stuff many times before.

    There is a reason why most black americans seem to have a level of distrust of the Po Po, this is just one of numerous incidents, and nothing ever seems to change

    He's addressing looters and rioters. Not a church group

    And your post is confusing. Are you saying the George Floyd death justifies the looting and rioting so Trump should support them. Or let them be. Of course if he did the Trump haters would go even more crazy



  • @Winger said in US Politics:

    @canefan said in US Politics:

    @Winger said in US Politics:

    @Bones

    It never occurred to me that anyone would assume that Trump was suggesting shooting (and maybe killing) the protestors. To me it just meant the NG would give a tough and firm response

    What else can you take from "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts?

    Even if he didn't mean it literally, it isn't exactly a unifying or calming statement is it??

    The USA has deep rooted racial problems that have been there forever. The George Floyd video is pretty damning, but I've seen similar stuff many times before.

    There is a reason why most black americans seem to have a level of distrust of the Po Po, this is just one of numerous incidents, and nothing ever seems to change

    He's addressing looters and rioters. Not a church group

    And your post is confusing. Are you saying the George Floyd death justifies the looting and rioting so Trump should support them. Or let them be. Of course if he did the Trump haters would go even more crazy

    Sometimes it's hard to know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you genuinely believe in the tripe you spout.

    Here it is in more simple terms:

    The President of the USA should not tweet messages that appear to support the shooting of people who loot, or any other criminal act for that matter.

    Is that simple enough for you to understand?

    There are a million ways the President could have tried to de-escalate this situation, and instead he went down an inflammatory path. Again.

    Just disgraceful behaviour.



  • The bit that confuses me in this Floyd situation is why the cop wasn't arrested 'on suspicion' while they assembled evidence and a case. Is that not part of the US justice system? It seems to cause a lot of problems and perspectives of inaction when they have to create a whole case with a high level of proof before acting. I guess that in our system we can prove a prima facie case at a lower burden of proof, then progress from there (I think)



  • @voodoo said in US Politics:

    @Winger said in US Politics:

    @canefan said in US Politics:

    @Winger said in US Politics:

    @Bones

    It never occurred to me that anyone would assume that Trump was suggesting shooting (and maybe killing) the protestors. To me it just meant the NG would give a tough and firm response

    What else can you take from "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts?

    Even if he didn't mean it literally, it isn't exactly a unifying or calming statement is it??

    The USA has deep rooted racial problems that have been there forever. The George Floyd video is pretty damning, but I've seen similar stuff many times before.

    There is a reason why most black americans seem to have a level of distrust of the Po Po, this is just one of numerous incidents, and nothing ever seems to change

    He's addressing looters and rioters. Not a church group

    And your post is confusing. Are you saying the George Floyd death justifies the looting and rioting so Trump should support them. Or let them be. Of course if he did the Trump haters would go even more crazy

    Sometimes it's hard to know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you genuinely believe in the tripe you spout.

    Here it is in more simple terms:

    The President of the USA should not tweet messages that appear to support the shooting of people who loot, or any other criminal act for that matter.

    Is that simple enough for you to understand?

    There are a million ways the President could have tried to de-escalate this situation, and instead he went down an inflammatory path. Again.

    Just disgraceful behaviour.

    Name one mate.

    Just for fun give one way to deal with those people stealing and destroying. One piece of communication that doesn't involve a threat of arrest. And yes of course firearms are used by the army, so yes, it's no surprise there'll be shooting. Its an incredibly serious breakdown of social order. That's what happens when you burn and steal from the innocent. What other options to stop that mob?



  • @Siam said in US Politics:

    @voodoo said in US Politics:

    @Winger said in US Politics:

    @canefan said in US Politics:

    @Winger said in US Politics:

    @Bones

    It never occurred to me that anyone would assume that Trump was suggesting shooting (and maybe killing) the protestors. To me it just meant the NG would give a tough and firm response

    What else can you take from "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts?

    Even if he didn't mean it literally, it isn't exactly a unifying or calming statement is it??

    The USA has deep rooted racial problems that have been there forever. The George Floyd video is pretty damning, but I've seen similar stuff many times before.

    There is a reason why most black americans seem to have a level of distrust of the Po Po, this is just one of numerous incidents, and nothing ever seems to change

    He's addressing looters and rioters. Not a church group

    And your post is confusing. Are you saying the George Floyd death justifies the looting and rioting so Trump should support them. Or let them be. Of course if he did the Trump haters would go even more crazy

    Sometimes it's hard to know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you genuinely believe in the tripe you spout.

    Here it is in more simple terms:

    The President of the USA should not tweet messages that appear to support the shooting of people who loot, or any other criminal act for that matter.

    Is that simple enough for you to understand?

    There are a million ways the President could have tried to de-escalate this situation, and instead he went down an inflammatory path. Again.

    Just disgraceful behaviour.

    Name one mate.

    Just for fun give one way to deal with those people stealing and destroying. One piece of communication that doesn't involve a threat of arrest. And yes of course firearms are used by the army, so yes, it's no surprise there'll be shooting. Its an incredibly serious breakdown of social order. That's what happens when you burn and steal from the innocent. What other options to stop that mob?

    Not your best post mate. You have named one alternative yourself, a reminder that they'll be arrested. And charged. He could also have said that he would push for a full investigation into the incident, and if guilty, an assurance that there will be justice. He could have said that now is not the time for violence, but for solidarity, to come together, that police violence is not going to be ignored, but that violent protests are not the answer3.

    Any-fucking-thing except saying that you'll probably get shot, with no distinction between armed police or armed citizens



  • @voodoo ok fair enough.

    Perhaps our differences lie in the ability or willingness of the rioters to respond to words from authority. I also don't think the rioters were expressing support for George Floyd, so any reference to that incident doesn't deal with damage caused and violent behaviour.

    I don't think his poor choice of words compares to the behaviour of looters.

    Thanks for the reply๐Ÿ‘



  • @Siam said in US Politics:

    @voodoo ok fair enough.

    Perhaps our differences lie in the ability or willingness of the rioters to respond to words from authority. I also don't think the rioters were expressing support for George Floyd, so any reference to that incident doesn't deal with damage caused and violent behaviour.

    I don't think his poor choice of words compares to the behaviour of looters.

    Thanks for the reply๐Ÿ‘

    Yeah, I dunno how effective anything he could say would actually be, but I do think his words could certainly have an inflammatory effect on the situation. Plenty of armed civilans would feel emboldened by those words.

    As an aside, check this out for weird - I have had the book Infinite Detail next to my bed for the last 2 months, waiting for me to finish my current one. I just read the back cover 10mins ago, then randomly flicked it open. Landed on Page 100, which looks like this:

    _IMG_000000_000000.jpg

    Trippy!!!



  • @Siam said in US Politics:

    @voodoo ok fair enough.

    Perhaps our differences lie in the ability or willingness of the rioters to respond to words from authority. I also don't think the rioters were expressing support for George Floyd, so any reference to that incident doesn't deal with damage caused and violent behaviour.

    I don't think his poor choice of words compares to the behaviour of looters.

    Thanks for the reply๐Ÿ‘

    The rioters were absolutely scum taking advantage of a situation. But you can't make any reasonable argument for how Trump responded.



  • @canefan if he meant the unlawful looters when he said " shooting starts" then that's a reasonable argument right there.

    On the hierarchy of offensive behaviour and speed of response , trumps tweet doesn't even rate.

    Have the rioters stopped? If so, that's because of outstanding leadership from trump. Job done๐Ÿ™‚



  • @Siam said in US Politics:

    @canefan if he meant the unlawful looters when he said " shooting starts" then that's a reasonable argument right there.

    How is it reasonable to suggest looters will be shot? In what country is that an acceptable response to a criminal but non-violent act? If he said looters will be locked up, sure. But instead his poor choice of words causes makes a delicate situation worse.

    The fact is America is a deeply divided nation. Protesters taking over a police station and setting fire to buildings in a major city isn't a normal thing. Trump is not the cause of these actions, or this general situation. But at the same time you can't point to much he's doing to make things better.

    I worry for the future of that nation.



  • From a mate in SanFran:

    "Just had a beer with my neighbor whoโ€™s a cop in SF city. Heโ€™s a Sergeant and only been working one day a week since Covid started. Heโ€™s going back to full time as of tomorrow- all because of the Minneapolis backlash. Heโ€™s going straight into a demonstration planned for tomorrow. Fuck that"



  • @Siam said in US Politics:

    @canefan if he meant the unlawful looters when he said " shooting starts" then that's a reasonable argument right there.

    You don't really believe this do you? Based solely on my reading of your other posts over time,I can't believe you do



  • The cop will be punished but...................

    Medical examiner: No evidence George Floyd died of strangulation

    The medical examiner said Floyd had underlying health conditions, including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease.

    โ€œThe combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death,โ€ the medical examiner reported."

    https://www.mystateline.com/news/national/medical-examiner-no-evidence-george-floyd-died-of-strangulation/



  • So? His death was caused by the cop kneeling on his head. Murder, manslaughter, whatever. Doesn't make much difference at this point.



  • @voodoo said in US Politics:

    @Siam said in US Politics:

    @canefan if he meant the unlawful looters when he said " shooting starts" then that's a reasonable argument right there.

    You don't really believe this do you? Based solely on my reading of your other posts over time,I can't believe you do

    That's my whole gist mate. Our projections have no bearing on what he meant, and if he meant looters shooting or army shooting then whatever our appraisals, never had any sway in the situation. We've got interpretations only. Worthless really.

    And it's 100% true that looting brings gunshots, it already has. Anti trump people never refer to the situation he's describing. Always it's an ethical complaint as if some utopian conditions exist. Never any criticisms of the root cause of his reactions.

    How do you stop such a destructive mob without force? And force in the 21st century involves guns. These rioters are not rational protesters trying to change society. They've totally wrecked innocent people's property and, in the United States, if you engage in that behaviour you'll be met with force. It's always been that way.

    Trump might be offensive, but at least he's realistic.



  • @barbarian said in US Politics:

    @Siam said in US Politics:

    @canefan if he meant the unlawful looters when he said " shooting starts" then that's a reasonable argument right there.

    How is it reasonable to suggest looters will be shot? In what country is that an acceptable response to a criminal but non-violent act? If he said looters will be locked up, sure. But instead his poor choice of words causes makes a delicate situation worse.

    The fact is America is a deeply divided nation. Protesters taking over a police station and setting fire to buildings in a major city isn't a normal thing. Trump is not the cause of these actions, or this general situation. But at the same time you can't point to much he's doing to make things better.

    I worry for the future of that nation.

    Then the shooting starts is not the same as suggesting looters will be shot. It's pedantic but no less true. They aren't protesters and they weren't reflecting a divided nation but one which has severe socio-economic disparities and social conditions that manifest in these incidents. Very similar to the London riots where politics were also not the main driver of the behaviour.

    And no his words haven't made the situation worse. His words haven't burned more businesses down, they haven't smashed more windows, they haven't stole more Target stock, they haven't ruined the New bar owner's dream. Disingenuous to gloss over what that city has been through and focus on trumps poor tweet. No focus on why the city wouldn't defend it's citizens from rioters?



  • @Siam said in US Politics:

    Then the shooting starts is not the same as suggesting looters will be shot. It's pedantic but no less true.

    This is the opposite of TDS here I think. TES - Trump explanation syndrome? You're turning yourself in knots to defend this. The clear imputation behind 'when the looting starts, the shooting starts' is that looters will be shot.

    And the rest of your post is more of the same. There are plenty of factors in this, nobody is suggesting Trump is responsible, or the worst person in this saga. But we can talk about his tweet because he's the President and everything he does at this point is worthy of discussion. And once again in a moment of national importance I'd argue he hasn't covered himself in glory.



  • @barbarian said in US Politics:

    @Siam said in US Politics:

    Then the shooting starts is not the same as suggesting looters will be shot. It's pedantic but no less true.

    This is the opposite of TDS here I think. TES - Trump explanation syndrome? You're turning yourself in knots to defend this. The clear imputation behind 'when the looting starts, the shooting starts' is that looters will be shot.

    And the rest of your post is more of the same. There are plenty of factors in this, nobody is suggesting Trump is responsible, or the worst person in this saga. But we can talk about his tweet because he's the President and everything he does at this point is worthy of discussion. And once again in a moment of national importance I'd argue he hasn't covered himself in glory.

    The mere fact he fucken tweeted. What was the point? Hilarious that if you criticise you're just a Trump hater eh. TDS indeed. So much ironing.


Log in to reply