Trump47 Cabinet Picks & First 100 Days Agenda

[superrific]

The question I'm asking isn't whether not military personnel have to follow orders. The question is whether or not Covid is so dangerous that it, among other actions, justifies forcing vaccination or be discharged.

you were complaining that military personnel were being discharged. that was entirely within their control.

what the fuck do you know about troop readiness? have you ever been a military officer? suppose you are captain of a submarine and one of the sailors doesnt want to take the vaccine. should he be forced? when answering that question, ask yourself whether the opinions of the other sailors matter. if the other sailors' morale and trust would decline from soldiers prioritizing their anti-vax bullshit over the health of the crew, should that be taken into account? how about the fact that the sailors were going to be on a submarine? or what would happen to the operational readiness of the ship if there was a covid outbreak.

that you feel qualified to opine that the military should have done something different about covid, when you have no fucking idea what is required of military officers in all the circumstances that might arise (keep in mind that only the top brass know everything that is going on) -- this is why you are a bad person. this is why you are emblematic of the problem in the united states.

why is it so hard to follow two simple rules: 1. if you dont know what you're talking about and you feel the need to cast aspersions about someone who does, then stfu? and 2) if you aren't sure if you know what you're talking about, trying asking someone who does. or consult wikipedia. or ask chatgpt what are the relevant considerations. or do anything other than spout off?

why is that so hard? is it an unreasonable expectation that people should learn things before forming opinions? especially the strong ones you express? is it unreasonable for people to suggest that the price of admission to discussion is anti-ignorance? you dont even have to be knowledgeable. just dont be a fucking know-nothing.

 

[UNCatTech]

Your grasp of best practices in immunology and public health seems even weaker than that of the esteemed Dr Lynch. Impressive.

Yes, but Zen doesn't claim to be a doctor.

 

[ZenMode]

I don't think the number of people that died of COVID and still have problems from it is subjective

Which is, of course, why I specifically said

you were complaining that military personnel were being discharged. that was entirely within their control.

what the fuck do you know about troop readiness? have you ever been a military officer? suppose you are captain of a submarine and one of the sailors doesnt want to take the vaccine. should he be forced? when answering that question, ask yourself whether the opinions of the other sailors matter. if the other sailors' morale and trust would decline from soldiers prioritizing their anti-vax bullshit over the health of the crew, should that be taken into account? how about the fact that the sailors were going to be on a submarine? or what would happen to the operational readiness of the ship if there was a covid outbreak.

that you feel qualified to opine that the military should have done something different about covid, when you have no fucking idea what is required of military officers in all the circumstances that might arise (keep in mind that only the top brass know everything that is going on) -- this is why you are a bad person. this is why you are emblematic of the problem in the united states.

why is it so hard to follow two simple rules: 1. if you dont know what you're talking about and you feel the need to cast aspersions about someone who does, then stfu? and 2) if you aren't sure if you know what you're talking about, trying asking someone who does. or consult wikipedia. or ask chatgpt what are the relevant considerations. or do anything other than spout off?

why is that so hard? is it an unreasonable expectation that people should learn things before forming opinions? especially the strong ones you express? is it unreasonable for people to suggest that the price of admission to discussion is anti-ignorance? you dont even have to be knowledgeable. just dont be a fucking know-nothing.

Again, I am not questioning whether or not military personnel have to follow orders. I'm also not saying that every discharge military member in every fired medical employee didn't have final control over their destiny. I am questioning whether or not COVID justified the actions that were taken such as lockdowns, termination of employment, discharge from the military, disallowing of gathering in groups, attempted massive government overreach, etc.

 

[UNCatTech]

By the way, I don't respond the way I do to you because you're conservative. I respond as I do because you're literally the only person on here who's depraved enough to try to defend the anti-American assault on democracy waged by your boss and his compatriots following the 2020 election. If you had the balls to disown your boss and call him out for the treasonous bastard he is, I'd respond to you very differently. But you just double down on the criminality of MAGA and its erosion of the rule of law. I respect a ton of lawyers who see the world differently than I do. But if you think your boss should not spend the rest of his life in prison, I have nothing but contempt for you. You should not have the privilege of representing your clients before courts of law.

But, they are the "Rule of Law" party...

 

[UNCatTech]

Oh, we vaccinate LOTS of people without economy-crushing lockdowns, discharging our military personnel, forcing the closure of small businesses, disallowing people from gathering with family and friends, etc.

The science behind immunology is different from all of that.

It's interesting how a simple google search brings back so many positive articles of the lockdowns helping to save lives.

Now, there is also information that talks about the cost, both financially and emotionally/mentally. Which I do see. So, I guess the question is was it worth it. I'm sure most opinions are strongly influenced by their personal experience.

For my family, we are still dealing with the mental impact to our youngest daughter who was sent home from school in the middle of 9th grade and never had a "Normal" year of high school. At the same time, I had no family or friends to die from COVID. (I did know people that died from COVID or COVID related illnesses.) All in all, I believe we had the best outcome possible based on the information we had at the beginning and how we worked to find a vaccine and keep our medical infrastructure from collapsing.

COVID-19 lockdowns significantly reduced transmission of invasive bacterial diseases

Study suggests COVID-19 lockdowns reduced the spread of deadly invasive bacterial diseases – potentially saving thousands of lives. Diseases caused by invasive bacteria, including pneumonia, meningitis, and sepsis, are leading causes of illness and death worldwide, especially among children and...

pubmlst.org

 

[Geisterfahrer]

You know I'm so torn when it comes to the "Fuck around and find out" mentality.

But shit like this: "A lot of this is in reaction to the heavy handedness of these governments during COVID." really does make one consider how it would be nice to have just had a government that did nothing, so we could see the results.

Maybe next pandemic our government will have learned and will just let people die and let hospitals and our medical system be overwhelmed.

Then maybe people would see that the 99.9% survival rate that some like to throw around was highly influenced by our practices. If we had simply carried on as usual, like so many claim they wanted, the survival rate would not have been as high. But some just don't seem to realize that.

It reminds me of all the people that claimed that Y2K amounted to nothing, not realizing the millions of hours that went into fixing things so that we didn't see a collapse. They seem to think that it was some kind of hoax.

Spotted today, seemed appropriate to share.

 

[UNCatTech]

Which is, of course, why I specifically said

Again, I am not questioning whether or not military personnel have to follow orders. I'm also not saying that every discharge military member in every fired medical employee didn't have final control over their destiny. I am questioning whether or not COVID justified the actions that were taken such as lockdowns, termination of employment, discharge from the military, disallowing of gathering in groups, attempted massive government overreach, etc.

It is my opinion that it did Justify these actions.

As mentioned, would you want to be on a sub with non-vaccinated people? Just look at what happened on cruse ships.
In the medical industry there is already a challenge to work with sick people every day. Why would one want to increase their odds of getting sick and not being able to perform their jobs? My daughter works for a hospital, they required vaccines well before COVID, they also have had procedures for quarantine, lockdowns, and other policies in case of situations that present possible outbreaks or mass sickness. This isn't something that was invented for COVID.

Past the Virus - Containing Pandemics Throughout History

Analysis by Dr. Eugenia Tognotti, researcher and medical historian, for Institut Montaigne.

www.institutmontaigne.org

 

[Ramrouser]

By the way, I don't respond the way I do to you because you're conservative. I respond as I do because you're literally the only person on here who's depraved enough to try to defend the anti-American assault on democracy waged by your boss and his compatriots following the 2020 election. If you had the balls to disown your boss and call him out for the treasonous bastard he is, I'd respond to you very differently. But you just double down on the criminality of MAGA and its erosion of the rule of law. I respect a ton of lawyers who see the world differently than I do. But if you think your boss should not spend the rest of his life in prison, I have nothing but contempt for you. You should not have the privilege of representing your clients before courts of law.

Many on your side think there is only one interpretation of the Trump team's post election efforts leading up to J6: TREASON. That's your interpretation but about 50% of the Country disagrees with you and re elected that very man to office. I have said I would have ceased legal efforts after the date of certification (Dec 15th) but I still don't think Trump and his supporters engaged in treasonous actions. Under your interpretation, of which you are so certain, half of the Country is either a traitor or a supporter of Trump's treasonous efforts. Ok, you tried that argument during the election and it didn't work. So what now - permanent division? - how can you possibly associate with and live alongside 50% of the Country whom you consider to be traitors?

As far as the Georgia action, the exact quote by Trump to Raffensperger in the context of a lengthy phone conversation was: "So look. All I WANT TO DO is this. I JUST WANT to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have...." You interpret Trump to be saying - you SOS illegally manufacture votes so that I can win the election. Trump's statement could certainly be interpreted differently to have a far less nefarious intention. We all know he talks in that bombastic manner all the time ("Russia if you're listening...") but you always literally interpret his words and immediately assign bad intent.

Plus, IF an action were to be brought it should have been by the DOJ since it was a federal election and NOT by some random County DA. That's one of the reasons our side thinks it was lawfare. And you see what you get: an out-of-her-league DA who completely screwed up the case by paying lover boy and then arguably lied about the relationship. Her office is now the laughingstock of the Country. Face plant.

 

[lawtig02]

Many on your side think there is only one interpretation of the Trump team's post election efforts leading up to J6: TREASON. That's your interpretation but about 50% of the Country disagrees with you and re elected that very man to office. I have said I would have ceased legal efforts after the date of certification (Dec 15th) but I still don't think Trump and his supporters engaged in treasonous actions. Under your interpretation, of which you are so certain, half of the Country is either a traitor or a supporter of Trump's treasonous efforts. Ok, you tried that argument during the election and it didn't work. So what now - permanent division? - how can you possibly associate with and live alongside 50% of the Country whom you consider to be traitors?

As far as the Georgia action, the exact quote by Trump to Raffensperger in the context of a lengthy phone conversation was: "So look. All I WANT TO DO is this. I JUST WANT to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have...." You interpret Trump to be saying - you SOS illegally manufacture votes so that I can win the election. Trump's statement could certainly be interpreted differently to have a far less nefarious intention. We all know he talks in that bombastic manner all the time ("Russia if you're listening...") but you always literally interpret his words and immediately assign bad intent.

Plus, IF an action were to be brought it should have been by the DOJ since it was a federal election and NOT by some random County DA. That's one of the reasons our side thinks it was lawfare. And you see what you get: an out-of-her-league DA who completely screwed up the case by paying lover boy and then arguably lied about the relationship. Her office is now the laughingstock of the Country. Face plant.

Oh?

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/13/trump-crimes-poll-voters-00152110

Looks to me like a bunch of people voted for Trump despite thinking he committed serious crimes. Congrats, I guess. Doesn’t make you any more qualified to carry a law license.

 

[lawtig02]

Many on your side think there is only one interpretation of the Trump team's post election efforts leading up to J6: TREASON. That's your interpretation but about 50% of the Country disagrees with you and re elected that very man to office. I have said I would have ceased legal efforts after the date of certification (Dec 15th) but I still don't think Trump and his supporters engaged in treasonous actions. Under your interpretation, of which you are so certain, half of the Country is either a traitor or a supporter of Trump's treasonous efforts. Ok, you tried that argument during the election and it didn't work. So what now - permanent division? - how can you possibly associate with and live alongside 50% of the Country whom you consider to be traitors?

As far as the Georgia action, the exact quote by Trump to Raffensperger in the context of a lengthy phone conversation was: "So look. All I WANT TO DO is this. I JUST WANT to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have...." You interpret Trump to be saying - you SOS illegally manufacture votes so that I can win the election. Trump's statement could certainly be interpreted differently to have a far less nefarious intention. We all know he talks in that bombastic manner all the time ("Russia if you're listening...") but you always literally interpret his words and immediately assign bad intent.

Plus, IF an action were to be brought it should have been by the DOJ since it was a federal election and NOT by some random County DA. That's one of the reasons our side thinks it was lawfare. And you see what you get: an out-of-her-league DA who completely screwed up the case by paying lover boy and then arguably lied about the relationship. Her office is now the laughingstock of the Country. Face plant.

By the way, I noticed nothing in your post defends the absolutely, unequivocally illegal and unethical actions Ray took in soliciting the fake electors. I guess you’ll overlook anything if the guy keeps signing your paychecks. Right?

 

[superrific]

Many on your side think there is only one interpretation of the Trump team's post election efforts leading up to J6: TREASON. That's your interpretation but about 50% of the Country disagrees with you and re elected that very man to office. I have said I would have ceased legal efforts after the date of certification (Dec 15th) but I still don't think Trump and his supporters engaged in treasonous actions. Under your interpretation, of which you are so certain, half of the Country is either a traitor or a supporter of Trump's treasonous efforts. Ok, you tried that argument during the election and it didn't work. So what now - permanent division? - how can you possibly associate with and live alongside 50% of the Country whom you consider to be traitors?

As far as the Georgia action, the exact quote by Trump to Raffensperger in the context of a lengthy phone conversation was: "So look. All I WANT TO DO is this. I JUST WANT to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have...." You interpret Trump to be saying - you SOS illegally manufacture votes so that I can win the election. Trump's statement could certainly be interpreted differently to have a far less nefarious intention. We all know he talks in that bombastic manner all the time ("Russia if you're listening...") but you always literally interpret his words and immediately assign bad intent.

Plus, IF an action were to be brought it should have been by the DOJ since it was a federal election and NOT by some random County DA. That's one of the reasons our side thinks it was lawfare. And you see what you get: an out-of-her-league DA who completely screwed up the case by paying lover boy and then arguably lied about the relationship. Her office is now the laughingstock of the Country. Face plant.

1. appeal to popularity is an argumentative fallacy. it is not actually relevant to this discussion whether or not voters agree (and you dont even know if they do).
2. there is no way to interpret trump's words as anything but begging for manufacturing votes. that call was on january 2. the vote had long been certified. there had been recounts. the electors were appointed and had voted. everything was finished.

the only way to "find" votes at that point was to manufacture them. or are you so dense that you don't understand euphemisms? you must really have trouble following mafia movies. when a character refers to an offer he can't refuse, it's not a generous offer. its actually a threat. maybe you had real trouble with the godfather.

3. you don't understand jurisdiction at all, do you? a crime that occurs in a state is within the states jurisdiction to prosecute. if a person sits in georgia and calls people in new york in an attempt to defraud them, georgia can and will prosecute.

4. um, doj did bring an action. should we add concurrent jurisdiction to the long list of things you do not understand?

 

[UNCatTech]

Many on your side think there is only one interpretation of the Trump team's post election efforts leading up to J6: TREASON. That's your interpretation but about 50% of the Country disagrees with you and re elected that very man to office.

I stopped reading here because I just don't agree.

On Jan 7th, many many people talked about what happened and no one talked about it in a positive light.

Then the trump campaign spent almost the next 4 years rebranding what happened.

Just because the cult was able to change the narrative doesn't change what happened. It just reaffirms what we already knew about those most suspectable to the cults, and conspiracy theories, the QAnon's of the world. It really shows more how easily manipulated a majority of people are than it shows a differing of opinion as the opinion in the weeks follow were pretty aligned that it was a horrible day in the history of the country. trumps approval numbers fell to one of his lowest points. Successful rebranding and a follower's mentality doesn't change that.

And we know they are followers as most of them go to church every Sunday begging for a King, a Lord, a Savior, anyone to lead them so they don't have to lead themselves.

 

[superrific]

I am questioning whether or not COVID justified the actions that were taken such as lockdowns, termination of employment, discharge from the military, disallowing of gathering in groups, attempted massive government overreach, etc.

i have the answer for you: ask the people who have spent their lives managing people in these situations. if the military thought that covid justified those actions, that should be the end of the story as far as you are concerned. you literally have no knowledge that could lead to an opposite conclusion. you do have never ending bullshit, i will give you that.

the single worst thing about you as a poster, and it mirrors the single worst thing about the american public, is your assumption that your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's, that your opinion is important, and that you should be in the position of making judgments you cant possibly understand. stop. the. bullshit.

did you ever watch cheers? did you look at cliff clavin and say, "thats who i want to be when i grow up?" if you did, you succeeded dramatically and i salute you.

 

[UNCatTech]

As far as the Georgia action, the exact quote by Trump to Raffensperger in the context of a lengthy phone conversation was: "So look. All I WANT TO DO is this. I JUST WANT to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have...." You interpret Trump to be saying - you SOS illegally manufacture votes so that I can win the election. Trump's statement could certainly be interpreted differently to have a far less nefarious intention. We all know he talks in that bombastic manner all the time ("Russia if you're listening...") but you always literally interpret his words and immediately assign bad intent.

So, where did he expect to "Find" those votes, since they didn't exist?

He wants to find enough votes to change the results of the election in that state. To not interpret that to be asking someone to fabricate enough votes for him to win, then the one interpreting has to be under the cult influence of Savior Trump.

And what does he mean is one more than we have? It's one more than they need. They don't have them, or they wouldn't be searching for them.

 

[UNCatTech]

i have the answer for you: ask the people who have spent their lives managing people in these situations. if the military thought that covid justified those actions, that should be the end of the story as far as you are concerned. you literally have no knowledge that could lead to an opposite conclusion. you do have never ending bullshit, i will give you that.

the single worst thing about you as a poster, and it mirrors the single worst thing about the american public, is your assumption that your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's, that your opinion is important, and that you should be in the position of making judgments you cant possibly understand. stop. the. bullshit.

did you ever watch cheers? did you look at cliff clavin and say, "thats who i want to be when i grow up?" if you did, you succeeded dramatically and i salute you.

While I believe you may be a little hard on Zen, that Cliff joke is funny.

Cliff the role model, who knew....

 

[ZenMode]

It's interesting how a simple google search brings back so many positive articles of the lockdowns helping to save lives.

Now, there is also information that talks about the cost, both financially and emotionally/mentally. Which I do see. So, I guess the question is was it worth it. I'm sure most opinions are strongly influenced by their personal experience.

For my family, we are still dealing with the mental impact to our youngest daughter who was sent home from school in the middle of 9th grade and never had a "Normal" year of high school. At the same time, I had no family or friends to die from COVID. (I did know people that died from COVID or COVID related illnesses.) All in all, I believe we had the best outcome possible based on the information we had at the beginning and how we worked to find a vaccine and keep our medical infrastructure from collapsing.

COVID-19 lockdowns significantly reduced transmission of invasive bacterial diseases

Study suggests COVID-19 lockdowns reduced the spread of deadly invasive bacterial diseases – potentially saving thousands of lives. Diseases caused by invasive bacteria, including pneumonia, meningitis, and sepsis, are leading causes of illness and death worldwide, especially among children and...

pubmlst.org

Exactly. Lockdowns undoubtedly slowed the spread and, as a result, undoubtedly saved some number of lives. The question you brought up is whether or not the cure was worse than the disease. That's the ultimate question and everyone's going to have their opinion based on their individual experience, what information they read or heard and based on their politics.

I look at the cure that was implemented across the country, and I didn't even include the impact to school children and I don't think that cure was justified by the disease. In fact, if we are ever in an situation, with a virus with identical characteristics, I think government at all levels would do things differently. I don't think you would have full lockdowns and closure of businesses. I think you would have distancing requirements, capacity limitations and other modifications to make it as safe as possible. If there was a closure of businesses, I think it might be in specific, populous areas like New York City. I don't think school age children would be forced to wear masks, specifically because of the considerable negative impact on young children as it relates to learning to speach development....to name a few.

 

[TitanNC]

Oh, we vaccinate LOTS of people without economy-crushing lockdowns, discharging our military personnel, forcing the closure of small businesses, disallowing people from gathering with family and friends, etc.

The science behind immunology is different from all of that.

I think about those early days of the pandemic and I always think back to the utter lack of leadership we were receiving from the Trump administration. If he had just provided servant/sacrificial leadership we have gotten through it so much better. One day, years from now, his legacy will be the increased deaths due to his lack of leadership. Even the good that happened - getting the vaccines out in incredible time - was messed up because he didn’t tamp down the anti-vax stuff spewed by his followers.

 

[TitanNC]

Oh?

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/13/trump-crimes-poll-voters-00152110

Looks to me like a bunch of people voted for Trump despite thinking he committed serious crimes. Congrats, I guess. Doesn’t make you any more qualified to carry a law license.

This is what is so disturbing to me. I think many, if not most, absolutely believe he did it and meant do it and they are ok with it. And, I know that if they are ok with that then it is not too much of a stretch to believe the even worse things they will be ok with him doing/leading/causing.

 

[Ramrouser]

Define what it means to be “Woke.”
Y, it’s
I want to set the parameters of how ignorant you truly are before I waste time trying to engage with you.

Sorry I missed this earlier. You and everyone here knows exactly what is meant by “woke” circa 2024. I don’t want to engage in some academic argument concerning the origins of the term by AAs in the 1920s. Today, the term reflects the never ending virtue signaling of people on the left who want to impress others on the left: Announcement of pronouns; land acknowledgements; terms such as birthing people; men can menstruate and give birth; yards signs proclaiming liberal slogans; pretending an in tact 6 foot two dude in a girls bathing suit is a woman; a guy dressed up as Audrey Hepburn selling Bud Light during a football game; Pelosi and Schumer kneeling in the Capital in African dress; and Latinx. Woke is trying to prove that you are sufficiently and appropriately “correct” on all the latest social and cultural issues notwithstanding common sense. Bill Maher says that this “stupid shit” causes people too vote for Trump even if they don’t particularly like him.

Even the Dems recognize that their failure to “talk like normal people” is hurting them with working class voters. AOC even removed her pronoun announcements from her social media accounts.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

This is what is so disturbing to me. I think many, if not most, absolutely believe he did it and meant do it and they are ok with it. And, I know that if they are ok with that then it is not too much of a stretch to believe the even worse things they will be ok with him doing/leading/causing.

The great majority of white Southern voters were OK with legalized segregation and Jim Crow for generations, and proved it by voting to support the politicians who upheld it over and over again. Defending racial segregation and Jim Crow was a cornerstone of Southern politics from the end of Reconstruction through the 1960s. That is only one example of a clear majority of American voters in at least one section of the country supporting terrible, inhumane, awful policies that clearly harmed other people - and yet the great majority of voters did it anyway, and for decades.

The notion that if a majority of voters support or oppose something that it automatically justifies or validates whatever they support or oppose is simply false. The "people" are not always right, morally or legally, in many cases. So the argument that just because about half the country wishes to believe that the J6 insurrectionists didn't do anything treasonous or wrong that they didn't is simply false, and that's a poor argument to use.