[Winstonm]

Trump alone would not be such a problem but he is only a piece of a global war on liberal democracies using modernized disinformation techniques.

[blackshoe]

A million Americans have died from Covid. 110 million Americans had it and recovered.

[pilowsky]

 blackshoe, on 2024-May-11, 00:03, said:

A million Americans have died from Covid. 110 million Americans had it and recovered.

It's unclear what point you're trying to make, but the excess mortality from COVID19 in the USA is worse than any other comparable country.
This link shows the cumulative excess mortality in the USA compared with similar developed countries with reliable reporting.
There are many reasons for this, but a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome (obesity, hypertension, bad lipids and type 2 diabetes) along with resistance to vaccination and the need to work when sick are three contributing factors.

Also, using 110M Americans as the denominator in your thinking is flawed.
Every American was exposed to the virus with many having a sub-clinical (had it but didn't know it) infection, or had it but didn't report it.

Your numbers would suggest a case fatality rate of just under 1%. it's probably much lower but the real question is, How many fewer than a million would have died if the USA was not being "governed" by a real estate agent and his children who tossed aside the pandemic preparedness plan produced by the Obama administration?

[pescetom]

 pilowsky, on 2024-May-11, 01:17, said:

It's unclear what point you're trying to make, but the excess mortality from COVID19 in the USA is worse than any other comparable country.
This link shows the cumulative excess mortality in the USA compared with similar developed countries with reliable reporting.

Thanks, that is a very interesting link.
If you include the principal European countries is it evident that Italy, Spain and particularly UK had a further surge of excess mortality during 2023 unparalleled in other countries.
No real idea what that is about (both Italy and Spain have a lot of old people and climate change problems) but it is certainly reflected by direct experience (my bridge club in northern Italy had 3 deaths 2016-2019, 7 in 2020-2023 of which 3 in the last year).

[kenberg]

I agree that the link is interesting. It is always wise to take care with statistics but thay can also be useful Here is something that interests me. Of course during covid it would be especially in the older age groups that the number of deaths would rise a lot from what had been predicted before covid. Within this older group, they coul look at whether the increase was particularly strong in eldercare facilities. Throughout my adult life I have read many hews reports on the failings of healthcare facilities for the aged. It's a tough job, of course, I get that, but often the care falls really short. There were disturbing news items during covid about local healthcare facilites and my thoughts were that many of the problems were chronic and wides[pread.

As I say, we have to be careful in drawing conclusions from statistics, we really do, but I would like to see what qualified people who are interested nn truth might be able to find.

My wife Becky and I are happily living independenly at home, I have friends happily living in various arrangements for the aged, so it's not all bad, of course not. ButI am pretty sure that there is a lot of room for improvement.

[PassedOut]

As today is Memorial Day in the US, it's fitting to remember the many soldiers who died in WWII to protect us all from people like Donald Trump. One of those was my uncle Sigurd Lindseth, an Ensign in the Navy. Aside from my mother, he was the only one of her siblings to survive to adulthood.

In his last letter to his folks--our grandparents--he wrote "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas." My mother was a professional musician and my dad a pretty good amateur, so music was a big part of our lives when my siblings and I were growing up. Every Christmas our grandparents would join us for dinner and music, and after a while our grandfather would request "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas." Mom would play our piano, dad would play our organ, and we'd all sing while tears streamed down our grandfather's face.

My dad survived heavy fighting in the Battle of the Bulge and Constance's dad survived many missions as a pilot in WWII. But many of their friends and buddies didn't make it home.

Lots to think about today.

[mycroft]

The mean "felonies per U.S. President" ratio has gone up to 0.74 (0.76 if you consider Cleveland as one president). Commiserations to all U.S. presidents and ex-presidents who are now below average.

[pilowsky]

TRUMP GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS

• Donald Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal that threatened his ascent to the White House in 2016.
• He is the first American president to be declared a felon, a stain he will carry as he seeks to regain the presidency.

Shannon and colleagues reported on the growth of the number of US citizens with a felony conviction.

Quote

We estimate that 3 % of the total U.S. adult population and 15 % of the African American adult male population has ever been to prison; people with felony convictions account for 8 % of all adults and 33 % of the African American adult male population.

[kenberg]

I keep looking for something where people of various views might still be willing to agree. Here are a couple of thoughts about the Trump trial.

1. People with lots of money have access to very expensive lawyers. The result is that they can get away with stuff that you and I would go to jail for. Trump has been convicted by a jury of 12. These 12 people are not relatives of Joe Biden, not paid by Joe Biden, or anything like that. I was once on a jury for a criminal trial. The 12 of us took our responsibilities very seriously. We made sure we understood what the relevant law was, what the defendant was accused of, and we carefully discussed the evidence. In our case, we found the defendant innocent.In Trump's case, he was found guilty. It seems to me that if Trump's talented and high priced legal team could not convince even one of the jurors that Trump should be found innocent, then we should all be willing toagree that Trump did indeed agree that he broke the law that he was accused of breaking. If Trump advocates wish to claim that breaking the law was no big deal, they can argue that. But claiming that the trial was sme sort of hoax? No. I can imagine that some guy with limited funds for legal help might end up wrongly convicted but for a guy with Trump's wealth and legal help, if the jury says that yes he broke the law that he was charged with breaking, then yep, the odds are very very high that he did. Note that all the defense had to do was to convince one juror that the evidence was not good enough to find him guilty, they did not have to convince anyone that he could not possibly had done it. In the case I was on, we thoought the guy was not a good guy, we just thought that the prsecution failed to convince us he had done what he was charged with. He might of done so, but you do not convict on might have. With Trump, twelve jurors were convinced he did as charged.

2. About this weaponizing of the legal system. As I recall, in 1916 Trump rallies often involved chants of "Lock her up". Forget, for a this second point of mine, the validity of the charges then and now. What I think we should all be able to agree on is that a guy who leads his followers in chanting "Lock her up" has forfeited the right to lodge a political complaint about the law coming after him.

So that's my two cents worth on what we should all agree on. If a high priced legal team can't convince at least one of the twelve jurors that their client has been wrongly charged then the tiral was not rigged, and if a guy leads his followers in chanting "Lock her up" then we should not take his complaints about politically motivated charges seriously.

It seems we cannot agree on what day of the week it is, so my thoughts are probably hopeless. But, to me, these two items are clearcut.

[pilowsky]

 kenberg, on 2024-June-01, 11:50, said:

Trump's talented and high priced legal team

Well, you're half right.

[kenberg]

 pilowsky, on 2024-June-01, 16:29, said:

Well, you're half right.

Well, yeah. They didn't end up looking so good. But that's the Trump story. Anyone who gets involved with him in any way ends up looking bad.
My post referred to a couple of things that I think are so bvious everyone should be able to agree. And maybe they do. I have always thought that this is a third: No one with any sense or desire to keep their respectability should ever work for Trump, do business with Trump, sit at a table with Trump. He is a walking disease. Spend time with him, you regret it.

[thepossum]

When the key prosecution witness is a convicted lawyer it could have gone either way
With all due respect your Honour

I am sure people will choose how important they think the whole matter really is - not for me to express an opinion at all

All this to cover up a "scandal" that could have stopped Trump being elected

[pilowsky]

 thepossum, on 2024-June-01, 20:33, said:

When the key prosecution witness is a convicted lawyer it could have gone either way
With all due respect your Honour

Well yes, but the crime he was convicted of was "... and, in 2016, caused $280,000 in payments to be made to silence two women who otherwise planned to speak publicly about their alleged affairs with a presidential candidate, thereby intending to influence the 2016 presidential election."

So if Cohen was convicted of it the real question is why did it take 6 years for the actual beneficiary of the crime to be charged?

[Winstonm]

 thepossum, on 2024-June-01, 20:33, said:

When the key prosecution witness is a convicted lawyer it could have gone either way
With all due respect your Honour

I am sure people will choose how important they think the whole matter really is - not for me to express an opinion at all

All this to cover up a "scandal" that could have stopped Trump being elected

The key to the conviction was not the one witness but the mountains of documented evidence of wrongdoing.

[Winstonm]

 pilowsky, on 2024-June-01, 21:31, said:

Well yes, but the crime he was convicted of was "... and, in 2016, caused $280,000 in payments to be made to silence two women who otherwise planned to speak publicly about their alleged affairs with a presidential candidate, thereby intending to influence the 2016 presidential election."

So if Cohen was convicted of it the real question is why did it take 6 years for the actual beneficiary of the crime to be charged?

Two words: Bill Barr

[johnu]

 pilowsky, on 2024-June-01, 21:31, said:

So if Cohen was convicted of it the real question is why did it take 6 years for the actual beneficiary of the crime to be charged?

As Winston notes, Bill Barr. Michael Cohen was under active investigation in early 2018 (BTW, this was by a Trump appointed district attorney in the southern district of NY (SDNY) which covers Manhattan. The SDNY found that Cohen did his dirty work for and by the direction of Trump. But instead of then prosecuting Trump, the SDNY was told by Bill Barr, the Attorney General and head of DOJ which SDNY reports to, to remove Trump's name from any investigations and documents, and to shut down further investigations. Thus Trump was included in the paperwork only as "'Individual-1". This was all done in secret by Barr and the DOJ. That was the end of any federal investigation of Trump on the Stormy Daniels matter.

When New York showed interest in investigating Trump, the Trump DOJ told them to stay out of the way of the DOJ because it was a Federal case (they didn't tell NY that the DOJ had no intention of investigating Trump), so New York deferred. And when Biden took office on January 20, 2021, his AG Merrick Garland bent over backwards to avoid prosecuting Trump and his fellow unindicted criminals to avoid the appearance of political retribution. So Trump skated on any number of possible criminal investigations and indictments because Biden's DOJ wanted to appear to be fair beyond reproach (totally unlike Trump who has promised to the DOJ and FBI as his personal revenge gang). So when Cy Vance, the previous NY district attorney saw what the DOJ was up to, and that Garland didn't plan to pursue investigating Trump, he sped up NY's previous work in investigating Trump, and this was later in 2021. But Vance retired, and Bragg replaced him and decided there wasn't enough evidence at that time to indict a former president. The investigation continued and when Bragg decided there was enough to indict, Trump was indicted in April 2023, so about 4 1/2 years after Michael Cohen was indicted. Yes, there is a two tiered system of justice in America, one for ordinary citizens, and one for the richest and most powerful people in the country. And believe it or not, the rich and powerful are not held to the same standards as ordinary people.

[johnu]

 kenberg, on 2024-June-01, 11:50, said:

2. About this weaponizing of the legal system. As I recall, in 1916 Trump rallies often involved chants of "Lock her up". Forget, for a this second point of mine, the validity of the charges then and now. What I think we should all be able to agree on is that a guy who leads his followers in chanting "Lock her up" has forfeited the right to lodge a political complaint about the law coming after him.

And in some shameless gaslighting (even for Trump), Trump is currently claiming he never said "lock her up", in spite of doing exactly that dozens or even hundreds times in front of cameras where the footage was shown on national TV and film clips and anybody with a TV or phone/computer hooked to the internet would probably have seen him saying exactly those words.

[kenberg]

 johnu, on 2024-June-03, 16:43, said:

And in some shameless gaslighting (even for Trump), Trump is currently claiming he never said "lock her up", in spite of doing exactly that dozens or even hundreds times in front of cameras where the footage was shown on national TV and film clips and anybody with a TV or phone/computer hooked to the internet would probably have seen him saying exactly those words.

I read somewhere that Trump perhaps only said "She should go to prison" and it was only his fans that shouted the exact wrods "Lock her up". I can't say with confidence if this or is not the case but really the point is who the hell cares about this distinction. Trump probably never said "Kill Mike Pence", all he did was summon his followers to D.C, rile them up, tell them they had to go down to the Capitol and stop the certification of the fake election. You know. Just a typical tourist event.


Common sense has left the room.

All of my life I have had friends who were more conservative than I am and other friends who were more liberal than I am. Not that it is one dimensional anyway. But this garbage Trump spouts is not conservative, it's total trash. I wish the media would stop calling it "far right". It's far nuts. Trump doesn't have a conservative aganda, he has a revenge agenda. He is very angry and he intends to do a great deal of harm. He has made that clear, just as ha made it clear she should be locked up, aka go to prison, and just as he made it clear his followers shoould storm the Capitol.

We are in deep stuff. Seriously dangerous. We had better start crawling out.

[johnu]

 kenberg, on 2024-June-03, 19:42, said:

I read somewhere that Trump perhaps only said "She should go to prison" and it was only his fans that shouted the exact wrods "Lock her up". I can't say with confidence if this or is not the case but really the point is who the hell cares about this distinction.

You probably read that in a right fringe article someplace that is contributing to the gaslighting. I personally saw clips of Trump at various rallies leading the crowd in "lock her up" chants, and IIRC, he also said that during the debates. There are plenty of clips on youtube and other sources where he can be clearly seen and heard.

What's more frightening is that Trump is on video promising to unleash the DOJ and FBI on his "enemies", which would totally demolish the already shaky rule of law in this country with QOP supreme court justices blatantly ignoring actual laws and precedents, and actively ignoring conflicts of interest, seeking expensive gifts from billionaires who have cases before the court, so that they can issue rulings that agree with their political views, or the paid views of their patrons.

[kenberg]

 johnu, on 2024-June-03, 20:58, said:

You probably read that in a right fringe article someplace that is contributing to the gaslighting. I personally saw clips of Trump at various rallies leading the crowd in "lock her up" chants, and IIRC, he also said that during the debates. There are plenty of clips on youtube and other sources where he can be clearly seen and heard.

What's more frightening is that Trump is on video promising to unleash the DOJ and FBI on his "enemies", which would totally demolish the already shaky rule of law in this country with QOP supreme court justices blatantly ignoring actual laws and precedents, and actively ignoring conflicts of interest, seeking expensive gifts from billionaires who have cases before the court, so that they can issue rulings that agree with their political views, or the paid views of their patrons.

I'm pretty sure it was either the Washington Post orthe New York Times. I subscribe to both. And I watch the PBS Newshour. I do sometimes read conservative columnists, for example george Will in the Washington Post, but he is defnitely not a Trumpee, and it wasn't there that I read it. Maybe I will try ChatGPT and see if it can find a clip of Trump sayiing "Lock her up". My point was that it really doesn't matter. He had rallies with his supporters going on and on with "Lock her up", he clearly favored it, whether he did or did not at some oint say those exact words himsrlf us not the issue, or at least not the issue for me. He advocated putting her in prison, just as he advocated what happened on Jan 6. And now he seeks revenge. Anyone who is not totally branwashed can see that Trump's primary, perhaps sole, motivation now is revenge. He makes it very clear. I hope that there are enoug people out there that conclude no matter there overall politcal views, that we should not elect someone who is stuck in a need for revenge. Doing so will not end well.


Added: I fiund the WaPo link as to what Trump said and did not say.

https://www.washingt...on-lock-her-up/

It includes some clips where the people are chanting and he expresses agreement. There is no clip of him joining in the chants. But again, that's hardly the point. He did say she should go to prison and he clearly encouraged the chants. This makes his complaint about politically motivation prosecution absurd. One big difference berween then and now is that he was convicted. Twelve jurors, none beholden to Joe Biden unaminously, found him guilty. That matters.