Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine."

"You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine."

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
235 Posts 17 Posters 6.3k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • taiwan_girlT taiwan_girl

    @Jolly

    I had a long discussion with Horace in the old forum board, but do you really think that the economy is strictly due to President Trump? I did not hear you saying how good President Obama did with stock market employment, etc. were pretty good during his term.

    Most numerical measures at 40 months of their presidency are better for President Obama than for President Trump.

    at this point in their presidents term, who had the better return at the stock market?
    President Trump or President Obama?

    at this point in their presidents term, who had the better positive change in unemployment?
    President Trump or President Obama?

    Now I realize that the reply will be "because Corona!!" And that is true, but............

    My point is this - if a leader (President Trump, President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, etc) is going to talk about how good things are and take credit when things are going well, they also have to step up and take responsibility when things are not going well.

    You cannot say - economy was great until Jan 2020. That is ONLY because of me. Economy doing bad now - that NOT because of me.

    I do add the President Trump is not alone like this. Probably EVERY world leader acts the same. President Obama took too much credit when things went well and was quick to blame others when it did not go so well.

    LarryL Offline
    LarryL Offline
    Larry
    wrote on last edited by
    #174

    @taiwan_girl said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

    @Jolly

    I had a long discussion with Horace in the old forum board, but do you really think that the economy is strictly due to President Trump? I did not hear you saying how good President Obama did with stock market employment, etc. were pretty good during his term.

    Most numerical measures at 40 months of their presidency are better for President Obama than for President Trump.

    at this point in their presidents term, who had the better return at the stock market?
    President Trump or President Obama?

    at this point in their presidents term, who had the better positive change in unemployment?
    President Trump or President Obama?

    Now I realize that the reply will be "because Corona!!" And that is true, but............

    My point is this - if a leader (President Trump, President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, etc) is going to talk about how good things are and take credit when things are going well, they also have to step up and take responsibility when things are not going well.

    You cannot say - economy was great until Jan 2020. That is ONLY because of me. Economy doing bad now - that NOT because of me.

    I do add the President Trump is not alone like this. Probably EVERY world leader acts the same. President Obama took too much credit when things went well and was quick to blame others when it did not go so well.

    The notion that presidents don't have much influence on the economy is a fallacy that's put forth by the party that's in the White House when the economy is not doing well. It can be either party making the claim, but it's usually democrats because usually the economy isn't doing well when a Democrat is in the White House.

    But it's not true. Presidents have a major impact on how the economy performs. As for the argument that they should accept blame when it's bad if they're going to take credit when it's good... it's not that simple. Good or bad depends on why. If the reason for a downturn is due to something out of his control, why should a president take the blame for it?

    X 1 Reply Last reply
    • LarryL Larry

      @taiwan_girl said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

      @Jolly

      I had a long discussion with Horace in the old forum board, but do you really think that the economy is strictly due to President Trump? I did not hear you saying how good President Obama did with stock market employment, etc. were pretty good during his term.

      Most numerical measures at 40 months of their presidency are better for President Obama than for President Trump.

      at this point in their presidents term, who had the better return at the stock market?
      President Trump or President Obama?

      at this point in their presidents term, who had the better positive change in unemployment?
      President Trump or President Obama?

      Now I realize that the reply will be "because Corona!!" And that is true, but............

      My point is this - if a leader (President Trump, President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, etc) is going to talk about how good things are and take credit when things are going well, they also have to step up and take responsibility when things are not going well.

      You cannot say - economy was great until Jan 2020. That is ONLY because of me. Economy doing bad now - that NOT because of me.

      I do add the President Trump is not alone like this. Probably EVERY world leader acts the same. President Obama took too much credit when things went well and was quick to blame others when it did not go so well.

      The notion that presidents don't have much influence on the economy is a fallacy that's put forth by the party that's in the White House when the economy is not doing well. It can be either party making the claim, but it's usually democrats because usually the economy isn't doing well when a Democrat is in the White House.

      But it's not true. Presidents have a major impact on how the economy performs. As for the argument that they should accept blame when it's bad if they're going to take credit when it's good... it's not that simple. Good or bad depends on why. If the reason for a downturn is due to something out of his control, why should a president take the blame for it?

      X Offline
      X Offline
      xenon
      wrote on last edited by
      #175

      @Larry I disagree. And also if you just look at the numbers historically - GDP growth has been higher under Democrat’s.

      But I disagree with the premise.

      LarryL 1 Reply Last reply
      • Doctor PhibesD Doctor Phibes

        @Jolly said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

        Then there is no reason to elect or change leaders of any country, is it? We're all on autopilot and nothing ever makes a difference.

        The main reason to regularly change leaders is to stop them from becoming dictators. We've all seen examples of idealistic people becoming monsters, and in democracies there's a point at which you say of even the best leaders, 'Stick a fork in his ass, he's done'.

        There's also a well known saying about diapers and politicians being changed for the same reason.

        JollyJ Offline
        JollyJ Offline
        Jolly
        wrote on last edited by
        #176

        @Doctor-Phibes said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

        @Jolly said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

        Then there is no reason to elect or change leaders of any country, is it? We're all on autopilot and nothing ever makes a difference.

        The main reason to regularly change leaders is to stop them from becoming dictators. We've all seen examples of idealistic people becoming monsters, and in democracies there's a point at which you say of even the best leaders, 'Stick a fork in his ass, he's done'.

        There's also a well known saying about diapers and politicians being changed for the same reason.

        That's just the flip side of the coin from TG. In her world, national leaders make little difference. In yours, they ascend to ultimate authority and impact.

        “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

        Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

        1 Reply Last reply
        • X xenon

          @Larry I disagree. And also if you just look at the numbers historically - GDP growth has been higher under Democrat’s.

          But I disagree with the premise.

          LarryL Offline
          LarryL Offline
          Larry
          wrote on last edited by
          #177

          @xenon said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

          @Larry I disagree. And also if you just look at the numbers historically - GDP growth has been higher under Democrat’s.

          But I disagree with the premise.

          You can disagree all you want, but it won't change reality. Tell me which Democrat president caused the economy to improve, and I'll tell you what really happened.

          1 Reply Last reply
          • X Offline
            X Offline
            xenon
            wrote on last edited by xenon
            #178

            The U.S. economy does not have a man at the helm pulling levers. To the extent that Congress and the President change the country, it's based on long-term consequences of meaningful legislation and overwhelmingly driven by the energy and talents of Americans.

            Sure, in time of crisis they can have outsized influence.

            Fundamental things like capital formation, incentives to create new businesses, the cost and outcomes of healthcare policy - these things Presidents and Congress definitely shape - but the effects are felt in the long term.

            The fundamentals of a country do not change with a new administration. Hypothetically, you couldn't rotate the government personalities of the UK, Canada and U.S. and start getting American-like economy figures coming out of Canada by putting Trump into place there.

            It's like moving a lumbering ocean liner. You can change the path by a few degrees and change where the ship will end up - but your destination is way off in the future.

            Doesn't it fundamentally go against conservative philosophy to think that one man in the government is in control of our economic destiny?

            1 Reply Last reply
            • RainmanR Offline
              RainmanR Offline
              Rainman
              wrote on last edited by
              #179

              If the president has marginal effect on the economy, then why was just about everyone saying that the economy would crash if Trump were to be elected? Even the night of the election, there was teeth-gnashing about how the dow futures were down hundreds of points, and how this was just the beginning of what was about to happen.
              Was anyone wrong with this prediction? /sarcasm
              How many times have experts been wrong about Trump?

              Doctor PhibesD CopperC 2 Replies Last reply
              • X Offline
                X Offline
                xenon
                wrote on last edited by xenon
                #180

                I'd feel like I'd owe you an explanation if I was the opinion section of the NYT.

                Plenty of real experts that factor the likely effect of government into their business decisions have continued to make gobs of money.

                Also - wouldn't the left be naturally more prone to government-power worship relative to the right?

                Also - isn't the fact that there was a widespread belief that Trump would tank the market upon election (but didn't), more evidence that people put too much stock into the power of the Presidency?

                1 Reply Last reply
                • RainmanR Rainman

                  If the president has marginal effect on the economy, then why was just about everyone saying that the economy would crash if Trump were to be elected? Even the night of the election, there was teeth-gnashing about how the dow futures were down hundreds of points, and how this was just the beginning of what was about to happen.
                  Was anyone wrong with this prediction? /sarcasm
                  How many times have experts been wrong about Trump?

                  Doctor PhibesD Offline
                  Doctor PhibesD Offline
                  Doctor Phibes
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #181

                  @Rainman said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

                  If the president has marginal effect on the economy, then why was just about everyone saying that the economy would crash if Trump were to be elected? Even the night of the election, there was teeth-gnashing about how the dow futures were down hundreds of points, and how this was just the beginning of what was about to happen.
                  Was anyone wrong with this prediction? /sarcasm
                  How many times have experts been wrong about Trump?

                  I'm certainly no expert, but when I saw him on TV about 20 years ago, I said 'That guy's a bit of a twat, isn't he?'

                  I haven't seen anything to make me revise this layman's opinion, except that I'd be willing to concede that I was incorrect in using the qualifier 'a bit of'.

                  Incidentally, this has nothing to do with politics. You may indeed revel in having your country represented by such a man, if such be your predilection. The ends justify the means, after all.

                  I know, I know, we should still respect the orifice.

                  I was only joking

                  CopperC X RainmanR 3 Replies Last reply
                  • RainmanR Rainman

                    If the president has marginal effect on the economy, then why was just about everyone saying that the economy would crash if Trump were to be elected? Even the night of the election, there was teeth-gnashing about how the dow futures were down hundreds of points, and how this was just the beginning of what was about to happen.
                    Was anyone wrong with this prediction? /sarcasm
                    How many times have experts been wrong about Trump?

                    CopperC Offline
                    CopperC Offline
                    Copper
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #182

                    @Rainman said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

                    How many times have experts been wrong about Trump?

                    Every time.

                    We even have a few here, not experts exactly, but wrong every time.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • Doctor PhibesD Doctor Phibes

                      @Rainman said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

                      If the president has marginal effect on the economy, then why was just about everyone saying that the economy would crash if Trump were to be elected? Even the night of the election, there was teeth-gnashing about how the dow futures were down hundreds of points, and how this was just the beginning of what was about to happen.
                      Was anyone wrong with this prediction? /sarcasm
                      How many times have experts been wrong about Trump?

                      I'm certainly no expert, but when I saw him on TV about 20 years ago, I said 'That guy's a bit of a twat, isn't he?'

                      I haven't seen anything to make me revise this layman's opinion, except that I'd be willing to concede that I was incorrect in using the qualifier 'a bit of'.

                      Incidentally, this has nothing to do with politics. You may indeed revel in having your country represented by such a man, if such be your predilection. The ends justify the means, after all.

                      I know, I know, we should still respect the orifice.

                      CopperC Offline
                      CopperC Offline
                      Copper
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #183

                      @Doctor-Phibes said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

                      about 20 years ago, I said 'That guy's a bit of a twat, isn't he?'

                      That is known as occasionally impolite.

                      Doctor PhibesD 1 Reply Last reply
                      • Doctor PhibesD Doctor Phibes

                        @Rainman said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

                        If the president has marginal effect on the economy, then why was just about everyone saying that the economy would crash if Trump were to be elected? Even the night of the election, there was teeth-gnashing about how the dow futures were down hundreds of points, and how this was just the beginning of what was about to happen.
                        Was anyone wrong with this prediction? /sarcasm
                        How many times have experts been wrong about Trump?

                        I'm certainly no expert, but when I saw him on TV about 20 years ago, I said 'That guy's a bit of a twat, isn't he?'

                        I haven't seen anything to make me revise this layman's opinion, except that I'd be willing to concede that I was incorrect in using the qualifier 'a bit of'.

                        Incidentally, this has nothing to do with politics. You may indeed revel in having your country represented by such a man, if such be your predilection. The ends justify the means, after all.

                        I know, I know, we should still respect the orifice.

                        X Offline
                        X Offline
                        xenon
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #184

                        @Doctor-Phibes The doc always explains it with more humor than me.

                        I had a similar experience though. I have a close cousin who LOVED him in the Apprentice in the 2000s and aspired to be a business titan like him. Became obsessed with Wharton.

                        I was always on the other side explaining to him that the guy is just a shyster.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        • CopperC Copper

                          @Doctor-Phibes said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

                          about 20 years ago, I said 'That guy's a bit of a twat, isn't he?'

                          That is known as occasionally impolite.

                          Doctor PhibesD Offline
                          Doctor PhibesD Offline
                          Doctor Phibes
                          wrote on last edited by Doctor Phibes
                          #185

                          @Copper said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

                          @Doctor-Phibes said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

                          about 20 years ago, I said 'That guy's a bit of a twat, isn't he?'

                          That is known as occasionally impolite.

                          Not where I grew up it's not. And bear in mind, 'a bit of a twat' when re-calibrated for the fact that he was appearing on an American chat-show is roughly equivalent to 'What an unbelievable wanker' in the rest of the world.

                          'Occasionally impolite' is somebody who burps during mealtimes and doesn't say 'excuse me'. Not somebody who boasts about banging chicks and spends hours telling us how freaking awesome he is. That's the guy that gets his head pushed down the lavatory while there's a turd still floating in the pan.

                          I was only joking

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          • Doctor PhibesD Doctor Phibes

                            @Rainman said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

                            If the president has marginal effect on the economy, then why was just about everyone saying that the economy would crash if Trump were to be elected? Even the night of the election, there was teeth-gnashing about how the dow futures were down hundreds of points, and how this was just the beginning of what was about to happen.
                            Was anyone wrong with this prediction? /sarcasm
                            How many times have experts been wrong about Trump?

                            I'm certainly no expert, but when I saw him on TV about 20 years ago, I said 'That guy's a bit of a twat, isn't he?'

                            I haven't seen anything to make me revise this layman's opinion, except that I'd be willing to concede that I was incorrect in using the qualifier 'a bit of'.

                            Incidentally, this has nothing to do with politics. You may indeed revel in having your country represented by such a man, if such be your predilection. The ends justify the means, after all.

                            I know, I know, we should still respect the orifice.

                            RainmanR Offline
                            RainmanR Offline
                            Rainman
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #186

                            @Doctor-Phibes
                            I don't disagree at all, although not quite sure of what a twat is. I thought that was a derogatory thing to say about a female. Oh well, not in my lexicon anyway.

                            Where I disagree is where you say, "...this has nothing to do with politics." Seems to me that EVERYTHING is now under this massive tent called Politics, under the auspices of the media. Actually, the sweeping term Politics is about as definable as the term "twat."

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            • 89th8 Offline
                              89th8 Offline
                              89th
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #187

                              5927F763-20C1-4267-81EE-56F00F9567F5.jpeg

                              If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak, according to new estimates from Columbia University disease modelers. And 54,000 had it started two weeks earlier.

                              I wasn’t sure if I should post this here or in the “US has shitloads” thread.

                              So 36,000 to 54,000 lives could’ve been saved, and that is only as of May 3rd.

                              RainmanR CopperC 2 Replies Last reply
                              • 89th8 89th

                                5927F763-20C1-4267-81EE-56F00F9567F5.jpeg

                                If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak, according to new estimates from Columbia University disease modelers. And 54,000 had it started two weeks earlier.

                                I wasn’t sure if I should post this here or in the “US has shitloads” thread.

                                So 36,000 to 54,000 lives could’ve been saved, and that is only as of May 3rd.

                                RainmanR Offline
                                RainmanR Offline
                                Rainman
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #188

                                @89th
                                "If the United States CCP had begun imposing social distancing measures warned the world even one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak, according to new estimates from Columbia University disease modelers. And 54,000 had it started two weeks earlier."

                                Not sure I was able to FIFY to make my point. Have you been able to find, or come across, the effect that would have occured if China had closed down international commercial flights when they closed down their domestic flights from Wuhan?

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                • MikM Offline
                                  MikM Offline
                                  Mik
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #189

                                  The fallacy in 89th's assertion is that the federal government does not impose shutdowns. The states do. Can you imagine if Trump had done that unilaterally? He'd not be just Hitler, but Hitler squared!

                                  “I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill

                                  89th8 1 Reply Last reply
                                  • 89th8 89th

                                    5927F763-20C1-4267-81EE-56F00F9567F5.jpeg

                                    If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak, according to new estimates from Columbia University disease modelers. And 54,000 had it started two weeks earlier.

                                    I wasn’t sure if I should post this here or in the “US has shitloads” thread.

                                    So 36,000 to 54,000 lives could’ve been saved, and that is only as of May 3rd.

                                    CopperC Offline
                                    CopperC Offline
                                    Copper
                                    wrote on last edited by Copper
                                    #190

                                    @89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":

                                    5927F763-20C1-4267-81EE-56F00F9567F5.jpeg

                                    If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak, according to new estimates from Columbia University disease modelers. And 54,000 had it started two weeks earlier.

                                    I wasn’t sure if I should post this here or in the “US has shitloads” thread.

                                    So 36,000 to 54,000 lives could’ve been saved, and that is only as of May 3rd.

                                    If this chart was not politically biased it would tell us how many more would have died if social distancing started a week later

                                    And 2 weeks later

                                    And the title would include "how early action saved lives"

                                    89th8 1 Reply Last reply
                                    • LarryL Offline
                                      LarryL Offline
                                      Larry
                                      wrote on last edited by Larry
                                      #191

                                      Xenon, your knowledge about the economy comes from what you read. Your knowledge of presidents consists of Obama and Bush. I've watched how presidents affect the economy going all the way back to John F. Kennedy. I sat in line at gas stations. I saw the 21 plus % home loans. I saw the mortgage collapse created by the democrats. I saw the economy take off like a rocket under Reagan. I saw Bill Clinton take credit for the economic improvements created by a Republican Congress. So don't tell me about what you read in a book.

                                      X 1 Reply Last reply
                                      • LarryL Offline
                                        LarryL Offline
                                        Larry
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #192

                                        89th, if seat belt laws had been passed prior to the first sale of cars capable of speeds over 25 mph it would have saved more lives. That has just as much truth, and is just as stupid and just as much a piece of worthless information as your chart and your argument.

                                        Hell, lets go back even further... if someone has cut down that apple tree before Eve found it NOBODY would have died...

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        • LarryL Offline
                                          LarryL Offline
                                          Larry
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #193

                                          89th and xenon remind me of an old joke:

                                          Two guys are in a hot air balloon and are lost. So they decide to follow a small river. As they are floating through the air following the little river, they spot a man sitting on the bank, fishing.

                                          One of them yells down to the man fishing "where am i?" The man fishing yells up his answer.. "you're up there!"

                                          The continue to float through the air following the river. The guy who had yelled down to the man fishing said "I hope that accountant has a good day fishing." The other guy asks "how do you know he's an accountant?" The first guy says "by the answer he gave to my question.. it was 100% accurate, and 100% useless."

                                          Doctor PhibesD 1 Reply Last reply
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups