Families Grieve: Biden Checks His Watch https://uncoverdc.com/2021/08/31/families-grieve-biden-checks-his-watch/
This is such a fascinating situation as the man now in power was one Trump shook hands with and among the soldiers that occupy the capital are the prisoners Trump released, and the entire withdrawal was something Trump negotiated and then bragged that Biden couldn't stop. But everyone on the right blames Biden now that it has occurred. Now, I am not suggesting Biden has no responsibility, but it's strange to me that not long ago people who were still praising Trump for getting us out of Afghanistan have suddenly forgotten how instrumental Trump was to this whole thing.
What's fascinating is the callous disregard for human life, but maybe "Sleepy Joe" was late for his afternoon nap? While the withdrawal was inevitable how it was handled is his responsibility. As you seem to enjoy graphs perhaps find one for the stock prices for the major defense contractor's, pre and post Afghanistan - the only winners in this debacle.
I never understood why people criticize him for looking at the watch it's really not a big deal Criticize him for the death of the soldiers fine I feel they only doing it to get a catchy headlines and completely misleading. Ps The article didn't even state that the IS was responsible for the attack so your article is just not credible
I think just about everything about the Afghanistan debacle is bad. Bush put us in a war we had no business being in. Obama kept us there even after Osama was killed and he could have called "mission accomplished". Trump kept us there, then made a deal to get out. Biden got us out, later than what Trump had agreed to, and with a messy exit. Twenty years and a lot of money wasted.
Perhaps not to someone like you, but it is to the families who lost their kids. He didnt just check it once but at least 5 times as each casket was unloaded. The point isn't which group killed them but that the man responsible for their death's showed such indifference. You're incredible if you can't comprehend this. It disrespects the sacrifice they made for the country by their commander-in-chief !
The sad fact is it was all avoidable, with far less cost, if the one person who could have united Afghanistan had been given the support he requested. Ahmad Shah Massoud the "Lion of Panjshir" warned of an imminent terrorist attack on US soil and was assassinated just two days before 9/11
Pretty much. Just another of example of creating the problem and then failing at fixing it. I guess I find the descriptor "callous disregard for human life" hyperbolic rhetoric. I mean, compared to Senators who listened to briefings about COVID-19 and then instead of doing something about it, sold stock because they knew the economy was about to crash - looking at a watch seems hardly like anything to write home about (especially since we don't even know what he was actually looking at). I put this in the category of "did he hold the umbrella for his wife" and "does he have a dog" and "what mustard does he use" type of "scandals." I agree it's not a good look from a PR perspective, but personally, I care about more about actual impacts of real world policies (such as the ones that sent our troops there in the first place?), and not nonsense of this sort. It seems to me that it was always going to be messy - the underlying conditions that gave this result doesn't seem like they could be dramatically changed based on how we withdrew considering how long the underlying conditions have been brewing. In other words, it was a time bomb for whichever President the withdrawal would have happened under. At the same time, I highly doubt Biden was the one who sat and drafted the plan, though he certainly has the power to veto it, but it seems reasonable that the joint chiefs and other military strategists and advisors all had a hand in it, so putting it all on the President seems problematic even if one had specific criticisms of the plan that was valid. (So far though, all I have seen is mostly armchair military strategists using hindsight and results oriented fallacies to justify generic criticisms, with no way of proving or substantiating that they would have actually done it better. Similar to how the Monday after Football on Sunday always results in many expert coaches and offensive/defensive coordinators blossoming their talents on social media.) You won't see me defending the military industrial complex of the USA. It's the largest jobs program and wealth redistribution scheme on the planet supported by decades of incessant propaganda disguised as patriotism. Talk about "socialism!"
Is it inconsiderate sure is But am I going to shake my fist and say "Oo that Joe Biden what a scum!!" Probably not it's too inane to get angry over it
To add to this, a new study, a RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED trial (comparing what happened to one group where something was different compared to the control group), was just released about masks: https://www.livescience.com/randomized-trial-shows-surgical-masks-work-curbing-covid.html Note that it is still under peer review, but the claim basically amounts to this: An increase of mask use from ~3 out of 100 people to ~30 out of 100 people reduced COVID symptomatic rates by about 10% (13.6% for surgical masks and 8.5% for cloth, more details below). The authors believe the reduction would be higher at higher rates of mask use, which make logical sense. The study was done across a number of villages and involved over 300,000 people. It's important to note that this difference was largely seen with Surgical Masks (such as these, which have ~45-55% filtration efficacy): They did not find a strong effects with cloth masks, which they also tested separately - these have a 37% filtration efficacy. They wanted to a 60% version, but this was not available at the scale needed. It's reasonable to assume that the 60% version would have performed more similarly to the surgical masks. There are other possible explanations other than the masks though, such as the fact that education about masks and COVID-19 may have caused non-mask related behavior changes. Still, it's the biggest study we have of wide spread mask use and its effects - in an area of study where we were largely limited to observational studies instead of randomized trials - so it's pretty nice to have another data point to consider.
No one took me up on this, so I will explain. Here's the original claim again: Delta Deaths vs Delta Cases Vaccinated (2 doses): 224 vs 28773 (0.78%) Unvaccinated: 165 vs 121402 (0.1%) Certainly looks damning - if the vaccines work, how can the vaccinated have a higher death rate from the Delta variant? Vaccinated people are dying at almost 8 times the rate as unvaccinated people! Clearly, this means the vaccine doesn't work and may be making things worse, right? The problem is that looking at data like this, you need to know what the population makeup is - because if there are differences in the population - then that is a confounding factor that may actually impact the results. This is one of the potential problems with observational studies (unlike designed studies, which can hold more variables constant). So in this case, what IS the explanation? If you look at the full data that was presented, it shows a few things: 1 - The % of 50+ in the vaccinated population is nearly 50%, compared to just 2% of those not vaccinated (and we know that the elderly are more at risk of COVID) 2 - The overall number of unvaccinated people infected with Delta in 4.5 times as much as vaccinated 3 - Among the 50+ vaccinated, the mortality rate was 1.6%, while it was 5.6% in the unvaccinated. 4 - Among the under 50 vaccinated, the mortality rate was 0.026%, while in the vaccinated it was 0.029%. The reason that there are more deaths as a % of cases among the vaccinated isn't because the vaccine doesn't work - it's that those vaccinated has a radically different demographic than those who weren't vaccinated. Specifically, there was a lot more 50+ people in the vaccinated group, while there being relatively few of such individuals. Since we know that older people are at a higher risk, and vaccination efforts have focused on older people - so this difference makes sense. Comparing like groups (by age), we see that the vaccinated population has a lower mortality rate in BOTH 50+ and under 50 (though under 50 is basically the same), despite the fact that on the aggregated, the vaccinated group has the higher rate. Delta Deaths vs Delta Cases 50+ Vaccinated (2 doses): 220 vs 13427 (1.6%) 50+ Unvaccinated: 131 vs 2337 (5.6%) Under 50 Vaccinated (2 doses): 4 vs 15346 (0.026%) Under 50 Unvaccinated: 34 vs 119063 (0.028%) So the truth is that despite what the aggregate data says, for those most at risk of COVID death (50+), the vaccinated mortality rate is much much smaller than those who were unvaccinated. In other words, this is a case of Simpson's Paradox, where in some situations, the difference between subgroups in data can cause an underlying trend to disappear or reverse when you aggregate the data. It's a case of grouping or aggregating data incorrectly and leading to faulty conclusions because you neglected to account for certain variables. This is why sometimes "doing your own research" doesn't cut it if you don't know what you are doing or what questions to ask, especially if it's just a FB post that people liked/shared because they agreed with the conclusion of "vaccine doesn't work."
The problem with your "fascination" is not that there was a withdrawal, but how it was done. It was precipitous, without adequate warning or coordination with allies in the region, it was largely "soldiers first, equipment and civilians second." And it was carried out despite the Taliban breaching their side of the agreement (to be fair, Biden did first by extending the deadline to begin the withdrawal). While there are no doubt people like Cheney on the Right that have been against any sort of pullout, and share your penchant to blame Trump, the main problem was not the pullout in and of itself, but the disastrous way in which it was handled, handing nearly 100B$ worth of equipment to the Taliban or whomever else might have gotten to the abandoned caches and forts is something even Russia wouldn't do, and they were infamous for abandoning civilians to die during a retreat (see: most every invasion of Russia in the 1800-1900's, of which there were many; modern air might make this tactic more difficult if they get invaded again anytime soon... but they also have nukes now so... who knows what would happen). Withdraw citizens, secure or destroy sensitive intelligence, keeping soldiers and equipment in place for the time being, then move out (or destroy, or sell to an ally in the region) excess equipment, then move soldiers with remaining equipment and demolish bases (or sell/lease to regional ally). Simply abandoning them, and without warning to allies, was a large part of why the Taliban was able to take over so quickly, leaving civilians in need of defense while supplying the "enemy" also puts soldiers lives in harms way, at least those that weren't pulled out ahead of time. None of this was part of Trump's plan, indeed, part of the reason for the delay from Biden was because he wanted to scrap Trump's plan and develop a new one... this one. This one which has resulted in supplying the enemy with high tech weaponry (which is a danger for more than just the potential usage, but also the ability to develope countermeasures to the rest of our arsenal), high quality munitions, and a defacto massive hostage sitation and abandoned intelligence about potential spies the US might have left behind and those that colluded with the US and their allies against the Taliban in the past. So yeah... this is definitely on Biden's administration.
You will, however, get upset if someone doesn't wear a mask in Florida's schools. Or if a man that think's he's a woman (or something else entirely) is called "Mister". You can choose your priorities, but they seem kind of messed up to me.
Except that vaccindated people do not get infected less. The current claim is that symptoms of an infection will be less severe if illness develops, but that is different from not being infected (and having the potential for mutation). "Health professionals all over the world" is too vague. Most health professionals, like the two of us, tend to rely on what experts say. So it doesn't really take some high power command structure telling everyone what to do. All it takes is a misrepresentation of information, and for people to not be able to check it (due to lack of equipment, training, time, or political pressure). So health professionals all over the world assume that the PCR test is effective because they've been told it does, they've been given some information to support that hypothesis, etc. "Here's the gene sequence it looks for, as you can see it's similar to SARS1," etc. The problem here is, you have some health professionals with say one thing, and another which counterveil that statement. They're all experts in their field, but they disagree as to the validity of a given study, etc. In this case, the ideal would be that peer review would help resolve these issues... but the reality is that politics gets in the way. Some views are amplified while others are suppressed, often without proper justification. YouTube's CEO for example said explicitly that they would censor anything which went against the WHO and CDC. Despite the fact the WHO is a political orginization to begin with, and that science simply doesn't respect authority. It's based on data and experimentation. Even if the "recognized" medical or science says one thing, it is important to give voice to dissenting opinions and most especially to data. Yet because of politics, there is a tendency to "choose" whichever expert's opinion allies with your own (on all sides of the spectrum mind you) but no proper way to resolve the disparity in data particularly because one side is censored (by varying degrees on varying platforms) and the other is amplified. When you have two people that say opposite, things, how do you determine which (if any) are tellingyou the truth if you are unable to verify the information yourself directly? And if you aren't able to verify it, should people not be allowed to decide themselves which to believe? The fact that people have gotten sick doesn't mean that masks and vaccines work. Indeed, since vaccines have come out, many of those tha are ill are vaccinated against that illness. In terms of using my eyes... "Hospitals overflowing" claims also came with a bevy of footage from hospital workers showing empty hallways and rooms. Indeed, despite a hospital ship and numerous field hospitals that were almost completely empty, New York was "so concerned" about housing their eldery patients that they forced nursing homes (even those not equipped with isolation wards) to take ill patients. The wards and cemetaries aren't full in Florida or other states without mask mandates or even vaccine mandates. While any given region will have different circumstances which modify the effect, the simple truth is that there is not an appreciable difference between such states and nations. Or in some cases there is an increased amount of infection in regions with such mandates. My body, my choice. While I personally don't care if people choose to wear them, I draw the line at requiring people to. And that's the issue most people I've spoken with that are against masks have. That and the prolonged use reducing oxygen intake which can cause problems in some cases (at least one local story included someone that passed out while wearing a mask driving... despite being alone in their vehicle no less). And the potential pathogens that accumulate on the mask (bacteria mostly). If it's less of an issue than that, than why mandate people wear it? Why mandate even vaccinated people wear them if vaccines are so effective? If it's so effective, why didn't the pandemic end in a month or two since mask mandates were put in place in almost every state? That's how it worked in China and that's the model we're using, right? Sure it does, "public health" was the exucse used to push eugenics after all. And hormone therapy could be seen as a public health issue, certainly China thinks it's important to increase masculine hormones in their male soldiers for example. I wouldn't be surprised if mandating hormone therapy to "end white male oppression" eventuall got on the table. We already have the CDC looking in to ways to "stop the pandemic of gun violence" and the White House and Democratic Party in Congress are apparently under the impression that the CDC is allowed to make laws on it's own despite the Supreme Court explicitly ruling against that. Quarantines of a confirmed ill person with a contagious and deadly disease? Sure, I can see that being a governmental decision. Choosing which, when, and how often someone injects something into their body? No. That's not a public health decision. That's tyranny. Especially when the entire premise of it being a "public health" issue rather than a "private health" issue is rooted in the already discarded notion that the vaccine prevents viral transmission. I believe in verified tests. As for Deaths... that statistic is based on the tests, so of course they would align; all the death statistic says is that they died positive near the time of death, not that the disease necessarily caused that death. ICU occupation I have no proper data for at this time, but in terms of specifically COVID ICU usage, the same issue applies. Also, since the tests have started up, positive diagnosis for the Flue virtually disappeared. You're welcome. However, believe or disbelief is at the core this discussion. My beleive in God is an example. I beleive that people should believe in God, that He is a Good God, that He is loving, and that by faith miracles, including miracles of healing have and continue to be done in people's lives. If absolutely nothing else, it is shown that a positive mindset can have a measurable effect on people's improvement of health, and belief in God (but not necessarily adherence to religious practices) tends to encourage a positive mindset. There is also no negative health impact from belief in God (again, not necessarily in adherence to religious practices). So why shouldn't the government mandate this positive thing? I mean aside from liberty of course. But if liberty takes a back seat to "public health concerns" than surely mandating people to believe in God would be a positive step in your world view. I have a feeling that you have no idea what that logical fallacy actually is. But we can leave it at that. I am not particularly attached to convincing you. While that would be nice, I at least want you to think properly about what it is you're really advocating for. Maybe you think it's worth it. I disagree, and for both my sake, and for the sake of everyone else including you, I will continue to fight against your precept that the government should be allowed to mandate people's medical practices, even when it comes to vaccines. Obligation under mortal law does not trump our innate human rights. Indeed, the nation of these United States was primarily (though not perfectly) established under the principle that Government serves to protect the rights already indemic to all human life, and that any government which ignores these, can and should be restrained, or even dismantled in favor of a new government as determined by the People it will govern. “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” — Alexander Hamilton, 1775 "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -Declaration of Independence You may, of course, argue that to "effect [our] Safety" includes being able to force others to take a medication you want them to, even if they are otherwise healthy in such a manner as to pose no risk, or even if it has been demonstrated that said medication does NOT actually provide such safety. However, I disagree, and believe that such broad determination is inherently flawed. After all, such was the rationale behind implementing eugenics in California and other places, so it is not a "slippery slope" to say that there is inherent risk to life, liberty, the persuit of happiness, and that the effecting of our safety can, and is, detrimental rather than positive. Further more, mandates are issued, in most cases, outside of law. They are not laws passed by a representative legislation, but rather dictates issued by the executive branch of a given government. This is in violation of our obligation to Constitutional law, which supercedes all other laws subject to that constitution (so both federal and state constitutions override a given state law, though one state constitution does not override another state's laws).
Yes I would fundumentally mask are essential to ending the pandemic That's just a fact , its not worth risking killing children unless they are hateful parents who want their children dead What I've never said I was anti LGBT , now your just putting me out of context my whole point is i won't get petty there so many times I could easily nitpick Trump actions but didn't
Prove it. Show that masks have actually been fundamental in stopping the pandemic which is obviously still ongoing even in places where people are wearing masks... and has been for over a year. (And does not have significant longterm increase in places that removed such mandates.) Children aren't at significant risk in the first place. If you're going to talk about facts... at least pay attention to them. There is a 99.997% recovery rate for children under 18 (and higher if only looking at under 14). Children are much more likely to die from the Flu... and yet they have not been required to wear masks for this (at least not since the 1918 pandemic, which showed masks didn't work even a hundred years ago). Even many pro-Mask mandate factions believe it is pointless and potentially harmful to require children (especially young children) to wear masks. That said, I'm encouraged by your caring for children and wanting them to live, even if it is in stark contrast to your apparent views on abortion. Wanting to protect a child's life is a good thing... though care should be taken to not cause more harm than good in such efforts. Interestingly, in this instance, I am very much on the side of parent's choice, though you may feel it hypocritical given my stance on abortion. If a parent wants their child to wear a mask, beleiving it will protect them, while I might advise against it I would respect that choice. However, when that choice is taken away (in either direction mind) I would and do stand opposed to such mandates, particularly since they in (almost?) all cases they come from the executive, rather than the legislative, where laws are constitutionally made and agreed upon. The US is not a fuedal system, it is a democratic republic; and there is no exception listed in the Bill of Rights or any other constitutional amendment I'm aware of that says "except in the case of an emergency declared by the state." (closest you get to that is specific enumerated powers in war time, which still don't abridge the Bill of Rights.) I hever said you were anti LGBT. I was saying that you seem more inclined to get angry over someone not respecting a "Trans Womans" preferred pronouns... than Biden's disrespect for soldiers that died serving under his administration. But perhaps that is merely my presumption and it wouldn't really bother you much. I'll take your word for that, and respect it. However my point on this matter had nothing to do with Trump, but rather the apparent inconsistencies of your views. In any event, it is certainly true that Biden's disrespect for the dead is certainly not the greatest of his crimes (indeed, disrespect for the dead is not in itself a crime, nor should it be; no matter if I feel it repugnant).
Not like anything I show would change you mind I don't think you want to be proved wrong https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/coronavirus-outbreak-and-kids Like sure they aren't that affected but we have no idea what affect varients have it better to be proactive
Why not at least try? Here, I'll show you something, though whether it will change your mind will remain to be seen. Here's a paper from the US CDC on how effective masks are according to their information, on March 5th: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm The number they give for a correlation in case reduction across dozens of states... is less than 2% Which means that over 98% of case spread is caused irregardless of mask mandates and usage. Are you saying that's "fundamental" and necessary to stop spread? In medicine, it is NOT better to be proactive. "First, do no harm." "Something might happen" sounds like a good reason, but for all we know, the variants are/will be LESS likely to harm children. I might get a headache later today, but being proactive and taking advil before their's even a problem is not only counter-productive, but can easily lead to a buildup of toxins in my system from over-use of the drug, for example. Diagnose a problem, THEN treat it. Don't assume you're going to be hit by lightning and thus pre-emptively bandage your burns or defibrilate your heart. Likewise, don't take unnecessary measures to stop a disease that hasn't formed yet. EDIT: I just wanted to come back to this momentarily... very view people "want" to be proven wrong. People in general like to think they are right about anything they've formed a conclusion or opinion on, though some hold to them more than others. Ultimately though... if you're not even willing to try to prove me wrong, than by what right can you claim I must follow your instructions to wear a mask anyway? I don't assume you'll follow what I say at a given time simply because I think I'm right. What I want, is to show you I'm right, if possible, or you to show me I'm wrong, if possible. Than we can each make a proper decision based on that. Maybe you'll never change your mind, but at least by trying, at least by supporting my arguments as well as I can... I'm better than someone that says: "just do what I say!" Even if I'm wrong, at least you can have the potential to undertand the reasoning for it. If you want to force me to do something, it is YOU that must prove why it must be forced. It is not on me to prove why it shouldn't. When I argue against abortion for example, I argue based on the simple fact that killing children is wrong. I provide my reasoning and evidence to say why an unborn child is still a child with a distinct life seperate to the mother, not an anomylous tumor or whatever some people envision when they think of an embryo or zygote or what have you. I could just say: "well, they don't want to be proven wrong so why bother." And certainly you and others that agree with you on that issue may never be persuaded by my arguments... but at least then I'm not merely saying: "I think it should be banned and I'm not going to even explain it to you I'm right so what I say goes!" Or some similar foolishness. Anyway, take care of yourself as best you may. Through all this I still wish you well.
I literally already showed it literally on the previous page of this thread. So you would be right. He is asking for something that has ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED and which he conveniently ignores. Like with the voter fraud thing, lack of evidence for his position doesn't deter him from writing paragraph after paragraph of unproven conjecture that has been largely been debunked with verifiable data and objective fact. The fact that his star sources continually fail or even can be shown to prove the opposite of the claims (gas prices and economy under Trump, VAERS, Vaccine court, Lindell, Arizona Audit) also doesn't seem to phase his enthusiasm for his positions.
I said this before and I'll say it again unless we flip over all red states American isn't going to be able to move more than a inch at a time. Only way they can move if atleast 80-90% of the population is on board with similar thoughts. From polls we clearly see republicans want what dems want but they continue to deny and progress by electing idiots. It either the case that they simply don't care and just try to be yes men or they do care but in conflict with themselves
