2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Sommerswerd]

Technically we don't have a cure for world hunger until we're producing enough food without degrading ecosystem reserves. After that, it's a distribution problem.

I'm not sure what this first part means.

As for the second part, there's no distribution problem, just recruit the drug cartels.

 

[r16]

there is no way for Trump having a cure for hunger and using it . Would decrease profits .

at a time when New Turkey has become a weapon in Democrat hands , because they don't want America to become New Turkey , this thread is well ... So , as an answer to a post on the back page the meaning of the Halkbank investigations is America can place the PM and all his close associates under sanctions , including seizures of assets . PM can depend on ruling the 17th economy of the world , others would rather abandon him . So , no . Biden will not finish the investigations as long as it suits , Biden would rather have drones bombing Russians or lranians or non Congregation Turkish citizens , instead of listening to 7/24 attacks from New Turkey about , ı don't know , anything .

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not sure what this first part means.

When it comes to global food production, we're currently eating the seed corn. Can't really claim that we're successfully feeding the village if they're eating the seed corn - whether it's well-distributed or not.

 

[Cutlass]

Is Putin a "blowhard"? He always struck me as a speak softly and carry a network of assassins kind of guy.

Or are we talking about the graph showing that Russians like Trump more than folks in other countries?

He does both.

 

[Patine]

Technically we don't have a cure for world hunger until we're producing enough food without degrading ecosystem reserves. After that, it's a distribution problem.

The distribution problem is entirely at the feet of corporate greed and nationalistic trade laws. Effectively, the fault of a tiny minority of the world's population who no one SHOULD have pity for losing a fraction of their immense wealth, influence, and power to keep millions starving.

 

[Sommerswerd]

When it comes to global food production, we're currently eating the seed corn. Can't really claim that we're successfully feeding the village if they're eating the seed corn - whether it's well-distributed or not.

What do you mean by "eating the seed corn", or do you literally mean that globally we consume more corn than we replace by planting? I mean I eat popcorn, but I don't think that's what you mean by eating seed corn.

As a related aside, there is a fantastic Peruvian restaurant near my job that serves roasted corn kernels as an amuse bouche instead of bread. It's kind of like inverted popcorn, because the corn is popped and edible, but still inside the kernel. Its wild. And they serve it with a delicious spicy mustard sauce. @Cutlass if you haven't been, we gotta go there when covid is over.

He does both.

Can you give me an example? Whenever I see him he is sitting down doing the quiet supervillain thing.

 

[Gorbles]

Costs of things such as golfing are peanuts in the whole scheme. Not even a blip on the radar. They may look bad but better that politicians have their leisure paid with public funds than by some oligarch who will get favours, as the former EU head used to do.

Trump will probably leave office much poorer than he went in, at least if he leaves in this election, because of the virus impact's on tourism and hotels. I do wonder how much his denialism and wishful thinking on the virus results from those business interests. It probably does and could be a point used by the opposition against him - except that opposition is equally guilty of the same denialism and wishful thinking. My point though is that if he wasn't president he'd probably be wealthier by 2021 than he'll be in out timeline: would have shamelessly exploited public funding and divested of business without political worries about the image impact of those actions.

As for appointing family and security access... every one? The one that built the current american empire (Roosevelt's) was part run by the wife as the president was so dependent on aid. Reagan ended his term senile. Clinton set up a joing foundation" with Hillary to receive the bribes and they have been busy building their daughter's career. Now there's the unmentionable Biden family deals... and so on. Nepotism has always been a thing.

Imo the one thing really different about Trump is that he's the wizard of Oz without the curtain. Which is also why the Washington DC power elite want in gone asap: he exposes too much and this weakens them because the whole thing depends on theater.

As for fears of a coup in the US: I'm seriously concerned that cumulative incompetence and public anger will open the way to coups in Europe. It's nothing new, the of a dictator when governments fail in some emergency. It is over 2000 years old and never obsolete. But whomever does the coup will not, cannot, be a populist on Trump's mold. The style of that figure always has to be serious. Trump does not fit. The one danger he poses is that his incompetence will open the way for such a figure. The advantage though is that he personally cannot do this coup, and his no curtains mode in Washington makes it very hard for someone else there to position himself to do such a coup. The hole thing being a media show means no one manages to built a "serious guy" aura.
On balance I don't know whether a US with Trump will be more or less resistant to coups. It's anyone's guess. As is the identity of who might pull off a coup.

Costs of golfing isn't just the cost of golfing. It's the POTUS' commitment to office and to leading their country (especially through a time of crisis). Besides, I don't care that you don't care. Your refusal to care is insignificant to the actual comparison between Trump and past Presidents. That's like saying "I don't care about nepotism", it doesn't stop the nepotism being nepotism.

So onto the appointing family thing, ignoring your whole commitment to the fake Hunter Biden news story. Nepotism definitely exists, throughout the general political body of the US (and UK, and likely more countries besides). I gave a very specific, pointed example. I expect specific, pointed examples back. Not "this President arguably went senile and so people literally had to help him do things". Not "FDR was so severely ill he required the help of his wife". I expect similar breaches of security and promoting of unqualified family members. You can hate the Clintons as much as you want to, but both are qualified politicians for the positions they held. They didn't appoint a young family member oversight over one of the most polarising issues in the Middle East (for another example).

I'm not arguing "Trump is bad and everyone else is good". I'm arguing "these are the degrees to which showcase why Trump is arguably worse than what came before, especially backed by a modern extremist, hardline GOP". Bearing in mind the GOP was originally the hardline faction. We're now dealing with the hardline of the hardline.

As usual, though you're not Patine and who I was actually trying to talk to, your vision obscures your opinion. You see the possible end goal of chaos in Washington DC, and thus anything on the path to that is excuseable. It's the same attitude you hold for Brexit; nomatter the harm of what is being done, it's justifiable for the end goal of possibly weakening the EU. I can't argue with that; that's your worldview. I certainly understand it (both in terms of your criticism of US political theatre and the EU, believe it or not), but it absolutely colours every single take you have on both matters.

Well, that the press release claimed that the White House has declared the pandemic over, for one. And then, basically nothing about the underlying report.

The same damn list includes "Understanding our planet" using the same vernacular. We then spin the release to say that the White House has declared "Planet Understood"? No, it's simple reading comprehension. And anyone who reads the press release and then the report would certainly not declare that the White House has (as the article title claims) "White House Declares Pandemic Over"

So, it's terrible. If the headline of an article deceives someone and they have to dig further to figure out that it's a deception, it's bad reporting. Then I read a paragraph or two, and the headline's impression is reiterated AND the White House statement is called 'a lie'.

As usual, there is more useful information and criticism buried deeper in the article. But this trend of clickbait media deceiving people within the first few paragraphs is just terrible. I actually don't figure that the headline and first paragraph are lies until I read the actual press release itself. And then look at the report to see if there's some implication that the press release should be read in a non-obvious way.

The highlights in the press release are a series tasks. Sure, criticize the actions taken (which the article doesn't do, but does notice abscences). But falsely spinning some phrasing quirk with a selective presentation is just ... well, bad reporting.

I'm not sure I understand. I specifically pointed out where the White House claims they, in Trump's first four years, ended the pandemic. It's directly below Ivanka's quote that we both agree isn't quite a smoking gun.

I mean, there's a whole tangent here in headlines and attention spans, which maybe we have some agreement on. But the core premise of the White House making a claim about a pandemic that is most definitely not over is correct. Have I missed something?

 

[Drakle]

In terms of the general election reporting, the general trend is

Sunbelt states will generally start reporting Biden leaning votes first, since early votes, mail in votes and those of urban areas ordinarily get reported first. So Biden could start the night with leads in North Carolina. Florida, Georgia and Texas, which start falling. One race similar is Oklahoma Medicaid expansion, which started the night with a double digit lead, and slimmed to a bare majority.

Meanwhile the critical Rustbelt states, controlled by GOP legislators, have refused to allow counting before Election Day, and other stupid restrictions. And they generally start counting Election Day results first, so Trump could have a early lead, but then be overtaken by Biden.

Of course if Biden is leading in the Rustbelt immediately, or Trump in the Sunbelt, it doesn't mean the race is immediately over. Batches of ballots can be weird, and states have been messing with their procedures and rules. But it isn't a good sign.

My own prediction is that the race gets called either on election night. Or early next morning. Florida would certainly be done or close to done counting by then, likely enough to make a call. And without Florida, Trump has almost no chance. The results from North Carolina, Georga and possibly Texas will also be illuminating.

But if Biden does miss those 4 (I hope not I have money riding on them) than he can still win with a Midwestern sweep, and Arizonia. It would just take longer. But there is scant evidence to show a Trump comeback, and the fundementals are against Trump, and undecided are demographically and by approvals, more likely to break to Biden. I really think the only path left for Trump is some brazen cheating, and heavy lifting by the SCOTUS and GOP state legislatures.

 

[El_Machinae]

What do you mean by "eating the seed corn", or do you literally mean that globally we consume more corn than we replace by planting? I mean I eat popcorn, but I don't think that's what you mean by eating seed corn.

It's a metaphor, and I didn't realize that it wasn't commonly known by basically everyone!

It means that you're eating what you actually need later, the thing that will produce next year's crop. Villages did it to forestall starvation and then .... starved later. In finance, it means dipping too far into your saved capital to fund today's leisure.

We produce a lot of food - but we're currently draining aquifers, over-harvesting fish, skyrocketing CO2, causing extinctions, disrupting the nitrogen cycle, and over-using non-renewables to do so. So, we haven't really 'cured hunger'. We can forestall it by preventing the deaths using non-sustainable solutions. Today's consumption is going to directly cause tomorrows starvation.

People who think we can feed everyone are waaaaaaaay too optimistic, and we cannot really claim success yet.

 

[Cutlass]

What do you mean by "eating the seed corn", or do you literally mean that globally we consume more corn than we replace by planting? I mean I eat popcorn, but I don't think that's what you mean by eating seed corn.

As a related aside, there is a fantastic Peruvian restaurant near my job that serves roasted corn kernels as an amuse bouche instead of bread. It's kind of like inverted popcorn, because the corn is popped and edible, but still inside the kernel. Its wild. And they serve it with a delicious spicy mustard sauce. @Cutlass if you haven't been, we gotta go there when covid is over. Can you give me an example? Whenever I see him he is sitting down doing the quiet supervillain thing.

Like, crap such as this. He's not mindless bombast like Trump. But he is definitely doing the arrogant and aggressive angle.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/1/17066598/putin-speech-missile-nuclear-election

 

[innonimatu]

So onto the appointing family thing, ignoring your whole commitment to the fake Hunter Biden news story. Nepotism definitely exists, throughout the general political body of the US (and UK, and likely more countries besides). I gave a very specific, pointed example. I expect specific, pointed examples back. Not "this President arguably went senile and so people literally had to help him do things". Not "FDR was so severely ill he required the help of his wife". I expect similar breaches of security and promoting of unqualified family members. You can hate the Clintons as much as you want to, but both are qualified politicians for the positions they held. They didn't appoint a young family member oversight over one of the most polarising issues in the Middle East (for another example).

I'm not committed to any "fake news". That Hunter Biden traded on daddy's favors is true. Nothing else can explain the payments he took.
Trump has been more obviously nepotistic than previous presidents, sure. That I think comes from him having arrived there without reliable allies. Evidence of character flaws certainly. But the funny/sad think is that his family appointees do not seem to have been worse than the previous ones. I mean, Trump didn't start any new war. And can even gloat to have formalized the peace between Israel and several arab states (who had already moved into alliance anyway...). Whereas the warlady Clinton started two wars, gloating about the destruction of Libya and fed the jihadists in Syria. I'll take the family member of Clinton over the "competent" underlings of Clinton any day!

But speaking of fake reporting, @El_Machinae is correct in what he pointed out:

I'm not sure I understand. I specifically pointed out where the White House claims they, in Trump's first four years, ended the pandemic. It's directly below Ivanka's quote that we both agree isn't quite a smoking gun.

I mean, there's a whole tangent here in headlines and attention spans, which maybe we have some agreement on. But the core premise of the White House making a claim about a pandemic that is most definitely not over is correct. Have I missed something?

Look at the thing:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-6bc5-d2df-adff-6fdfff5c0000
It does not claim to have ended the pandemic. It claims to have made a series of efforts to end the pandemic. It claims supposed "policies and investments in science and technology to... be ready to solve today's most pressing challenged". In that context it is clear that the things listed below are ongoing challenges. And the claim is not entirely false either, considering the amount of money poured into the vaccine thing. It's only misleading in that much more should have been done. For that and for the other things listed.

But, and this is the point about the bad reporting, nowhere in that press release is the pandemic declared to be over.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Random point, but it seems kind of counterintuitive that Biden/Harris are doing better than Clinton/Kaine with female voters, but worse with black voters. Though I am sure there are good reasons for it.

Intellectually, I realize my single vote is meaningless. My voting address is in the bluest part of the bluest city of the bluest state. It's obvious how my elector will be voting.
Emotionally though, I would like the satisfaction of kicking Herr Trump in the shin.

I applaud your efforts. As Trump may well look to take things to the supreme court if he loses, the more votes he loses by, the harder it will be for the courts to justify over turning results. This may just be my leftwing paranoia. But then again Trump refuses to promises a peaceful transition if he loses, has already tried to undermine peoples trust in the integrity of the election, and has packed the supreme court with ultra conservatives, so maybe not.

Now if we are in a situation where there is no winner declared and Biden is disputing the Ohio result,Trump is disputing the Florida result, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are "too close to call", California and Texas are "too early to call".... yeah... that's gonna be ugly... consider sheltering in place.

Just imagine what will happen if it comes down to Florida, and Biden wins it by around 537 votes!

At least whatever happens we will still have Civilization to play, and if we can't agree on anything on this forum, maybe the one thing we can agree on is that Civilization is great!

 

[Gorbles]

Look at the thing:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-6bc5-d2df-adff-6fdfff5c0000
It does not claim to have ended the pandemic. It claims to have made a series of efforts to end the pandemic. It claims supposed "policies and investments in science and technology to... be ready to solve today's most pressing challenged". In that context it is clear that the things listed below are ongoing challenges. And the claim is not entirely false either, considering the amount of money poured into the vaccine thing. It's only misleading in that much more should have been done. For that and for the other things listed.

But, and this is the point about the bad reporting, nowhere in that press release is the pandemic declared to be over.

Also directed at @El_Machinae, here.

I can see the argument. But as we are literally (and willingly) debating semantics, let's contrast "ending the pandemic" vs. "understanding the planet" in the context of science and technology accomplishments in Trump's first term. The pandemic is a fixed, specific thing. They come and go with time. A pandemic generally has a fixed start, and a fixed end. Understanding doesn't necessarily. It can do. But it can also be a constant process. "ending" cannot be a constant, neverending process. It just can't.

Any claim of ending an ongoing pandemic is a false claim. Because it is, by definition, ongoing. It's not even in the process of being defeated. Especially by the standards both of you are applying to the fact-checking of the Huffington Post, it is completely misleading and incorrect.

 

[El_Machinae]

It specifically pointed out where the White House claims they, in Trump's first four years, ended the pandemic.
...
Have I missed something?

Re-read that press release and notice the format of the highlights.

Did they also complete the understanding of the planet? Complete protecting research enterprises? Complete returning to Space Exploration? Like, these things are done now, and 2021 can have a new list of goals? The pandemic is ended, the planet is understood, hurrah. No! Each item in the list is something that is in process - take out 'ending' (because it's unclear, and the Principle of Charity asks us to see if they're morons) to see how each of the Title Verbs are used in context. Then backtrack to figure out if they're using the verb the same way they're using the other verb.

You can be "ending" something as part of an ongoing process. We're currently ending polio. It's a perfectly valid use of the word and the verb is being used the same way as the other verbs in the list. Humanity is currently Ending Polio, Understanding the Planet, Returning to Space Exploration - and a report could tell you the steps we've taken to do so.

Each thing in that list a statement of direction towards a goal. The report itself then describes steps taken to end the pandemic, steps taken to strengthen leadership, steps taken to understand the planet, steps taken to protect research, and steps taken to return to space. The release is a one-page summary, designed to introduce the actual report. No sane person would read that summary, read the report, and say "oh, the summary said that the pandemic was over, they're liars". No, if you read the report, it describes the steps that are being taken. Back track that onto the reasonable interpretation of the press release, and it turns out that they were using their highlights in a coherent way.

There's a cromulent reading of that press release and one that makes it seem like a moronic lie. Communication is a two-way street. Huffpo takes one verb from a series of Titles - each formatted the same way, and then assumes that the usage of the first verb is different from all the others and that the White House is a moronic liar.

 

[Gorbles]

Re-read that press release and notice the format of the highlights.

Did they also complete the understanding of the planet? Complete protecting research enterprises? Complete returning to Space Exploration? Like, these things are done now, and 2021 can have a new list of goals? The pandemic is ended, the planet is understood, hurrah. No! Each item in the list is something that is in process - take out 'ending' (because it's unclear, and the Principle of Charity asks us to see if they're morons) to see how each of the Title Verbs are used in context. Then backtrack to figure out if they're using the verb the same way they're using the other verb.

You can be "ending" something as part of an ongoing process. We're currently ending polio. It's a perfectly valid use of the word and the verb is being used the same way as the other verbs in the list. Humanity is currently Ending Polio, Understanding the Planet, Returning to Space Exploration - and a report could tell you the steps we've taken to do so.

Each thing in that list a statement of direction towards a goal. The report itself then describes steps taken to end the pandemic, steps taken to strengthen leadership, steps taken to understand the planet, steps taken to protect research, and steps taken to return to space. The release is a one-page summary, designed to introduce the actual report. No sane person would read that summary, read the report, and say "oh, the summary said that the pandemic was over, they're liars". No, if you read the report, it describes the steps that are being taken. Back track that onto the reasonable interpretation of the press release, and it turns out that they were using their highlights in a coherent way.

There's a cromulent reading of that press release and one that makes it seem like a moronic lie. Communication is a two-way street. Huffpo takes one verb from a series of Titles - each formatted the same way, and then assumes that the usage of the first verb is different from all the others and that the White House is a moronic liar.

Conversely, you give too much credit to the White House's wording and assume they are not taking it as literally as it can be read. There's nothing wrong with how Huffington read it. Semantically, it's sound. The crux of the matter is that you disagree, in my opinion.

See above for the very real differences in contextual usage of ending vs. understanding. Understanding also has a far wider grammatical range (noun and adjective).

But anyhow, let's go deeper. Let's go into the paragraph beneath it. The Administration has, nominally, taken "decisive action" (and other bits which I'll also skip over because they're completely bogus but not relevant here) to "engage ... the government to understand, treat, and defeat the disease". There are two failings here (arguably three, but let's stick with what's proveable). "treat" is laughable. There is no vaccine. There has been no defeat of the disease. You cannot claim you have engaged the government (and other bodies) to defeat the disease if the disease has not been defeated. This is completely antithetical. In my opinion, this backs up the Huffington Post's reading of the header, because all of the language in that highlight is geared to putting the pandemic as a relic of Trump's first term. Going forwards, it is placed semantically as something in the past.

Notably, "Understanding Our Planet" doesn't make this mistake, because the supplementary paragraph details (arguable, but whatever) specifics of what it means by "the planet". Which is to say environmental safeguards to protect clean air and water, among other things. I'm not interested in tearing that apart either, despite how easy it is to do so. I'm not here to rag on every possible thing that I could rag on. I'm defending the article's reading of the release.

And yes, we are ending polio. Or, to be precise, we are experiencing, in places, a resurgence of something that was eradicated in multiple countries for decades. If we were anywhere near that stage with Covid-19, I might grant them the technicality. But the reality denies them that interpretation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Conversely, you give too much credit to the White House's wording and assume they are not taking it as literally as it can be read

No, I just understand parallel structure in summary documents and don't insist on singularly misinterpreting one word to get it to say something moronic. It's so frustrating that knowledge about someone's political beliefs can predict how they read a document.

Too bad they didn't write "Ended the Covid-19 Pandemic", so you could just be correct.

I'm ending the conversation. As in, in the process thereof, because I still have to hit 'post reply' and like your post if you reply.

 

[Gorbles]

No, I just understand parallel structure in summary documents and don't insist on singularly misinterpreting one word to get it to say something moronic. It's so frustrating that knowledge about someone's political beliefs can predict how they read a document.

Too bad they didn't write "Ended the Covid-19 Pandemic", so you could just be correct.

I'm ending the conversation. As in, in the process thereof, because I still have to hit 'post reply' and like your post if you reply.

I mean, you are right. You can infer a lot about folks' political beliefs from the particular arguments they're willing to die on a hill for. But that works all ways.

Notably, this isn't a common use of parallel structure, but I don't think this is going anywhere productive if that's how looking-down-your-nose you're approaching this. Believe me when I say it's also so frustrating to see someone like you go so hard on a media headline just because you can intimate a different read of a release from an administration that has a track record of being literally uncaring of the truth of a particular scenario, and project that onto peoples' political beliefs. That's not how semantics works, and I know you know that. I just don't understand your inflexibility in this case. There's rarely one valid interpretation (especially from a document already taking excessive liberties with reality).

You keep using "endings" for things that have a fixed end, under the actions of the person committing to it. I don't understand how you can't see the difference in handling a currently open-ended situation, and calling that an ending of any sort, in any context. Even at your (most forgiving) interpretation, the reality of their handling means it can be argued that they're not actually committed to ending it. But eh. You're the one that understands parallel structure.

 

[Farm Boy]

The distribution problem is entirely at the feet of corporate greed and nationalistic trade laws. Effectively, the fault of a tiny minority of the world's population who no one SHOULD have pity for losing a fraction of their immense wealth, influence, and power to keep millions starving.

It would be easier if you were right. But, it's not that easy. Food is power. If there is conflict, there will be disruptions of food. If you want to end hunger, you need more than charity and hands to ship/drive/carry/parcel out what already exists. That whole crapshow that eventually resulted in the movie Blackhawk Down started with food distribution in the face of starvation. Then protecting the food distribution. Then hunting those that would rather murder than see food distributed in a way that didn't empower them. To end hunger you need production, you need distribution, you need social power, and you need naked force. Once that's all settled for yourself, you can start worrying about what the grandkids will eat.

 

[Farm Boy]

Just for funzies, you've probably seen seed corn things around even if they're super old fashioned.

Spoiler :

Old fashioned blacksmith shops sometimes display these because they're still lying around. You'd take your very best ears every year, then store them hanging to dry. You plant your best. You eat the rest.

Spoiler :

Same thing with not-corn. With wheat you beat(thresh) the chaff off the seeds, then you toss it in the air to let the chaff blow away. And old fashioned method of getting seed wheat or rice might be to take all the grains that traveled the least distance(were the heaviest) and set those aside for planting.

In the general realm of starvation, or even war because it's actually a stupid enough activity to resemble it, you deploy/eat what you think you don't need first. Young men without social standing/grain you intended to eat. Then as you run out, you eat the grain that's spoiled/scrape the barrel/deploy the old men. Then, if you haven't simply given up, you eat next year's seed or send in the boys. A nation in total mobilization is a nation that is likely to be falling. It's also very unlikely to be an aggressor, even if it may have been at one point. Food for thought, right now today, in this world of foreign entanglements and misinformation.

El is right with his usage though. Until we're paying the program to cycle ~1/3 of our active production acreage in 21st-century-fallowing(birds/bugs/organics/erosion/compaction), we aren't even hitting our marks for basic soil fertility in the US, much less water usage, fertilizer use, or emissions.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I did some poking around, and maybe there are a couple more observations worth making on the report and press release posted by Birdjaguar and discussed by El Mac and Gorbles.

1) The agency involved exists to advise the President on matters of science and technology. They have never issued a report that tracks the "accomplishments" of a particular administration.

The very existence of report in the first place, then, represents Trump commandeering the agencies of our government and turning them into wings of his campaign. The press release just takes that one step further.

2) an administration spokesperson said on Fox that "ending" was a poor word choice.

In my view, "ending" is a lie. It works in conjunction with "accomplishments" in the title of the press release. If one wanted a word for an action that is ongoing, "combating" is available. It is, of course, a moronic lie--an attempt to spin the administration's "accomplishments" in this regard farther than anyone will believe.

But this administration has always been both mendacious and moronic. So it seems fitting.

In my view, it's perfectly fine for Huff-Po to have called it out. It's the role of the press to provide counter-spin to an administration's spin. Some press staffer tried to push the suggestions of a "report" further than they can be pushed. It's worth pushing back.