"They should have been moving back on their own. It looks like they were looking to confront the police line and they got what they were looking for.

#12 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-05-29 11:42 AM | REPLY | FLAG:"

Did you listen to the exchange? The anchor tells the police that they are happy to move and asks where the police would like them to go. Had they moved " on their own" then I'm sure you'd now be arguing that they moved to the "wrong" place and that's why they got arrested.

Seeing confronation in the camera crew and blaming them for their arrest makes no sense to reasonable people. They have now been released:

"Awesome, now every rioter in the US can just tell a cop they are a journalist and the cop will have to let them go. People just can't get through their selfishness when it comes to the greater good these days.

#6 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2020-05-29 09:01 AM | REPLY | FLAG:"

So you condone the actions of the police and feel that the "greater good" for a free American society was best served by arresting the CNN crew?

"Then he's an idiot. He was basically inviting turmoil and confrontation. He's an ------- that's inserting himself into situations.

#271 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-05-27 04:21 PM | REPLY | FLAG"

He is not an idiot. He is a dedicated bird watcher and he was in an area designed to attract birds and to allow him and others to enjoy birdwatching.

After 270+posts it still does not seem to have occurred to you that his motivation was not to arbitrarily seek to enforce a law because he is a busy body, but rather to seek to enforce the law because it protects the birds he watches. He wanted the dog to stop running wild and causing damage. Simply asking the woman and then walking away when she did not immediately leash the dog would not have protected the plants and birds.

Clearly this was a situation he had faced before and his solution was to offer the dog a treat, knowing that the owner would control the dog rather than allow it to take the offering. It worked. If this man was " ... inviting turmoil and confrontation" he was doing so in defense of something he cares about and feels is important. I'm surprised you of all posters advocate simply walking away under these circumstances.

The following article deals with excess deaths as opposed to mortality rates and puts the risks into perspective.

"It's interesting that the Aussies, using the Five Eyes intelligence, is pushing hard for this. This will not end well for Xi or their parrots in the MSMDNC.

#11 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2020-05-18 03:43 PM | FLAG: "

Is it Five Eyes intelligence though? Link:

The issue is not whether her attorney is a Republican. The issue is what has motivated this attorney to take her case.

Any lawyer taking on a case should have only one objective - to represent the interests of the client.

Will Douglas Wigdor put Reade's interests ahead of maximizing political pain for Biden and political gain for Trump? Not.a chance in my opinion, which is why this appointment is worthy of scrutiny. As long as Reade's road and Trump's road run parallel, Wigdor will travel them both, but as soon as they diverge, I know which one I expect Wigdor to take.

Does anything say "deeply religious person" more than invoking your God's name to justify a blatant political gesture?

Or is the word I'm looking for hypocrite?

The Guardian gives a slightly different and more disturbing version of events:

I read this a while ago concerning lying on one's front to enhance lung function:

"If they had done their job, human to human transmission would have been confirmed when the virus was limited to China.

#1 | POSTED BY CENTERWING AT 2020-04-27 09:50 PM | FLAG: "

Perhaps you could tell me how this would have worked. When I think about the process from the beginning, it is logical that there would have been various stages when the nature of the virus was unknown. In my, admittedly layman's understanding, broadly these would be:

1) A period when the virus made the transition from animal to human but no-one was showing symptoms of illness:
2) a period when illness started to show in humans but was not diagnosed;
3) a period when the virus was recognized but human to human transmission was not thought to be an issue.

I do not know how long these periods would add up to be, but I would guess 4-6 weeks, during which time people travelled to and from China without being aware of initially the existence of the virus and later, the transmission method. How do you propose that China could prevent the spread during the period when the virus was effectively unknown?

My view is that the spread of the virus was inevitable which is why each country's response is of paramount importance in determining how the country is affected. This is why the focus on Trump's lack of response early on is legitimate - he had the power to put the country on an appropriate war footing ( to use his wording ) but he chose not to do so for personal political gain. Even today he is managing the pandemic to minimize damage to his re-election campaign, not to maximize preservation of life.

I can only hope that his experience changes him and his support for the NHS.

In 2017 Johnson and all but 1 Conservative MP, voted against removing a 1% cap on NHS wage increases and many of them cheered when the motion was successful in the Commons, continuing 10 years of austerity measures reducing the NHS's operational ability.

"Are you aware of ANY treatment with solid research support?

#22 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2020-04-09 01:55 PM | FLAG: "

No - and that's my point.

It is not appropriate to endanger existing ill people by causing an unnecessary run on the drugs they require. Should this drug or any other prove to be the real deal, then decisions on supply should be made by those with appropriate expertise, balancing existing needs against developing needs. Such reasoned decision making should not be short circuited by a grand standing President.

"Do you think that doctors all over the world are prescribing it because of Trump? Some maybe, some because patients beg for it. But he isn't solely responsible. I recall very early on India stopped shipping it because they wanted to reserve it for their own population.

#8 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2020-04-09 11:46 AM | REPLY | FLAG:"

I suspect that the majority of doctors who prescribe the drug for good solid medical reasons do so to treat non-covid-19 patients and they are running into shortages. Any who prescribe it as the cure for covid-19 are doing so without solid research support. If you can prove otherwise, link please.

India stopped exporting the drug not because it had been proven to be a cure, but because countries were stock piling it hoping it might be a cure.

My point is quite simple. There is a price to be paid for Trump advocating a drug which is unproven ( which you seem not to want to recognize ) and that price is being paid by other users of that same drug who can no longer obtain it as easily as they would wish. I doubt Trump has taken this aspect into consideration, or if he has, has decided that it is a small price for others to pay in his re-election effort.

"Trump says this drug is promising and he's ridiculed for giving false hope. Trump did not invent this drug it was developed by doctors.

I hope you're never gasping for air and the Dr says there's nothing he can do because the FDA won't let him try anything that hasn't been through 5 years of double blind study trials.

#3 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2020-04-09 09:15 AM | FLAG: "

You are correct in that Trump did not develop the drug. It was developed for people suffering from other illnesses, for example, in the US Lupus and arthritis and these patients need the drug regardless of Covid-19.

By promoting the drug, Trump has caused it, not surprisingly, to be in short supply and patients who actually need it face difficulties in obtaining it:

In Europe:

"2% of deaths in March were from Corona. Let that sink in.

#8 | POSTED BY FISHPAW AT 2020-04-08 06:02 PM | FLAG: "

And 0% of deaths in January ( and almost all of February for that matter ) were from Corona. Let that sink in.

The USS Thoedore Roosevelt is a Nimitz Class aircraft carrier.

Question - does the US Navy hand out command of such vessels to naive or stupid individuals?

I strongly suspect the answer is "no" and that in fact anyone considered capable of being the captain of such a vessel is probably an extraordinary individual, above average in many respects. Modly demeans and insults the Navy generally, as well as Crozier individually, with his comments. As a Trump appointee, is anyone surprised?

"Who is running the English government now?

#24 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2020-04-06 04:02 PM |"

For the time being at least, Dominic Raab.

Quick overview of him:

From this article:

"I'm saying the opinions of deep state garbage who want eternal war footing with Russia to justify their existence should be taken with a grain of salt.

#15 | POSTED BY BEN_BERKKAKE AT 2020-03-30 02:16 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

Whenever I read comments such as yours, I marvel at the insularity of your views. Your write as if Russia exists merely as a annoyance to Trump, rather than as a fallen world power with an agenda, objectives and policies of it's own.

Try to step outside of your bubble and look at the world from Russia's and Putin's perspective and tell me which parts of the article do not then ring true.

"It originated in China and, at least according to one study, it's spread could have been contained by 95% globally had the CCP just acted responsibly.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ "

I am not sure this is correct, although I can't be certain without knowing to which "study" you refer. I suspect it is the University of Southampton study quoted recently in this Axios article:

It is no surprise to me that Trump is considering relaxing social distancing requirements when other countries further along the pandemic curve are tightening them up. I posted this a few days ago:

"There may be a time to come when the actions required to be taken - e.g. limiting civil liberties for the benefit of all - could be very unpopular in the run up to an election. This would be the acid test for Trump. Would he do the right thing, knowing it will hurt his chances of re-election, or will be chose the self-centered path?
POSTED BY FOREIGNER AT 2020-03-17 03:33 PM "

I did not expect to get there quite so fast, but from Trump's perspective, what has he to lose? Trump's only concern is re-election and with things as they stand he recognizes that is not going to happen. So why not roll the dice - if loosening social distancing brings back the economy/DJIA but results in more avoidable deaths, so what? He'll talk up the market and he'll lie about the deaths - maybe enough voters will believe him for him to get back in.

And if the pandemic gets worse in terms of population affected and deaths, he will be held responsible, but hey, he is going to lose as things stand anyway.

From my original comment, really, did anyone expect Trump to do the right thing?

"I always thought the answer was 47.

But 69 is an excellent number to test.
#8 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2020-03-24 12:08 PM | FLAG: "

I think you'll find it's "42" - but I'm fully supportive of your assessment of 69.

"You would be wrong about your "tendency" ... you should spend more time thinking and less time posting ... occams razor and all.

#30 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2020-03-23 11:46 PM | REPLY | FLAG"

Excellent - taken together with post #27 and #28 I'd rate you my first triggered responder. I'll remember you always.

"Do you have any evidence that points to this man taking this drug based upon something Trump said?

The embedded article doesn't provide anything regarding his rationale.

#24 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-03-23 11:27 PM | REPLY | FLAG"

Other than an objectively working brain, a tendency to adhere to the principal of Occam's razor and decades of life experience which enables me to look at a set of circumstances and draw reasonable, but not infallible conclusions? No.

"Because it has shown promise .. "

And is this enough for Trump to tout it as " a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine?" It is, of course, if the objective is not the health of Americans but his re-election.

"Not yet, they also have no cure or therapy, by your implication it can never occur or take 18-20 months ... " -

I don't know if it will work, or if or when they will develop a cure. So to suggest, as Trump has continually done, that a cure is just around the corner is more re-election stumping.

"By whom?"