Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > GENERAL DISCUSSION > Coronavirus/COVID19 Temp Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Coronavirus/COVID19 Temp Forum This is a temporary forum for discussion, debate, sharing and helping each other during and in relation to the Coronavirus/COVID19

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-02-2020, 8:52 PM
duenor's Avatar
duenor duenor is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,264
iTrader: 14 / 89%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
But, once again, any financial commitments must begin in the House, which is controlled by Democrats and we know what's been happening there. Just like the back and forth over the latest round of stimulus.
Certainly. This is a system of checks and balances. Each branch must compromise. And as president, he is an entire branch to himself. I would say that he needs to make whatever compromises are necessary to get the work done. If he can't negotiate on his own, have advisors do it for him. I do not agree that the Executive can simply say "well the dems won't pass my bills" and then leave it at that. If he is clearly making compromises, bending over backwards, and the house is clearly rejecting everything "just because", it would very quickly be evident to the public as well. "the media" is compromised of far more than clearly left leaning sources like WP or CNN. the system was designed to force the branches to cooperate or get nothing done. unfortunately, the parties now feel it is morally and politically acceptable to shut the government down and blame the other side in lieu of compromise. that is now consider "taking a stand" when in actuality it is abdicating responsibility.

Quote:
What he says he wants[/URL] are bigger direct payments, but he doesn't want to continue the unemployment bonus; i.e., why would you 'punish' those who have continued to work while 'rewarding' those who aren't working by giving them more than they'd make actually working? Isn't that a refrain we've heard on Calguns?
This is kind of moving into a different topic (inequality of financial pain during this pandemic, for example). Without getting into this other topic, I would say that if he wants something, he (and his party) needs to work it out with the other side.

Quote:
The podium? Aren't we continuously complaining that the media isn't fairly representing what Trump says and does, not to mention taking every opportunity to derail and get him to digress?
There's plenty of media that are friendly to him, he's got twitter - and at any time, he can easily call a press conference and read a statement. it would be broadcast live on every media source, left or right. let the pundits interpret how they will; the american people are not deaf and are capable of drawing their own conclusions.

Quote:
Actually, it's one of the things which needs to be sorted out ASAP. Not only is it part of the limitations on Trump's ability to act, some of those policies are outright dangerous and contributing to the problems.
Here too, I am reluctant to stray off the path we first started on, but I would say that if those policies are part of the checks and balances inherent within the system, they are part of the fundamental bedrock of our democracy and intended to ensure that no one branch can become too powerful and thus de facto kings.

Quote:
But, as I said earlier, you can't start at a severe deficit and expect to instantaneously be back to scratch, let alone be operating at a surplus. There's also the fact that the economy and society is still struggling to remain alive and survive.
The severe deficit was one of inventory, not of industrial capacity. I reference Prestige Ameritech because it is the biggest producer of PPE in the united states, and its CEO Mike Bowen testified in Congress only a few months ago. He repeatedly offered to start up his dormant production lines, increasing output to 7 million in a month. he was ignored before the shutdown, even when rick bright (former HHS director) backed him and tried to get the attention of the fed. he's still being ignored. it's not that he needs the money, mind you - he's doing great. the govt won't put in writing that they will back him and not ditch him with paying for the startup costs of starting up his dormant lines like they did with H5N1, so he's selling his masks to the highest bidder and making a fortune instead.

and that's just one company. there are many companies that could easily switch from making furnace filters, insulation, paper envelopes - to making PPE. in 1941, 3 million cars were made. do you know how many were made from dec 7 1941 to the end of the war? 139. The entire auto industry went to war.

Quote:
So... by definition, you are saying that Fauci is deliberately 'straddling the fence' and being less than definitive in terms of providing information? How is Trump (or the Government as a whole) supposed to come up with a plan on that basis?
Yes, I agree with you that Fauci is not being definitive in the sense that he is not saying, "this is the right course of action". I do not see that as his call to make. He's not the Executive - the decision maker at the top. The President is. His job is to advise, to give all the options, all the information, and all the possible consequences.

I have been both an adviser and an executive. as an adviser, I learned early on that I should not be saying "this is what you should do". That's not my job. Once I start doing that, I'm failing as an adviser because i'm not giving a 360 view of the situation to the person whose job it is to make that decision. and, I'm just the adviser. I can't see all the other things above and and outside the scope of my study. maybe what sounds right to me is the wrong choice because there are circumstances I don't know about.

in the same way, as the decision maker I would react very poorly to my adviser telling me what "the right choice" is. I need to know all the choices, not just what he thinks is best from his limited perspective.

Quote:
I think Trump would be very interested in hearing exactly how he can proceed in terms of providing a clear message; one which has definitive, consistent, and coordinated information that also happens to be the "right" thing to do and not leave him more vulnerable, politically, should it turn out, based on new information, to be the "wrong" message.
I contend that it is not the job of his infectious disease adviser to tell him what is the politically correct decision to make. that should be left to political analysts and the president's own thought processes. fauci hasn't run for any political office that i know of, ever. how would he know what's politically expedient or not? and, to be blunt - shouldn't the president's decisions be based on what is the right course for our people, and not what's going to hurt him politically or not?

Quote:
I know you want to trust and believe Fauci. It's natural and understandable to desire an 'expert' to turn to. I know you want Trump to act. Again, that is one of the roles of President and everyone wants someone in authority to do something, at some level, preferably, the right thing. But, one of the aspects of this whole thing being swept under the rug is that we are still only 4 or 5 months into a totally new strain of virus. We simply don't know enough and, while we are continuing to learn, the virus itself hasn't been around long enough to have fully manifested itself.
I don't know if fauci is trustworthy. I don't know him other than by reading about his record. I have never met him, and all I have is from listening to what he says during interviews and press conferences. nor is he the only expert, although he is the one that the white house seems to have designated as the primary expert. whatever i say isn't to defend him because I like him, but just from what I see as the role of the adviser - and evaluating what he says based on knowledge and fact checking. so far, what he's saying makes sense. that's all.

as for this being a new virus - yes. agreed. but mobilizing PPE production, creating a central information database that is coordinated with all the states, isn't some novel approach to this crisis. it's just making sure citizens have access to equipment that we know helps reduce risk of infection, and making sure that information is detailed and accessible. HCQ, remdesivir, anti agents, plasma - those are all unknowns, but I'm not expecting the president to know what the cure is.

Quote:
Can we 'trust' that other countries now have it under control and the U.S. is simply incompetent? I don't think so. Can we 'trust' that were we to totally change the culture, including adopting mask wearing and social distancing as a way of life, that we'd stop the thing in its tracks permanently? I don't think so. As SAN compnerd observes, there are still MANY unanswered questions that SCIENCE still needs to address... IF it can. That includes an effective vaccine and effective treatments; things which often take decades to develop, if they can actually be developed at all.
I don't see why we need to emulate other countries. But the evidence behind whether masks work or not is pretty clear. There's a hundred years of mask wearing as effective infection mitigation to draw upon, and we've gotten the science of PPE down to a really fine art - to the point where I can put on a p100, walk into a room full of nearly invisible asbestos fibers, and be confident that I won't die from mesothelioma a few years later. that's a basic, $16 mask and $8 filter (well, before this crisis). from what you write, it sounds like you doubt whether masks work. they do. if the established evidence, research, and empirical evidence in the form of the many medical professionals who are caring for covid19 patients and yet not getting sick doesn't convince you - I guess that's just one of the judgement calls that's up to you to make.

Quote:
To be blunt, that's precisely what you have been arguing; i.e., what you believe. (If you go back through your posts, you find "I believe" to be a very consistently present phrase.) That's fine. You're entitled to believe who and what you want. As I have been observing, not everyone believes similarly and there are legitimate reasons for that. Neither you or they may, ultimately, prove to be 100% accurate in their assessment. Unfortunately, that's all we are left with in the absence of anything else; i.e., doing the best we can based on what we individually feel is the better option for "me and mine."
Yes. That is because I don't have such a high opinion of myself that I feel ok with saying things like "this is the truth, and I can't possibly be wrong." It's what I believe based on my experience, my knowledge, my training. I agree completely that, in this crisis and probably any other, the best we can do is to try to make the best decisions we can for us and our families, based on what we know. here on CG and elsewhere, people try to share knowledge; sometimes I learn things. sometimes I hope to share what I know. that's all.
__________________
Entreprise Arms - FFL 07 manufacturer of CA-Legal FAL type rifles in Baldwin Park, CA.
EAI IMBEL-FAL 7.62x51 NATO, CA Legal: $999 shipped www.entreprise.com
SIG, Beretta, Glock, XD, HK Tritium GS sights

"Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization."
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-02-2020, 8:52 PM
duenor's Avatar
duenor duenor is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,264
iTrader: 14 / 89%
Default

Quote:
Insofar as Trump, I'll say what I said right at the start of this whole thing several months ago. He's in a no-win situation. He's the one who will ultimately be held 'responsible,' even if he must rely on others for the information necessary to make the decision. No matter what course of action he chooses, he will be criticized. He must 'balance' competing interests; often in a way that 'everyone' loses... a position no politician wants to find themselves in.
speaking only for myself, I will gladly vote for him in november if he can make me feel that, at the very least, he is effectively responding to this crisis.

Quote:
As a result, he's tried to walk a tightrope in terms of the economy, individual rights, the 'medically correct' response to a new virus, et al. It's a tightrope that is inherent to the political position he holds and it is one that he should be joined on by Governors and Legislators. Instead, too many of those individuals have chosen to pick and choose 'winners and losers' based, not on science or 'medically correct' responses, but largely along ideological lines. Such action has only further muddled the message, but set the tightrope Trump is on to swinging precariously; that last being, arguably, their exact purpose.
I agree that Trump is not in an easy position. And, yes, there are plenty - in both parties - that are more interested in getting jabs in than working together. It wasn't always this way. It wasn't so long ago that legislators could disagree vehemently yet respectfully, and could get together to make decisions together. Now it just seems like party bosses leading their flock this way or that.

But as the expression goes, "wind sweeps the highest peaks". the POTUS is not an easy job. it's not meant to be. If Trump thought he could become president and then simply issue edicts to make things happen the way he believes they should, well, that's expressly what our founding fathers did not want.
__________________
Entreprise Arms - FFL 07 manufacturer of CA-Legal FAL type rifles in Baldwin Park, CA.
EAI IMBEL-FAL 7.62x51 NATO, CA Legal: $999 shipped www.entreprise.com
SIG, Beretta, Glock, XD, HK Tritium GS sights

"Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization."

Last edited by duenor; 07-02-2020 at 8:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-02-2020, 10:24 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,671
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duenor View Post
...If he is clearly making compromises, bending over backwards, and the house is clearly rejecting everything "just because", it would very quickly be evident to the public as well. "the media" is compromised of far more than clearly left leaning sources like WP or CNN. the system was designed to force the branches to cooperate or get nothing done. unfortunately, the parties now feel it is morally and politically acceptable to shut the government down and blame the other side in lieu of compromise. that is now consider "taking a stand" when in actuality it is abdicating responsibility...
I think you're going to find significant disagreement on this with Calguns members. DACA was a compromise that Trump once offered and where are we with that now? The bottom line is that this is precisely what "the Resistance" has been about and it is what many Democrats ran on in 2018; i.e., obstruct, do not compromise with Trump, etc. In that sense, Democrats are taking a stand. However, bear in mind that Trump was not elected to give away the store either and that seems to be precisely where the Democrats are... dictating from the minority position, with much of the media blaming Trump, 'the Great Negotiator,' for his supposed lack of negotiations skills.

Trump does not and cannot control the Legislature. Yes. He can 'compromise,' but even that has its limits insofar as HIS base. Could he 'work it out' with the 'other side?' At some level, it's possible. However, he HAS compromised on several things, upsetting his base in the process, expanding the national debt, giving only 1/4 of the stimulus package to We the People, etc. He 'compromised' on bump stocks... much to the chagrin of many on this site. In other words, it's not simply a this for that when it comes to 'negotiations' among political rivals. You need to recall the 'battles' between Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill when it came to negotiations and then note how some Calguns members now excoriate Reagan for the results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duenor
There's plenty of media that are friendly to him, he's got twitter - and at any time, he can easily call a press conference and read a statement. it would be broadcast live on every media source, left or right. let the pundits interpret how they will; the american people are not deaf and are capable of drawing their own conclusions.
I'm not sure that's an entirely 'accurate' declaration. I suspect it would be more accurate to say that there is some media which is better balanced in their reporting on Trump and even they would take exception to being declared 'friendly' to Trump. Remember, it's not about conservative vs. liberal media; either in terms of Trump coverage or COVID coverage. Yes. He has his Twitter account; but, there are movements on that score which are not only a political hot potato, but legally unclear.

It's also an open question as to whether "every media source" would cover him. There have already been a number of instances where they haven't and quite a few things which the MSM simply isn't reporting. If We the People don't know about it, we can't factor it in to our evaluations. Long story, short, I think you're stretching a bit here and presenting things more idyllically (or as they should be) than they actually are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duenor
Here too, I am reluctant to stray off the path we first started on, but I would say that if those policies are part of the checks and balances inherent within the system, they are part of the fundamental bedrock of our democracy and intended to ensure that no one branch can become too powerful and thus de facto kings.
You can't, in one breath, declare that Trump has "has great powers, resources, and the highest podium in the land;" thus, he must/should mobilize industry, present a clear/consistent message, coordinate the states, etc. Then, in the next breath, say the resistance which was mounted and stopped him from doing those very things is part of our "fundamental bedrock;" but, TRUMP MUST compromise and do... what? What are you suggesting the Democrats/Resistance is offering by way of acceptable trade-off's they would willingly accept in exchange for... whatever it is you want Trump to do?

Remember, their openly declared agenda is to remove Trump from office. There is no other 'platform' item which equals or exceeds that item. That's why I mentioned DACA a moment ago; an agenda item purported to be high on the Democrat list of priorities. Yet, what happened when Trump said "I'll give it to you in exchange for...?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by duenor
The severe deficit was one of inventory, not of industrial capacity... the govt won't put in writing that they will back him and not ditch him with paying for the startup costs of starting up his dormant lines like they did with H5N1, so he's selling his masks to the highest bidder and making a fortune instead.

and that's just one company. there are many companies that could easily switch from making furnace filters, insulation, paper envelopes - to making PPE. in 1941, 3 million cars were made. do you know how many were made from dec 7 1941 to the end of the war? 139. The entire auto industry went to war.
It's not as simple as you make it sound. During WWII, the Government financially backed industry to make the switch over and the populace had to deal with rationing of many things. The cost to the Government and, ultimately, the taxpayers was part of the foundation of today's national debt. In this case, you're talking about a business owner wanting Government to assume all of the financial risk/liability for hiring, overhead, etc. in creating masks and other items which we still don't know, with certainty, will be required in the masses or in the time frame projected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duenor
Yes, I agree with you that Fauci is not being definitive in the sense that he is not saying, "this is the right course of action". I do not see that as his call to make. He's not the Executive - the decision maker at the top. The President is. His job is to advise, to give all the options, all the information, and all the possible consequences.
Which is precisely what Paul was calling him on; i.e., he's not giving "all" the options. He's consistently saying that "we're all going to die," "we're all going to be infected," "hospitals will be overrun," etc. to any and all scenarios. That's why Paul was harping on the all negative, all the time. Fauci's 'expertise' is limited to medical theory. Fauci himself is an 'expert' in the sense that he collates information; but, all in the abstract, theoretical sense. Fauci is not, personally, out there running tests and only has a select group and number of patients he attends.

As I have repeatedly stated, Fauci is not 'wrong' in the abstract. But, if all he has to offer is "keep it all shut down indefinitely," something we absolutely cannot do, then isn't that what Rand Paul was getting at; i.e., say you don't know, otherwise, if all you have to offer is negative consequences with no actual offerings of positive possibilities/actions, we'll move on from there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by duenor
I contend that it is not the job of his infectious disease adviser to tell him what is the politically correct decision to make...
Exactly. But then, I never said Fauci should. My allusion was to a variety of factors, including Fauci...
  • If the doctor in charge of the Nation's Infectious Disease program, the one tasked with advising the President and Congress, is unwilling to 'commit' to a course of action (other than "shut everything down indefinitely"),
  • If the CDC is 'waffling' by sending 'mixed messages' on something as simple as 'masks,'
  • If all they can do is point to conflicting and even, seemingly 'contradictory' studies,
  • If Governors, Congress, the Judiciary, and even his own advisors are divided and 'resistant' (to whatever degree) to anything Trump definitively wants to do,
  • If the electorate, special interests, and We the People at large are divided on how to respond,
  • If, coupled with all of that, the intent is to ensure that the country survives in a condition to make a comeback...
...and what YOU appear to be demanding of Trump. With all that in mind, I would think Trump would be very interested in hearing YOU explain exactly how he is supposed to achieve your goals. Something with more specificity than compromise, mobilize, lead, PSA's, and still do what needs to be done on everything else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duenor
I don't know if fauci is trustworthy... whatever i say isn't to defend him because I like him, but just from what I see as the role of the adviser - and evaluating what he says based on knowledge and fact checking. so far, what he's saying makes sense. that's all.
Thus, it's exactly what I said... You want to trust and believe Fauci. So do others; including Rand Paul. So far, he's making sense to you and quite a few others. Yet, to many, he's too vague, too inconsistent, (perhaps) too 'compromised,' too abstractly theoretical, etc. for them to put too much faith or trust in. Which, once again, was Rand Paul's very point. Fauci is ONE advisor. He is part of a small group advising in the formulation of national and state policy. Unfortunately, that 'group' seems, to Paul and others, incapable of fully addressing or even understanding the complexity of not only the virus, but everything contingent upon how we, as a nation, are going to deal with it.

That is being demonstrated by the very thing I pointed out in the OP of this thread. It's an approach that is not only vague, but only appeals to a segment of society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duenor
...mobilizing PPE production, creating a central information database that is coordinated with all the states, isn't some novel approach to this crisis. it's just making sure citizens have access to equipment that we know helps reduce risk of infection, and making sure that information is detailed and accessible. HCQ, remdesivir, anti agents, plasma - those are all unknowns, but I'm not expecting the president to know what the cure is.
That is actually being done. Maybe not at the speed you and many, many others might wish. Then again, you run up against cultural issues and whether, even if accessible, people will use it. Mandate it? Sure. How well is that working in California right now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by duenor
But the evidence behind whether masks work or not is pretty clear. There's a hundred years of mask wearing as effective infection mitigation to draw upon... if the established evidence, research, and empirical evidence in the form of the many medical professionals who are caring for covid19 patients and yet not getting sick doesn't convince you - I guess that's just one of the judgement calls that's up to you to make.
You are talking about a specific type of mask, not the 'face coverings' which people are, even now, still reluctant to universally don, but which the CDC is recommending and Newsom is mandating be used. You are conflating medical grade equipment with 'common use' and that involves much more than the means of production and cost. Even at that, as we just saw on another thread, not even all N95 masks are created equal in the eyes of doctors insofar as being effective.

cont'd.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-02-2020, 10:25 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,671
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duenor
I agree that Trump is not in an easy position... It wasn't so long ago that legislators could disagree vehemently yet respectfully, and could get together to make decisions together. Now it just seems like party bosses leading their flock this way or that... the POTUS is not an easy job. it's not meant to be. If Trump thought he could become president and then simply issue edicts to make things happen the way he believes they should, well, that's expressly what our founding fathers did not want.
A different generation is now in charge and in positions of power. They are, in large part, from the "never trust anyone over 30" and "stick it to the establishment" generation. What they fail to grasp is that THEY are now over 30 and they pretty much represent the establishment. Couple that with an even younger generation (including groups such as "the Squad") and a certain amount of chaos in Government is not only inevitable, it is pretty much a defining feature. In that sense, I don't think Trump ever envisioned the job as 'easy.'

I do suspect he came to Office with a CEO-like mindset that not only needed tempering, but adjustment. I think he's been experiencing on-the-job learning as to how the political system is different than a business environment and he has been adapting; though he is, at times, a bit too obstreperous in that adaptation for my tastes, there are times when it is justified in terms of providing We the People insight into where the problem(s) actually lie. (Briefly digressing and with due note of his judicial appointments, I think that will be Trump's actual legacy; e.g., exposure of how Government is actually being run and how it is not always or even mostly in the People's best interest.)

At this point, we're pretty much beginning to talk in circles. Many agree with you vis a vis wanting Trump to do certain things. Some want him to do other things as well. What I've been pointing out is that he may not be able to; not because he's wrong-headed or incompetent, but because he is not only Constitutionally limited, but because there is a rather significant 'Resistance' aligned against him and that 'Resistance' is working against his being able to do anything and/or allowing him 'credit' for the things he has, in fact, accomplished.

What I want to see is precisely what I've already said and it's part of what Rand Paul was getting at. The "experts" are, in part or in whole, creating the split opinions which is, in many ways, preventing us from implementing potentially effective measures; but, ultimately, potentially preventing us from doing the 'right' thing which will allow the country to move forward. Not only are they being less than definitive with Trump, they have acknowledged openly lying to the public, being less than forthcoming, offering confusing and, sometimes, conflicting information, etc.

My focus in this and your thread has been on the information which is being provided by official sources related to masks and how that information has been... malleable; leaving people askance as to what to believe and whether mandates to wear them are actually based in science or something else. Not to mention how those pontificating, ostensibly, based on 'science' don't seem to be practicing what they are mandating; again, leaving people askance as to what should be believed as factual information vs. something else.

Hopefully, between the two threads, I have provided sufficient information for people to make their own judgment or, at least, cut through some of the 'fog' which has been created around what information we have been provided.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:14 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical