timamtti
-
Content Count
36 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Then stop saying that Trump's appointments were stopped by dems. They were not. If the reps had worked together, there was nothing the dems could have done to stop the appointments. And of course as shown by the graphs, also the White House itself was inept at even making the nominations lacking way behind all the previous administrations except maybe GHW Bush, who of course didn't even need to make that many new appointments as he inherited the administration from Reagan. Clinton and Obama were about 100-200 nominations ahead of Trump throughout the time period (except for the very beginning when nobody had done any nominations). You just can't blame dems for any obstructionism if the root cause is the fact that Trump's administration is just incapable of even making the nominations that need to be confirmed in the senate. And of course the curves might actually be worse for Trump if take into account the fact that he keeps firing people as well. So, for some positions he may have had to nominate people twice when other administrations got their appointment right on the first go. This of course means that the gap in the curve for first time appointments might be even bigger for Trump compared to others.
-
Where does it say that on that page? If you do a search for the word "hold" it is not even mentioned on that page. Nobody is questioning the claim that Trump is completely inept to fill the appointments (and that's obvious from the graphs on the page that you link). The evidence that we needed for your claim that the "hold" as a tool had played any role in that poor performance by the White House. The numbers (550 appointments and 350 confirmations) indeed add up to 200, but you need to show the proof that all of that is due to holds that dems have used and not rejections by the senate (where reps hold the majority).
-
I watched the most famous one in Trump's presidency namely Kavanaugh and it was a partisan slugfest. All dems attacked Kavanaugh and all reps defended him. Anyway the questions are not key here, but the voting. Regarding your initial claim that Trump hasn't been able to fill all the appointments because dems in senate have stopped them, this is only possible if the reps haven't held the line. And the reason they haven't (if they haven't) has been that someone appointed by Trump hasn't been appropriate for the position, which was exactly my original point. If it had been that the appointees where stopped by dems only because they were from the wrong party, the reps who had the majority would have been able to hammer them through.
-
Ok, what was the point of mentioning researchgate? The essential thing is that they have nothing to do with the publication. They just list publications. Well, good for you, but could you tell me what does it matter where they are based in all of this?
-
That comment was not for you but to @Ward Smith.
-
Ok, how many Trump appointments are on hold?
-
LOL. Researchgate is not a journal but a webservice that collects citations. You'd know this if you published anything in science. But you're right Journal of Integrative Medicine and Therapy is not Chinese. I mixed it up with Journal of Integrative Medicine which is.
-
That's interesting. I assume that you and @Ward Smith who blasted me earlier with "you're not native speaker" for a small spelling mistake and has liked this post are actually native born Americans. The statement above is about how American government works and is factually incorrect. As explained by @Jay McKinsey there is no filibuster on other appointments than SCOTUS. So, @Ward Smith are you not American if you don't know such things how your government works? Or if not that, do you have a habit to give thumbs up to posts that contain false statements? And @0R0 now that this is cleared, how about a bit better explanation why Trump has been so incompetent appointing people if there is nothing the Dems can do to stop him in the senate?
-
That's a very good description. Normal frauds a) try their best to hide their lies and b) when they are caught with a lie, try the normal politician trick, which is talking a lot but not on the topic. Mike Pence's answer to the question if the US government was going to help the uninsured was a perfect example of the second. He didn't want to say the fact, which was that the US government was not going to lift a finger to help these people. Trump thought that was a bad answer. Trump's answers are more like "everyone is going to get tested" or "insurance companies promised no copayments on covid treatments" regardless of there being enough testing available or not or if the insurance companies had said anything like that. So Trump doesn't do even that much homework that he would remember what was decided in a meeting that ended just before the press conference.
-
It's interesting that at the same time the conspiracy theory group in this thread bashes Chinese Communist Party, but then cites a Chinese published journal as a proof of corruption in the West. Conspiracy of the conspiracy.
-
It doesn't matter if they are 40-80% if the others are a percent or a few. I'm dumbfounded why you're not interested presenting your analysis to Kinsa who is publicly giving the opposite message than you using the same data,
-
He's not. I already linked before his article on medium. He is completely in agreement with what CDC is saying. It's @0R0 who is disagreeing with Inder Singh and CDC. I have no idea. I'm sure that would increase manyfold if he could tell reliably from the analysis of his data that New York can go back to work. That was my point. Singh (and @0R0 if he wanted to go public) would become an instant hero if the thermometer data showed that New York has achieved herd immunity and don't have to worry about the virus anymore. This of course assuming that the analysis by @0R0 is correct. So, are you now saying that the analysis that @0R0 presented is most likely based on unreliable or even false dats? If so, why were you defending him earlier? If, on the other hand, the data is good, then what is your point? Well, I'm sorry that that expression misses one letter "s". I don't proofread my posts and the automatic spell-checker that underlines wrongly spelled words with a red line doesn't notice if word is in single when it should be plural. I've never seen that kind of grammar nazism anywhere. If I go through your 1524 posts that the counter says that you have posted here and find one where you have missed an s from the end of the word, does that make you an non-English speaker?
-
This is what he wrote. You can check from the text that he was talking about temperature data, which of course would know nothing about "being exposed". Earlier he wrote: For the argument, it makes little difference if the number is 50 or 80%. The point is that it's in the herd immunity level unlike the other estimates that would put it at a few percent at most. And if it's that high especially for the "metro commuters" then they can all go back to work as they are no longer danger to get it themselves (and not spreading it in metro as pretty much everyone there also has it). Well, he would benefit even more if the data from his devices told the decision makers something that's completely in odd with what they are thinking is the situation and if he were right. At best he would sell a massive number of devices in the future as they would be the only way to tell the real situation, not the other ways that are being used. I don't know how much a device would cost, but it could be that it would be cheaper for the US government to buy one to every citizen and give it out for free if that shortened the pandemic by a couple of weeks. Could you explain how is he benefitting from touting a false conclusion from the data of his devices? In the future we will know if he or @0R0was right. If he knows that the situation is indeed what @0R0 says and not what he is saying, then he will be shooting himself in the foot as CDC or whoever are not going to be relying on him in the future.
-
And how does that "not allowing to happen" work when Dems don't have the majority in the senate?
-
I'm not talking about the data. I assume @0R0 and the CEO of Kinsa have the same data. The point is that their analyses come to complete opposite conclusions. @0R0 claims that his analysis shows that pretty much entire New York has already had the virus. CEO of Kinsa says that the analysis shows that social distancing is working and limiting the spread of virus. These two statements are in contradiction and only either one of them can be true. It would be very useful if @0R0 were in contact with Kinsa people instead of debating on an obscure discussion board. I don't know what you refer here as "need". In my opinion it has huge economic value if he publishes (or at least talks to CDC, Kinsa or New York) about it. If his analysis is correct and they (Kinsa CEO, CDC and New York) are wrong, the approach that New York should take is completely different than what they are taking at the moment. There would be basically no need to continue social distancing except for maybe some people belonging to the vulnerable groups. I don't understand why you're so obtuse at understanding the implications of 80% of New Yorkians having already had the virus instead of a couple of percent (or less than 1% that is the current confirmed positive to total population ratio). Of course all this assumes that people actually care about what happens in real world. If the whole point is just typing conspiracy theory messages to like-minded anonymous people in obscure internet discussion groups and getting them tapping the like-button and it doesn't matter what happens in real world as long CDC and other deep state organisations are shown to have been wrong, then fine, there's no need to do anything else.