[y66]

 kenberg, on 2020-October-03, 07:06, said:

Just a trivial point: The WH has described taking DT to WR as "out of an abundance of caution" That's the same phrase used by the doctor's office when they informed me that one of the staff had tested positive. They were letting me know of this "out of an abundance of caution> It seems to be becoming a phrase of the day. So how are they describing whatever they are doing regarding Melania? I have not heard of what they are doing, but are they throwing caution to the wind? Acting out of limited caution?
I am sure I can go through life w/o learning the answer, but it struck me that much is being done for DT and we hear nothing of what is being done for Melania.

Another point of trivia. We have heard of how covid has hit some groups very hard in comparison to the number of people in that group. It appears that close associates of Trump would be one such group.

Talk about airborne transmission. I was just now trying to figure out how to do a count of usages over time of "abundance of caution" + "white house" before reading your post.

[y66]

Tyler Cowen said:

Quote

In an interview Friday afternoon, Regeneron’s chief executive, Dr. Leonard S. Schleifer, said Mr. Trump’s medical staff reached out to the company for permission to use the drug, and that it was cleared with the Food and Drug Administration.

“All we can say is that they asked to be able to use it, and we were happy to oblige,” he said. He said that so-called compassionate use cases — when patients are granted access to an experimental treatment outside of a clinical trial — are decided on a case-by-case basis and he is not the first patient to granted permission to use the treatment this way. “When it’s the president of the United States, of course, that gets — obviously — gets our attention.”

In my non-specialist but not entirely uninformed opinion, this is basically an effective treatment, and barring major unobserved genetic risk factors Trump will recover. The risk of side effects is not significant. But of course neither the FDA nor Regneron will let me do the same. Or you.

There is such cacophony when Trump pushes the FDA to speed vaccine approval — mere pressure rather than an action. Yet when he actually gets a promising treatment through the process “prematurely” — only for himself — not a single person is yelping. Not even his worst enemies and most vicious opponents. Nor do I see anyone arguing that the President is being allowed to take excess risk, and that the judgments of the regulators should be enforced consistently and for the good of the office of the presidency.

Nope. Model that! (Hint: start with the idea of status.)

In the meantime, I think the common intuition about the Trump monoclonal antibodies case is essentially correct, and it ought to be applied most broadly. And not just for presidents.

Here is the full NYT story.

[y66]

Joe Biden has a plan for that by Matt Yglesias at Fox

Quote

Not a joke, folks: He’s running on a transformative policy agenda.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2020-October-03, 07:20, said:

David Frum from the Atlantic on Trump's diagnosis.

A devastating critique, made all the more severe in that it is accurate. Frum poses the question of what to do about such a person, but then he also provides the basic answer. Trump never should have been allowed anywhere near any public office. Nothing good, and much bad, can come from such a person. To the extent he can be held accountable to the law he should be, other than that voters and everyone need to recognize him for what he is and then do our best to protect ourselves. He will not be changing his nature.

There are various reasons that I want him to be alive in November. First and foremost, I just don't go around wishing death. But I also think that it is very important that we as a country come to grips with who he is, what he has done, and, most importantly, what this means for our future. Dying is sort of an escape, both for him and for those who have not yet come to grips with the reality of Trump. Some never will, some drink Kool-Aid when told to drink Kool-Aid. But if we are to have a future, we will have to get past the insanity. I think that we can. Or at least I hope so. Dying is just too convenient.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2020-October-03, 08:39, said:

A devastating critique, made all the more severe in that it is accurate. Frum poses the question of what to do about such a person, but then he also provides the basic answer. Trump never should have been allowed anywhere near any public office. Nothing good, and much bad, can come from such a person. To the extent he can be held accountable to the law he should be, other than that voters and everyone need to recognize him for what he is and then do our best to protect ourselves. He will not be changing his nature.

There are various reasons that I want him to be alive in November. First and foremost, I just don't go around wishing death. But I also think that it is very important that we as a country come to grips with who he is, what he has done, and, most importantly, what this means for our future. Dying is sort of an escape, both for him and for those who have not yet come to grips with the reality of Trump. Some never will, some drink Kool-Aid when told to drink Kool-Aid. But if we are to have a future, we will have to get past the insanity. I think that we can. Or at least I hope so. Dying is just too convenient.

You make good points, Ken. I think my problem is with the supporters - it appears that nothing will alter that fealty, so any "coming to grips with the reality about Trump" will never - never happen. When a worldview is faith-based, and your very self, your ego, is constructed on that belief as its foundation, an alteration to that perception requires what amounts to an obliteration of self and then a rebuild based on factual data. It is similar to voluntarily undergoing chemotherapy; one way of being must die out and be replaced by another.

The entire process that creates these kinds of people needs to change - whatever that process is. But I do think we need to develop a cultural norm that praises and values evidence-based conclusions.

[y66]

As for the line between wishes for recovery and wishes for an immediate and permanent exit from the hellscape he created, Frum offers a useful suggestion:

Quote

Trump should never have been allowed anywhere near any public office. Wish him well, but recognize that his deformed spirit will never be well—and that nothing can be well for the country under his leadership.

[y66]

Fun story about Clinton's love of golf which suggests some of the mulligan stories may be exaggerated. I see he likes Ballybunion which is heaven on earth for me.

[y66]

Derek Thompson said:

This looks bad.

https://pbs.twimg.co...jpg&name=medium

The White House physician suggested Trump was diagnosed earlier than previously known.

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2020-September-29, 14:40, said:

Utilizing the SCOTUS to determine moral questions is an abandonment by Congress of its responsibilities. The Legislative branch makes laws. It should be quite simple to determine by law if abortion is legal or illegal, which has nothing to do with its moral status. It would only then be the role of the SCOTUS to determine if the federal government can make that law or whether it is a question for each individual state. Either way, at least it would be clear - then those who favor or oppose could try to get it changed their way through means that actually work.

Roe v. Wade was a case about a state law. The supremacy clause of the Constitution prohibits states from enacting laws that violate the Constitution. And SCOTUS decided that the Texas law against abortion violated the 14th Amendment's right of due process.

It wasn't technically a moral question they were deciding -- they determined that due process implies a certain right to privacy and control over one's body.

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2020-October-03, 14:17, said:

Roe v. Wade was a case about a state law. The supremacy clause of the Constitution prohibits states from enacting laws that violate the Constitution. And SCOTUS decided that the Texas law against abortion violated the 14th Amendment's right of due process.

It wasn't technically a moral question they were deciding -- they determined that due process implies a certain right to privacy and control over one's body.

I didn't insinuate Roe was a moral decision. But using the SCOTUS to try to change laws is the wrong way to go. Laws can be challenged, but the correct way to change laws is legislative.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2020-October-03, 08:39, said:

A devastating critique, made all the more severe in that it is accurate. Frum poses the question of what to do about such a person, but then he also provides the basic answer. Trump never should have been allowed anywhere near any public office. Nothing good, and much bad, can come from such a person. To the extent he can be held accountable to the law he should be, other than that voters and everyone need to recognize him for what he is and then do our best to protect ourselves. He will not be changing his nature.

There are various reasons that I want him to be alive in November. First and foremost, I just don't go around wishing death. But I also think that it is very important that we as a country come to grips with who he is, what he has done, and, most importantly, what this means for our future. Dying is sort of an escape, both for him and for those who have not yet come to grips with the reality of Trump. Some never will, some drink Kool-Aid when told to drink Kool-Aid. But if we are to have a future, we will have to get past the insanity. I think that we can. Or at least I hope so. Dying is just too convenient.

After much thought I have come to a similar conclusion as Richard - but my reason is to defang the crazed minority right wingers like the Proud Boys and the many other homegrown nutcase militia members scattered around the country. How quickly we forget that it was one of these right wing militia members who bombed the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. Without Trump, there is no QAnon. Without der fuhrer, what's their point? Richard is right. Solves a myriad of problems.

Downside. Ken's right. There won't be a come-to-Jesus reckoning. But then, I don't think there will ever be one, anyway.

[shyams]

 Winstonm, on 2020-October-03, 17:15, said:

After much thought I have come to a similar conclusion as Richard - but my reason is to defang the crazed minority right wingers like the Proud Boys and the many other homegrown nutcase militia members scattered around the country. How quickly we forget that it was one of these right wing militia members who bombed the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. Without Trump, there is no QAnon. Without der fuhrer, what's their point? Richard is right. Solves a myriad of problems.

Downside. Ken's right. There won't be a come-to-Jesus reckoning. But then, I don't think there will ever be one, anyway.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican Party then put Don Jr on the ticket for President!!!

On surface, it looks like a completely crazy idea to even consider Jr as the next guy. However, the powers that be will find it so convenient to have a useless, dumb, and malleable person heading the ticket. All the sympathy votes will flow to Jr which will raise the odds of victory.

Then if he does win, McConnell and other GOP leaders will become a hundred times more powerful. If he doesn't, the GOP Senators won't be too sad so long as they continue to control the Senate majority.

Edit: Think about it! From the GOP Senators' perspective, the greatest thing Trump has done in the past three years is to allow the Senate leaders a free reign over policy.

This post has been edited by shyams: 2020-October-03, 17:36

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2020-October-03, 17:32, said:

I'll rest my argument on two points.

1. I do not think that a Trump death from covid would defang anyone.

2. Our way of government is based on putting trust in people. we either go with this or we don't.

And i guess there is a 3: I just don't go that way.

It is not that I am certain, or even that I am reasonably confident. But, as mentioned, I just find death way too convenient. I don't trust convenient.

My argument is pretty simple - 3 years and 8 months of Trump is not enough to shake the support of roughly 40% of the country. These are people rational people must write off. Perhaps a few on the margins will come to their senses someday. Let them as it will be on their timetable, not ours. The only ones to truly worry about are the armed crazies - and Trump is the leader of the band. Without him, they climb back under their rocks and wait for the next demagogue to coax them back out.

[Winstonm]

 shyams, on 2020-October-03, 17:33, said:

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican Party then put Don Jr on the ticket for President!!!

On surface, it looks like a completely crazy idea to even consider Jr as the next guy. However, the powers that be will find it so convenient to have a useless, dumb, and malleable person heading the ticket. All the sympathy votes will flow to Jr which will raise the odds of victory.

Then if he does win, McConnell and other GOP leaders will become a hundred times more powerful. If he doesn't, the GOP Senators won't be too sad so long as they continue to control the Senate majority.

Edit: Think about it! From the GOP Senators' perspective, the greatest thing Trump has done in the past three years is to allow the Senate leaders a free reign over policy.

The trick to defeating Trump is to get out the Democratic vote, not to worry about sympathetic Republicans, which is an oxymoron anyway.

[y66]

 Winstonm, on 2020-October-03, 17:15, said:

After much thought I have come to a similar conclusion as Richard - but my reason is to defang the crazed minority right wingers like the Proud Boys and the many other homegrown nutcase militia members scattered around the country. How quickly we forget that it was one of these right wing militia members who bombed the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. Without Trump, there is no QAnon. Without der fuhrer, what's their point? Richard is right. Solves a myriad of problems.

Downside. Ken's right. There won't be a come-to-Jesus reckoning. But then, I don't think there will ever be one, anyway.

Please pass the bong and wtf are we smoking?

[akwoo]

 Winstonm, on 2020-October-03, 18:06, said:

Without him, they climb back under their rocks and wait for the next demagogue to coax them back out.

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I'm not so sure. It seems just as likely that they give up on being strategic about the use of violence and resort to terrorism. A few hundred folks sporadically copying the DC Sniper in all the major cities could have as much economic impact as Covid. If there's another few hundred willing to do it after the first few hundred get caught, and so on, it could go on for years.

[johnu]

 Winstonm, on 2020-October-03, 18:06, said:

My argument is pretty simple - 3 years and 8 months of Trump is not enough to shake the support of roughly 40% of the country. These are people rational people must write off. Perhaps a few on the margins will come to their senses someday. Let them as it will be on their timetable, not ours. The only ones to truly worry about are the armed crazies - and Trump is the leader of the band. Without him, they climb back under their rocks and wait for the next demagogue to coax them back out.

Let the red states secede as many of them have promised to do in recent years. Republican politicians want to relive the 1800's before the Civil War and the end of slavery. Democratic politicians want to fully move into the 21st century, and start preparing the framework for the 22nd century. We aren't going anyplace as a country the way things are today.

[Winstonm]

 akwoo, on 2020-October-03, 19:34, said:

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I'm not so sure. It seems just as likely that they give up on being strategic about the use of violence and resort to terrorism. A few hundred folks sporadically copying the DC Sniper in all the major cities could have as much economic impact as Covid. If there's another few hundred willing to do it after the first few hundred get caught, and so on, it could go on for years.

I can appreciate the paranoia but remember right now these wackos have a complicit DOJ who are not aggressively pursuing them and a semi-complicit FBI that only half-way sees a problem with these groups and a number of sheriffs and local police who think the wackos are on their side.

That all changes with a rational leader in charge. IMO, with Trump gone and the DOJ and FBI aggressively pursuing the domestic terrorists and nutjobs, they will go back underground where they were prior to Trump.

[y66]

Matthew Yglesias said:

The thing about staging photographs of President Trump sitting at a desk, maskless, signing blank pieces of paper is that it involves risking a photographer’s health for absolutely no reason.

He could just phone into Fox & Friends and ramble incoherently for a while and everyone would have to admit that things seem pretty normal.

[Winstonm]

Perhaps the biggest difference between Dr. Berg's hopefulness for rational Republicans and me having zero expectations of that is that I agree with Gore Vidal:

Quote

Gore Vidal, one of America's best chroniclers of empire, once provided instruction to a British interviewer expressing confusion over the radical hostility Republicans showed toward Barack Obama, and the former president's inability to react with equal aggression: "Obama believes the Republican Party is a political party when in fact it's a mindset, like Hitler Youth, based on hatred — religious hatred, racial hatred. When you foreigners hear the word 'conservative' you think of kindly old men hunting foxes. They're not, they're fascists."