jakee

I've been thinking about this and frankly, social responsibility has to cut both ways. There's going to need to be huge government spending to prop up all tiers of the economy going forward, and those companies that are lucky enough to be in a sector that remains operational and continues to trade well, and those individuals who are hoarding the immense wealth they already hold need to give back. Companies like Amazon, McDonalds, Microsoft and Facebook, individuals like Bezos, Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg, the Jobs estate - they could collectively be giving hundreds of billions of dollars back to the system to help offset the losses that everyone else is facing. It could, for the first time, actually be useful to society that any one person is that rich with so much surplus cash they could give away and not even notice.

No, just more hypocritical as well as one of the more biased. Pretending you're more aware of it than anyone else while still allowing it to infect seemingly your every viewpoint and never re-evaluating your opinion when called on it. That's dishonest. QED. Biden. Clinton. Pelosi. The guy who accidentally got one pronoun wrong talking about transgender. You always assume the absolute worst about them, regardless if there's any shred of evidence. you call other people naive for not joining you in assuming the worst. Wildly, wildly different to how you treat any accusation against Trump, where there must be absolute proof up to and including his exact internal thought process at the time he made a statement or the accuser is simply being a partisan hack. Right now you're simply exhibiting rank dishonesty about your extreme bias.

Really though? You've admitted on occasion that you have some bias in general but claim to be better than everyone else because youre aware of it. However, as far as I can see you haven't admitted that any specific position you currently hold is driven by bias, and you've haven't recently changed any opinion you've put forward when it has been pointed out to you that it was founded on bias. All while you continue to judge people with wildly different criteria depending on which side of the aisle they sit.

Says the guy who knows Joe Biden is corrupt and thinks anyone who doesn't agree is naive, because Joe Biden's son got a job. And yet you defend Trump against any allegation of dishonesty that can't be absolutely 100% proven that he knew a statement was false when he made it. The level of bias you use in making your judgements is truly staggering.

Except that's not the point.

Why do you need to wait and see if DeWine's actions might be effective if you already know that one man's actions couldn't make a difference?

Then I guess I'm just curious why you didn't listen to her before, when you were rubbishing news reports you hadn't even read. Or why you weren't listening to her a few days ago when you were claiming we were all overreacting to Coronavirus because the death rate probably wasn't that bad - even though the evidence of what is happening in Italy and other places was already out in the open? It's just odd that you surely had as much access to her counsel then as you do now, and yet now you're claming to understand the seriousness of the situation more than other people do even though you've only just changed your mind as to whether it is of any seriousness whatsoever.

Until a couple of days ago you were saying this was all much ado about nothing, and that all the press stories were just hysteria despite the fact that you hadn’t read or watched any press coverage of the coming pandemic. Im curious about what you’ve done in the past couple of days to get to the point where your understanding of the issue is greater than anyone else’s.

Then what’s the deal with the right wing nonsense you just copied from the NY Post?

What about all the things you believe were caused by god?

And yet that was not the first time she was seen. Seriously, you can’t complain that the only time she was seen was giving a speech from her office then define being seen as giving an address from her office.

She also didn't wait until March 18th to say anything, so to be honest I for one don't have a clue what point you're trying to make.

So then what's the justification for the President telling the outrageous lie that the US would go straight from 16 (I think?) cases to zero very very quickly? You'd have had to wait for taco sauce last week instead of this week? Is government integrity in a time of crisis worth that little to you? Brilliant. You repeatedly blamed the mass media for whipping up a frenzy about what you repeatedly insisted was a nothing event even though you hadn't paid any attention to what they were actually saying? That's great. Really great. Well done you.

I think you mean cry. You want to talk about avoiding panic? This is a time when it is of utmost importance that people can trust what they're being told and what is being done by the government and this overtanned scrotum is on TV spreading Deep State conspiracy theories about the people who are going to be organising the government's response. There is truly no limit to his juvenile bullshit.

If it's true, yes. Once again, because I don't think you're quite understanding the point for some reason - everyone knows now that there are not zero cases in the USA despite the fact they were assured there would be. But is there mass panic that is impossible to deal with? Unless I've seriousy missed something in the news, no there is not. So how, how on earth is not inciting mass panic a valid reason for the President to have lied through his teeth that there would be zero spread of the virus in the USA. How in your mind does that make sense? Exactly the point. You didn't think it was serious because you didn't believe the media, probably at least in part because the President was contradicting the media by saying it would not be serious. That is precisely the argument I'm putting forward. Thanks for supporting it!

Nice attempt at ignoring the issue. It doesn't matter where it started. Any country that has infections and tries to downplay it is equally responsible for any further spread which results. Which is Trump. Why do you not think Trump has any accountabilityfor that, if there is accountability to be had elsewhere? Heck, has the current administration really eroded your faith so much that you demand better from the Chinese government than from the US?

Are you for real? So now that everyone knows there are significantly more than zero cases there must be panic everywhere, yes? The only thing that could have saved society from the complete 'The Purge' style chaotic breakdown we are all experiencing is if Trump had continued to lie his ass off? Yeah. Sure.

Which is odd, since at the time congress was singled out as exempt from existing insider trading laws. So they did need another law.

Because you're ridiculous. Insider trading is illegal and it hurts honest investors. You think it's ok because the perpetrators make a profit and therefore are winners. Trump screwing his contractors out of payments and self dealing from his charities is illegal, and hurts honest business associates and donors. You think it's ok because he's making a profit and therefore is a winner. Nigerian scams are illegal and hurt innocent people, but you think it's not ok because... why? What's the difference? The perpetrators are simply following the profit motive, and are winning.

Ah, I see, you made a typo. Why do you think that only leaders from the country of origin should be held accountable for mismanagement or misinformation? The virus may be from China but it's not just Chinese. When it's in America it's an American virus, when it's in Italy it's an Italian virus, when it's in Britain it's a British virus. When Trump said US cases were going very quickly down and would soon be zero there was a wealth of knowledge available that this wasn't going to be the case. If the Chinese are ccountable for what they did or did not say, why is he not accountable for that? Why isn't he accountable to the Americans who were infected by other Americans who didn't prepare for anything beause of what he said? Why isn't he accountable to other countries who may have been infected by Americans who travelled because he said there was no problem in the US when it had already taken hold?

Except you don't need that much money to buy a second house, or car, or vacation, or to go to a restaurant. You need to be well off, but not rich. I mean, how many restaurants can you get into once you've made your second billion that don't return your calls if you've only got one? In the real world outside of your Republican trickle down wet dream, hoarding money is exactly what rich people are doing. Not only is wealth being increasingly concentrated in the hands of the uber rich, the excess wealth they have is increasingly being kept inert as liquid cash. Completely removed from the economy, doing nothing and benefitting no-one. The proportion of extant wealth not circulating through the hands of all those noble workers you mentioned is skyrocketing and it is precisely because rich people have been taking wealth management lessons from Scrooge McDuck. It's not a joke, it really is what they do. Rich people are hoarding cash, and wealth managers are getting frustrated http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/01/wealth-concentration-continues-increase/

??? He is responsible for running the country.

.

If they need to be blamed and held accountable for downplaying the threat, what should happen to Donald "our cases will soon be zero" Trump?

A logic which applies equally to burglary, mugging, drug dealing and Nigerian scammers. As long as they're profiting from it, it's ok?