OT: COVID-19 thread #2

[moorhosj]

The problem isn't rich people investing in stocks. That's a good thing. Puts capital to work by directing human labor. The problem is rich people buying treasury bonds, and I mean that in a broad way (through direct and indirect channels).

Great post.

One difference, I think the real problem is rich people investing in politics itself. It drives every decision that is made across the country. It's why nothing will ever be done about immigration, abortion, guns or any other hot button issue. It is more profitable to keep those topics alive and divide the masses. It keeps us distracted while the rich buy legislation (lower taxes, more loopholes, fewer environmental/labor regulations, direct subsidies, bailouts, and on and on.)

[Dresden]

Both parties are so absolutely full of **** IMO regarding spending and taxes. Absolute fantasy world. Last time I checked we borrow something like 1/3 of the federal budget. NO ONE is advocating that we reduce spending by 1/3 while keeping taxes the same, nor that we increase taxes by 50% on the other hand. And then there is the whole problem of not being able to predict tax receipts (especially under continual changes) or being willing to wait to see how much money comes in before allocating it.

It's all a massive lie to fool the masses into borrowing money from the rich to buy goods and services that aren't affordable.

I don't really have a horse in the race. I'd be fine with either extreme I referenced, but we basically have a political system where politicians in both parties pander to the rich and to the poor masses. If you want to reduce economic inequality, you have to stop borrowing so much from the rich IMO. There is no other way. But politicians are weak fools, terrified to tell anyone things they don't want to hear.

The problem isn't rich people investing in stocks. That's a good thing. Puts capital to work by directing human labor. The problem is rich people buying treasury bonds, and I mean that in a broad way (through direct and indirect channels). Slowing or ending that requires the masses to nominally reduce short term standards of living, which would also be great for the environment.

Stop borrowing so much from the rich? And that will reduce inequality? Have you seen how much the tax rates have fallen on the upper brackets over the past 60 years? And how during that same period income inequality has shot through the roof?

And it's not the poor that harming the environment- look at green foot prints for rich v poor. One American equals about 45 Indians.

[League Circles]

The problem isn't rich people investing in stocks. That's a good thing. Puts capital to work by directing human labor. The problem is rich people buying treasury bonds, and I mean that in a broad way (through direct and indirect channels).

Great post.

One difference, I think the real problem is rich people investing in politics itself. It drives every decision that is made across the country. It's why nothing will ever be done about immigration, abortion, guns or any other hot button issue. It is more profitable to keep those topics alive and divide the masses. It keeps us distracted while the rich buy legislation (lower taxes, more loopholes, fewer environmental/labor regulations, direct subsidies, bailouts, and on and on.)

Yeah, absolutely that's another enormous problem. My only instinctual suggestions to try to address it are to drastically increase salaries of politicians (IMO no president or congressperson should walk out of office without several million dollars, so for example the salary for a house rep should be at least 2 or 3 million a year. That serves two purposes. First it would significantly decrease their financial anxiety and thus make them less prone to be influenced in return for wink wink promises of a job or speaking gigs, etc after they leave office. Second, it would draw better people. Going into politics is a generally a financially unsound decision in our current system.

Then, we could reduce the impact of spending on campaigning by doing things like having debates on direct stream from the government instead of for-profit tv networks, and try to brainstorm other disincentives for big business to spend money (make it somehow futile and a waste of money for big business - this will be difficult).

Then, I'm not clear on exactly the official status of lobbyists in terms of prioritized access to officials, but that's got to be looked into deeply and reduced as much as possible. It should be no easier, for example, for a big pharma, energy, telcom, or even non profit service org to have an audience with an official than it should be for you or I. Officials need to stop ostensibly relying on lobbyists to tell them about what's happening. If that means larger congrrssional or cabinet staffs, so be it. Unlike many other things in government, it would be money well spent.

[MrSparkle]

The problem isn't rich people investing in stocks. That's a good thing. Puts capital to work by directing human labor. The problem is rich people buying treasury bonds, and I mean that in a broad way (through direct and indirect channels).

Great post.

One difference, I think the real problem is rich people investing in politics itself. It drives every decision that is made across the country. It's why nothing will ever be done about immigration, abortion, guns or any other hot button issue. It is more profitable to keep those topics alive and divide the masses. It keeps us distracted while the rich buy legislation (lower taxes, more loopholes, fewer environmental/labor regulations, direct subsidies, bailouts, and on and on.)

Yeah, absolutely that's another enormous problem. My only instinctual suggestions to try to address it are to drastically increase salaries of politicians (IMO no president or congressperson should walk out of office without several million dollars, so for example the salary for a house rep should be at least 2 or 3 million a year. That serves two purposes. First it would significantly decrease their financial anxiety and thus make them less prone to be influenced in return for wink wink promises of a job or speaking gigs, etc after they leave office. Second, it would draw better people. Going into politics is a generally a financially unsound decision in our current system.

Then, we could reduce the impact of spending on campaigning by doing things like having debates on direct stream from the government instead of for-profit tv networks, and try to brainstorm other disincentives for big business to spend money (make it somehow futile and a waste of money for big business - this will be difficult).

Then, I'm not clear on exactly the official status of lobbyists in terms of prioritized access to officials, but that's got to be looked into deeply and reduced as much as possible. It should be no easier, for example, for a big pharma, energy, telcom, or even non profit service org to have an audience with an official than it should be for you or I. Officials need to stop ostensibly relying on lobbyists to tell them about what's happening. If that means larger congrrssional or cabinet staffs, so be it. Unlike many other things in government, it would be money well spent.

Interesting ideas - worth considering.

Bumping political salaries that much has room to backfire (at face value, more big money stakes in politics and last thing I want is for politicians to make a dime more), but you’re right - it would incentivize more accountability to voters and make it a more desirable job. It would only work if citizen’s united was rolled back and big money was entirely taken out of campaigns though, because the prospect of rich people getting rich contributions getting rich jobs is a hypothetical triple whammy.

But theoretically the idea has merit. Just look at how quick Bulls fans’ pitch forks came out when Boozer or Wallace made $15m. If they were waiver wire or deadline/expiring pickups they’d get a lot of slack. On the other hand, a lot of people slack off after the big pay day.

And most federal politicians are megalomaniacs, rich beyond means already, and an extra few million dollars in salary isn’t going to stop them from securing tens of millions of dollars in life-time securities and investments from back-door lobbyists.

[moorhosj]

Going into politics is a generally a financially unsound decision in our current system.

If this were true, would we see so many rich people getting into politics (recent Illinois Governors, Presidential candidates from both parties, etc.)? I think the SALARY of a Senator or House Rep is artificially low compared to the importance of their work, but it sure seems like they all come out of politics even richer than they started. Low salaries, but the opportunity to literally sell influence and power for campaign contributions, which are barely regulated.

You won't necessarily like this suggestion, but we could see what other democracies are doing to limit the influence of money on their politics. We don't have to use any of their ideas, but it would be nice to have the discussion. Side note, HB1, the first bill passed by the House after Democrats took control actually addressed some of this. It is not a perfect bill by any means, but they did introduce and pass legislation (the Senate never debated it) to limit these kinds of abuses. I wish we could have had an actual debate.

For the People Act of 2019 This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government. Specifically, the bill expands voter registration and voting access and limits removing voters from voter rolls. The bill provides for states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions. The bill also sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, protecting the security of the voter rolls, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect the security and integrity of U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems. This bill addresses campaign spending, including by expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; expanding disclosure rules pertaining to organizations spending money during elections, campaign advertisements, and online platforms; and revising disclaimer requirements for political advertising. This bill establishes an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices. The system involves federal matching of small contributions for qualified candidates. This bill sets forth provisions related to ethics in all three branches of government. Specifically, the bill requires a code of ethics for federal judges and justices, prohibits Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, expands enforcement of regulations governing foreign agents, and establishes additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House. The bill also requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns.

[jmajew]

Meanwhile, Sweden, that country that some here wanted to emulate, has one of the higher death rates in Europe:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/swedens-per-capita-coronavirus-death-233500208.html

For every article you find that says that I can find one that says their way of doing it is correct. It is amazing how people can look at the same data and come to completely different viewpoints.

[League Circles]

Going into politics is a generally a financially unsound decision in our current system.

If this were true, would we see so many rich people getting into politics (recent Illinois Governors, Presidential candidates from both parties, etc.)? I think the SALARY of a Senator or House Rep is artificially low compared to the importance of their work, but it sure seems like they all come out of politics even richer than they started. Low salaries, but the opportunity to literally sell influence and power for campaign contributions, which are barely regulated.

You won't necessarily like this suggestion, but we could see what other democracies are doing to limit the influence of money on their politics. We don't have to use any of their ideas, but it would be nice to have the discussion. Side note, HB1, the first bill passed by the House after Democrats took control actually addressed some of this. It is not a perfect bill by any means, but they did introduce and pass legislation (the Senate never debated it) to limit these kinds of abuses. I wish we could have had an actual debate.

For the People Act of 2019 This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government. Specifically, the bill expands voter registration and voting access and limits removing voters from voter rolls. The bill provides for states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions. The bill also sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, protecting the security of the voter rolls, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect the security and integrity of U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems. This bill addresses campaign spending, including by expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; expanding disclosure rules pertaining to organizations spending money during elections, campaign advertisements, and online platforms; and revising disclaimer requirements for political advertising. This bill establishes an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices. The system involves federal matching of small contributions for qualified candidates. This bill sets forth provisions related to ethics in all three branches of government. Specifically, the bill requires a code of ethics for federal judges and justices, prohibits Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, expands enforcement of regulations governing foreign agents, and establishes additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House. The bill also requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns.

Yeah I'm all for a multi-pronged approach. I just think the most glaring thing that needs to be changed immediately are salaries across the board for elected officials. I once looked into what it would mean to run for alderman in a city that has about 250k people and a healthy tax base. I found out it paid 8 grand per year. That was the end of any political ambitions I may have had.

You're right that the problem of already rich people running for office would still exist. I don't know how many people are political lifers vs people who entered after they already made good money doing something else. But drastically increasing salaries would attract a lot more bright people to enter the political system at a younger age, which is desperately needed IMO.

I think we're asking for trouble if we continue expecting the leaders of government to work for a small fraction of what they could make in the private sector. 400 grand or whatever for the "leader of the free world"? Ridiculous IMO. We can't expect such leaders to operate in a system where they likely have to find a job in middle age outside of politics when they are voted out.

[Dresden]

Trump's bungling of the pandemic response is being noticed around the globe:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/swedens-per-capita-coronavirus-death-233500208.html

World looks on in horror as Trump flails over pandemic despite claims US leads way

...“Over more than two centuries, the United States has stirred a very wide range of feelings in the rest of the world: love and hatred, fear and hope, envy and contempt, awe and anger,” the columnist Fintan O’Toole wrote in the Irish Times. “But there is one emotion that has never been directed towards the US until now: pity.”

...Dacian Cioloș, a former prime minister of Romania who now leads the Renew Europe group in the European parliament, captured a general European view this week as the latest statistics on deaths in the US were reported.

“Post-truth communication techniques used by rightwing populism movements simply do not work to beat Covid-19,” he told the Guardian. “And we see that populism cost lives.”

...Esmir Milavić, an editor at Bosnia’s N1 TV channel, told viewers this week: “The White House is in utter dysfunction and doesn’t speak with one voice.”

Milavić said: “The vice-president is wearing a mask, while the president doesn’t; some staffers wear them, some don’t. Everybody acts as they please. As time passes, White House begins to look more and more like the Balkans.”

...In several countries, the local health authorities have felt obliged to put out statements to counter “health advice” coming from the White House, concerning the ingestion of disinfectant and taking hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug found to be ineffective against Covid-19 and potentially lethal.

[Dresden]

Meanwhile, Sweden, that country that some here wanted to emulate, has one of the higher death rates in Europe:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/swedens-per-capita-coronavirus-death-233500208.html

For every article you find that says that I can find one that says their way of doing it is correct. It is amazing how people can look at the same data and come to completely different viewpoints.

In what way can that data be interpreted as showing that their approach is working? Granted, they willingly entered into a bargain that they knew would result in more infections and more deaths, in return for hopefully developing herd immunity and coming out of this economically less wounded. And we've yet to see how that plays out. But an article posted earlier shows that Denmarks economy is likely to be less effected than Sweden's, and at a far lower death rate.

[League Circles]

Both parties are so absolutely full of **** IMO regarding spending and taxes. Absolute fantasy world. Last time I checked we borrow something like 1/3 of the federal budget. NO ONE is advocating that we reduce spending by 1/3 while keeping taxes the same, nor that we increase taxes by 50% on the other hand. And then there is the whole problem of not being able to predict tax receipts (especially under continual changes) or being willing to wait to see how much money comes in before allocating it.

It's all a massive lie to fool the masses into borrowing money from the rich to buy goods and services that aren't affordable.

I don't really have a horse in the race. I'd be fine with either extreme I referenced, but we basically have a political system where politicians in both parties pander to the rich and to the poor masses. If you want to reduce economic inequality, you have to stop borrowing so much from the rich IMO. There is no other way. But politicians are weak fools, terrified to tell anyone things they don't want to hear.

The problem isn't rich people investing in stocks. That's a good thing. Puts capital to work by directing human labor. The problem is rich people buying treasury bonds, and I mean that in a broad way (through direct and indirect channels). Slowing or ending that requires the masses to nominally reduce short term standards of living, which would also be great for the environment.

Stop borrowing so much from the rich? And that will reduce inequality? Have you seen how much the tax rates have fallen on the upper brackets over the past 60 years? And how during that same period income inequality has shot through the roof?

And it's not the poor that harming the environment- look at green foot prints for rich v poor. One American equals about 45 Indians.

Tax rates aren't really relevant for what I'm talking about. The entire reason that rich people (this includes rich individuals, rich companies, and rich countries like China) buy treasuries (fund 1/3 of our federal budget) is that the bond yields are exempt from income tax and as secure of an investment as you can get. The return rate is atrocious, but it doesn't matter because 1% of billions of dollars is plenty to live on, and live extremely well, while having a virtual guarantee of preservation of capital.

Essentially, once you get rich enough, if you want (and surely many do want), you can basically put yourself and all your descendants on auto pilot, so to speak.

Borrowing money for interest is inherently going to lead to inequality because of this.

Someone can't stay rich forever without one of two things:

1. Contributing something by investing in equity, which is risky, but requires meaningful economic contribution (successful analysis of where to invest - direct resources), which is good for society. So if you keep helping society by directing resources effectively (investing in the right things), this isn't a problem for society.

2. Being able to collect guaranteed money via secure debt securities. In the form of treasuries, there is minimal risk in this. This, IMO, does not require meaningful contribution, because I consider it essentially a bad thing for society to be paying interest for routine operations, which is exactly what we do on an enormous scale.

I'm not saying we shouldn't also increase income taxes, even heavily, on the rich. I do think that we should do that. I'm saying that you can tax their income at 100% and it won't end the problem if you are still borrowing heavily from them. You can't just tax the bond yields, because then they won't buy them at nearly the same rate, and then you lose massive revenue. The only way basically is for the masses to say **** the rich, we're not going to borrow from you like this anymore. That means a lower federal budget, which means decreased consumption. Decreased consumption is key for environmental reasons. Has nothing to do with pollution levels of rich vs poor.

You have to FORCE the rich to invest in ways other than usury. If they can't buy treasury bonds and other debt instruments at current levels, they have to reinvest in the people, which means more jobs and higher incomes for the masses.

[PlayerUp]

he led clinton by 5 points amongst seniors heading into the election and currently trails biden by 9

As you should be aware, polls are meaningless. However if you want to talk stats

Biden currently leads Trump by 4.5 points in the general poll and biden is winning almost all polls



Clinton at this same time led Trump by 5.7 points in general poll and was winning almost all polls



While polls are meaningless because moderates are the ones who ultimately decide every election, the poll numbers are in no way promising to Biden right now as they're slightly above, similar or below Clintons numbers. Trump had a commanding electoral college victory so Biden needs a huge jump here and with all this bad stuff from sexual allegations to corruption overseas to the latest scandal, it's only bringing his poll numbers down right now.

It's a shame because there were some decent democratic candidates and the media/democratic never gave them a chance. Without a doubt Biden is one of the weakest candidates from the democratic side in a long time. Will that be enough still to beat Trump? You can make own opinion on that.

[moorhosj]

Yeah I'm all for a multi-pronged approach. I just think the most glaring thing that needs to be changed immediately are salaries across the board for elected officials. I once looked into what it would mean to run for alderman in a city that has about 250k people and a healthy tax base. I found out it paid 8 grand per year. That was the end of any political ambitions I may have had.

You're right that the problem of already rich people running for office would still exist. I don't know how many people are political lifers vs people who entered after they already made good money doing something else. But drastically increasing salaries would attract a lot more bright people to enter the political system at a younger age, which is desperately needed IMO.

I think we're asking for trouble if we continue expecting the leaders of government to work for a small fraction of what they could make in the private sector. 400 grand or whatever for the "leader of the free world"? Ridiculous IMO. We can't expect such leaders to operate in a system where they likely have to find a job in middle age outside of politics when they are voted out.

I think you are missing the forest from the trees, a bit. Politicians don't seek and control political office for decades because they aren't making money. It is a grift, pure and simple. Fix that first, then we can start paying people more. Because I agree that we should offer more salary in order to bring in people who want to make an impact, not grifters.

Until the amount of money going into politics falls, we will see richer and richer people running. It is an artificial barrier to political entry and we need to lower it. They are the ones who can afford to takes months off campaigning and raising money.

The President making $400k is a perfect example of my point. He can just give that right back to the government because he is raking in far more by funneling (foreign and domestic) business to his hotels and golf courses. If you increased his salary to $1 million, it wouldn't change the calculation.

[johnnyvann840]

https://www.brighteon.com/8b28dffe-4baa-41f9-af80-0b0eaa682602

Please stop spreading this discredited BS.

You are dangerous.

Just an FYI for anyone who watched this "Plandemic" video.... this is a hoax and has been proven to be nothing but a trove of misinformation designed to prey on people who are vulnerable to wack-a-do conspiracy theories and the type of people who think Fox News is a real news channel. Believing this nonsense is not only dangerous to yourself but to others as well.

Red8911- I know you believe this crap but please do your own due diligence before you spread this crap around and believe and/or practice any of the bad ideas and misinformation in it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/05/plandemic-video-what-to-say-conspiracy/611464/

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/14/plandemic-movie-discredited-dr-doctor-judy-mikovits-how-debunked-conspiracy-theory-film-went-viral

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/5/12/21254184/how-plandemic-went-viral-facebook-youtube

https://www.wusa9.com/amp/article/news/verify/verify-the-plandemic-documentary-is-full-of-misinformation/507-95caed4e-7a95-4452-ba7f-98cd0442c9e9

First of all Fox News is the only news channel that is pro republican / Trump and of course that is not real news but CNN is real?
They do the same exact thing in favor of Democrats.If you don’t see that then idk what to tell you.

On the video I don’t agree with everything she says there but who’s to say which scientist is right or wrong? There’s a lot of theories going around and a lot of disinformation from all of them. Just a month ago for example they were telling us NOT to wear masks, that they don’t do anything for us and if anything the masks will cause us to get the virus. Then all of a sudden we all need to wear masks.

The things she was saying about wearing masks/staying inside and weakening the immune system could be true, how do you know it’s not? Or how the virus got out of the lab could also be true, again how can you say she’s wrong? They are still investigating how it started.

Here's how you know she's wrong because unbiased 3rd parties have tried to verify her claims and here's what they determined. It's not just these, it's every credible source out there.

VERIFY:

The 'Plandemic' documentary is full of misinformation
Much of the information in the video that spread like wildfire on social media was presented without evidence or was demonstrably false.
Author: VERIFY, Jason Puckett (TEGNA), David Tregde, Terry Spry Jr.
Published: 11:13 PM EDT May 8, 2020

A viral video titled “Plandemic” went live on YouTube this week before the platform quickly removed it. YouTube told VERIFY that the video violated its guidelines on misinformation. But despite the video being removed on Youtube, it was still copied, uploaded, and shared tens of millions of times on other sites.

The video is actually the first part of a longer documentary that will be released at some point -- and it claims to show the real story behind the COVID-19 pandemic.

After thoroughly digging into the video, the VERIFY team is labeling “Plandemic” as disinformation.

It’s filled with false information presented by sources that aren't credible, and trying to push a narrative.

Let’s break it down.
WHO IS IN THE VIDEO:

Mikki Willis is the host of “Plandemic” and interviews Dr. Judy Mikovits throughout. On IMDB, he’s titled as a producer, director and cinematographer with numerous credits to his name. He’s also the creator of Elevate, a production company in California.

On the actual website for “Plandemic,” Willis and the other creators give more detail of their mission with the documentary.

“Plandemic will expose the scientific and political elite who run the scam that is our global health system, while laying out a new plan; a plan that allows all of humanity to reconnect with healing forces of nature,” the site reads.


To achieve this end, they interviewed Mikovits. Here’s how the documentary describes her:

“Dr. Judy Mikovits has been called one of the most accomplished scientists of her generation,” it begins. “At the height of her career, Dr. Mikovits published a blockbuster article in the journal ‘Science.’ The controversial article sent shockwaves through the scientific community as it revealed the common use of human and animal fetal tissues were unleashing devastating plagues of chronic diseases. For exposing their deadly secrets, the minions of big pharma waged war on Dr. Mikovits.”

This is all laid out within the first 45 seconds of the documentary, and is the first red flag that the video is disinformation.

Mikovits was a researcher at the National Cancer Institute in the early 90’s, and in 2006 she became the Research Director for the Whittemore Peterson Institute.

In 2009, she published a widely covered study in the journal “Science” that identified a possible link between viruses and certain diseases like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. The New York Times and other media outlets covered the study at the time.

In 2011, the study was retracted by “Science,” after ten independent studies were unable to recreate Mikovits’ results. According to the retraction, “Science” found “evidence of poor quality control in a number of specific experiments in the report.”

So Mikovits did publish a study in “Science,” but it was retracted and Mikovits was also fired from her position at the Whittemore Peterson Institute.

She was also arrested in 2011, after the Whittemore Institute accused her of taking materials.

Read on Twitter

Those charges were ultimately dropped.
CLAIMS IN THE VIDEO:
“The AMA was saying, ya know, doctors will lose their license if they use hydroxychloroquine.” - Dr. Judy Mikovits (16:49)

This is false.

The American Medical Association never threatened to revoke licenses and even if they had, the AMA can’t do that.

An AMA staff member confirmed to VERIFY that they have no control over medical licenses. The AMA is a voluntary membership organization, rather than a regulatory authority with the power to grant or revoke medical licenses. Medical licensure is a state-run process.

The AMA did share guidelines for states regarding COVID-19 prescriptions, including hydroxychloroquine. None of these documents threaten licenses and their language varies state to state.

“Wearing the mask literally activates your own virus. You're getting sick from your own reactivated coronavirus expressions and if it happens to be SARS-CoV-2 then you've got a big problem.” - Dr. Judy Mikovits (20:28)

This is false. Wearing a mask is not causing the virus to “activate.”

In another interview, Mikovits explained her belief that the virus doesn’t spread from person to person -- but instead gets injected with vaccines.

“It’s plausible, it’s probable that it’s been in every flu vaccine since ‘13 to ‘15 because that’s when this work was being illegally done,” she said in the video.

She believes SARS-CoV-2 has been dormant in our bodies for years and that masks are causing it to “activate,” and cause COVID-19.

There is no evidence to support this claim. There are reasons it’s false -- like COVID-19 testing.

Millions of people worldwide are getting COVID-19 tests. If this was a dormant virus in our bodies, the tests would still show it. There would be no negative results from anyone who’s ever had a flu shot.

And the idea that masks activated the virus doesn’t add up either. The CDC and WHO initially didn’t advise people to wear masks. And for weeks, the virus was still spreading worldwide.

It is true that in September 2019 a cell-based flu vaccine was made available in Italy for the first time, and it’s also true that it contains four flu vaccines including H1N1.

However, it’s not untested. The vaccine, which was released in Europe for the first time for the 2019-2020 flu season, was tested in the United States in the 2017-2018 flu season. It was determined to be more effective than traditional egg-based vaccines in that study.

And it’s not abnormal for the H1N1 strain to be included in the flu vaccine. In a 2017 article, the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy reported the WHO had updated the annual H1N1 strain used in the vaccine.

There’s no evidence that it came from dogs specifically, either. The CDC’s information page on cell-based vaccines doesn’t mention dogs, and neither do other pages.

Finally, it wasn’t required that everyone in Italy use this specific vaccine. It was just one of several options they had for flu vaccinations.
“The game is to prevent the therapies until everyone is infected and push the vaccine, knowing that the flu vaccines increase the odds by 36% of getting COVID-19.” - Dr. Judy Mikovits (18:18)

This is false. The flu vaccine does not increase the chances of getting COVID-19 by 36%.

Mikovits’ claim misrepresents the findings of a study into whether the flu vaccine could increase the chances of getting other viruses.

The study was done by the Department of Defense in 2017 -- before COVID-19 broke out.

Soldiers who’d received the flu vaccine were studied to see if they had a higher chance of infection from other viruses.

The study concluded that there was “little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination.”

It also adds that “those receiving the influenza vaccine were more likely to have no pathogen detected and reduced risk of influenza when compared to unvaccinated individuals.”

So the study never looked for COVID-19, and concluded that there was no evidence the influenza virus increased the odds of getting other viruses.
BOTTOM LINE:

This documentary peddles numerous COVID-19 rumors using false information with little evidence.

The group behind it has a clear bias in which they distrust the validity of the virus and health organizations from the outset.

And it portrays Dr. Mikovits as someone who published “blockbuster” research before the “minions of big pharma” came after her. This version of her story does not match the facts.

Something you’d like VERIFIED? Click here to submit your story.

[Dresden]

he led clinton by 5 points amongst seniors heading into the election and currently trails biden by 9

As you should be aware, polls are meaningless. However if you want to talk stats

Biden currently leads Trump by 4.5 points in the general poll and biden is winning almost all polls



Clinton at this same time led Trump by 5.7 points in general poll and was winning almost all polls



While polls are meaningless because moderates are the ones who ultimately decide every election, the poll numbers are in no way promising to Biden right now as they're slightly above, similar or below Clintons numbers. Trump had a commanding electoral college victory so Biden needs a huge jump here and with all this bad stuff from sexual allegations to corruption overseas to the latest scandal, it's only bringing his poll numbers down right now.

It's a shame because there were some decent democratic candidates and the media/democratic never gave them a chance. Without a doubt Biden is one of the weakest candidates from the democratic side in a long time. Will that be enough still to beat Trump? You can make own opinion on that.

Swing states are really what determine the election, aren't they? PA, MI, WIS, FLA, NC, maybe a couple others. I wouldn't say Biden is in trouble just because he's at the same place Hillary was 4 years ago. A better comparison would be to look historically how often a candidate with the current numbers Biden has went on to win. And with the pandemic going on, I think there is likely to be more uncertainty this year than in most other election years.

I agree Biden was about my least favorite among democrats. It's a national shame how we elect our candidates. Popularity and familiarity count way more than they should, and expertise and ability often are only of secondary importance.

[League Circles]

Yeah I'm all for a multi-pronged approach. I just think the most glaring thing that needs to be changed immediately are salaries across the board for elected officials. I once looked into what it would mean to run for alderman in a city that has about 250k people and a healthy tax base. I found out it paid 8 grand per year. That was the end of any political ambitions I may have had.

You're right that the problem of already rich people running for office would still exist. I don't know how many people are political lifers vs people who entered after they already made good money doing something else. But drastically increasing salaries would attract a lot more bright people to enter the political system at a younger age, which is desperately needed IMO.

I think we're asking for trouble if we continue expecting the leaders of government to work for a small fraction of what they could make in the private sector. 400 grand or whatever for the "leader of the free world"? Ridiculous IMO. We can't expect such leaders to operate in a system where they likely have to find a job in middle age outside of politics when they are voted out.

I think you are missing the forest from the trees, a bit. Politicians don't seek and control political office for decades because they aren't making money. It is a grift, pure and simple. Fix that first, then we can start paying people more. Because I agree that we should offer more salary in order to bring in people who want to make an impact, not grifters.

Until the amount of money going into politics falls, we will see richer and richer people running. It is an artificial barrier to political entry and we need to lower it. They are the ones who can afford to takes months off campaigning and raising money.

The President making $400k is a perfect example of my point. He can just give that right back to the government because he is raking in far more by funneling (foreign and domestic) business to his hotels and golf courses. If you increased his salary to $1 million, it wouldn't change the calculation.

I hear that, and you're not wrong in a sense (especially as regards someone like Trump), but my thinking is more grass roots level analysis.

I want to create a system that incentivizes more brilliant young people to choose politics over things like studying medicine, law, engineering, high level business education, etc etc. That's impossible when entry level political positions are basically volunteer jobs. There are exceptions, but I truly believe that a large portion of politicians are actually pretty low on the competency/intellect range. We should want our very smartest people trying to fix our complex problems. Not ideologues with a little basic education, which we too often see IMO, and in both parties.

Then there is the problem that if you're willing to sacrifice for decades to get to a point where maybe you get elected to the house, what do you find? You find yourself with basically a 24 month contract for $348,000 and zero security beyond that. Way less job security than most normal people as they have a nominal 50% chance of being fired. So we ask people to do their best to fix our complex problems in 2 years, and if not, they're out on the street with a couple hundred grand max. Is that a hardship? Absolutely not. But, it's enough of a stressor that we shouldn't be surprised when they succomb to temptation and let after-office financial opportunities influence their policy stances while in office, which is what I think happens because I think it's human nature.

If you set it up so that a house rep would be assured of being "set for life" even if voted out after two years, I believe you'd see a lot more principled activity out of congress. So I'm talking maybe 5 million a year salary instead of 174k. You could also extend the term from 2 years to maybe 4. Personally I think two year terms are absurd given the complexity of our problems.

You're right that we'd still have the problem of greedy people selling out in whatever way needed for an extra buck, but at least we wouldn't have the legit self preservation problem present. It's actually understandable human nature, IMO, for say, a 50 year old first time house rep to be too concerned with how their actions will affect their long term financial health. Even though a couple hundred grand is a good chunk, if you're out of a career after 2 years, it's scary as hell. Then there is the human element where people just do not adjust well to stepping down in role/authority/status. People in the United States congress are going to be extremely averse to a situation where they are literally applying to jobs where they'll have to answer to some boss and fill out TPS reports (Office Space reference). Once you're a "made man/woman", it's human nature to do whatever is necessary to preserve that. The only exits from politics that IMO we can reasonably expect people to take without corruption is an immediate, very comfortable retirement.

That's my thinking.

[MrSparkle]

One counter-argument to Biden being one of the Democratic party's weakest candidates ever....

Going into the race, wasn't Trump the weakest Republican candidate of all time? He was also expected to lose in a landslide to an extremely polarizing, unpopular candidate in Hilary, further threatened by the Bernie-or-bust voters.

Fact that Biden is polling favorably and also considered an underdog, for whatever reason, kind of makes me a little more optimistic. Also, at this stage, he seems far less interested in showing off his charisma or ego, and far more interested in restoring some stability and balance in government. He's already basically openly endorsed Bernie/Warren ideas, invited AOC to the climate panel, etc.

I'd be okay with Trump's goofiness if he didn't dump very competent people (I had friends in the budgeting sector of the EPA, we were on a vacation together during his inauguration in 2016 - they said it was the gloomiest month of their careers, as if their government had been taken over by a rogue terrorist organization dismantling everything they had built), force many honorable and competent military, secret service, etc. staff to resign. Furthermore, his cabinet and advisors are basically from crack-lane hell (Devoes, Kushner, Pompeo along with his many resigned/criminally-prosecuted associates).

I actually don't mind that Biden is staying in the shadows. He's aware that his age , he doesn't have much charisma going for him. And maybe he's aware that he doesn't have the cleanest slate. But at this point, this is a very critical time for law and justice and upholding the constitution. As long as he actually brings a coalition of diverse, level-headed (not Ben Carson) and well-represented people onto his team, I'm in full support.

With the amnesia-suffering/undecided voters, it really comes down to those last 2 weeks before election day. I just hope the Democratic party plays it smart. Gets all the dirty laundry out or under control early (Hunter, sex accusations, etc.), does their best to fight voter suppression (and is prepped in case of a COVID outbreak scenario), and keeps this infinite dispensary of Trump/self-inflicted ammo ready to go. The big problem is appears that Trump is able to get Fox and his voters to bring the pitch forks out as soon as he adds the word "Gate" to anything regardless of any substantial point or evidence, so a Biden-Gate word salad might be in store for election week before anybody has time to confirm that there is no such a thing. Between "Emails" and "-Gate", Trump has mastered the (Fake) Art of the Accusation. Hope he has a ghost writer ready to write the book. It's too bad Bill Gates isn't running - Gates-Gate or Bill-Gate would be a good buzz-word.

[Dresden]

Another vote of no confidence for Trump. It is really maddening that we are stuck with such an inept administration during one of the greatest public health crises in our history. And why did he get elected? Because he convinced enough gullible people that he would be looking out for "the little guy". What a cruel joke that has turned out to be.

The Lancet Medical Journal Faults Trump’s Coronavirus Response, Politicizing of Public Health

Lindsey Ellefson
The WrapMay 15, 2020, 9:12 AM PDT

In a rare move for a medical journal, The Lancet waded into politics Friday, urging the election of a new president “who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics.”

The editorial, attributed to no author but “The Lancet,” is simply titled “Reviving the US CDC” and focuses on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC, according to the piece, “has seen its role minimised and become an ineffective and nominal adviser in the response to contain the spread of the virus” and has a “strained relationship” with the federal government.

Also Read: Fox News' Bret Baier: Dr Bright's Testimony Could Be 'Politically Damaging' for Trump

The journal outlines how the Trump administration, in its estimation, hollowed out the agency “that was the first point of contact for many national health authorities facing a public health threat”:

The Trump administration further chipped away at the CDC’s capacity to combat infectious diseases. CDC staff in China were cut back with the last remaining CDC officer recalled home from the China CDC in July, 2019, leaving an intelligence vacuum when COVID-19 began to emerge. In a press conference on Feb 25, Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, warned US citizens to prepare for major disruptions to movement and everyday life. Messonnier subsequently no longer appeared at White House briefings on COVID-19. More recently, the Trump administration has questioned guidelines that the CDC has provided. These actions have undermined the CDC’s leadership and its work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Lancet editorial acknowledges the CDC has made mistakes in its handling of the coronavirus crisis, which has now killed over 86,000 Americans. Still, it argues, “punishing the agency by marginalising and hobbling it is not the solution.”
...

[johnnyvann840]

Another vote of no confidence for Trump. It is really maddening that we are stuck with such an inept administration during one of the greatest public health crises in our history. And why did he get elected? Because he convinced enough gullible people that he would be looking out for "the little guy". What a cruel joke that has turned out to be.

The Lancet Medical Journal Faults Trump’s Coronavirus Response, Politicizing of Public Health

Lindsey Ellefson
The WrapMay 15, 2020, 9:12 AM PDT

In a rare move for a medical journal, The Lancet waded into politics Friday, urging the election of a new president “who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics.”

The editorial, attributed to no author but “The Lancet,” is simply titled “Reviving the US CDC” and focuses on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC, according to the piece, “has seen its role minimised and become an ineffective and nominal adviser in the response to contain the spread of the virus” and has a “strained relationship” with the federal government.

Also Read: Fox News' Bret Baier: Dr Bright's Testimony Could Be 'Politically Damaging' for Trump

The journal outlines how the Trump administration, in its estimation, hollowed out the agency “that was the first point of contact for many national health authorities facing a public health threat”:

The Trump administration further chipped away at the CDC’s capacity to combat infectious diseases. CDC staff in China were cut back with the last remaining CDC officer recalled home from the China CDC in July, 2019, leaving an intelligence vacuum when COVID-19 began to emerge. In a press conference on Feb 25, Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, warned US citizens to prepare for major disruptions to movement and everyday life. Messonnier subsequently no longer appeared at White House briefings on COVID-19. More recently, the Trump administration has questioned guidelines that the CDC has provided. These actions have undermined the CDC’s leadership and its work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Lancet editorial acknowledges the CDC has made mistakes in its handling of the coronavirus crisis, which has now killed over 86,000 Americans. Still, it argues, “punishing the agency by marginalising and hobbling it is not the solution.”
...

I'll never forget early on in all of this when Trump was in denial and stating how he "stopped it in it's tracks right at the border"... that there was only "three cases in the USA and soon to be none". We had nothing to worry about and it was just the flu. Then a few weeks later when things were getting bad and looking worse, he told a reporter that the Governor of her state should have been nicer to him and maybe that state would have more ventilators. Jesus... the pomposity.

[dice]

Don’t you think the US has a lot more people than some of those countries?

it does?!

Going with percentage just makes no sense at all.

and you're exactly wrong once again. because, you see, there are differing population sizes. as you just mentioned IN YOUR LAST SENTENCE

this is why the concept of percentage exists - to compare different sample sizes. like, you know, the populations of different countries

what method would you use to judge how widespread testing is if not percentage?

How about the method of the OVERALL numbers lol.

well that's just goddamn stupid. a small country that has tested every single one of its citizens has done worse than the US because we've tested a mere 3% of our massive population? do you not see how silly that logic is? do you also want to use overall numbers for DEATHS?

COVID-19 deaths

88K USA
34K UK
32K italy

guess donald trump has done the worst of any world leader when it comes to preventing COVID-19 deaths, eh?

you walked right into that one

el oh el, indeed

The US has tested more than 10 million people, more than all the other countries. Of course countries like Iceland who have a much lower population will have a higher percentage, they don’t have that many people. Iceland is first on this percentage list and they tested 56,000 people, you compare that to 10 plus million???

do you not understand that much larger nations are supposed to also have MUCH LARGER TESTING CAPACITY? governments plan based on the size of their populations!

yes, if you live in iceland, your government has done a better job with testing. because you're more likely to have been tested if you need it. because...percentages. this is grade school math stuff

Once again the main stream media uses this population percentage bs just to say Trump is wrong. They won’t even mention the overall numbers because it doesn’t fit their agenda. Why is it so bad to say trump is right about something?

jesus effing christ. you're just outright making stuff up now. the mainstream media DOESN'T use percentages. they ONLY report totals. total testing, total deaths, total cases, total everything

i told you that we have tested 3% of our population. me. because i bothered to do the calculations. you didn't know that fact until i told you. the mainstream media didn't tell you, and the misleading media YOU consume sure as hell didn't tell you

Our people, our doctors are the ones who have done all the testing and they have done a great job.

yes, yes they have. and everybody acknowledges that. unfortunately, our federal government's inept response, led by donald trump, has forced them into far worse circumstances than necessary

Anyone who needs a test will get one.

we should be testing people who DON'T need tests. BEFORE they need them! we should have tested way, WAY more than 3% of the goddamn population of the country by now. donald trump has had the ability from day one to order companies to produce sufficient supplies and tests to give us a leg up on this. he has refused to do it, instead leaving it to private industry and having states bid against each other AND the feds for it. it's colossally stupid

Anything trump says though is flipped and he is always wrong according to the media, don’t believe everything they say or write.

meanwhile you believe anything you read on whatever gutter lunatic websites you seem to be visiting. and then you post it elsewhere. because you have a partisan agenda and fail to apply critical thinking skills

[dice]

https://www.brighteon.com/8b28dffe-4baa-41f9-af80-0b0eaa682602

Please stop spreading this discredited BS.

You are dangerous.

Just an FYI for anyone who watched this "Plandemic" video.... this is a hoax and has been proven to be nothing but a trove of misinformation designed to prey on people who are vulnerable to wack-a-do conspiracy theories and the type of people who think Fox News is a real news channel. Believing this nonsense is not only dangerous to yourself but to others as well.

Red8911- I know you believe this crap but please do your own due diligence before you spread this crap around and believe and/or practice any of the bad ideas and misinformation in it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/05/plandemic-video-what-to-say-conspiracy/611464/

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/14/plandemic-movie-discredited-dr-doctor-judy-mikovits-how-debunked-conspiracy-theory-film-went-viral

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/5/12/21254184/how-plandemic-went-viral-facebook-youtube

https://www.wusa9.com/amp/article/news/verify/verify-the-plandemic-documentary-is-full-of-misinformation/507-95caed4e-7a95-4452-ba7f-98cd0442c9e9

First of all Fox News is the only news channel that is pro republican / Trump and of course that is not real news but CNN is real?
They do the same exact thing in favor of Democrats.If you don’t see that then idk what to tell you.

only people who believe everything they hear on right wing media think that CNN is the left wing version of fox. it's not remotely true. CNN was widely seen as middle-of-the-road until right wing media started saying effectively "anyone who isn't with us is against us." fox news viewers were told that everyone else was "mainstream media" and thus liberal. and their base, starving for fake news that jived with their world view, ate it right up. then donald trump gets elected, starts lying compulsively on a daily basis, CNN is forced to report on it...on a daily basis, and right wing media's self-fulfilling prophecy became even easier to sell to that incredibly gullible base. the kinds of people who are also willing to believe that competent, experienced "deep staters" like anthony fauci are trying to bring down trump. totally warped

MSNBC is the only mainstream news channel that caters to a left-wing viewership. and they decided to go that route only when fox news became popular and it became profitable to have a counter-point. fox news doofus tucker carlson had a show on MSNBC up until 2008