Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Trump Administration
Author Message
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,840
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #11281
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-16-2020 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Never heard of an opinion piece?
Well, Ham, when the initial point was that the article didn't have merit because of the background of the publication, then yeah, the background of the author certainly is relevant.
Did you miss that very obvious connection to the response?
The summary of this back-and-forth is: Owl#s responded "So, a leftwing rag hates Trump. No news there." so I pointed out the author isn't leftwing. If someone/an organizations political bent doesn't matter to the meaning/weight of their articles, then why did Owl#s start off pointing out The Atlantic's political bent?
And very regularly the experience/position/organization a person identifies with does matter with respect to how meaningful their opinion is. Are you actually trying to argue that it doesn't? Or do you just want to try and pick a meaningless fight?
If it ends this stupid back and forth, sorry for pointing out to Owl#s that the author of article in the liberal rag isn't a liberal. My mistake!

He is a never-Trumper republican, probably a neocon given his background. He is definitely not a liberal. He found a left-wing rag that would publish anything critical of Trump, from whatever source. And note that I didn't say liberal rag, I said left-wing rag. There is a difference. Like Milton Friedman, I consider myself a liberal in the classical sense, but nowhere near a left-winger. So if you are going to quote or paraphrase me, plus try to do so accurately in the future.

I use liberal to denote someone who believes in maximum liberty and limited government. That is pretty much the antithesis of today's left-wingers. Conservative just basically means supportive of the current order, whatever that is.

In the two-dimensional graphic of political beliefs that has appeared here several times, left-wing is on the left and right-wing is on the right. Liberal is on the bottom and authoritarian is on the top. I would be in the lower right quadrant. Somebody like Bernie or Biden or Warren or Harris or Buttigieg or Klobuchar or any of the other democrat contenders would be in the upper left quadrant, varying by degree. People like GWB and other neocons would be in the upper right-hand quadrant. So I don't care for neocons, but I don't disagree with them as much as I disagree with democrats.

Trump is a populist. He pisses everybody off and does his own thing.

As far as the article, what is the substance? It is basically a series of opinionated rants. There really isn't much there there.
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2020 09:59 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
03-17-2020 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,690
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11282
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 09:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-17-2020 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-16-2020 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Never heard of an opinion piece?
Well, Ham, when the initial point was that the article didn't have merit because of the background of the publication, then yeah, the background of the author certainly is relevant.
Did you miss that very obvious connection to the response?
The summary of this back-and-forth is: Owl#s responded "So, a leftwing rag hates Trump. No news there." so I pointed out the author isn't leftwing. If someone/an organizations political bent doesn't matter to the meaning/weight of their articles, then why did Owl#s start off pointing out The Atlantic's political bent?
And very regularly the experience/position/organization a person identifies with does matter with respect to how meaningful their opinion is. Are you actually trying to argue that it doesn't? Or do you just want to try and pick a meaningless fight?
If it ends this stupid back and forth, sorry for pointing out to Owl#s that the author of article in the liberal rag isn't a liberal. My mistake!

He is a never-Trumper republican, probably a neocon given his background. He found a left-wing rag that would publish anything critical of Trump, from whatever source. And note that I didn't say liberal rag, I said left-wing rag. There is a difference. Like Milton Friedman, I consider myself a liberal in the classical sense, but nowhere near a left-winger. So if you are going to quote or paraphrase me, plus try to do so accurately in the future.

Sorry, but I can't help but chuckle a bit. I obviously quoted you correctly when I used quotes and immediately followed it up (see bold). But sorry for not following that throughout the document. In my defense, I was 2 for 3 in describing what you said, but I'll try and be more careful going forward.
03-17-2020 10:04 AM
Find all posts by this user
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,840
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #11283
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry, but I can't help but chuckle a bit. I obviously quoted you correctly when I used quotes and immediately followed it up (see bold). But sorry for not following that throughout the document. In my defense, I was 2 for 3 in describing what you said, but I'll try and be more careful going forward.

2 for 3 is not good enough when putting words into the mouths of others. Do better next time. Capiche?
03-17-2020 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,840
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #11284
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 08:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  throwing money at it doesn't always help
“Most heartening, kids’ learning on average improved measurably in high schools,” Bruce Fuller said in a statement as the report was published. “But somewhat greater progress was made by students from better-off homes or schools in middle-class areas. The new funding appeared to bring far less benefit to the most disadvantaged groups.”

IMO, as long as the operative model is mainstreaming, it won't matter how much money we throw at it. Other countries get better results for far less money by putting students on tracks congruent with their interests and abilities. When you're dumbing down a history lesson so that the bottom 10% understand it, the top 10% are bored to death.

I was a bit of a discipline problem in HS because I was bored to death 95% of the time, and I don't do boredom well. So I would start something to end the boredom. It's not a great personality trait, but I admit it.
03-17-2020 10:22 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,690
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11285
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 10:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-17-2020 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sorry, but I can't help but chuckle a bit. I obviously quoted you correctly when I used quotes and immediately followed it up (see bold). But sorry for not following that throughout the document. In my defense, I was 2 for 3 in describing what you said, but I'll try and be more careful going forward.

2 for 3 is not good enough when putting words into the mouths of others. Do better next time. Capiche?

Lighten up a bit. I obviously wasn't putting words in your mouth with quotes and wasn't intentionally misrepresenting you since I clearly quoted you directly - take a chill pill.

I'll note your distinction between left-wing and liberal going forward, if it means that much to you.
03-17-2020 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,840
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #11286
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 10:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Lighten up a bit. I obviously wasn't putting words in your mouth with quotes and wasn't intentionally misrepresenting you since I clearly quoted you directly - take a chill pill.
I'll note your distinction between left-wing and liberal going forward, if it means that much to you.

My left-wing/liberal distinction was directed completely toward your last sentence. And I appreciate your effort to honor the distinction in the future.
03-17-2020 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,690
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11287
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 10:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-17-2020 10:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Lighten up a bit. I obviously wasn't putting words in your mouth with quotes and wasn't intentionally misrepresenting you since I clearly quoted you directly - take a chill pill.
I'll note your distinction between left-wing and liberal going forward, if it means that much to you.

My left-wing/liberal distinction was directed completely toward your last sentence. And I appreciate your effort to honor the distinction in the future.

No problem. I do understand your desire to make the distinction clear. I forget where it was, but I remember seeing someone take umbrage with the use of "liberal democracy" because they thought it meant progressive, and not liberal in the classical sense you're talking about.
03-17-2020 10:50 AM
Find all posts by this user
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,342
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1293
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #11288
RE: Trump Administration
First, let me start by saying when I'm pointing out your condescension in this post, it's only to make you aware of it to explain the tone of my responses since you seem unaware. I can go either way with it. We can be civil, or we can do this.

(03-17-2020 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-17-2020 08:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-16-2020 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Never heard of an opinion piece?

That's sort of the point though Lad. Do you think we can't find people who have worked for numerous Democrats critical of Bernie or Biden? Do you think that makes their opinion more meaningful. Do you think it makes one opinion more valid and someone else's less so? Is there something in there you think others would find enlightening, or is it just someone else saying the same things others have?

I think the obvious answer to all of those comments is 'no', so what is the point? If you're trying to simply say, here's an opinion you agree with... well... thanks

Well, Ham, when the initial point was that the article didn't have merit because of the background of the publication, then yeah, the background of the author certainly is relevant.

Did you miss that very obvious connection to the response?

This is you being a condescending prick again.

Did YOU miss the very obvious point that someone's political affiliation doesn't make them 'correct'? (that's me being condescending in response)

Now, to discuss it... I never said it had no relevance... did I. You do this sort of straw man arguing a lot. I merely suggested that nobody from either party is without detractors from within their own party. What matters to informed people not defined by their political ideology like those you are speaking to is the veracity/logic of someone's opinions... not their affiliation. I asked you if he shared any new information that would make his opinions more valid/logical. You ignored every single question I asked and instead implied I said something I didn't (that his background was irrelevant) and argued with that.

Quote:The summary of this back-and-forth is: Owl#s responded "So, a leftwing rag hates Trump. No news there." so I pointed out the author isn't leftwing. If someone/an organizations political bent doesn't matter to the meaning/weight of their articles, then why did Owl#s start off pointing out The Atlantic's political bent?

That's one way to look at it. Another is that leftwing rags (and rightwing rags) LOVE to find people who disagree with their own party... just as I suggested by my questions. In this case, the Atlantic found someone who leans right who doesn't like Trump. That's not new or news... NeverTrumpers is a meme. The question is, just as I asked... what about what he SAID do you find new/interesting/poignant?

Quote:And very regularly the experience/position/organization a person identifies with does matter with respect to how meaningful their opinion is. Are you actually trying to argue that it doesn't? Or do you just want to try and pick a meaningless fight?

More meaningless condescension.

Now to actually discuss it... your 'experience/position/organization' comment is so broad that it is difficult to agree or disagree with it. The best response I can give is, 'it depends'.

Any moron can identify with a political organization, so that has little meaning to me. The fact that many similarly prominent democrats disagree with Biden and Bernie demonstrates that opinions, even by people who share an organization... often even experience or position can vary. I don't put a lot of stock in identity politics. I don't assume that because someone is a Republican and so am I, that I'm going to agree with them.

So let's look at the substance that stood out to me... especially in light of our recent conversations... editing merely for brevity

It took until the second half of Trump’s first term, but the crisis has arrived in the form of the coronavirus pandemic, and it’s hard to name a president who has been as overwhelmed by a crisis as the coronavirus has overwhelmed Donald Trump.[b]

Dog Whistle phrase for the left
Quote:
To be sure, the president isn’t responsible for either the coronavirus or the disease it causes, COVID-19, and he couldn’t have stopped it from hitting our shores even if he had done everything right. Nor is it the case that the president hasn’t done anything right; in fact, his decision to implement a travel ban on China was prudent. And any narrative that attempts to pin all of the blame on Trump for the coronavirus is simply unfair. The temptation among the president’s critics to use the pandemic to get back at Trump for every bad thing he’s done should be resisted, and schadenfreude is never a good look.
[b]That said, the president and his administration are responsible for grave, costly errors, most especially the epic manufacturing failures in diagnostic testing, the decision to test too few people, the delay in expanding testing to labs outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and problems in the supply chain. These mistakes have left us blind and badly behind the curve, and, for a few crucial weeks, they created a false sense of security.


I couldn't disagree with this conclusion more and have expressed why. HE says it created a false sense of security to NOT have testing. As I have discussed ad nauseum, for the general population, I couldn't disagree more. False negatives are the risk here. If you're risk averse as you claim to be... you can either wait on facts, or you can follow the healthcare standard of care in the absence of those facts.

So you have a Republican whose expertise seems to be as a speechwriter... and according to Wiki, a leading conservative critic of Trump... and the primary thing he's really faulting Trump for here is something he doesn't seem to have much experience with and I completely disagree with?

Let me be clear...
I don't think Trump did anything to delay the testing, nor do I think he intentionally did what I would have suggested in my professional capacity. I believe that policies and procedures put in place over decades lead to an 'unpopular to the layman', but absolutely clinically 'best practice' outcome. I can't blame Trump for the correct outcome, but I also won't give him credit for something I honestly can't imagine he would do on his own.
03-17-2020 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,342
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1293
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #11289
RE: Trump Administration
First, let me start by saying when I'm pointing out your condescension in this post, it's only to make you aware of it to explain the tone of my responses since you seem unaware. I can go either way with it. We can be civil, or we can do this.

(03-17-2020 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-17-2020 08:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-16-2020 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Never heard of an opinion piece?

That's sort of the point though Lad. Do you think we can't find people who have worked for numerous Democrats critical of Bernie or Biden? Do you think that makes their opinion more meaningful. Do you think it makes one opinion more valid and someone else's less so? Is there something in there you think others would find enlightening, or is it just someone else saying the same things others have?

I think the obvious answer to all of those comments is 'no', so what is the point? If you're trying to simply say, here's an opinion you agree with... well... thanks

Well, Ham, when the initial point was that the article didn't have merit because of the background of the publication, then yeah, the background of the author certainly is relevant.

Did you miss that very obvious connection to the response?

This is you being a condescending prick again.

Did YOU miss the very obvious point that someone's political affiliation doesn't make them 'correct'? (that's me being condescending in response)

Now, to discuss it... I never said it had no relevance... did I. You do this sort of straw man arguing a lot. I merely suggested that nobody from either party is without detractors from within their own party. What matters to informed people not defined by their political ideology like those you are speaking to is the veracity/logic of someone's opinions... not their affiliation. I asked you if he shared any new information that would make his opinions more valid/logical. You ignored every single question I asked and instead implied I said something I didn't (that his background was irrelevant) and argued with that.

Quote:The summary of this back-and-forth is: Owl#s responded "So, a leftwing rag hates Trump. No news there." so I pointed out the author isn't leftwing. If someone/an organizations political bent doesn't matter to the meaning/weight of their articles, then why did Owl#s start off pointing out The Atlantic's political bent?

That's one way to look at it. Another is that leftwing rags (and rightwing rags) LOVE to find people who disagree with their own party... just as I suggested by my questions. In this case, the Atlantic found someone who leans right who doesn't like Trump. That's not new or news... NeverTrumpers is a meme. The question is, just as I asked... what about what he SAID do you find new/interesting/poignant?

Quote:And very regularly the experience/position/organization a person identifies with does matter with respect to how meaningful their opinion is. Are you actually trying to argue that it doesn't? Or do you just want to try and pick a meaningless fight?

More meaningless condescension.

Now to actually discuss it... your 'experience/position/organization' comment is so broad that it is difficult to agree or disagree with it. The best response I can give is, 'it depends'.

Any moron can identify with a political organization, so that has little meaning to me. The fact that many similarly prominent democrats disagree with Biden and Bernie demonstrates that opinions, even by people who share an organization... often even experience or position can vary. I don't put a lot of stock in identity politics. I don't assume that because someone is a Republican and so am I, that I'm going to agree with them.

So let's look at the substance that stood out to me... especially in light of our recent conversations... editing merely for brevity

It took until the second half of Trump’s first term, but the crisis has arrived in the form of the coronavirus pandemic, and it’s hard to name a president who has been as overwhelmed by a crisis as the coronavirus has overwhelmed Donald Trump.

Dog Whistle phrase for the left
Quote:
To be sure, the president isn’t responsible for either the coronavirus or the disease it causes, COVID-19, and he couldn’t have stopped it from hitting our shores even if he had done everything right. Nor is it the case that the president hasn’t done anything right; in fact, his decision to implement a travel ban on China was prudent. And any narrative that attempts to pin all of the blame on Trump for the coronavirus is simply unfair. The temptation among the president’s critics to use the pandemic to get back at Trump for every bad thing he’s done should be resisted, and schadenfreude is never a good look.
That said, the president and his administration are responsible for grave, costly errors, most especially the epic manufacturing failures in diagnostic testing, the decision to test too few people, the delay in expanding testing to labs outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and problems in the supply chain. These mistakes have left us blind and badly behind the curve, and, for a few crucial weeks, they created a false sense of security.


I couldn't disagree with this conclusion more and have expressed why. HE says it created a false sense of security to NOT have testing. As I have discussed ad nauseum, for the general population, I couldn't disagree more. False negatives are the risk here. If you're risk averse as you claim to be... you can either wait on facts, or you can follow the healthcare standard of care in the absence of those facts.

So you have a Republican whose expertise seems to be as a speechwriter... and according to Wiki, a leading conservative critic of Trump... and the primary thing he's really faulting Trump for here is something he doesn't seem to have much experience with and I completely disagree with?

Let me be clear...
I don't think Trump did anything to delay the testing, nor do I think he intentionally did what I would have suggested in my professional capacity. I believe that policies and procedures put in place over decades lead to an 'unpopular to the layman', but absolutely clinically 'best practice' outcome. I can't blame Trump for the correct outcome, but I also won't give him credit for something I honestly can't imagine he would do on his own.
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2020 11:27 AM by Hambone10.)
03-17-2020 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,690
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11290
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 11:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  First, let me start by saying when I'm pointing out your condescension in this post, it's only to make you aware of it to explain the tone of my responses since you seem unaware. I can go either way with it. We can be civil, or we can do this.

(03-17-2020 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-17-2020 08:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-16-2020 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Never heard of an opinion piece?

That's sort of the point though Lad. Do you think we can't find people who have worked for numerous Democrats critical of Bernie or Biden? Do you think that makes their opinion more meaningful. Do you think it makes one opinion more valid and someone else's less so? Is there something in there you think others would find enlightening, or is it just someone else saying the same things others have?

I think the obvious answer to all of those comments is 'no', so what is the point? If you're trying to simply say, here's an opinion you agree with... well... thanks

Well, Ham, when the initial point was that the article didn't have merit because of the background of the publication, then yeah, the background of the author certainly is relevant.

Did you miss that very obvious connection to the response?

This is you being a condescending prick again.

Did YOU miss the very obvious point that someone's political affiliation doesn't make them 'correct'? (that's me being condescending in response)

Now, to discuss it... I never said it had no relevance... did I. You do this sort of straw man arguing a lot. I merely suggested that nobody from either party is without detractors from within their own party. What matters to informed people not defined by their political ideology like those you are speaking to is the veracity/logic of someone's opinions... not their affiliation. I asked you if he shared any new information that would make his opinions more valid/logical. You ignored every single question I asked and instead implied I said something I didn't (that his background was irrelevant) and argued with that.

Quote:The summary of this back-and-forth is: Owl#s responded "So, a leftwing rag hates Trump. No news there." so I pointed out the author isn't leftwing. If someone/an organizations political bent doesn't matter to the meaning/weight of their articles, then why did Owl#s start off pointing out The Atlantic's political bent?

That's one way to look at it. Another is that leftwing rags (and rightwing rags) LOVE to find people who disagree with their own party... just as I suggested by my questions. In this case, the Atlantic found someone who leans right who doesn't like Trump. That's not new or news... NeverTrumpers is a meme. The question is, just as I asked... what about what he SAID do you find new/interesting/poignant?

Quote:And very regularly the experience/position/organization a person identifies with does matter with respect to how meaningful their opinion is. Are you actually trying to argue that it doesn't? Or do you just want to try and pick a meaningless fight?

More meaningless condescension.

Now to actually discuss it... your 'experience/position/organization' comment is so broad that it is difficult to agree or disagree with it. The best response I can give is, 'it depends'.

Any moron can identify with a political organization, so that has little meaning to me. The fact that many similarly prominent democrats disagree with Biden and Bernie demonstrates that opinions, even by people who share an organization... often even experience or position can vary. I don't put a lot of stock in identity politics. I don't assume that because someone is a Republican and so am I, that I'm going to agree with them.

So let's look at the substance that stood out to me... especially in light of our recent conversations... editing merely for brevity

It took until the second half of Trump’s first term, but the crisis has arrived in the form of the coronavirus pandemic, and it’s hard to name a president who has been as overwhelmed by a crisis as the coronavirus has overwhelmed Donald Trump.

Dog Whistle phrase for the left
Quote:
To be sure, the president isn’t responsible for either the coronavirus or the disease it causes, COVID-19, and he couldn’t have stopped it from hitting our shores even if he had done everything right. Nor is it the case that the president hasn’t done anything right; in fact, his decision to implement a travel ban on China was prudent. And any narrative that attempts to pin all of the blame on Trump for the coronavirus is simply unfair. The temptation among the president’s critics to use the pandemic to get back at Trump for every bad thing he’s done should be resisted, and schadenfreude is never a good look.
That said, the president and his administration are responsible for grave, costly errors, most especially the epic manufacturing failures in diagnostic testing, the decision to test too few people, the delay in expanding testing to labs outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and problems in the supply chain. These mistakes have left us blind and badly behind the curve, and, for a few crucial weeks, they created a false sense of security.


I couldn't disagree with this conclusion more and have expressed why. HE says it created a false sense of security to NOT have testing. As I have discussed ad nauseum, for the general population, I couldn't disagree more. False negatives are the risk here. If you're risk averse as you claim to be... you can either wait on facts, or you can follow the healthcare standard of care in the absence of those facts.

So you have a Republican whose expertise seems to be as a speechwriter... and according to Wiki, a leading conservative critic of Trump... and the primary thing he's really faulting Trump for here is something he doesn't seem to have much experience with and I completely disagree with?

Let me be clear...
I don't think Trump did anything to delay the testing, nor do I think he intentionally did what I would have suggested in my professional capacity. I believe that policies and procedures put in place over decades lead to an 'unpopular to the layman', but absolutely clinically 'best practice' outcome. I can't blame Trump for the correct outcome, but I also won't give him credit for something I honestly can't imagine he would do on his own.

Yep - I meant for the lines to be taken that way, as I was responding in kind.
03-17-2020 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,342
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1293
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #11291
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yep - I meant for the lines to be taken that way, as I was responding in kind.

Ok, so I started it all. Got it.

Outside of that, do you care to address any of the substantive pieces of my comments and response?
03-17-2020 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,342
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1293
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #11292
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yep - I meant for the lines to be taken that way, as I was responding in kind.

Ok, so I started it all. Got it.

Outside of that, do you care to address any of the substantive pieces of my comments and response?
03-17-2020 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user
At Ease Offline
Banned

Posts: 17,134
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #11293
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 11:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I couldn't disagree with this conclusion more and have expressed why. HE says it created a false sense of security to NOT have testing. As I have discussed ad nauseum, for the general population, I couldn't disagree more. False negatives are the risk here. If you're risk averse as you claim to be... you can either wait on facts, or you can follow the healthcare standard of care in the absence of those facts.

I know we all have our pre-set conclusions and that arguing towards them can be difficult sometimes, but even still, I am surprised you are sticking with this bogus explanation. False negatives are only a risk if you over-interpret the test result; these are an inherent limitation in any test like this-- RTPCR is noisy, the material is at low abundance and unstable, and the sequence-specificity of the assay assumes the nucleotide sequence tested for will be static, when we know that these agents are highly mutable. Anyone handling these tests will have been trained on how to interpret them, and the CDC has clear guidelines on this.

And even then, false negatives are certainly less damaging than say.. having no test and no way to monitor the spread of the disease.
03-17-2020 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,342
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1293
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #11294
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 12:20 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
(03-17-2020 11:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I couldn't disagree with this conclusion more and have expressed why. HE says it created a false sense of security to NOT have testing. As I have discussed ad nauseum, for the general population, I couldn't disagree more. False negatives are the risk here. If you're risk averse as you claim to be... you can either wait on facts, or you can follow the healthcare standard of care in the absence of those facts.

I know we all have our pre-set conclusions and that arguing towards them can be difficult sometimes, but even still, I am surprised you are sticking with this bogus explanation. False negatives are only a risk if you over-interpret the test result; these are an inherent limitation in any test like this-- RTPCR is noisy, the material is at low abundance and unstable, and the sequence-specificity of the assay assumes the nucleotide sequence tested for will be static, when we know that these agents are highly mutable. Anyone handling these tests will have been trained on how to interpret them, and the CDC has clear guidelines on this.

And even then, false negatives are certainly less damaging than say.. having no test and no way to monitor the spread of the disease.

Bogus explanation? Please clarify. If you're talking about someone in the administration claiming this explains their actions, I haven't seen it nor do I care... that isn't me and not remotely what I'm talking about. That's political BS.

If you're saying it's not valid, you're absolutely wrong when it comes to pandemics and the spread of viruses. Any healthcare worker will tell you that it is the clinical 'standard of care' for flu and the means by which a providers actions are measured to treat someone with symptoms but a negative test as if the test was positive. Why would the standard of care... the clinical expectation be that we give anti-virals or engage in anti-viral protocols to someone without a positive test for a virus?

What I'm saying is that MANY Americans (on both sides) do not like authority.... and they do not like being made to do things without indisputable FACTS to prove that they must. A test is one of these 'facts'... but it is only valid if it really is a FACT (near 100% accuracy). Heck... HIV and pregnancy are big risks and still many people at risk refuse to take precautions. You seem to be talking about data analysis, and I'm talking about the spread of disease. I don't care if the infection rate is 2% or 1%... I care that it is 'more or less than it otherwise would be' based on how we handle it.

Someone with a negative test, even if told to quarantine and do whatever else is far less likely to comply than someone with the exact same symptoms but a positive test. A false negative puts many people at risk. A false positive skews the analytical data and inconveniences someone, but does not put others at risk.

Recall that early on, there were reported cases of people with symptoms being tested many times before testing positive.
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2020 01:45 PM by Hambone10.)
03-17-2020 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,690
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11295
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 12:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(03-17-2020 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yep - I meant for the lines to be taken that way, as I was responding in kind.

Ok, so I started it all. Got it.

Outside of that, do you care to address any of the substantive pieces of my comments and response?

I don't know if you or I started it, and it doesn't matter because neither of us are innocent of not being condescending dicks at times.
03-17-2020 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,690
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11296
RE: Trump Administration
Ham - to the substantive points of the post, there isn't much to add to the conversation about that article posted.

I never read it, I just looked up who the author was, since Owl#s took umbrage with the left-wing slant of the publication, and I wondered if the author had a similar slant. Since he focused on the political affiliation of the publication, it seemed like the political affiliation of the author was equally important. And given that the author was of the opposite political spectrum, that seemed relevant to a comment focusing on political spectrum. If you think it doesn't add much insight, that's your prerogative. I have no desire to debate the merits of that article, given I haven't even read it.
03-17-2020 02:14 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #11297
RE: Trump Administration
So you posted the article, yet never read it?
03-17-2020 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,690
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11298
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 03:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you posted the article, yet never read it?

I didn't post the article...

edit: original post from At Ease - https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-16...id16739400
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2020 03:52 PM by RiceLad15.)
03-17-2020 03:45 PM
Find all posts by this user
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,840
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #11299
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 02:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham - to the substantive points of the post, there isn't much to add to the conversation about that article posted.
I never read it, I just looked up who the author was, since Owl#s took umbrage with the left-wing slant of the publication, and I wondered if the author had a similar slant. Since he focused on the political affiliation of the publication, it seemed like the political affiliation of the author was equally important. And given that the author was of the opposite political spectrum, that seemed relevant to a comment focusing on political spectrum. If you think it doesn't add much insight, that's your prerogative. I have no desire to debate the merits of that article, given I haven't even read it.

I don't think the author is necessarily of the opposite side of the political spectrum. Both The Atlantic and the author appear to lie on the Authoritarian side of the Authoritarian/Libertarian divide (the Y-axis, if you will). Left and Right mean less to me, and in particular would seem to mean less in this particular discussion, than Authoritarian versus Libertarian, although I am clearly right of center on the Left/Right axis.

Both the left authoritarian (democrat) and the right authoritarian (neocon) hate Trump because he is a populist. As such, he tends to piss off everybody associated with the pre 2016 political establishment.
03-17-2020 03:54 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,690
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11300
RE: Trump Administration
(03-17-2020 03:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-17-2020 02:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham - to the substantive points of the post, there isn't much to add to the conversation about that article posted.
I never read it, I just looked up who the author was, since Owl#s took umbrage with the left-wing slant of the publication, and I wondered if the author had a similar slant. Since he focused on the political affiliation of the publication, it seemed like the political affiliation of the author was equally important. And given that the author was of the opposite political spectrum, that seemed relevant to a comment focusing on political spectrum. If you think it doesn't add much insight, that's your prerogative. I have no desire to debate the merits of that article, given I haven't even read it.

I don't think the author is necessarily of the opposite side of the political spectrum. Both The Atlantic and the author appear to lie on the Authoritarian side of the Authoritarian/Libertarian divide (the Y-axis, if you will). Left and Right mean less to me, and in particular would seem to mean less in this particular discussion, than Authoritarian versus Libertarian, although I am clearly right of center on the Left/Right axis.

Both the left authoritarian (democrat) and the right authoritarian (neocon) hate Trump because he is a populist. As such, he tends to piss off everybody associated with the pre 2016 political establishment.

He certainly isn't left wing. You make a good point about the difficulty of ascribing a singular term to political disposition, and that the 4-point model is a better way to describe someone.
03-17-2020 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.