04-14-2020, 10:07 PM
Very interesting article, that Slow Pearl Harbors...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/t...us-crisis/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/t...us-crisis/
Audaces fortuna iuvat
US to stop funding WHO
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Very interesting article, that Slow Pearl Harbors...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/t...us-crisis/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/t...us-crisis/
Audaces fortuna iuvat
04-14-2020, 10:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-14-2020, 10:26 PM by BostonCard.)
(04-14-2020, 10:07 PM)Mick Wrote: Very interesting article, that Slow Pearl Harbors...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/t...us-crisis/
Good piece. Thanks for sharing.
BC
(04-14-2020, 09:49 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: There's no question that the horses were long gone from the barn by January 31st. But there's also no question that WHO's acquiescence to the CCP spin on the virus did enormous damage.
Whether that justifies abandonment of the organization, I don't know. But it seems to have failed near completely here, much worse than our own CDC.
The WHO is only going to be as good as the information it receives, and the CCP is good at subverting organizations to suit its purposes. If it is told there is no evidence of human to human transmission, aside from going to Wuhan and doing its own case epidemiology, it's going to have to assume that the reports it gets are true until it is obvious that they aren't. In a fast moving epidemic, data is always provisional. And "no evidence of human transmission" means just that, not "the virus cannot be transmitted from person to person".
To me the bigger sin is becoming politicized in the dispute between China and Taiwan. China likes to throw its weight around like that to the detriment of the broader mission of the WHO, and it would be reasonable to push back. But not now. The WHO serves a valuable purpose and is going to be needed to help developing nations cope with this virus.
Besides, it's the WHO that is testing Trump's favorite cure for COVID-19. https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/who-...rus-drugs/
BC
(This post was last modified: 04-14-2020, 10:26 PM by BostonCard.)
(04-14-2020, 10:07 PM)Mick Wrote: Very interesting article, that Slow Pearl Harbors...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/t...us-crisis/
Good piece. Thanks for sharing.
BC
(04-14-2020, 09:49 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: There's no question that the horses were long gone from the barn by January 31st. But there's also no question that WHO's acquiescence to the CCP spin on the virus did enormous damage.
Whether that justifies abandonment of the organization, I don't know. But it seems to have failed near completely here, much worse than our own CDC.
The WHO is only going to be as good as the information it receives, and the CCP is good at subverting organizations to suit its purposes. If it is told there is no evidence of human to human transmission, aside from going to Wuhan and doing its own case epidemiology, it's going to have to assume that the reports it gets are true until it is obvious that they aren't. In a fast moving epidemic, data is always provisional. And "no evidence of human transmission" means just that, not "the virus cannot be transmitted from person to person".
To me the bigger sin is becoming politicized in the dispute between China and Taiwan. China likes to throw its weight around like that to the detriment of the broader mission of the WHO, and it would be reasonable to push back. But not now. The WHO serves a valuable purpose and is going to be needed to help developing nations cope with this virus.
Besides, it's the WHO that is testing Trump's favorite cure for COVID-19. https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18/who-...rus-drugs/
BC
04-15-2020, 07:43 PM
As with all things the current POTUS, his words mean nothing, which is why I don’t believe a single solitary thing he says. Just easier that way.
So given he has no authority to suspend WHO funding, until the WHO confirms it, I wouldn’t believe it. Because burger is right, doing so would be an impeachable offense, as we learned in December and January.
Tuesday he claimed he had the power he does not have over states, and apparently today he claimed he has the power he does not have to adjourn Congress, another example of why listening to him is a fool’s errand. He’s claiming powers he doesn’t have and not using the ones he does to fix testing, that is the only thing that matter to anyone in the country who has any basically sense of reality.
So given he has no authority to suspend WHO funding, until the WHO confirms it, I wouldn’t believe it. Because burger is right, doing so would be an impeachable offense, as we learned in December and January.
Tuesday he claimed he had the power he does not have over states, and apparently today he claimed he has the power he does not have to adjourn Congress, another example of why listening to him is a fool’s errand. He’s claiming powers he doesn’t have and not using the ones he does to fix testing, that is the only thing that matter to anyone in the country who has any basically sense of reality.
As with all things the current POTUS, his words mean nothing, which is why I don’t believe a single solitary thing he says. Just easier that way.
So given he has no authority to suspend WHO funding, until the WHO confirms it, I wouldn’t believe it. Because burger is right, doing so would be an impeachable offense, as we learned in December and January.
Tuesday he claimed he had the power he does not have over states, and apparently today he claimed he has the power he does not have to adjourn Congress, another example of why listening to him is a fool’s errand. He’s claiming powers he doesn’t have and not using the ones he does to fix testing, that is the only thing that matter to anyone in the country who has any basically sense of reality.
So given he has no authority to suspend WHO funding, until the WHO confirms it, I wouldn’t believe it. Because burger is right, doing so would be an impeachable offense, as we learned in December and January.
Tuesday he claimed he had the power he does not have over states, and apparently today he claimed he has the power he does not have to adjourn Congress, another example of why listening to him is a fool’s errand. He’s claiming powers he doesn’t have and not using the ones he does to fix testing, that is the only thing that matter to anyone in the country who has any basically sense of reality.
It seems so off base to me to be evaluating the WHO, and more so talk of cutting its funding, in the middle of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. Who does that?
It's like, er, what ... rewiring the tornado warning system when there's a tornado one town over?
I doubt there's any NGO or public sector agency that doesn't have flaws and can't be criticized. But now? It seems to me if we just take a step back, the timing is way inappropriate. And more so from the nation whose government is the most obvious failure in the timing and effectiveness of its response.
It's like, er, what ... rewiring the tornado warning system when there's a tornado one town over?
I doubt there's any NGO or public sector agency that doesn't have flaws and can't be criticized. But now? It seems to me if we just take a step back, the timing is way inappropriate. And more so from the nation whose government is the most obvious failure in the timing and effectiveness of its response.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2020, 12:55 AM by oregontim.)
It seems so off base to me to be evaluating the WHO, and more so talk of cutting its funding, in the middle of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. Who does that?
It's like, er, what ... rewiring the tornado warning system when there's a tornado one town over?
I doubt there's any NGO or public sector agency that doesn't have flaws and can't be criticized. But now? It seems to me if we just take a step back, the timing is way inappropriate. And more so from the nation whose government is the most obvious failure in the timing and effectiveness of its response.
It's like, er, what ... rewiring the tornado warning system when there's a tornado one town over?
I doubt there's any NGO or public sector agency that doesn't have flaws and can't be criticized. But now? It seems to me if we just take a step back, the timing is way inappropriate. And more so from the nation whose government is the most obvious failure in the timing and effectiveness of its response.
(04-15-2020, 07:43 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: So given he has no authority to suspend WHO funding . . . Because burger is right, doing so would be an impeachable offense, as we learned in December and January.As I commented on Burger's post above, suspending appropriated funding by itself was not one of the things Trump was impeached for; it was for suspending funding for an improper purpose that constituted Abuse of Power. Now, one might argue that he plans to suspend WHO funding for the purpose of distracting attention from his deficiencies in the feds' pandemic response, which is an improper purpose. Or so that he'd be re-elected, which is an improper purpose. To me that is too much of a stretch to be a viable enough argument to support impeachment. In the first impeachment charge, the connection to his re-election was direct and primary.
from the article I cited in my earlier post, about the GAO finding that the Trump administration's withholding military aid from the Ukraine violated the Impoundment Control Act: NY Times article
"The law at issue, the Impoundment Control Act, was enacted in 1974. It limits a president’s power to withhold money that has been allocated by Congress, requiring approval from the legislative branch to do so. . . .
This is not the first time that the accountability office has ruled that the Trump administration violated the impoundment act. It did so in December 2017 related to Energy Department funds and in December 2018 related to the Department of Homeland Security’s funding. . . .
Formal determinations by the Government Accountability Office that the Impoundment Control Act has been violated have occurred in past administrations, including during the tenure of President George W. Bush."
(04-15-2020, 07:43 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: So given he has no authority to suspend WHO funding . . . Because burger is right, doing so would be an impeachable offense, as we learned in December and January.As I commented on Burger's post above, suspending appropriated funding by itself was not one of the things Trump was impeached for; it was for suspending funding for an improper purpose that constituted Abuse of Power. Now, one might argue that he plans to suspend WHO funding for the purpose of distracting attention from his deficiencies in the feds' pandemic response, which is an improper purpose. Or so that he'd be re-elected, which is an improper purpose. To me that is too much of a stretch to be a viable enough argument to support impeachment. In the first impeachment charge, the connection to his re-election was direct and primary.
from the article I cited in my earlier post, about the GAO finding that the Trump administration's withholding military aid from the Ukraine violated the Impoundment Control Act: NY Times article
"The law at issue, the Impoundment Control Act, was enacted in 1974. It limits a president’s power to withhold money that has been allocated by Congress, requiring approval from the legislative branch to do so. . . .
This is not the first time that the accountability office has ruled that the Trump administration violated the impoundment act. It did so in December 2017 related to Energy Department funds and in December 2018 related to the Department of Homeland Security’s funding. . . .
Formal determinations by the Government Accountability Office that the Impoundment Control Act has been violated have occurred in past administrations, including during the tenure of President George W. Bush."
04-15-2020, 10:53 PM
(04-15-2020, 07:43 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: As with all things the current POTUS, his words mean nothing, which is why I don’t believe a single solitary thing he says. Just easier that way.
This is very true. Trump says a lot of things that never wind up happening. Saying he's withdrawing funds from the WHO means that people are talking about whether it is a good or bad idea to withdraw funds from the WHO and debating whether he has the authority. On the other hand, we aren't talking about what the administration has done well or poorly in terms of fighting the pandemic.
Deaths due to COVID-19 over the last two days have been above 2400, after a few days where it was looking like the number of deaths was settling down under 2000. At least the number of new cases has been more or less flat at 30,000 per day since the beginning of April.
BC
(04-15-2020, 07:43 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: As with all things the current POTUS, his words mean nothing, which is why I don’t believe a single solitary thing he says. Just easier that way.
This is very true. Trump says a lot of things that never wind up happening. Saying he's withdrawing funds from the WHO means that people are talking about whether it is a good or bad idea to withdraw funds from the WHO and debating whether he has the authority. On the other hand, we aren't talking about what the administration has done well or poorly in terms of fighting the pandemic.
Deaths due to COVID-19 over the last two days have been above 2400, after a few days where it was looking like the number of deaths was settling down under 2000. At least the number of new cases has been more or less flat at 30,000 per day since the beginning of April.
BC
04-16-2020, 04:03 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2020, 04:07 AM by OutsiderFan.)
I saw Neil Katyal interviewed saying the POTUS has no authority to block funding appropriated by Congress. The Ukraine withholding defense was made under the guise the POTUS was protecting national security. Impeachment happened because it was proven this was not the reason it was withheld, and it was instead an attempt to use federal funding to extract personal gain.
No argument can be made WHO funding is being withheld in interest of national security. So in fact, there is not even a defense available for suspending WHO funding. The only way it can be is by Congressional approval. IOW, withholding WHO funding is a more transparently impeachable offense than Ukraine, because there is no legal defense for it. This is why I’m not going to believe funding is being withheld until the WHO confirms it.
I mean in March we were also told we would have these amazing tests and drive thru testing sites at Walmart, CVS, and Target. That never happened either. We were told travel from China was stopped when it wasn’t. We were told the virus would go away by April and we will pass 1,000,000 confirmed cases next week. Just Wednesday, he claimed testing was great, when we know irrefutably that it is not only not, but getting worse. Need I go on? Or must I provide more evidence to prove my case that you should believe nothing the guy says? I’ve got an endless supply and more is produced every single day.
No argument can be made WHO funding is being withheld in interest of national security. So in fact, there is not even a defense available for suspending WHO funding. The only way it can be is by Congressional approval. IOW, withholding WHO funding is a more transparently impeachable offense than Ukraine, because there is no legal defense for it. This is why I’m not going to believe funding is being withheld until the WHO confirms it.
I mean in March we were also told we would have these amazing tests and drive thru testing sites at Walmart, CVS, and Target. That never happened either. We were told travel from China was stopped when it wasn’t. We were told the virus would go away by April and we will pass 1,000,000 confirmed cases next week. Just Wednesday, he claimed testing was great, when we know irrefutably that it is not only not, but getting worse. Need I go on? Or must I provide more evidence to prove my case that you should believe nothing the guy says? I’ve got an endless supply and more is produced every single day.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2020, 04:07 AM by OutsiderFan.)
I saw Neil Katyal interviewed saying the POTUS has no authority to block funding appropriated by Congress. The Ukraine withholding defense was made under the guise the POTUS was protecting national security. Impeachment happened because it was proven this was not the reason it was withheld, and it was instead an attempt to use federal funding to extract personal gain.
No argument can be made WHO funding is being withheld in interest of national security. So in fact, there is not even a defense available for suspending WHO funding. The only way it can be is by Congressional approval. IOW, withholding WHO funding is a more transparently impeachable offense than Ukraine, because there is no legal defense for it. This is why I’m not going to believe funding is being withheld until the WHO confirms it.
I mean in March we were also told we would have these amazing tests and drive thru testing sites at Walmart, CVS, and Target. That never happened either. We were told travel from China was stopped when it wasn’t. We were told the virus would go away by April and we will pass 1,000,000 confirmed cases next week. Just Wednesday, he claimed testing was great, when we know irrefutably that it is not only not, but getting worse. Need I go on? Or must I provide more evidence to prove my case that you should believe nothing the guy says? I’ve got an endless supply and more is produced every single day.
No argument can be made WHO funding is being withheld in interest of national security. So in fact, there is not even a defense available for suspending WHO funding. The only way it can be is by Congressional approval. IOW, withholding WHO funding is a more transparently impeachable offense than Ukraine, because there is no legal defense for it. This is why I’m not going to believe funding is being withheld until the WHO confirms it.
I mean in March we were also told we would have these amazing tests and drive thru testing sites at Walmart, CVS, and Target. That never happened either. We were told travel from China was stopped when it wasn’t. We were told the virus would go away by April and we will pass 1,000,000 confirmed cases next week. Just Wednesday, he claimed testing was great, when we know irrefutably that it is not only not, but getting worse. Need I go on? Or must I provide more evidence to prove my case that you should believe nothing the guy says? I’ve got an endless supply and more is produced every single day.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »