[Mick]

Feels like we've edged back into Terry Rule territory. More to the point, I feel like I know where everyone stands re: politics, Trump, etc. Still very helpful to document what's going on, and yes sometimes a bit of commentary around it is appreciated, but the excessive editorializing feels unnecessarily repetitious at this point. Just my two cents.

I won the bet with myself that an admin Terry Rule reference would come in within two hours of a post that ever-so-slightly criticized Joe Biden, as opposed to the avalanche of posts that crush Trump which never seem to draw a tsk tsk much less a Terry Rule reference

Every.  Single.  Time.  So predictable.

[Mick]

Feels like we've edged back into Terry Rule territory. More to the point, I feel like I know where everyone stands re: politics, Trump, etc. Still very helpful to document what's going on, and yes sometimes a bit of commentary around it is appreciated, but the excessive editorializing feels unnecessarily repetitious at this point. Just my two cents.

I won the bet with myself that an admin Terry Rule reference would come in within two hours of a post that ever-so-slightly criticized Joe Biden, as opposed to the avalanche of posts that crush Trump which never seem to draw a tsk tsk much less a Terry Rule reference

Every.  Single.  Time.  So predictable.

[dabigv13]

Par for the conservative course. Break the rules, then complain about the refs. Like clockwork.

[dabigv13]

Par for the conservative course. Break the rules, then complain about the refs. Like clockwork.

[Mick]

Par for the conservative course. Break the rules, then complain about the refs. Like clockwork.

Glad to have the course marshal acknowledge that a mild criticism of Biden is breaking the rules.  That is some molecule-thin skin there.

Although let's call it par for the "moderate" course given that I'm pro-choice, pro-union, pro-inheritance tax, pro-wealth tax, pro-universal health care and anti-Trump.

And you're right, the Progressives don't complain about the marshals. Why would they? They don't have to because marshals are silent AF when Progressives complain about Trump.

[Mick]

Par for the conservative course. Break the rules, then complain about the refs. Like clockwork.

Glad to have the course marshal acknowledge that a mild criticism of Biden is breaking the rules.  That is some molecule-thin skin there.

Although let's call it par for the "moderate" course given that I'm pro-choice, pro-union, pro-inheritance tax, pro-wealth tax, pro-universal health care and anti-Trump.

And you're right, the Progressives don't complain about the marshals. Why would they? They don't have to because marshals are silent AF when Progressives complain about Trump.

[2006alum]

Complaining about how Trump (or Whitmore, or Newsome) has handled covid doesn't violate the Terry Rule. Talking about how Biden (or Trump) is a weak candidate who won't remain long for the Presidency does. But the larger point remains: left, right, and center, it's like a daily matinee around here lately, with all the regulars reliably performing their roles.

[2006alum]

Complaining about how Trump (or Whitmore, or Newsome) has handled covid doesn't violate the Terry Rule. Talking about how Biden (or Trump) is a weak candidate who won't remain long for the Presidency does. But the larger point remains: left, right, and center, it's like a daily matinee around here lately, with all the regulars reliably performing their roles.

[lex24]

I can't believe that Biden/Harris was the best that the Dems could do...

(warning, I am going into Terry rule territory, but...)

My hypothesis after last night's dueling town halls is that Biden may not have been best Democratic candidate, but he was the best Democratic candidate to put out against Donald Trump.  I think match-ups matter, and in this election, Dems seem to have picked the candidate who a) is teflon against Trump's insults and attempts to discredit and b) is (in the words of a Trump advisor) the political equivalent of Mr. Rogers.  After the last four years, I think a lot of Americans want someone like Mr. Rogers in the White House.

If polls are to be believed, "the best the Dems could do" is lead Trump by 10 points less than three weeks before the election and force Trump to campaign in Georgia and spend money in Texas.  Of course, leading in polls by 10 points three weeks before the election is approximately the equivalent to being a 15 point favorite in college football the week before the game, which is to say, every once in a while a big favorite loses in the actual game (*cough* USC in 2007 *cough*).

BC

Speaking of Mr. Rogers, the movie with Hanks playing him is terrific.  What a wonderful human  being he was.  My favorite scene is when he’s on a train with Matthew Rhys and somebody sees Mr Rogers and they all start singing Mr. Rogers neighborhood. Corny as hell. Choked me up. A testament to uncommon decency. What a thought.

[lex24]

I can't believe that Biden/Harris was the best that the Dems could do...

(warning, I am going into Terry rule territory, but...)

My hypothesis after last night's dueling town halls is that Biden may not have been best Democratic candidate, but he was the best Democratic candidate to put out against Donald Trump.  I think match-ups matter, and in this election, Dems seem to have picked the candidate who a) is teflon against Trump's insults and attempts to discredit and b) is (in the words of a Trump advisor) the political equivalent of Mr. Rogers.  After the last four years, I think a lot of Americans want someone like Mr. Rogers in the White House.

If polls are to be believed, "the best the Dems could do" is lead Trump by 10 points less than three weeks before the election and force Trump to campaign in Georgia and spend money in Texas.  Of course, leading in polls by 10 points three weeks before the election is approximately the equivalent to being a 15 point favorite in college football the week before the game, which is to say, every once in a while a big favorite loses in the actual game (*cough* USC in 2007 *cough*).

BC

Speaking of Mr. Rogers, the movie with Hanks playing him is terrific.  What a wonderful human  being he was.  My favorite scene is when he’s on a train with Matthew Rhys and somebody sees Mr Rogers and they all start singing Mr. Rogers neighborhood. Corny as hell. Choked me up. A testament to uncommon decency. What a thought.

[Genuine Realist]

Complaining about how Trump (or Whitmore, or Newsome) has handled covid doesn't violate the Terry Rule. Talking about how Biden (or Trump) is a weak candidate who won't remain long for the Presidency does. But the larger point remains: left, right, and center, it's like a daily matinee around here lately, with all the regulars reliably performing their roles.

I think it's actually Whitmer, first name, Gretchen, as in Hansel and Gretchen.

[Genuine Realist]

Complaining about how Trump (or Whitmore, or Newsome) has handled covid doesn't violate the Terry Rule. Talking about how Biden (or Trump) is a weak candidate who won't remain long for the Presidency does. But the larger point remains: left, right, and center, it's like a daily matinee around here lately, with all the regulars reliably performing their roles.

I think it's actually Whitmer, first name, Gretchen, as in Hansel and Gretchen.

[DocSavage87]

This is a good example of how to derail a conversation about COVID-19 misinformation.  Just insert some tangential whataboutism (Joe Biden not best candidate) and we've got how many posts now about his fitness instead of the US unable to get its act together during a pandemic.  And sorry, Biden's record on COVID-19 information and his plans for it aren't in the same universe as Trump.  

[DocSavage87]

This is a good example of how to derail a conversation about COVID-19 misinformation.  Just insert some tangential whataboutism (Joe Biden not best candidate) and we've got how many posts now about his fitness instead of the US unable to get its act together during a pandemic.  And sorry, Biden's record on COVID-19 information and his plans for it aren't in the same universe as Trump.  

[2006alum]

Complaining about how Trump (or Whitmore, or Newsome) has handled covid doesn't violate the Terry Rule. Talking about how Biden (or Trump) is a weak candidate who won't remain long for the Presidency does. But the larger point remains: left, right, and center, it's like a daily matinee around here lately, with all the regulars reliably performing their roles.

I think it's actually Whitmer, first name, Gretchen, as in Hansel and Gretchen.

Haha, I guess I’ve gotten so familiar with Mick’s Whitless nickname I just internalized that her actual name was its antonym.

[2006alum]

Complaining about how Trump (or Whitmore, or Newsome) has handled covid doesn't violate the Terry Rule. Talking about how Biden (or Trump) is a weak candidate who won't remain long for the Presidency does. But the larger point remains: left, right, and center, it's like a daily matinee around here lately, with all the regulars reliably performing their roles.

I think it's actually Whitmer, first name, Gretchen, as in Hansel and Gretchen.

Haha, I guess I’ve gotten so familiar with Mick’s Whitless nickname I just internalized that her actual name was its antonym.

[BostonCard]

Feels like we've edged back into Terry Rule territory. More to the point, I feel like I know where everyone stands re: politics, Trump, etc. Still very helpful to document what's going on, and yes sometimes a bit of commentary around it is appreciated, but the excessive editorializing feels unnecessarily repetitious at this point. Just my two cents.

I won the bet with myself that an admin Terry Rule reference would come in within two hours of a post that ever-so-slightly criticized Joe Biden, as opposed to the avalanche of posts that crush Trump which never seem to draw a tsk tsk much less a Terry Rule reference

Every.  Single.  Time.  So predictable.

I'm as guilty as anyone else, in my posts defending the way that the mainstream media has handled Trump and Biden.

BC

---

Complaining about how Trump (or Whitmore, or Newsome) has handled covid doesn't violate the Terry Rule. Talking about how Biden (or Trump) is a weak candidate who won't remain long for the Presidency does. But the larger point remains: left, right, and center, it's like a daily matinee around here lately, with all the regulars reliably performing their roles.

I think it's actually Whitmer, first name, Gretchen, as in Hansel and Gretchen.

Isn't it Hansel and Gretel, though?

BC

[BostonCard]

Feels like we've edged back into Terry Rule territory. More to the point, I feel like I know where everyone stands re: politics, Trump, etc. Still very helpful to document what's going on, and yes sometimes a bit of commentary around it is appreciated, but the excessive editorializing feels unnecessarily repetitious at this point. Just my two cents.

I won the bet with myself that an admin Terry Rule reference would come in within two hours of a post that ever-so-slightly criticized Joe Biden, as opposed to the avalanche of posts that crush Trump which never seem to draw a tsk tsk much less a Terry Rule reference

Every.  Single.  Time.  So predictable.

I'm as guilty as anyone else, in my posts defending the way that the mainstream media has handled Trump and Biden.

BC

---

Complaining about how Trump (or Whitmore, or Newsome) has handled covid doesn't violate the Terry Rule. Talking about how Biden (or Trump) is a weak candidate who won't remain long for the Presidency does. But the larger point remains: left, right, and center, it's like a daily matinee around here lately, with all the regulars reliably performing their roles.

I think it's actually Whitmer, first name, Gretchen, as in Hansel and Gretchen.

Isn't it Hansel and Gretel, though?

BC

[oregontim]

So take a step back and look at this thread. It starts with Trump dumping on Fauci and lying (or drastically misinterpreting a study) about masks. It's about presidential negligence or worse.

The opposite of presidential negligence or worse is not "but here is what's wrong with Biden." IMO. That's classic whataboutism, changing the topic.

[oregontim]

So take a step back and look at this thread. It starts with Trump dumping on Fauci and lying (or drastically misinterpreting a study) about masks. It's about presidential negligence or worse.

The opposite of presidential negligence or worse is not "but here is what's wrong with Biden." IMO. That's classic whataboutism, changing the topic.

[old spanish trail]

[quote="Mick" pid='293550' dateline='1602854550']
I can't believe that Biden/Harris was the best that the Dems could do...

(warning, I am going into Terry rule territory, but...)

My hypothesis after last night's dueling town halls is that Biden may not have been best Democratic candidate, but he was the best Democratic candidate to put out against Donald Trump.  I think match-ups matter, and in this election, Dems seem to have picked the candidate who a) is teflon against Trump's insults and attempts to discredit and b) is (in the words of a Trump advisor) the political equivalent of Mr. Rogers.  After the last four years, I think a lot of Americans want someone like Mr. Rogers in the White House.

If polls are to be believed, "the best the Dems could do" is lead Trump by 10 points less than three weeks before the election and force Trump to campaign in Georgia and spend money in Texas.  Of course, leading in polls by 10 points three weeks before the election is approximately the equivalent to being a 15 point favorite in college football the week before the game, which is to say, every once in a while a big favorite loses in the actual game (*cough* USC in 2007 *cough*).

BC

_______________________________________

An excellent point BC with which I wholeheartedly agree.  Sorry, Terry rule.

[old spanish trail]

[quote="Mick" pid='293550' dateline='1602854550']
I can't believe that Biden/Harris was the best that the Dems could do...

(warning, I am going into Terry rule territory, but...)

My hypothesis after last night's dueling town halls is that Biden may not have been best Democratic candidate, but he was the best Democratic candidate to put out against Donald Trump.  I think match-ups matter, and in this election, Dems seem to have picked the candidate who a) is teflon against Trump's insults and attempts to discredit and b) is (in the words of a Trump advisor) the political equivalent of Mr. Rogers.  After the last four years, I think a lot of Americans want someone like Mr. Rogers in the White House.

If polls are to be believed, "the best the Dems could do" is lead Trump by 10 points less than three weeks before the election and force Trump to campaign in Georgia and spend money in Texas.  Of course, leading in polls by 10 points three weeks before the election is approximately the equivalent to being a 15 point favorite in college football the week before the game, which is to say, every once in a while a big favorite loses in the actual game (*cough* USC in 2007 *cough*).

BC

_______________________________________

An excellent point BC with which I wholeheartedly agree.  Sorry, Terry rule.

[Mick]

Joe & Kamala's plan to combat COVID

https://joebiden.com/covid19/#

[Mick]

Joe & Kamala's plan to combat COVID

https://joebiden.com/covid19/#

[BostonCard]

[quote="teejers1" pid='293610' dateline='1602888465'

As for MSM, it's not that Biden is going to win because of MSM Agenda-ism - Trump has himself to thank/blame for the outcome in November.  But Biden certainly has been (and will continue to be) aided by the media.  Try and think of it this way:  say Joe were running against  moderate Republican in an open presidential (no incumbent).  Do you think just maybe Biden's sexual harassment history (when he was a grown-up adult, and not in HS, as was the Supreme Court candidate) might receive a little more "run" than it has received in this cycle?  It's like:  okay we'll give it some attention until Dems figure out for sure who is running against Trump, but then that's it.

That is just one example.  Some people (not many, when you press them) actually believe that the MSM is neutral when it comes to the sitting president.  I find that a form of denial.  But I know lots of people who don't care and think Trump "deserves it."  I find that a reasonable position.  But it does lead me back to the Fourth Estate concern more generally.
[/quote]

A good piece about how Trump has broken media coverage.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/...-news.html

Let’s face it, if Biden said even a fraction of the stuff Trump says (or the Democratic equivalent), it’d be front page news for weeks.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote="teejers1" pid='293610' dateline='1602888465'

As for MSM, it's not that Biden is going to win because of MSM Agenda-ism - Trump has himself to thank/blame for the outcome in November.  But Biden certainly has been (and will continue to be) aided by the media.  Try and think of it this way:  say Joe were running against  moderate Republican in an open presidential (no incumbent).  Do you think just maybe Biden's sexual harassment history (when he was a grown-up adult, and not in HS, as was the Supreme Court candidate) might receive a little more "run" than it has received in this cycle?  It's like:  okay we'll give it some attention until Dems figure out for sure who is running against Trump, but then that's it.

That is just one example.  Some people (not many, when you press them) actually believe that the MSM is neutral when it comes to the sitting president.  I find that a form of denial.  But I know lots of people who don't care and think Trump "deserves it."  I find that a reasonable position.  But it does lead me back to the Fourth Estate concern more generally.
[/quote]

A good piece about how Trump has broken media coverage.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/...-news.html

Let’s face it, if Biden said even a fraction of the stuff Trump says (or the Democratic equivalent), it’d be front page news for weeks.

BC

[teejers1]

[quote="teejers1" pid='293610' dateline='1602888465'

As for MSM, it's not that Biden is going to win because of MSM Agenda-ism - Trump has himself to thank/blame for the outcome in November.  But Biden certainly has been (and will continue to be) aided by the media.  Try and think of it this way:  say Joe were running against  moderate Republican in an open presidential (no incumbent).  Do you think just maybe Biden's sexual harassment history (when he was a grown-up adult, and not in HS, as was the Supreme Court candidate) might receive a little more "run" than it has received in this cycle?  It's like:  okay we'll give it some attention until Dems figure out for sure who is running against Trump, but then that's it.

That is just one example.  Some people (not many, when you press them) actually believe that the MSM is neutral when it comes to the sitting president.  I find that a form of denial.  But I know lots of people who don't care and think Trump "deserves it."  I find that a reasonable position.  But it does lead me back to the Fourth Estate concern more generally.

A good piece about how Trump has broken media coverage.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/...-news.html

Let’s face it, if Biden said even a fraction of the stuff Trump says (or the Democratic equivalent), it’d be front page news for weeks.

BC
[/quote]

I suspect you "get" it when it comes to media Agenda-ism, but for those that don't:  it has little/nothing to do what Trump actually says or does.  That of course is fair game (and which is why Trump has brought this negativity all on himself).  It's all the other stuff that is presented in a form to make things as bad as possible under current regime.  If you have the time or interest, check out, for example, stock market reporting under Obama and Trump, especially pre-pandemic.  That is just one example of not "giving credit" to Trump  where the MSM was falling all over itself to credit Obama for any positive economic news.  

Again, if people do not think this is really happening (or has really happened), then we just have a pretty basic disagreement.

But again, reporting on what Trump says or does, in particular, is reporting "news."  It's most of the other stuff that belies the Agenda-ism.

[teejers1]

[quote="teejers1" pid='293610' dateline='1602888465'

As for MSM, it's not that Biden is going to win because of MSM Agenda-ism - Trump has himself to thank/blame for the outcome in November.  But Biden certainly has been (and will continue to be) aided by the media.  Try and think of it this way:  say Joe were running against  moderate Republican in an open presidential (no incumbent).  Do you think just maybe Biden's sexual harassment history (when he was a grown-up adult, and not in HS, as was the Supreme Court candidate) might receive a little more "run" than it has received in this cycle?  It's like:  okay we'll give it some attention until Dems figure out for sure who is running against Trump, but then that's it.

That is just one example.  Some people (not many, when you press them) actually believe that the MSM is neutral when it comes to the sitting president.  I find that a form of denial.  But I know lots of people who don't care and think Trump "deserves it."  I find that a reasonable position.  But it does lead me back to the Fourth Estate concern more generally.

A good piece about how Trump has broken media coverage.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/...-news.html

Let’s face it, if Biden said even a fraction of the stuff Trump says (or the Democratic equivalent), it’d be front page news for weeks.

BC
[/quote]

I suspect you "get" it when it comes to media Agenda-ism, but for those that don't:  it has little/nothing to do what Trump actually says or does.  That of course is fair game (and which is why Trump has brought this negativity all on himself).  It's all the other stuff that is presented in a form to make things as bad as possible under current regime.  If you have the time or interest, check out, for example, stock market reporting under Obama and Trump, especially pre-pandemic.  That is just one example of not "giving credit" to Trump  where the MSM was falling all over itself to credit Obama for any positive economic news.  

Again, if people do not think this is really happening (or has really happened), then we just have a pretty basic disagreement.

But again, reporting on what Trump says or does, in particular, is reporting "news."  It's most of the other stuff that belies the Agenda-ism.

[BostonCard]

I suspect you "get" it when it comes to media Agenda-ism, but for those that don't:  it has little/nothing to do what Trump actually says or does.  That of course is fair game (and which is why Trump has brought this negativity all on himself).  It's all the other stuff that is presented in a form to make things as bad as possible under current regime.  If you have the time or interest, check out, for example, stock market reporting under Obama and Trump, especially pre-pandemic.  That is just one example of not "giving credit" to Trump  where the MSM was falling all over itself to credit Obama for any positive economic news.  


Again, if people do not think this is really happening (or has really happened), then we just have a pretty basic disagreement.



But again, reporting on what Trump says or does, in particular, is reporting "news."  It's most of the other stuff that belies the Agenda-ism.

Wait, Obama was being given credit for the stock market?  That's dumb.

BC

[BostonCard]

I suspect you "get" it when it comes to media Agenda-ism, but for those that don't:  it has little/nothing to do what Trump actually says or does.  That of course is fair game (and which is why Trump has brought this negativity all on himself).  It's all the other stuff that is presented in a form to make things as bad as possible under current regime.  If you have the time or interest, check out, for example, stock market reporting under Obama and Trump, especially pre-pandemic.  That is just one example of not "giving credit" to Trump  where the MSM was falling all over itself to credit Obama for any positive economic news.  


Again, if people do not think this is really happening (or has really happened), then we just have a pretty basic disagreement.



But again, reporting on what Trump says or does, in particular, is reporting "news."  It's most of the other stuff that belies the Agenda-ism.

Wait, Obama was being given credit for the stock market?  That's dumb.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

[quote="teejers1" pid='293610' dateline='1602888465'

As for MSM, it's not that Biden is going to win because of MSM Agenda-ism - Trump has himself to thank/blame for the outcome in November.  But Biden certainly has been (and will continue to be) aided by the media.  Try and think of it this way:  say Joe were running against  moderate Republican in an open presidential (no incumbent).  Do you think just maybe Biden's sexual harassment history (when he was a grown-up adult, and not in HS, as was the Supreme Court candidate) might receive a little more "run" than it has received in this cycle?  It's like:  okay we'll give it some attention until Dems figure out for sure who is running against Trump, but then that's it.

That is just one example.  Some people (not many, when you press them) actually believe that the MSM is neutral when it comes to the sitting president.  I find that a form of denial.  But I know lots of people who don't care and think Trump "deserves it."  I find that a reasonable position.  But it does lead me back to the Fourth Estate concern more generally.

A good piece about how Trump has broken media coverage.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/...-news.html

Let’s face it, if Biden said even a fraction of the stuff Trump says (or the Democratic equivalent), it’d be front page news for weeks.

BC
[/quote]
This isn't a two-to-tango deal. The political dialog has been controlled by Donald Trump for the last four years - what he tweets, whom he denounces, the factual assertions he makes and the basis for them. He's the first President in forever to control the public dialog, and this holds great promise for the future. He could be gentle, wise, witty, warm, even while he's bashing away at his enemies - the English language is infinitely plastic, and everyone appreciates style and class.

He chooses not to be. He chooses to poison the public dialog with a continual stream of narcissistic snark, continual vituperative insult, about as far from what we appreciate as Presidential style as one could imagine. He's burned through so many conventional Republican figures -who would have ever thought that John Bolton would be lionized by the liberal press? - that it's impossible to associate him with a particular Party. It's a personality cult. Since his adherents remain Americanized (it isn't a Fascist movement), it's not a threat to the institution. But it's sterile, and going nowhere.

To be sure, the MSM is loathesomely, stupidly rabid. I don't think the New York Times is ever going to recover credibility.  But it is Trump, not they, who have control of the dialog - for all their inanity, they're reactors. It all starts with Trump.

To bring this back to Covid, his performance on the crisis has been disastrous beyond belief. All a President really has to do is avoid politicizing an issue that is inherently apolitical. But he managed to do just that. Some of the criticism is incredibly unfair - I stick to my guns that the reactions to Covid between January and March in such incredible lockstep that the gaiting factor has to be the accumulation of clinical information to some critical mass (reached around March 7th). No Western leader, good or bad, did anything drastic until then. So the suggestion that Trump could have saved the day with some magic word is misplaced.

BUT . . .  unfair criticism is the heat that abounds in this particular kitchen. Every President from Washington on has had to endure it, and they all have, with various degrees of grace . . . except Trump. By March 7th, the seriousness of the pandemic was apparent to all. All Trump had to do was champion the science, recognizing the inevitable blind alleys, but insisting on the good faith of everyone concerned, and urging the public to go with the best advice available. There is even room for moderate criticism of those governors and executives who might have overreached, e.g. Whitmer and DiBlasio.

But Trump did the one thing you can't do - to take it personally. Covid presents maybe the greatest challenge to organized society since World War II, and the one unacceptable reaction is to weaponize it against your enemies (or react to inappropriate weaponization by your enemies.) He has certainly contributed to the irrational public cynicism about masks and social distancing.

It's a disaster, and no wonder Biden is basically running on that issue. I expect him to win.

But I will finish on a heresiarchal note. The challenges posed by Covid, in terms of balancing economic duress versus constraining the pandemic, are so enormous that I don't think any executive action would be successful. All you can do is try to get it right, then try again, until society finds its own balance, its angle of repose. However, whether Trump's failings are merely ones of style or substance don't matter. I want to see Trump out of the cockpit, and I hope it happens. I honestly don't expect Biden to do much better, but at least he will sound Presidential while he's groping in the void, and that's enough.

[Genuine Realist]

[quote="teejers1" pid='293610' dateline='1602888465'

As for MSM, it's not that Biden is going to win because of MSM Agenda-ism - Trump has himself to thank/blame for the outcome in November.  But Biden certainly has been (and will continue to be) aided by the media.  Try and think of it this way:  say Joe were running against  moderate Republican in an open presidential (no incumbent).  Do you think just maybe Biden's sexual harassment history (when he was a grown-up adult, and not in HS, as was the Supreme Court candidate) might receive a little more "run" than it has received in this cycle?  It's like:  okay we'll give it some attention until Dems figure out for sure who is running against Trump, but then that's it.

That is just one example.  Some people (not many, when you press them) actually believe that the MSM is neutral when it comes to the sitting president.  I find that a form of denial.  But I know lots of people who don't care and think Trump "deserves it."  I find that a reasonable position.  But it does lead me back to the Fourth Estate concern more generally.

A good piece about how Trump has broken media coverage.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/...-news.html

Let’s face it, if Biden said even a fraction of the stuff Trump says (or the Democratic equivalent), it’d be front page news for weeks.

BC
[/quote]
This isn't a two-to-tango deal. The political dialog has been controlled by Donald Trump for the last four years - what he tweets, whom he denounces, the factual assertions he makes and the basis for them. He's the first President in forever to control the public dialog, and this holds great promise for the future. He could be gentle, wise, witty, warm, even while he's bashing away at his enemies - the English language is infinitely plastic, and everyone appreciates style and class.

He chooses not to be. He chooses to poison the public dialog with a continual stream of narcissistic snark, continual vituperative insult, about as far from what we appreciate as Presidential style as one could imagine. He's burned through so many conventional Republican figures -who would have ever thought that John Bolton would be lionized by the liberal press? - that it's impossible to associate him with a particular Party. It's a personality cult. Since his adherents remain Americanized (it isn't a Fascist movement), it's not a threat to the institution. But it's sterile, and going nowhere.

To be sure, the MSM is loathesomely, stupidly rabid. I don't think the New York Times is ever going to recover credibility.  But it is Trump, not they, who have control of the dialog - for all their inanity, they're reactors. It all starts with Trump.

To bring this back to Covid, his performance on the crisis has been disastrous beyond belief. All a President really has to do is avoid politicizing an issue that is inherently apolitical. But he managed to do just that. Some of the criticism is incredibly unfair - I stick to my guns that the reactions to Covid between January and March in such incredible lockstep that the gaiting factor has to be the accumulation of clinical information to some critical mass (reached around March 7th). No Western leader, good or bad, did anything drastic until then. So the suggestion that Trump could have saved the day with some magic word is misplaced.

BUT . . .  unfair criticism is the heat that abounds in this particular kitchen. Every President from Washington on has had to endure it, and they all have, with various degrees of grace . . . except Trump. By March 7th, the seriousness of the pandemic was apparent to all. All Trump had to do was champion the science, recognizing the inevitable blind alleys, but insisting on the good faith of everyone concerned, and urging the public to go with the best advice available. There is even room for moderate criticism of those governors and executives who might have overreached, e.g. Whitmer and DiBlasio.

But Trump did the one thing you can't do - to take it personally. Covid presents maybe the greatest challenge to organized society since World War II, and the one unacceptable reaction is to weaponize it against your enemies (or react to inappropriate weaponization by your enemies.) He has certainly contributed to the irrational public cynicism about masks and social distancing.

It's a disaster, and no wonder Biden is basically running on that issue. I expect him to win.

But I will finish on a heresiarchal note. The challenges posed by Covid, in terms of balancing economic duress versus constraining the pandemic, are so enormous that I don't think any executive action would be successful. All you can do is try to get it right, then try again, until society finds its own balance, its angle of repose. However, whether Trump's failings are merely ones of style or substance don't matter. I want to see Trump out of the cockpit, and I hope it happens. I honestly don't expect Biden to do much better, but at least he will sound Presidential while he's groping in the void, and that's enough.

[DocSavage87]

This isn't a two-to-tango deal. The political dialog has been controlled by Donald Trump for the last four years - what he tweets, whom he denounces, the factual assertions he makes and the basis for them. He's the first President in forever to control the public dialog, and this holds great promise for the future. He could be gentle, wise, witty, warm, even while he's bashing away at his enemies - the English language is infinitely plastic, and everyone appreciates style and class.

He chooses not to be...

He has no choice.  He has no wit, no ability to understand highly complex matters, no empathy, and frankly no decency.  You need those attributes to be able to choose to be better.  He does as he is.

To be sure, the MSM is loathesomely, stupidly rabid. I don't think the New York Times is ever going to recover credibility.

Your viewpoint and I doubt you are in the NYT target audience -- take that however you want.  I never subscribed to them before Trump.  Now I subscribe and appreciate their investigative reporting since it's one of the few things I believe that could save our democratic institutions.

To bring this back to Covid, his performance on the crisis has been disastrous beyond belief. All a President really has to do is avoid politicizing an issue that is inherently apolitical. But he managed to do just that. Some of the criticism is incredibly unfair - I stick to my guns that the reactions to Covid between January and March in such incredible lockstep that the gaiting factor has to be the accumulation of clinical information to some critical mass (reached around March 7th). No Western leader, good or bad, did anything drastic until then. So the suggestion that Trump could have saved the day with some magic word is misplaced.

Your opinion again, and I think it's a really ill-informed one at that.  There's an entire layer of WH-level management that was supposed to act with urgency instead of the complete opposite response, making sure that those who had any urgency were fired or sidelined.  A real pandemic taskforce might have realized how messed up testing was and forced parallel development, or at least gave go-ahead quicker for emergency use of other tests that were indeed available.  Academia in Washington were screaming to let them at least monitor.  The Trump people have downplayed the dissolution of various WH-level pandemic management, but they also never addressed the difference between monitoring for natural pandemics and biowarfare prep.  Those are very different things and transferring remnants of the dissolved task force into these other units was not the same.  And if it was the same, what the hell were they doing when testing broke down and the Nat Sec advisor was sounding the code red.

Many scientists across the US dropped their main research to work on COVID-19, but there's been absolutely no federal coordination nor much funding for those efforts.  You're going to see a lot of very cool and innovative tests and treatments pop up, but they are grassroots and not accelerated by the fed -- and they *absolutely should have been*.

Trump lies about shutting down the border with China and Europe.  We let Americans back in large numbers.  And we did it without testing.  Nor any kind of incubation.  We packed them into customs lines like sardines, and then dispersed them to the entire US.  Great fed coordination there as well.

The thing I disagree with you most, though, is you seem to think criticism about Trump's response focuses on his early effort.  I don't see that.  I'm angry because he misled the people very early, sure, but he has *consistently* downplayed the virus and thwarted effective responses every step of the way.  And over the last months he seems to have gotten worse and now we have Scott Atlas as the face of the task force and Trump is answering questions.  Trump lies in interviews and says the medical opinion constantly flips.  Science follows results and that will create changes in opinions, but the verdict on masks, social distancing, indoor/long exposure, that has been around for a while and Trump and Atlas continues to undermine it.

But I will finish on a heresiarchal note. The challenges posed by Covid, in terms of balancing economic duress versus constraining the pandemic, are so enormous that I don't think any executive action would be successful. All you can do is try to get it right, then try again, until society finds its own balance, its angle of repose.

I assume you've seen the charts of GDP hit vs Deaths/Millions and how various countries have handled it.  We are in the worst quadrant by far and when they do an update by next summer, I think it will look worse for us vs other countries.

[DocSavage87]

This isn't a two-to-tango deal. The political dialog has been controlled by Donald Trump for the last four years - what he tweets, whom he denounces, the factual assertions he makes and the basis for them. He's the first President in forever to control the public dialog, and this holds great promise for the future. He could be gentle, wise, witty, warm, even while he's bashing away at his enemies - the English language is infinitely plastic, and everyone appreciates style and class.

He chooses not to be...

He has no choice.  He has no wit, no ability to understand highly complex matters, no empathy, and frankly no decency.  You need those attributes to be able to choose to be better.  He does as he is.

To be sure, the MSM is loathesomely, stupidly rabid. I don't think the New York Times is ever going to recover credibility.

Your viewpoint and I doubt you are in the NYT target audience -- take that however you want.  I never subscribed to them before Trump.  Now I subscribe and appreciate their investigative reporting since it's one of the few things I believe that could save our democratic institutions.

To bring this back to Covid, his performance on the crisis has been disastrous beyond belief. All a President really has to do is avoid politicizing an issue that is inherently apolitical. But he managed to do just that. Some of the criticism is incredibly unfair - I stick to my guns that the reactions to Covid between January and March in such incredible lockstep that the gaiting factor has to be the accumulation of clinical information to some critical mass (reached around March 7th). No Western leader, good or bad, did anything drastic until then. So the suggestion that Trump could have saved the day with some magic word is misplaced.

Your opinion again, and I think it's a really ill-informed one at that.  There's an entire layer of WH-level management that was supposed to act with urgency instead of the complete opposite response, making sure that those who had any urgency were fired or sidelined.  A real pandemic taskforce might have realized how messed up testing was and forced parallel development, or at least gave go-ahead quicker for emergency use of other tests that were indeed available.  Academia in Washington were screaming to let them at least monitor.  The Trump people have downplayed the dissolution of various WH-level pandemic management, but they also never addressed the difference between monitoring for natural pandemics and biowarfare prep.  Those are very different things and transferring remnants of the dissolved task force into these other units was not the same.  And if it was the same, what the hell were they doing when testing broke down and the Nat Sec advisor was sounding the code red.

Many scientists across the US dropped their main research to work on COVID-19, but there's been absolutely no federal coordination nor much funding for those efforts.  You're going to see a lot of very cool and innovative tests and treatments pop up, but they are grassroots and not accelerated by the fed -- and they *absolutely should have been*.

Trump lies about shutting down the border with China and Europe.  We let Americans back in large numbers.  And we did it without testing.  Nor any kind of incubation.  We packed them into customs lines like sardines, and then dispersed them to the entire US.  Great fed coordination there as well.

The thing I disagree with you most, though, is you seem to think criticism about Trump's response focuses on his early effort.  I don't see that.  I'm angry because he misled the people very early, sure, but he has *consistently* downplayed the virus and thwarted effective responses every step of the way.  And over the last months he seems to have gotten worse and now we have Scott Atlas as the face of the task force and Trump is answering questions.  Trump lies in interviews and says the medical opinion constantly flips.  Science follows results and that will create changes in opinions, but the verdict on masks, social distancing, indoor/long exposure, that has been around for a while and Trump and Atlas continues to undermine it.

But I will finish on a heresiarchal note. The challenges posed by Covid, in terms of balancing economic duress versus constraining the pandemic, are so enormous that I don't think any executive action would be successful. All you can do is try to get it right, then try again, until society finds its own balance, its angle of repose.

I assume you've seen the charts of GDP hit vs Deaths/Millions and how various countries have handled it.  We are in the worst quadrant by far and when they do an update by next summer, I think it will look worse for us vs other countries.

[Genuine Realist]

This isn't a two-to-tango deal. The political dialog has been controlled by Donald Trump for the last four years - what he tweets, whom he denounces, the factual assertions he makes and the basis for them. He's the first President in forever to control the public dialog, and this holds great promise for the future. He could be gentle, wise, witty, warm, even while he's bashing away at his enemies - the English language is infinitely plastic, and everyone appreciates style and class.

He chooses not to be...

He has no choice.  He has no wit, no ability to understand highly complex matters, no empathy, and frankly no decency.  You need those attributes to be able to choose to be better.  He does as he is.

To be sure, the MSM is loathesomely, stupidly rabid. I don't think the New York Times is ever going to recover credibility.

Your viewpoint and I doubt you are in the NYT target audience -- take that however you want.  I never subscribed to them before Trump.  Now I subscribe and appreciate their investigative reporting since it's one of the few things I believe that could save our democratic institutions.

To bring this back to Covid, his performance on the crisis has been disastrous beyond belief. All a President really has to do is avoid politicizing an issue that is inherently apolitical. But he managed to do just that. Some of the criticism is incredibly unfair - I stick to my guns that the reactions to Covid between January and March in such incredible lockstep that the gaiting factor has to be the accumulation of clinical information to some critical mass (reached around March 7th). No Western leader, good or bad, did anything drastic until then. So the suggestion that Trump could have saved the day with some magic word is misplaced.

Your opinion again, and I think it's a really ill-informed one at that.  There's an entire layer of WH-level management that was supposed to act with urgency instead of the complete opposite response, making sure that those who had any urgency were fired or sidelined.  A real pandemic taskforce might have realized how messed up testing was and forced parallel development, or at least gave go-ahead quicker for emergency use of other tests that were indeed available.  Academia in Washington were screaming to let them at least monitor.  The Trump people have downplayed the dissolution of various WH-level pandemic management, but they also never addressed the difference between monitoring for natural pandemics and biowarfare prep.  Those are very different things and transferring remnants of the dissolved task force into these other units was not the same.  And if it was the same, what the hell were they doing when testing broke down and the Nat Sec advisor was sounding the code red.

Many scientists across the US dropped their main research to work on COVID-19, but there's been absolutely no federal coordination nor much funding for those efforts.  You're going to see a lot of very cool and innovative tests and treatments pop up, but they are grassroots and not accelerated by the fed -- and they *absolutely should have been*.

But I will finish on a heresiarchal note. The challenges posed by Covid, in terms of balancing economic duress versus constraining the pandemic, are so enormous that I don't think any executive action would be successful. All you can do is try to get it right, then try again, until society finds its own balance, its angle of repose.

I assume you've seen the charts of GDP hit vs Deaths/Millions and how various countries have handled it.  We are in the worst quadrant by far and when they do an update by next summer, I think it will look worse for us vs other countries.

We haven't even finished the first inning of this game. 

Above all, we haven't the slightest idea of the long range socio-economic effects of the countermeasures. We don't know how the effect of what we do is going to affect the profound social changes that are inevitable in this virus ridden age. We don't know the effect of our nostrums on the flexibility of society to adapt.

What we DO know is only what's easiest to measure, and it could be that's the least consequential of all.

[Genuine Realist]

This isn't a two-to-tango deal. The political dialog has been controlled by Donald Trump for the last four years - what he tweets, whom he denounces, the factual assertions he makes and the basis for them. He's the first President in forever to control the public dialog, and this holds great promise for the future. He could be gentle, wise, witty, warm, even while he's bashing away at his enemies - the English language is infinitely plastic, and everyone appreciates style and class.

He chooses not to be...

He has no choice.  He has no wit, no ability to understand highly complex matters, no empathy, and frankly no decency.  You need those attributes to be able to choose to be better.  He does as he is.

To be sure, the MSM is loathesomely, stupidly rabid. I don't think the New York Times is ever going to recover credibility.

Your viewpoint and I doubt you are in the NYT target audience -- take that however you want.  I never subscribed to them before Trump.  Now I subscribe and appreciate their investigative reporting since it's one of the few things I believe that could save our democratic institutions.

To bring this back to Covid, his performance on the crisis has been disastrous beyond belief. All a President really has to do is avoid politicizing an issue that is inherently apolitical. But he managed to do just that. Some of the criticism is incredibly unfair - I stick to my guns that the reactions to Covid between January and March in such incredible lockstep that the gaiting factor has to be the accumulation of clinical information to some critical mass (reached around March 7th). No Western leader, good or bad, did anything drastic until then. So the suggestion that Trump could have saved the day with some magic word is misplaced.

Your opinion again, and I think it's a really ill-informed one at that.  There's an entire layer of WH-level management that was supposed to act with urgency instead of the complete opposite response, making sure that those who had any urgency were fired or sidelined.  A real pandemic taskforce might have realized how messed up testing was and forced parallel development, or at least gave go-ahead quicker for emergency use of other tests that were indeed available.  Academia in Washington were screaming to let them at least monitor.  The Trump people have downplayed the dissolution of various WH-level pandemic management, but they also never addressed the difference between monitoring for natural pandemics and biowarfare prep.  Those are very different things and transferring remnants of the dissolved task force into these other units was not the same.  And if it was the same, what the hell were they doing when testing broke down and the Nat Sec advisor was sounding the code red.

Many scientists across the US dropped their main research to work on COVID-19, but there's been absolutely no federal coordination nor much funding for those efforts.  You're going to see a lot of very cool and innovative tests and treatments pop up, but they are grassroots and not accelerated by the fed -- and they *absolutely should have been*.

But I will finish on a heresiarchal note. The challenges posed by Covid, in terms of balancing economic duress versus constraining the pandemic, are so enormous that I don't think any executive action would be successful. All you can do is try to get it right, then try again, until society finds its own balance, its angle of repose.

I assume you've seen the charts of GDP hit vs Deaths/Millions and how various countries have handled it.  We are in the worst quadrant by far and when they do an update by next summer, I think it will look worse for us vs other countries.

We haven't even finished the first inning of this game. 

Above all, we haven't the slightest idea of the long range socio-economic effects of the countermeasures. We don't know how the effect of what we do is going to affect the profound social changes that are inevitable in this virus ridden age. We don't know the effect of our nostrums on the flexibility of society to adapt.

What we DO know is only what's easiest to measure, and it could be that's the least consequential of all.