Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

Did you even bother to read the two articles that you linked or were you unable to comprehend what you read? They don't remotely resemble your characterization!

From the NPR article that you linked...

Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health — who advises both the Trump administration and the incoming Biden administration on the federal COVID-19 response — tells NPR there's no plan to abandon the two-shot regimen.

The Biden team is "not talking about withholding and not giving the second dose," he says. "They are completely committed to giving the second dose on time. They feel that the importance of getting as many people as possible is worth the risk."[/i]

From the Guardian article that you linked...

On Friday, Dr Fauci told CNN that the United States would not be following in the UK’s footsteps and would follow Pfizer and BioNTech’s guidance to administer the second dose of its vaccine three weeks after the first.


Yeah, I get it... "We're being lied to and BS'd" alright—but it isn't by the press!

Your arguments are contradictory.  If there's no plan to abandon the two-shot regimen, that's exactly what Biden is risking by using the shots reserved for the second shot for the first shot.  Biden made a decision that could defeat Fauci's original plan.  Fauci didn't like this plan but Biden is doing it anyway.  If Trump did what Biden's doing, the press would excoriate him complaining how he's risking millions of people who got the first dose but may not be able to get their second dose.  Double standard.

Maybe Biden is a better virologist than Trump. 

[Alan Klein]

And now Twitter shares fell 7%. Apparently, Trump was “the most popular character” on the platform, so their traffic must be going down. Maybe Giuliani can pick up the slack.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitter-shares-fall-7-following-102420956.html

Alternative Twitters will appear promising to stay out of regulating speech.  A lot of politicians and commercial companies will abandon Twitter, many just on principles.  If that happens, it might hold off legislation changing rule 220 about getting sued and other regulations, all things most social sites want to avoid.  You got to know when to keep your mouth shut.  Twitter has a big one, like Trump. 

[Alan Klein]

To publicly dispute an election without evidence in the way Trump, Cruz, Hawley et al have done is to incite violence.

If you tell people for three months that an election was stolen, and they come to believe it, then they think they are justified in “stealing it back” through violence, if necessary. When you stand in front of 10,000 of those people and tell them to March on Congress, you are inciting violence. When the crowd goes marching equipped with bear spray and zip-tie restraints, it is not a spontaneous event, or a demonstration that “got a little out of hand.” It is an insurrection.

I am a very strong defender of freedom of speech, but I am not a defender of the freedom of public officials to lie. When those lies result in insurrection, those leaders must be held accountable.

The Democrats did the same thing in 2000, 2004 and 2016. In fact, Democrat senators refused to allow republican Electors from Ohio to vote for Republican Bush.  So Trump was doing the same thing.

Of course, that doesn't give his supporters the right to invade the capitol anymore than BLM demonstrators had the right to burn and loot in some cases after marching.  But just as BLM had the right to march, so did Trump supporters to protest the election.  That's what Democracy is about.  Looters didn't eliminate the right of protestors to protest any more than the invasion of the Capitol eliminated the right to protest the election.

I'm not aware of anything Trump said that approved or encouraged invading the Capitol.  He asked his supporters to come to Washington to support him and the unfair voting going on in Congress just as Democrats objected to the electoral voting in 2000, 2004 and 2016.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Robert Roaldi]

An opinion piece from the Atlantic about the riot/insurrection/First-Amendment-Protest/whatever, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/worst-revolution-ever/617623/.

Also, when people are fired, there is always the danger of them taking others with them, https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri.

The investigations will go on for a while, I think.

[Robert Roaldi]

I'm not aware of anything Trump said that approved or encouraged invading the Capitol.  He asked his supporters to come to Washington to support him ...

That's a rather unorthodox view of what Trump said.

[chez]

You're creating a strawman comparing things I never mentioned.  My post was about Fauci.  If Trump didn't listen to him, he was castigated.  When Biden doesn't, the press protects him and ignores the issue.  There's a double standard.

My point is Biden is listening to a multitude of experts, including Fauci, and taking their inputs and making his decisions. Many of the rest of the western world is following exactly what Biden proposes.

Now Trump did not listen to any expert, went against what most of the rest of the western world was doing and advocated against social distancing, mask wearing and in fact urged on people in states that had some lockdown measures in place to go against those measures and party hardy.

If you cannot see the big difference between Biden going against Fauci decision and Trump going against Fauci ( and every other expert )...then I guess I'm done here. I don't have any interest in discussing something with someone so blinded by their biases they cannot see past their own nose.

[Robert Roaldi]

To my mind, the best argument for outfits like Twitter and Facebook to NOT ban Trump is in the interests of the historical record. Insofar as the contents of their platforms survive forever (more or less), it may be better for citizens and historians and everyone if there is an accurate public record of how dumb a President Trump actually was, in his own words. Otherwise without the accurate archive, people in the future might have trouble believing any of this actually happened.

[Jonathan Cross]

Are there boundaries to free speech?  I believe in free speech but FWIW not e.g. if it incites actions that are illegal or are classified as bullying or mental abuse.  As Barry Black, the Senate Chaplain, said at the end of the Congress session on Jan 6th/7th in the closing prayer, 'These tragedies have reminded us that words matter and that the power of life and death is in the tongue'

Let us preserve free speech but not abuse it.

Jonathan

[chez]

Are there boundaries to free speech?  I believe in free speech but FWIW not e.g. if it incites actions that are illegal or are classified as bullying or mental abuse.  As Barry Black, the Senate Chaplain, said at the end of the Congress session on Jan 6th/7th in the closing prayer, 'These tragedies have reminded us that words matter and that the power of life and death is in the tongue'

Let us preserve free speech but not abuse it.

Jonathan

There was a case here in BC that involved a young teen being bullied via messages online to the point the girl took her life. Now, those bullying messages, are they free speach...if not why, and if yes...who is responsible for this girls death?

[LesPalenik]

To my mind, the best argument for outfits like Twitter and Facebook to NOT ban Trump is in the interests of the historical record. Insofar as the contents of their platforms survive forever (more or less), it may be better for citizens and historians and everyone if there is an accurate public record of how dumb a President Trump actually was, in his own words. Otherwise without the accurate archive, people in the future might have trouble believing any of this actually happened.

The problem is that while most normal people see through Trump's lies, there are enough imbeciles who believe everything he says.

[TechTalk]

Your arguments are contradictory.  If there's no plan to abandon the two-shot regimen, that's exactly what Biden is risking by using the shots reserved for the second shot for the first shot.  Biden made a decision that could defeat Fauci's original plan.  Fauci didn't like this plan but Biden is doing it anyway.  If Trump did what Biden's doing, the press would excoriate him complaining how he's risking millions of people who got the first dose but may not be able to get their second dose.  Double standard.

Maybe Biden is a better virologist than Trump. 

They are not my arguments and they are not contradictory. They are quotes from Fauci on TWO DIFFERENT PLANS, IN TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, FROM TWO DIFFERENT ARTICLES that you linked and made ridiculous assertions regarding.  So which is it; you didn't read the articles or you can't understand what you read?

[John Camp]

You manage to miss the point of everything that's ever said to you. It cannot but be deliberate.

I think there might be another explanation. 8-)

[TechTalk]

I think there might be another explanation. 8-)

The tactics of the false equivalence, changing subjects, deflection, diversion, what aboutism, etc. are all very common for people afraid to directly address an issue.

But, the apparent inability to understand what people have written here or in articles cited is worrisome. I'm guessing it's just willful blindness to anything that doesn't fit inside an extreme devotion to an ideology... but I could be wrong.

[John Camp]

The guarantee of free speech isn't a guarantee of free transmission. Trump can say anything he wants to anybody he wants (with certain minor restrictions, e.g. not crying 'fire' in a crowded theater.) The guarantee of free speech bans the government from interfering with speech, and the government hasn't tried to restrict Trump's speech. A private company may have its own reasons for blocking a person's use of their private means of transmission -- liability, among other things. Nobody knows what will come out of the court system, so if Trump issues a particular inflammatory statement, and that causes somebody to get killed, is Twitter then partially liable for damages? Well, who really knows how that would work through the courts? And even if Twitter prevailed in a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court, how much would that cost the company? Do they have the right to protect themselves from such problems? I think they do.

[Alan Klein]

Are there boundaries to free speech?  I believe in free speech but FWIW not e.g. if it incites actions that are illegal or are classified as bullying or mental abuse.  As Barry Black, the Senate Chaplain, said at the end of the Congress session on Jan 6th/7th in the closing prayer, 'These tragedies have reminded us that words matter and that the power of life and death is in the tongue'

Let us preserve free speech but not abuse it.

Jonathan

I asked this question but your skirted the answer.  What did Trump say that was illegal and what did he say that that approved the demonstrators invading the Capitol building?  Asking supporters to come to Washington and support his presidency is perfectly legal.

[Alan Klein]

There was a case here in BC that involved a young teen being bullied via messages online to the point the girl took her life. Now, those bullying messages, are they free speach...if not why, and if yes...who is responsible for this girl's death?

The girl who was found guilty encouraged the teen to take his life.  Trump didn't tell his supporters to invade the capital. He told them to demonstrate which is perfectly legal in America.

Regarding the case you're referring to, I'm not sure that's a crime in my mind.  If someone tells someone he's a sick fool, his life is worth squat and should go blow his brains out and he does that, is that person guilty of assisting suicide?   

[Alan Klein]

The problem is that while most normal people see through Trump's lies, there are enough imbeciles who believe everything he says.

What about the imbeciles who believe Biden's lies about Ukraine and China and his son?  What about all the positions he stated in over 40 years in politics and now says he believes differently?  Is he lying about those things?  Are we all imbeciles?  Or maybe we just support those whose lies we favor?

[Alan Klein]

They are not my arguments and they are not contradictory. They are quotes from Fauci on TWO DIFFERENT PLANS, IN TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, FROM TWO DIFFERENT ARTICLES that you linked and made ridiculous assertions regarding.  So which is it; you didn't read the articles or you can't understand what you read?

The original plan is the plan of holding those doses for the second shot, which is the plan that Fauci approved and favored.  Whatever changes he "believes" is now is because he has a new boss who wants him to continue in his position.  So he kisses Biden's ass like he kissed Trumps.  I remember Fauci from 30 years ago.  He was a politician then.  He still is.

[Alan Klein]

The original plan is the plan of holding those doses for the second shot, which is the plan that Fauci approved and favored.  Whatever changes he "believes" is now is because he has a new boss who wants him to continue in his position.  So he kisses Biden's ass like he kissed Trumps.  I remember Fauci from 30 years ago.  He was a politician then.  He still is.

Here's what Fauci said on Dec 31, 2020.  He still favored the original plan as I stated but was open to a revised plan, conveniently stated by him after the election when Biden wants to do something akin to the new plan.  Fauci's just going along.

Fauci: “I still think, if done properly, you can do a single dose, reserve doses for the second dose and still get the job done," he said. "But there’s a lot of discussion about whether or not you want to spread out the initial vaccination by getting more people vaccinated on the first round. You could debate either way on that."

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/health/2020/12/31/fauci--us-considering-plan-to-stop-withholding-covid-vaccine-for-2nd-doses

[PeterAit]

I sent this article to the Raleigh, NC News and Observer. They are publishing it tomorrow.

Some Trump supporters claim that the recent riot at the Capitol was somehow equivalent to the riots that occasionally occurred during Black Lives Matter protests. Nothing could be further from the truth; they are completely different. (1) The Capitol protest was completely bogus, aimed at supposed “vote fraud” which, of course, did not happen. The BLM protests were aimed at serious and long-standing racial injustices in our country. (2) The Capitol protest invaded and vandalized the very central symbol of American democracy while the BLM protests at worst damaged some private property and inconsequential public buildings. (3) The Capitol protest’s stated aim was to disrupt and prevent a long-standing and constitutionally mandated part of our democratic process, the certification of electoral college votes. In stark contrast, the goals of the BLM protests were to ensure that constitutional and basic human rights are extended to all Americans regardless of skin color. The difference is night and day.