Before we even get to vaccine trutherism the death count trutherism has gotta play out first:
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Before we even get to vaccine trutherism the death count trutherism has gotta play out first:
you’re wrong here for a lot of reasons and one is being unaware of how race plays a factor in the US. There were what, 78?, trespassers on that construction site over the last 6 months? There’s a reason the guys with guns were white, the dead guy was black, and the police released the white guys after a quick statement while blood was still drying on the pavement.
also it’s extremely tiring that people in this thread keep questioning what the black guy did or should’ve done while being run down by 3 white guys in cars with loaded weapons. Again, again, again, and YET AGAIN I ask why there’s no focus on what the hell the white guys were doing and thinking before they left their houses? They KNEW it was a black guy and not two little white kids or a white grandma. THEY CHOSE to have their weapons loaded. THEY CHOSE to engage by videoing the encounter and firing as he crossed midline of the truck with no physical encounter yet occurring. Citizens arrest bull**** is nonsense. I’m tired of it. It’s time we stop playing games and call this what it is. Cold and calculated - murder.
He trried to get off the road. He doubled back and was blocked by the videographer. Only other option was he could have yelled for help or knocked on someone’s door. Not sure why he didn’t. But he tried to get away.
And when your life is in danger it’s FIGHT or FLIGHT. Some people are wired to fight and some to flee.
Clearly he was the former.
We don’t know why he chose to fight, but that was his response and who are we to judge?
The way YOU behave, is not the way your neighbor behaves.
We aren’t talking about you.
And being that I am black in America and constantly worry about my black male family members and friends down here in the South, I seriously doubt those hillbillies would have gone after a White male like that. They most likely would have tried talking to him without loaded guns or called the cops. No way they would have chased him down like they did Aubrey.
Poor race relations and discrimination, and racism, and unconscious bias are a real thing.
Last edited:
When you leave your house, do you worry about walking down the street and scaring the little old White lady who crosses the street to avoid your path? Do you go shopping for houses and worry that your White neighbors may not be too accepting of you buying a house in that neighborhood? When looking for jobs, do you ever look for other faces that look like you so that you feel more accepted? Or worry about being the token minority? Or do you ever worry that your Ethnic sounding name may prevent you from getting a job?
Do you worry that if you get pulled over you may get shot?
These are real things that even educated black men worry about in this country. Be glad you probably never have to think of this. You live in Europe in a rather Caucasian society. You ain’t used to these American things. And how dealing with these type of things and being told how to be careful around White folks shapes your mind from a very young age.
Translation: stop bashing Trump and other clueless republican leaders. 🙂
This is for you:
Andrew Sullivan: With Trump, the Pathology Is the Point
You can’t have both tribalism and a robust public-health response.nymag.com
Thanks. I think Trump screwed up by not taking covid seriously and not ramping up test-trace-isolate immediately. But i somehow made it a mission to rebel against Trump critics because it's getting too easy for anyone to slam Trump for anything he does, even in instances where he gets pretty strong bipartisan support (like pushing strong anti China measures).
Although I defended Obama against critics too throughout his presidency. It's only when presidents get too irritating for me (like Bush and Nixon) that I focus on bashing them. Trump hasn't reached that level yet.
Or DON'T MOVE... he was jogging in a tee shirt and shorts: the only way you're getting shot at is by wrestling a gun out of somebody's hands.
Not denying this fact, but when i saw the video it's what came to mind: you don't win a gun fight with your fists.
You are probably right. If he had put his hands up, maybe there’s a good chance he’d still be alive. But he did initially try to get away. And felt for whatever reasons, that fighting was the next best thing.
However, like @Southpaw and the rest of us keep asking, why was he getting chased by men acting like they were extras on a set of a Wild Western in the first place? For what? Copper wire? Wood? Sheetrock?
That should never have happened. For civilian people to think that this behavior is well within their rights is grossly disturbing.
MediMike
Full Member
While I am not a black man living in the South I am a white man who grew up there, and I'll go out on a limb here and say that when you're a black man cornered by a bunch of redneck squealers with guns drawn you likely believe you have no option but to fight or die.
How many of your ancestors or relatives were strung up in exact situations? Would you sit there and go willingly to your death like a hog to slaughter?
You have no idea what went through this man's head and it doesn't matter one GD bit. If someone pulls a gun on me and I believe I'm going to die I'm sure as hell going to go down fighting, not rolling over.
The bolded is false.
I think someone mentioned above that you live in Europe?
So maybe you don't understand the gun happy culture in America.
Unfortunately people get shot and killed by both the police and civilians while not moving and while running away/not posing a threat.
I haven't watched the video because I refuse to watch another person that looks like my family member get murdered, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he didn't have a suicide wish so whatever he did in the moment was what he thought was best to survive. Unless your profession has trained you how to act when hunted down by a gun (and even then sometimes all logic can go out the window) I don't think any of us can monday night quaterback except to say that those idiots shouldn't have gotten in their truck with a gun in the first place.
Stop trying to blame him for getting murdered.
That's where you lose all credibility
Run, hide, fight is the professional training. I can't fault Arbery for fighting to the end if he was cornered and believed they intended to kill him. Obviously if you asked him now he'd like a do-over to try something different, but you're right it's not really fair to MMQB his decisions in those few seconds.
1) Bush was far better than Trump by almost any and all measures.
2) When were you bashing Nixon? His re-election was 48 years ago, you would have to be at least 66 to have even voted for him. How old are you and how closely were you following politics in the early 70s?
Trump, this October, is going to have AG Barr announce a sham criminal investigation into Biden, and then use some federal declarations under the guise of "safety" to suppress the vote in reliably democratic urban areas in battleground states, and yet that doesn't even reach the level of "too irritating" for some people. What a bizarre country we live in.
Coronavirus Threatens to Hobble the U.S. Shale-Oil Boom for Years
American shale drillers helped turn the U.S. into the world’s top oil producer, topping 13 million barrels a day earlier this year. It could be years, if ever, before they reach such heights again.
www.wsj.com
A president reaches the "too irritating" level if they're a war criminal, they are disastrous in responding to economic problems/chaos, and/or they're so corrupt that it easily involves a bipartisan support to remove them. Nixon was a war criminal, ended up worsening the 1970s economic chaos, and collapsed due to Watergate scandal.
If you could show Trump approaching any one of these 3 categories, i'll drop all support and will switch over to slamming him. And i'm willing since i don't know who i'll be voting for this election and am not registered to any political party.
I have problems with Trump too. I've been pushing for test-trace-isolate which didn't happen at a national scale immediately. I hate that Taliban peace deal. I think he hires crappy people only to end up firing them later. I think he's easily worse than Obama but better than a lot of Republican presidents. I think the ideal Republican should be someone similar to Eisenhower.
Trump is way worse than Bush or Nixon.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm just going to go out on a limb and guess your views on Nixon and Bush are from a history book that you read (or some similar online source). I can assure you the history written about Trump will be way, way, way worse than either of them. It isn't even comparable. Ann Coulter, perhaps one of his most fawning and ardent supporters the last few years, spent this weekend calling him things that I can't even post here.
D
deleted171991
Trump and his cronies deserve to mismanage and corrupt one of those ****hole countries, not America.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wasn't alive when Nixon was president so I'm not going to argue with you, but what policies/actions were worse during Nixon's presidency vs Trump?
You're right that i got my insights from history books. I just don't see how Trump's actions so far are worse than Nixon's. Nixon is a war criminal who made a lot of very bad and deadly mistakes (see Cambodia, Bangladesh, Chile). Nixon made the economic crisis and stagflation a lot worse with price controls. Watergate scandal was so bad and criminal that there was a strong bipartisan attempt to remove him from office that led to him resigning.
I'm not sure how Trump is a war criminal. People bashed him from withdrawing from Syria, negotiating a peace deal with Taliban and being nice to North Korea. Trump tried to keep the economy open and was arguing consistently against lockdowns. Trump's scandals got politicized badly by everyone involved that it's hard to see the actual reality behind it without polarizing ourselves. But unlike Nixon, there wasn't a massive unified bipartisan push to remove him.
there is plenty of bipartisan support for removing Trump. Unfortunately it has not extended to the actual elected Republicans that grovel before him because they want his support for re-election and are afraid of his bombastic vitriol on twitter. But they will still belittle him in private settings. About 6 months after he is gone, you might not be able to find anybody willing to say anything nice about him.
Republicans were slamming his impeachment as a sham and that included some House Republicans too. I'm not denying Trump can be insufferable but i knew that before he even ran for president. But i'm talking specifically about elected Republicans actually planning to remove Trump which didn't happen other than Romney.
If anyone's curious to see what 157 presidential historians think using ~20 criteria....from the 2018 Siena presidential expert poll. Ranked worst to best
D
deleted171991
Abbreviations
- Bg = Background
- Im = Imagination
- Int = Integrity
- IQ = Intelligence
- L = Luck
- WR = Willing to take risks
- AC = Ability to compromise
- EAb = Executive ability
- LA = Leadership ability
- CAb = Communication ability
- OA = Overall ability
- PL = Party leadership
- RC = Relations with Congress
- CAp = Court appointments
- HE = Handling of economy
- EAp = Executive appointments
- DA = Domestic accomplishments
- FPA = Foreign policy accomplishments
- AM = Avoid crucial mistakes
- EV = Experts' view
- O = Overall
- Blue backgrounds indicate first quartile.
- Green backgrounds indicate second quartile.
- Orange backgrounds indicate third quartile.
- Red backgrounds indicate fourth quartile.
Something is wrong if Hoover is viewed worse than Nixon.
Also why is Bush worse than Nixon, and Ford and Carter only marginally better? Idk what methodology historians are using but they're overrating Nixon for some reason.
I'm starting to think you really haven't studied much history or politics if you don't know or understand why the guy who failed to respond decisively or effectively to The Great Depression™ is ranked so low....
Nixon made the stagflation worse with price controls on top of his war criminal activities and Watergate. To put Hoover worse than him for not adequately responding to Great Depression is making Nixon's actions look unnecessarily better.
I'm telling you many of the ones "slamming it as a sham" in public will tell you in private he is a buffoon that is not fit to be president.
Yea, you're wrong. And obviously I'm no Nixon fan and Nixon should be in the bottom quartile, but Hoover is objectively worse as far as who did more overall damage to the country.
I mean it's bizarre to think that engaging in war crimes, worsening 1970s stagflation and being involved in Watergate is consider a quartile better than someone failing to respond to Great Depression adequately.
Then the GOP voters in 2016 should be blamed and slammed for nominating Trump in the first place. I was backing Rubio to be GOP nominee and that didn't work out.
You're entitled to whatever strange opinion you'd like but you are well out of bounds with the opinion of the rest of the country and with expert presidential historians' assessments.
Dude what? Are you denying war crimes, price controls and Watergate didn't happen?
JFC, learn to read. I just said Nixon is awful and is one of the worst presidents (bottom quartile). It is merely your opinion that states that all those things were overall worse for the trajectory of the country than Hoover's mismanagement of the Great f'ing Depression, which is an opinion in opposition to literally everyone else including presidential historians. So, as far as what's bizarre, it's your opinion because it's way out of bounds with common and educated consensus.
Dude come on. The same professional historians put Nixon a quartile above Hoover. And i'm challenging that especially given that you yourself agree that Nixon is in the lowest quartile. And the idea that the mismanagement of Great Depression being worse than mismanagement of stagflation that hurt the country in 1970s on top of a blow to political morale from Watergate and war crimes made is something i'm questioning. That literally means experts are a lot more tolerating of Nixon's bad actions because Hoover's actions were unforgivably bad.
I'm guessing you have essentially no knowledge about the Great Depression or what it did to the country or have ever talked with someone who lived through it. I'll let you educate yourself on that topic, and maybe reflect for a moment that it was so bad worldwide that it literally gave rise to the Nazi party.
D
deleted171991
Scientists vs politicians: The reality check for “warp speed” vaccine research
Hollywood-style messages from politicians about beating the pandemic downplay technical complexity.
arstechnica.com
I'm saying both Hoover and Nixon should be in the bottom quartile and the 70s stagflation was just as bad. It makes zero sense to put war crimes/stagflation mismanagement/Watergate a quartile above mismanagement of Great Depression.
Ultimately it's a subjective ranking based on some objective criteria- it's not a quantitative list for a physics project, so you're making too much of the quartiles instead of the fact that they're both ranked extraordinarily low with Hoover at 36 and Nixon at 29 and Trump at 42. You also have on your typical blinders and are unable to acknowledge (unlike the presidential experts) how bad the Great Depression was, how bad Hoover was, or some of the good things Nixon did. That's why it makes "zero" sense to you.
Last edited:
If Nixon and Hoover were rated more closely (like 36 and 35), I wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm pointing out the events that happened and showing why Nixon is unfairly overrated. I can make a case of good things Hoover did and that'll get slammed and ignored in favor of the clear mismanagement of Great Depression. And so, Nixon's good things aren't important in comparison to war crimes/stagflation/Watergate. Hoover hurt the American morale for his bad handling of Great Depression so he rightly lost by a landslide. Nixon ruined America's image through Watergate and his resignation and pardon led to huge controversy. It's only reasonable to rank both of them bad.
No, actually you're not. Pretty much all you're doing is shouting war crimes, stagflation (coincidentally in the face of what was still average +real GDP growth in the post-WWII era), and Watergate and expecting us to blindly agree with your unsubstantiated opinion that overall all those things were worse for the country than the mismanagement of the worst economic disaster in 250 years of American history- a disaster so bad in the US that hundreds of thousands of people were forced to live in slums, and as I said earlier, so bad worldwide that Nazism seemed like a logical response.
Those things ruined US's image in the Cold War, and a major reason Ford lost the election to Carter was his pardon of Nixon. It also made the economic situation in 1970s pretty horrible. Hoover's mismanagement of Great Depression was bad like I mentioned several times, but even then he tried to implement some things that set the course for New Deal
Before FDR, Herbert Hoover Tried His Own 'New Deal' | HISTORY
Herbert Hoover was not a “do-nothing” president during the Great Depression. In fact, his actions may have made thing...
Hoover took the Great Depression and made it worse. Nixon took the 70s stagflation and made it worse.
You're sooooo close to getting it. Let me see if I can bring you home. Now, just ask yourself- in any objective sense of the word, which period of time was worse for the American people in regards to the economy, unemployment, homelessness, poverty, education, healthcare, and life expectancy? In the case of Nixon, most of the suffering is happening in Southeast Asia, people have jobs, can still afford food and GDP is still increasing even with stagflation, and Watergate doesn't really affect the average American as far as their day-to-day lives. On the other hand, in the case of the Great Depression, you have Americans all over the country literally starving to death.
Last edited:
In case you were wondering whether trump managed COVID-19 based upon how it hurt him politically vs how it hurt the American people
The Great Depression was bad and even Roosevelt's plans ended up worsening tbe recession for a bit in 1937. It was a miserable time. But even then, the 1970s was chaotic. People wanted the Vietnam War to end, and instead, Nixon ended up spreading the impact and failing badly in his foreign policy through his Cambodia, Bangladesh and Chile disasters. Vietnam War ended after Nixon resigned. Stagflation led to worsening unemployment and a recession in later part of Nixon's presidency. The economic theory that arose to combat Great Depression ended up having to be repaired and improved on for 1970s stagflation since economists didn't expect inflation and unemployment to both increase. And Watergate was clearly bad and did impact the average Americans because they were ashamed to see a president resigning in disgrace in scandal for the first time in history and were enraged at Ford pardoning Nixon.
The Great Depression is a really horrible time period but I disagree using that to elevate Nixon above Hoover when Hoover's policies set the stage for New Deal.
Sigh. Americans starving to death vs....all the other things you're trying to make sound as bad.
