Noam Chomsky: “Trump has killed thousands of americans”

[clambake]

Blubber must have got bullied in the 7th grade...more than any other grade

[Play Boban]

goddam

he went in RAW

commy

[vy65]

Thanks for illustrating the point quite well. Throwing out a silly ass comment like "there'd be fewer deaths" doesn't do anything for you. So what? Would it change anything about your rage? No.

Again, genius, what's the magic ing number where it's acceptable?


chop chop

There is no magic number you dolt. That’s the whole ing point

[ChumpDumper]

There is no magic number you dolt. That’s the whole ing point

Conversely, 300,000,000 Americans could die and DMC would still be declaring Trump completely powerless to do anything about it.

[clambake]

Pot committed to a low tier, juvenile shtick, won't put money on the take.

What money? What take?

[ChumpDumper]

What money? What take?

he's all flustered

[clambake]

Why doesn’t he doxx me?

Maybe he already did.

[SpursforSix]

As far as the far left stuff goes, I’ve pretty much accepted the idea that the only way stuff you describe as far left (ie Medicaire for all) gets implemented in this country is a revolution with blood on the streets. The fact you need 60 votes to get anything through the Senate, where North Dakota gets exponentially more representation than California does, pretty much removes the possibility of meaningful reform.

Joe Biden losing to Trump also isn’t going to push Democrats to support a far left candidate any more than Hillary losing to Trump did.

I don't know that it necessarily pushes Democrats to support a far left candidate. But I do think 4 or 8 years of Joe will move the needle. Maybe not to the point of electing someone like AOC but someone closer (even if slightly) to her.

[DMC]

There is no magic number you dolt. That’s the whole ing point

So the arbitrary "fewer deaths" is really just rhetoric. Basically whatever the number, the GOP should have done better to have a lower number, but there's no real target.

Got it.

[DMC]

What money? What take?

You've been running with the "hurr durr ur fat" shtick. Put some money on your take. I'll bet you 5K I am under 200lbs.

Of course you'll do the "got to you" defense or some other escape act. Never fails.

I offered this to you before and you balked. Back up your talk.

[DMC]

Why doesn’t he doxx me?

Maybe he already did.

More make-believe from you, parroting a narrative.

Never doxxed anyone here.

[vy65]

So the arbitrary "fewer deaths" is really just rhetoric. Basically whatever the number, the GOP should have done better to have a lower number, but there's no real target.

Got it.

This is really, really dumb. Any number is too high. But less people dying is a good thing. There's no line to be drawn, but that doesn't mean saving more lives is a bad thing or allowing more people to die a good one.

You're really straining to find a talking point here.

[DMC]

This is really, really dumb. Any number is too high. But less people dying is a good thing. There's no line to be drawn, but that doesn't mean saving more lives is a bad thing or allowing more people to die a good one.

You're really straining to find a talking point here.

There's no such thing as "less people dying" when it's the first time around. You don't have a number, not even a range, but somehow anything less than we currently have is what is to be expected, what... the next time?

Try to make sense and remember this all started because someone on the left used the "fewer deaths" line then the rest of you (and them) have been back peddling on that since, refusing to offer up some numbers or ranges.

How would you ever know you've had fewer deaths without a parallel universe to compare to? Explain.

[vy65]

There's no such thing as "less people dying" when it's the first time around. You don't have a number, not even a range, but somehow anything less than we currently have is what is to be expected, what... the next time?

Try to make sense and remember this all started because someone on the left used the "fewer deaths" line then the rest of you (and them) have been back peddling on that since, refusing to offer up some numbers or ranges.

How would you ever know you've had fewer deaths without a parallel universe to compare to? Explain.

Of course there's such a thing as less people dying. Faster testing development, more test availability, contract tracing, more PPE, faster shut downs, and more would have all prevented loss of life. People much smarter than you who have made their career in this area have said as much.

Why does "the left" need to have a precise number? You're saying that unless "the left" does some counter-factual math and says "if we had done x, y, and z," we would have saved so many lives? Do you really believe that because that math hasn't been done - according to you - that therefore there's no validity to the point. Are we at a point where we can even make that calculation?

You're saying that because you haven't seen an equation, earlier testing availability, for example, wouldn't have mattered.

[clambake]

You've been running with the "hurr durr ur fat" shtick. Put some money on your take. I'll bet you 5K I am under 200lbs.

Of course you'll do the "got to you" defense or some other escape act. Never fails.

I offered this to you before and you balked. Back up your talk.

We’ve already seen the evidence, the proof was in the pudding....that you consumed.

I’ll just let you owe me.

[BSfromTX]

This is really, really dumb. Any number is too high. But less people dying is a good thing. There's no line to be drawn, but that doesn't mean saving more lives is a bad thing or allowing more people to die a good one.

You're really straining to find a talking point here.

Point is:

You are correct, any number is higher than we want, BUT there is a number that is inevitable whether its Trump, Obama, Bush etc in the whitehouse or some magical person that does it "right". What is that range that someone would be satisfied with how it has been handled? With Trump, many in here would say regardless of the number, he failed. That is the point.

[Chucho]

We’ve already seen the evidence, the proof was in the pudding....that you consumed.

I’ll just let you owe me.

You don't have $200? Those Tesla deposits are more than $200.

I'm super interested to see what our hands look like. Do it. What are you Irish or Welsh?

[Spurminator]

So if no one died, you'd have the exact same criticism?

I'm not interested in debating impossible hypotheticals. You know what I mean when I say the number isn't important. "Mmmmbut what if the number was zero?" is the kind of rebuttal I'd expect from a 7 year old.

[Spurminator]

2005: Gregg Popovich elects to bench Tim Duncan and play him 10 minutes per game. Spurs win 20 games.

DMC: "What if they won 30? You guys were going to criticize Pop no matter how many games the Spurs won." Voices no opinion on benching Tim Duncan. Pats self on the back for impressive argument skills.

[pgardn]

So 'fewer would die" isn't the real issue here.

Let us proceed.

Yeah go ahead and forget the fck ups and lies.
Always try to change the argument when you get slapped upside the head.
You are becoming a fine punching bag, keep posting.

[DMC]

We’ve already seen the evidence, the proof was in the pudding....that you consumed.

I’ll just let you owe me.

Then "we" can put some money on it and feel confident in the outcome. It's free money.

But you won't. You're a chicken with internet mouth.

[DMC]

Yeah go ahead and forget the fck ups and lies.
Always try to change the argument when you get slapped upside the head.
You are becoming a fine punching bag, keep posting.

You also cannot specify how to actually ever measure the "fewer deaths" presumption. So for intents and purposes, it's just more partisan babble. You're the forum babbler, you should know.

[DMC]

2005: Gregg Popovich elects to bench Tim Duncan and play him 10 minutes per game. Spurs win 20 games.

DMC: "What if they won 30? You guys were going to criticize Pop no matter how many games the Spurs won." Voices no opinion on benching Tim Duncan. Pats self on the back for impressive argument skills.

Bad analogy. You have the number of games won with Tim getting more minutes as a reference.

Are you folks really this ignorant of how this works?

[clambake]

Then "we" can put some money on it and feel confident in the outcome. It's free money.

But you won't. You're a chicken with internet mouth.

You go ahead and Send pics to other guys

I’m not into that

[pgardn]

You also cannot specify how to actually ever measure the "fewer deaths" presumption. So for intents and purposes, it's just more partisan babble. You're the forum babbler, you should know.

I am the babbler because I have made you look like a fool when you try and post subjects having to do with science.
Would you like to revisit those dumbass?