Noam Chomsky: “Trump has killed thousands of americans”

[DMC]

Of course there's such a thing as less people dying.

So one iteration can have different outcomes? Do tell how that's remotely possible.

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.

You'd still have the death total and you could still say "fewer deaths" when criticizing the response. Without something to compare to, you're just pissing in the wind.

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?

Because the left said "fewer deaths" and the talk has constantly been about the death totals, but there doesn't need to be a specific number. Give me a range of acceptable deaths.

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

I'm saying we don't have even a range of acceptable deaths. If the count was 200K right now, the actual 87K or whatever would be fewer deaths but right now 87K isn't acceptable. Is 47K acceptable? is 47 acceptable?

[DMC]

I am the babbler

We agree

[spurraider21]

we cant figure out exactly how many more people would have died if we kept lead in gasoline, paint, etc

therefore it was a useless endeavor

[pgardn]

We agree

You agree with yourself out of shame.

[DMC]

we cant figure out exactly how many more people would have died if we kept lead in gasoline, paint, etc

therefore it was a useless endeavor

Another bad analogy and a strawman.

I never said anything about the endeavor - that's your narrative.

If you criticized the POTUS for lead being in gasoline and said "if he did a better job, there'd be fewer deaths", then we'd need to get into how his actions affected gasoline content, and the numbers before and after lead. That would be two different iterations and a reference point.

Keep nipping at the ankle, Philo. You'll get it one day.

[DMC]

babble

[pgardn]

Your replies are becoming even more profound.
You should write an article for TIME and have it rejected..

[ChumpDumper]

DMC is incredibly sensitive about people's thinking he's fat.

[DMC]

Your replies are becoming even more profound.
You should write an article for TIME and have it rejected..

You write it if you want it rejected. Mine get accepted.

[DMC]

DMC is incredibly sensitive about people's thinking he's fat.

You're sensitive about people thinking you're a crippled recluse.

If you're going to sling at me, at least face the right direction.

[DMC]

..

[ChumpDumper]

You're sensitive about people thinking you're a crippled recluse.

I asked you what your proof of that was and I didn't try to give away pictures of myself to other men like you, tubbs.

[pgardn]

You write it if you want it rejected. Mine get accepted.

Cool.

Link.

Or you are fantasizing again.

[DMC]

Cool.

Link.

Or you are fantasizing again.

I'm not linking you to my . Get your own .

Popular Science as well... doh!

[pgardn]

I'm not linking you to my . Get your own .

Popular Science as well... doh!

Then we can assume you have lied.

You use a different name.
Go ahead. Put up or shut up.
I helped figure out the finer points of the ELISA assay.
Look it up. Its quite important, just like you and your self importance.

[Spurminator]

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?

If this actually happened in 2005 you wouldn't have a reference for how many games the Spurs would have won, dummy.

And it wouldn't matter because everyone who knows anything would know that playing Tim Duncan for 10 minutes a game was a stupid move that cost them wins. That's the point.

Maybe you're just not great at following analogies.

[baseline bum]

85,000 dead doesn't matter because you'd complain about 85

More of the Trump could cure cancer and liberals would complain kind of crap I'd usually only expect to hear out of jackasses like rmt

[vy65]

So one iteration can have different outcomes? Do tell how that's remotely possible.

What the are you talking about. You’re becoming less intelligible than prime Fuzzy.

More supplies, testing, etc would have caused less death. Experts have said as much. You don’t have any evidence to the otherwise.

You'd still have the death total and you could still say "fewer deaths" when criticizing the response. Without something to compare to, you're just pissing in the wind.

You’re just saying that. This half assed reductio argument isn’t compelling because the inevitability of some deaths doesn’t mean we can’t make value judgments about Trump’s ups. Sickness may be inevitable, but that doesn’t mean we should start coughing in each other’s faces.

Because the left said "fewer deaths" and the talk has constantly been about the death totals, but there doesn't need to be a specific number. Give me a range of acceptable deaths.

Asked and answered. 0.

I'm saying we don't have even a range of acceptable deaths. If the count was 200K right now, the actual 87K or whatever would be fewer deaths but right now 87K isn't acceptable. Is 47K acceptable? is 47 acceptable?

Lol DMC sporting the administration 6 figure death totals to hang a “mission accomplished” banner. Normal people would aim for 0 death. Trump slurpers set the bar at low level concentration camp numbers

[DMC]

What the are you talking about. You’re becoming less intelligible than prime Fuzzy.

More supplies, testing, etc would have caused less death. Experts have said as much. You don’t have any evidence to the otherwise.

You're arguing against something I never said. If the criticism is because there should be fewer deaths, what level of deaths would be acceptable where criticism wasn't used? This isn't that hard of a question. I don't know why you keep offering hypothetical situations and challenging me to disprove it.

You’re just saying that. This half assed reductio argument isn’t compelling because the inevitability of some deaths doesn’t mean we can’t make value judgments about Trump’s ups. Sickness may be inevitable, but that doesn’t mean we should start coughing in each other’s faces.

I simply asked for your range of acceptable deaths where criticism wouldn't be used. You're tying yourself in knots over this. It seems evident that the ing is because the GOP is in office, and though hindsight is 20/20 and many involved in the decision making at all levels have had a steep, hard learning curve, you're only interested in pointing fingers at the GOP. That's fine, it's partisan politics as usual, but don't use some bull marker like "fewer deaths" as if you have a range in mind. How about no deaths? Well that couldn't happen. In fact, someone likely died from it before anyone knew it existed so Trump already failed.

Asked and answered. 0.

So the the failure of the administration started before COVID was ever discovered to have existed. They allowed an unacceptable number of deaths to happen. 1 is unacceptable. 1 million is unacceptable. Thanks for being rational.

But you're being dishonest in an attempt to play the saint. There are obviously acceptable death totals. South Korea is the shining example, remember? They have 260 or so deaths. That's way above 0. So is their response unacceptable?

Lol DMC sporting the administration 6 figure death totals to hang a “mission accomplished” banner. Normal people would aim for 0 death. Trump slurpers set the bar at low level concentration camp numbers

You trying to weave a narrative by 3rd person comments because you cannot figure out which end on your body the most should come from.

[DMC]

85,000 dead doesn't matter because you'd complain about 85

More of the Trump could cure cancer and liberals would complain kind of crap I'd usually only expect to hear out of jackasses like rmt

Another stupid ass straw man.

I never even indicated it doesn't matter. It seems to not matter to the left in terms of whether or not the response is/was acceptable. 1 death is unacceptable = any response is unacceptable.

[ChumpDumper]

Another stupid ass straw man.

I never even indicated it doesn't matter. It seems to not matter to the left in terms of whether or not the response is/was acceptable. 1 death is unacceptable = any response is unacceptable.

That's a straw man.

[vy65]

You're arguing against something I never said. If the criticism is because there should be fewer deaths, what level of deaths would be acceptable where criticism wasn't used? This isn't that hard of a question. I don't know why you keep offering hypothetical situations and challenging me to disprove it.

I simply asked for your range of acceptable deaths where criticism wouldn't be used. You're tying yourself in knots over this. It seems evident that the ing is because the GOP is in office, and though hindsight is 20/20 and many involved in the decision making at all levels have had a steep, hard learning curve, you're only interested in pointing fingers at the GOP. That's fine, it's partisan politics as usual, but don't use some bull marker like "fewer deaths" as if you have a range in mind. How about no deaths? Well that couldn't happen. In fact, someone likely died from it before anyone knew it existed so Trump already failed.

So the the failure of the administration started before COVID was ever discovered to have existed. They allowed an unacceptable number of deaths to happen. 1 is unacceptable. 1 million is unacceptable. Thanks for being rational.

But you're being dishonest in an attempt to play the saint. There are obviously acceptable death totals. South Korea is the shining example, remember? They have 260 or so deaths. That's way above 0. So is their response unacceptable?



You trying to weave a narrative by 3rd person comments because you cannot figure out which end on your body the most should come from.

This is one of the dumber arguments I’ve had in a while, so props on that.

Your premise is that because some number of deaths were inevitable, there must be a line drawn between an acceptable number of inevitable death and an unacceptable number. You think that line is arbitrarily drawn along political lines. You think that because this is the first time round, we can’t fault DJT for those deaths, particularly when we’re under said arbitrary line.

That’s about as inhumane as it gets — and — is a pretty weak mea culpa offered you on behalf of dear leader. Mine, and others, point is that the administration should be help responsible for each and every death because that’s the nature of that offices responsibility to the country. You don’t see it that way because you’re willing to offer some arbitrary number of lives up as a kind of “cost of doing business.” Because you love your daddy trump

[RandomGuy]

You're arguing against something I never said.

Kind of hard to argue against what you say if you never really say anything, No-take McGurk very studiously never has a take to be criticized.

So fragile.

[RandomGuy]

So one iteration can have different outcomes? Do tell how that's remotely possible.

You'd still have the death total and you could still say "fewer deaths" when criticizing the response. Without something to compare to, you're just pissing in the wind.

Because the left said "fewer deaths" and the talk has constantly been about the death totals, but there doesn't need to be a specific number. Give me a range of acceptable deaths.

I'm saying we don't have even a range of acceptable deaths. If the count was 200K right now, the actual 87K or whatever would be fewer deaths but right now 87K isn't acceptable. Is 47K acceptable? is 47 acceptable?

Why does there need to be an acceptable range.

Justify your demand.

[DMC]

This is one of the dumber arguments I’ve had in a while, so props on that.

Your premise is that because some number of deaths were inevitable, there must be a line drawn between an acceptable number of inevitable death and an unacceptable number. You think that line is arbitrarily drawn along political lines. You think that because this is the first time round, we can’t fault DJT for those deaths, particularly when we’re under said arbitrary line.

That’s about as inhumane as it gets — and — is a pretty weak mea culpa offered you on behalf of dear leader. Mine, and others, point is that the administration should be help responsible for each and every death because that’s the nature of that offices responsibility to the country. You don’t see it that way because you’re willing to offer some arbitrary number of lives up as a kind of “cost of doing business.” Because you love your daddy trump

No, you missed again.

My premise is that, if you say the reason you're ing about someone's performance is because the number of deaths is unacceptable, then you say 1 death is unacceptable, you're saying you'd regardless. There's nothing that could have possibly been done to appease your sense of what's acceptable.

But if I told you right now, I could erase half of the deaths, you'd probably settle on that without a 2nd thought. That would be thousands of deaths, which means thousands of deaths is acceptable in reference to what we have now. However you said 1 death is unacceptable.

You want it both ways, to have your cake and eat it too.

You're not using the "offices of responsibility" angle. You're using the "2020 election year" angle. I don't recall threads about Cuomo bungling the response. , he's been the patron saint of proper response even with almost 30,000 deaths. Amazing how deaths only matter when you need them as projectiles against your political opponents. Otherwise they are cause for concern while thoughts and prayers are with the governor and mayor who are doing everything they can, obviously.

I don't care who you fault. That's your prerogative. I fault everyone involved, from the individuals not taking precautions through local governments dragging ass and being unprepared to the federal government doing too much tap dancing to try to calm the masses. I go even back to other administrations who didn't backfill the PPE they used, and to the general public (including me) who never raised the concern higher than LGBTQ concerns or the wall being built. Even if you look at bills now that offer relief, they are doing the same basic soft shoe routine to put money in personal interest areas. I haven't seen a lot of talk about being prepared. It's not unthinkable that another virus could roll in right behind this one.