@DoubleDD tracked down the poorly titled NYT Op Ed piece. The piece did not say it was safe to travel to China.
Valid arguments may exist for shutting down the world to travelers originating in China — and shutting down China to the world — as a reasonable public health response. But the World Health Organization explicitly did not advise that any restriction of trade or travel was necessary when it declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern last week, and it still doesn’t. Instead, it has called for exit screening in international airports and domestic hubs in China.
The disease was already here and the travel ban was touted as THE correct action, but it came months too late and allowed travel to the UK, a country whose containment was shit.
Most importantly, the disease was already here and was not contained, while Trump misrepresented all the details and failed to issue any guidance.
Timing matters. Every detail of this administrations response has been late and botched. To try to slap a prize on their travel ban after the fact is a joke.
Trump is the President of the United States. Not some misinformed dude watching news in his house. To explain away his ineptitude as not having the facts at the time is not acceptable.
@BShark I wonder to what extent we can be more prepared to pivot and produce ventillators for future pandemic preparedness. So we wouldnt need a huge stockpile so much as a larger stockpile as well as companies be able to switch production to ventillators quickly. We could make medical supply producers have the capacity to switch over and have a coordinated plan for production, distribution, and assembly of components all locally.
@FarmerJayhawk said in Donald Trump's Public Service Announcement:
@Kcmatt7 said in Donald Trump's Public Service Announcement:
In times of crisis, everyone’s a democrat…
Not even sort of
It’s just a joke considering the republican politicians at the moment…
Your CEO scenario is an argument for corporate inside information to be disclosed more publicly and sooner than it is now so all shareholders have equal opportunity to make decisions. The idea that a CEO selling their shares gives everyone information doesn’t really hold water since there is a lag in the reporting and anyone seeing the report has no idea why the CEO sold a bunch (college tuition due?).
It is highly inefficient economically to depend on shareholders guessing about insider trading as a means of detecting crucial corporate info. When I was at the CFTC, we often worked with the SEC on these things. Reporting disclosures sometimes alerted our regulators to the need for an investigation. But even with govt investigative power it took a long time to determine why a transaction occurred. Not much use to investors because a sale, or buy, could even be planned far in advance under a contract, ot triggered by economic indicators.
You are correct: insider trading is perfectly legal provided it is done properly. We want corporations to be run by people who have a stake. But the rules against using inside information are designed to avoid letting the insiders be the first in line which leads to distrust of market pricing.
As to all public officials, I would prohibit all market activity except for blind investments in mutual funds. These trades were legal until 2014. One of these guys was one of the 2 senators who voted against the law then.
But in my mind, this may not even count as inside info. There were many sources telling us that this was going to spread, and anyone with an ounce of realism knew the markets would tank. The fact that they got a secret briefing sure didn’t seem to motivate any pushback against the Admin’s rosy posturing.
Nice discussion, by the way. Reminds me of dinner discussions on theoretical stuff that would go on for hours in Law School.
Afterthought: If trading on insider information is victimless, then how far would that extend? Let’s say the CEO, the board, all the officers, and all their relatives own half the shares, and by dumping in concert take virtually all the equity out within a couple of minutes and leave the stock in a company frozen by the NYSE–no victims among the remaining 50% of shareholders?
@FarmerJayhawk said in Bernie vs. Biden:
@DoubleDD said in Bernie vs. Biden:
And just for the record? If Dem voters would’ve voted Amy or even Booker? You might of captured my vote. Not so much booker, but Amy yes. But no the dem voter was like screw the country we have to beat Trump. Now we are stuck with Biden and Sanders. A brokered convention.
I don’t want corporate welfare. Let me compete in the market and we’ll win. We’ve done it forever. Just get out of my way. We were doing really well! Sure there were big fluctuations because of forces beyond our control but governments just can’t fix that.
The D race is over. Biden will easily get to 1991 and the convention will be pretty uneventful if they even have it. I think they should make all the voting virtual so we don’t have a bunch of old folks in Milwaukee and Charlotte where the virus is already a big issue. Televise the speeches, fine. But don’t bring the delegates to the conventions.
I love your spirit but it’s not a fair fight. But respect what your saying. I’ll leave it at that.
@bskeet I read several time that the government has taken money from social security. That obviously doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. What I mean by spending money that ain’t theirs is the fact that it isn’t lol. They have a tax for just about every thing, that is the American populations money that’s supposed to be used to help the said American citizens. I’d recommend googling what some of our tax money is spent on. 200 million was spent a few years to see if monkeys were more sexually active while on cocaine. Imagine you and you wife going over your budget and deciding to spend much more than you make on silly stuff like that. Then see if how it impacts your household. There is no consequence for their actions, no pay grade based on their performance. They’ll still have their mansions and benzs to go home to. If you budget like that, you’ll be on streets.
As of now only Bernie, Biden, and Pete get delegates from Nevada. Not clear Pete gets any when the dust clears. If Biden wins S.C. by a good margin (Double digits-ish) we’ve got 3 left going into Super Tuesday.
@bskeet said in moderates and progressives:
Curious if a moderate like Klobuchar or Pete could pick up votes if they repositioned themselves as a ‘progressive that isn’t a socialist’ and push Bernie and Warren further into a fringe space.
I doubt it. I don’t think there really is a moderate in the D field per se. They all message on progressive bona fides. Bernie is Bernie is Bernie. I don’t think he’d change his message with a gun to his head.
Yea I agree. Yet we Are promoting a perception as fact. I’ve yet to hear or see any evidence that trump (like me, hate him) actually said investigate joe Biden. Have you?
Also just look at the articles of impeachment? Obstruction of justice? Because Trump did not respond to some of the subpoenas by the house. If your check, every president has done that. Why wouldn’t all those presidents even the great Obama get impeached?
Like I said this a which hunt. I’m mean you have Joe Biden on camera demanding a quid pro quo. And his son who has no experience in energy and oil gets the most Cush job in the world. But we don’t investigate that? we don’t look at that? no we speculate on what trump means by what he says, and present evidence off persons testimonies that didn’t even hear the phone call. Let’s not forget trump released the transcripts of such phone call. Also as by standard, there were a A minimum of 20 people that where on that phone call with President Trump. Yea twenty. Yet the evidence lies with persons that heard from a friend that heard it from a friend.
Yep, then Chief of Staff Mulvaney admitted to the exact thing the House accuses Trump of doing. It’s not even really debatable. Congress is entitled to whatever documents it requires for an impeachment proceeding. Executive privilege in this context is nonsense. The only time a President can lawfully withhold material documents from Congress is when they don’t have anything to do with Article I power. For example, the House doesn’t have the right to internal Article II documents related to foreign treaties, but the Senate does because it has the sole power to ratify treaties.
Whether DoJ investigates the Biden’s is another matter entirely and not related to this impeachment. There was no transcript. There was a memo written later but not a verbatim transcript.
By the way, I did not - no bullshit! - post this trash topic (just now saw it). Someone edited what I originally posted, which was so freaking long ago that I forgot what it was. If it were mine, I’d own it - but it is not.