• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump rips Columbia as 'disgraceful institution' after study showed lives lost due to delayed shutdo

JacksinPA said:
Trump rips Columbia as 'disgraceful institution' after study showed lives lost due to delayed shutdown | TheHill

The study focused on transmission in metropolitan areas and concluded that social distancing efforts reduced the rates of COVID-19 contraction. The research was conducted with counterfactual experiments, which researchers acknowledged are based on hypothetical assumptions.

The study also found about 54,000 deaths associated with COVID-19 could have been avoided in early May if restrictions began on March 1.
==============================================================
Trump is learning that the truth can hurt, so he lashes out in typical juvenile fashion.
Click to expand...

Trump is just jealous that his (Russia's) money couldn't buy Trump University into the Ivy League.
 
Ethel2 said:
Can anyone remember a single occasion when Trump admitted he was wrong, that he misjudged something? Just asking.
Click to expand...

As I recall, Trump suggested that he had never asked God forgiveness for his sins, suggesting he has done somethings wrong. My assumption is that his apparent mental disorder in general prevents him from acknowledging error.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Jasper, you didn't read any of the statements I wrote - the study was based on hypothetical assumptions that the authors directly state were linked to counterfactual experiments (those are the researchers' own words)

They still used plenty of solid data, like you linked, it's just that they simulated what they thought the model might have looked like if social distancing had started a week earlier - and Trump is upset, I'm assuming, because all the data is hypothetical (they're taking all that data based on infections, etc. that occurred at one point, and then projected back to what might have happened earlier)

I'm not discounting the science of the study - I'm just questioning the purpose of it, and why they would purposely conduct a study based on Trump's accused negligence but completely ignore what would have happened if Andrew Cuomo had locked down NYC a week earlier

He's accusing the researchers of being politically motivated
Click to expand...

1. the purpose of the study was to try to understand what we might have done better
2. the study was not about blaming Trump.
3. Trump used the interview to subvert academic analysis of our response and for political manipulation
 
ldsrptcvt said:
What is disgraceful is his politicizing a university study.
Click to expand...

The university study may have already been political

There's a common thread going around the left-wing media that universities are not political entities and that scientific researchers could not possibly have political slants - Researchers at universities are people, just like politicians, and this could have been a study intended to purposely railroad Trump politically - He's not questioning the science, he's questioning the scientists

The left seems to be trying to drive the narrative that anyone in the field of science dare not be questioned - people in the field of science accuse politicians of corruption all the time, but when politicians accuse people in the field of science of corruption it's Armageddon:roll:
 
Last edited:
ReubenSherr said:
Jasper, you didn't read any of the statements I wrote - the study was based on hypothetical assumptions that the authors directly state were linked to counterfactual experiments (those are the researchers' own words)

They still used plenty of solid data, like you linked, it's just that they simulated what they thought the model might have looked like if social distancing had started a week earlier - and Trump is upset, I'm assuming, because all the data is hypothetical (they're taking all that data based on infections, etc. that occurred at one point, and then projected back to what might have happened earlier)

I'm not discounting the science of the study - I'm just questioning the purpose of it, and why they would purposely conduct a study based on Trump's accused negligence but completely ignore what would have happened if Andrew Cuomo had followed Newsom's model and locked down NYC a week earlier

He's accusing the researchers of being politically motivated
Click to expand...

The study directly addressed the NYC metro area, throughout the paper, and "what would have happened if Cuomo had...locked down NYC a week earlier." I quoted their findings applicable to the NYC metro area for you. Did you not read that little snippet?

So to say they ignored it is just a lie, false, untrue, you can't have glanced at the study and believe it. If NYC and surrounding had shut down 1 week earlier, the study found they'd have saved 17,514 lives. Two weeks earlier saves 20,427 lives in the NYC metro area. It's right there in the study. All it takes is glancing at the study to find what I just quoted, and you cannot be bothered, apparently.

And the study didn't mention Trump or accuse him of negligence. It's indifferent to, silent about, who should have ordered what, when. The entire purpose of it is to show that shutdowns WORK and that doing it earlier would have saved 10s of thousands of lives - just one week earlier. It's how we learn. Surely you've heard of an 'after action report.' That's all this is - it's an evaluation of what happened in the country and six metro areas in particular, with a HUGE focus on the NYC area, and how different actions, shutting down two weeks earlier, could have saved perhaps 50,000 lives. It's a legitimate exercise.

Why do you insist on making dishonest arguments?
 
Last edited:
ReubenSherr said:
The university study may have already been political

There's a common thread going around the left-wing media that universities are not political entities and that scientific researchers could not possibly have political slants - Researchers at universities are people, just like politicians
Click to expand...

I think any study that suggests we should have done something differently will be labeled "biased". Which means we can't learn from our mistakes. The university system is so corrupt that no true science can be learned from them? Then we are entering a new dark age.
 
ReubenSherr said:
The university study may have already been political

There's a common thread going around the left-wing media that universities are not political entities and that scientific researchers could not possibly have political slants - Researchers at universities are people, just like politicians, and this could have been a study intended to purposely railroad Trump politically - He's not questioning the science, he's questioning the scientists

The left seems to be trying to drive the narrative that anyone in the field of science dare not be questioned - people in the field of science accuse politicians of corruption all the time, but when politicians accuse people in the field of science of corruption it's Armageddon:roll:
Click to expand...

It doesn't help YOUR case when you misrepresent what the study did and didn't do. Present the study honestly and maybe someone will care about your views of it. Just a helpful suggestion FFR. :shrug:
 
ldsrptcvt said:
I think any study that suggests we should have done something differently will be labeled "biased". Which means we can't learn from our mistakes. The university system is so corrupt that no true science can be learned from them? Then we are entering a new dark age.
Click to expand...

That's a really good point - Universities have the right to be political - But I think it's incredibly corrupt of left-wing media to selectively highlight studies coming from left-wing universities, and constantly question the president about them, without also citing and referring to other studies which back up his policies
 
JasperL said:
It doesn't help YOUR case when you misrepresent what the study did and didn't do. Present the study honestly and maybe someone will care about your views of it. Just a helpful suggestion FFR. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Jasper, chill - it was a typo, it wasn't intentional

The study focused exclusively on nationwide data, and did not consider NYC data alone, which would have implicated Andrew Cuomo as responsible for all this as well - accusing the study of excluding data from NYC doesn't make any sense, that's not what I was referring to
 
Last edited:
ldsrptcvt said:
1. the purpose of the study was to try to understand what we might have done better
2. the study was not about blaming Trump.
3. Trump used the interview to subvert academic analysis of our response and for political manipulation
Click to expand...

What's kind of funny/pathetic is if anyone wanted to use the study to condemn the actions of De Blasio and Cuomo, the ammo is in...this study. De Blasio in particular, since the study shows shutting down the NY area one week earlier would have saved 17,500 lives.

What the study really does is support the scientists, the pandemic experts, who pretty much ALL told us early on that quick action, public policy, can have a huge impact on the course of the pandemic and lives lost, etc. That's in contrast to those pimping the results in Sweden who would tell us that what NYC did or didn't do had little impact - if we'd followed Sweden's lead and made it all voluntary, nothing changes. This study is a direct challenge to those theories.
 
ReubenSherr said:
Jasper, chill - it was a typo, it wasn't intentional

The study focused exclusively on nationwide data
Click to expand...

That's a lie. It focused on six metro areas - New York, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and Miami - with a huge focus on NYC.

and did not consider NYC data alone,
Click to expand...

Another lie. It did consider NYC metro area alone. I quoted the results - one week earlier saves 17,514 lives in the NYC metro area.
 
Ethel2 said:
Can anyone remember a single occasion when Trump admitted he was wrong, that he misjudged something? Just asking.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that if he ever thinks he was wrong he will admit it. :mrgreen:
 
JasperL said:
Another lie. It did consider NYC metro area alone. I quoted the results - one week earlier saves 17,514 lives in the NYC metro area.
Click to expand...

So then how do you make the jump to Trump being responsible for all this and not Cuomo? 17,514 lives is a lot...Did the media ever question Cuomo about this?

Also, I'd like to see a scientific study that backs up the fact that if Hillary Clinton had been in office, all these lives would have been saved
 or that Pelosi tried to stop all this from happening, but that Trump somehow prevented her from speaking up
 
Ethel2 said:
Can anyone remember a single occasion when Trump admitted he was wrong, that he misjudged something? Just asking.
Click to expand...

When you admit you're wrong, the media uses it against you - It's sad, but if Trump had admitted he was wrong, the left-wing media would've torn into him further

McConnell apologized for accusing the Obama administration of depleting emergency supplies, and the media pounced on him, and made him look even worse
 
ReubenSherr said:
So then how do you make the jump to Trump being responsible for all this and not Cuomo? 17,514 lives is a lot...Did the media ever question Cuomo about this?
Click to expand...

I didn't make that jump, but more to the point, neither did the study. So you're just compounding your lies.

Also, I'd like to see a scientific study that backs up the fact that if Hillary Clinton had been in office, all these lives would have been saved
 or that Pelosi tried to stop all this from happening, but that Trump somehow prevented her from speaking up
Click to expand...

9b7.jpg
 
ReubenSherr said:
Right, but the media did - that's why Trump got so ticked off
Click to expand...

OK, so why did you lie over a series of posts about what the study did and didn't do? That's not what Trump or "the media" did, but what YOU did.

And it's not my job to hold Trump's hand or make his talking points for him. If he's too stupid to point out that the study actually condemns the actions of NY and NYC, that's his problem. Instead he stupidly condemned the study, like you did. Weird how instead of making honest points about the study both Trump and you went the dishonest route. Why is that?
 
eman623 said:
They shut down one program that was started by Bill Gates, who while as rich as some states, is not himself a state.
You are moving the goalposts. The study blamed delaying the shutdown on the addl. deaths. That's handled at the local level. It's not Trump's job.
Click to expand...
We are discussing the narrow issue of teh balance of responsibility between the fed and states

A testing program is a part of what is necessary for dealing with the virus.
A state started a testing program.
The fed shut it down because it wasn't federally approved.
therefore
the fed must participate in the governors' processes

:shrug:
 
eman623 said:
Except Trump doesn't do shutdowns. That's the role of the governors and local health boards.

People who for some reason apparently can't do anything unless the president specifically tells them to do their ****ing jobs.
Click to expand...

It's called leadership. Once Trump started taking the virus seriously many of the states did too.

Now imagine if Trump was displaying that leadership before the end of march.
 
ReubenSherr said:
When you admit you're wrong, the media uses it against you - It's sad, but if Trump had admitted he was wrong, the left-wing media would've torn into him further

McConnell apologized for accusing the Obama administration of depleting emergency supplies, and the media pounced on him, and made him look even worse
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But the McConnell admission is now a distant memory. I think most people approved of his honesty. Hey-people make mistakes. When you make one, even if you are the president, the honest thing to do-the RIGHT thing to do-is to admit it, try not to do it again, and move on.
To the best of my knowledge Trump has NEVER ONCE admitted that he made a mistake.
 
ReubenSherr said:
When you admit you're wrong, the media uses it against you - It's sad, but if Trump had admitted he was wrong, the left-wing media would've torn into him further

McConnell apologized for accusing the Obama administration of depleting emergency supplies, and the media pounced on him, and made him look even worse
Click to expand...

isn't it sad that lying has unpleasant consequences
 
Ethel2 said:
Hey-people make mistakes. When you make one, even if you are the president, the honest thing to do-the RIGHT thing to do-is to admit it, try not to do it again, and move on.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this, but I had to read through article after article ridiculing McConnell, and using as their backup the fact that he apologized, and therefore admitted he was wrong

I can almost guarantee you that if Trump were to apologize and admit he could have somehow prevented deaths by acting sooner, CNN's headline would not be "Trump Apologizes - Good For Him" - it would be "Trump Admits He Cost Thousands of Lives," and the Biden campaign would use footage of him apologizing and use it over and over as the basis of their attack ads
 
Last edited:
ReubenSherr said:
Completely agree with this, but I had to read through article after article ridiculing McConnell, and using as their backup the fact that he apologized, and therefore admitted he was wrong

I can almost guarantee you that if Trump were to apologize and admit he could have somehow prevented deaths by acting sooner, CNN's headline would not be "Trump Apologizes - Good For Him" - it would be "Trump Admits He Cost Thousands of Lives," and the Biden campaign would use footage of him apologizing and use it over and over as the basis of their attack ads
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, attacking your opponent is THE principle strategy in all of our elections now and the pandemic occurred in an election year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom