Re: COVID-19 - Part 2
Chuck, thanks for responding and thanks for reading my little novel. your response certainly didn't disappoint!
First, I'm sorry I offended you by responding to one of your posts that was all of a week old. I wasn't aware that there was a USCHO Forums "Chuck Murray" rule that apparently restricts any other poster that's outside of the two individuals directly involved from responding to, or addressing said original post? If there is, please cite that rule for me so I don't repeat that mistake. Also, I'm not quite following your logic when you say that it was rich of me to accuse "scoreboard" of taking the easy way out since I came late to the party. One would think that writing a three page response would be described as anything but "easy".
Also, as to your point that I might be missing the context of the discussion because I was "late" getting in, or had maybe not read other previous posts between the two of you, I promise I've read every post in both threads (DI side) of this topic. It was how you presented yourself in your various posts that motivated me to finally weigh in outside of my previous hockey opinions. Thus, I feel quite informed regarding how you see this crisis and, the world in general.
Between my hockey life and my military service, I've been fortunate to travel extensively. I've seen some things that many haven't and I hope never will. So yes, my life experiences have and continue to shape my opinions. It's also very cute that you'd accuse me of being "brain washed" by those "Lefies" in the Cafe threads, especially since both my education and military experiences trained me to avoid that very thing. And let's be honest, if there's any entity in today's society that specializes in brain washing, it's conservative talk radio and Fox News. So, if others "in here" were placing bets on which one of us are "brain washed", my guess is there would be more money put on you than me. Oh... and trust me, I'm an expert at "3rd man in" calls.
As to your accusation of a lack of my supposed self awareness in regards to my saying I won't get into name calling or ad hom attacks but then "rip Republicans" by calling them xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, and racists/white nationalists. Really Chuck? C'mon now, it's called nuance. If you really couldn't tell that I meant I wouldn't name call any specific poster, then I don't know what to tell you. And, I certainly don't define that as an "ad hom" attack either.
Next, regarding your lack of faith in my 1984 vote for Reagan. I was born in October of 1966. Remember, I said I was in my early 50s (generally accepted as being between 50 & 53). I turned 18 in October of my senior year. So yes, I was eligible to vote in that election.
And, despite my current Democratic leanings, at that time I was the product of a very successful, full-time, military pilot/officer and, like many young people my political opinions were significantly influenced by my parents. Trust me, I took much glee in rubbing Reagan's victory/my vote into the faces of my friends who voted for Mondale!
Of course, I now recognize that was one of my biggest mistakes ever and, the beginning of a forty-year long heist by the 1% and corporate America of the middle class.
Regarding your "bullet points":
Mueller Report -- Vol. 1 of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities".[4][5] Investigators ultimately had an incomplete picture of what happened due to communications that were encrypted, deleted or unsaved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete or declined.[6][7][8] However, the report stated that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion",[9][10][11] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[12][13][14] It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,[15] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[16]
Volume II of the report addresses obstruction of justice. The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime,[17][18][19] abiding by an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution,[20][21][22] fearing that charges would affect Trump's governing and preempt impeachment,[18][21][23] and feeling that it would be unfair to accuse Trump of a crime without charges or a trial.[20][21][24] As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; however, "it also does not exonerate him",[25][26] with investigators not confident of Trump's innocence.[27][28][29][30] The report describes ten episodes where Trump could have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected,[31][32] noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation".[33][34][35] The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly,[18][36][37] referencing impeachment.[38][39]
Chuck, if you read those two paragraphs and can honestly say with a straight face that Mueller found "zilch, zero, zip, nada …", then I must genuinely question your reading comprehension skills. Seriously Chuck. As for my "excuse" for why they didn't attempt to prosecute him; well, as I tell my kids, there are "excuses" and there are "reasons". What you call an excuse happens to be a long standing Justice Department policy (reason). Thus, it wasn't a "waste of time and money" to do the investigation. Again, if you actually read what I posted above, you'll see that Mueller specifically cited the fact that they didn't want to directly accuse him of a specific crime and possibly "pollute" the Impeachment process if the decision was made to move forward with that based on his investigation. Fortunately (or unfortunately for Republicans), he committed more crimes with his Ukraine policy that became to big for the Democrats to ignore.
As for China vs Russia, I'm still quite connected to the military and I can promise you that the military still considers Russia a bigger threat. I'm sorry but, why does China's GDP being bigger than Russia's make them a "bigger" enemy? And yes, I realize that Ronnie gets credit for winning the Cold War. As he probably should. However, there are a number of historians that would now argue that the massive increases in our military budget which forced Russia to try and keep up and led to their economy crashing, also caused some other significant shortages in funding for social programs in our country that may have had better long term benefits.
Yes, Coulter has occasionally been critical of Trump the last few months. Regardless, she still defends him far more than not and, I highly doubt she's voting for a Democrat anytime soon. And again, as I said in my original post, I actually do occasionally watch Fox. My guess is, you probably never voluntarily turn on CNN or MSNBC. Just a guess but, I'll believe you if you say differently.
Trump/Fauci faux "friction"--
Seriously Chuck, now your descriptive term is "friction"? Originally you said that the articles/video pieces painted it as "Trump hates Fauci" or "Trump is jealous of Fauci". I responded that I hadn't read anything or had seen anything on cable news that based any story on "Trump hates Fauci" or was "jealous". The word "hate" indicates a very different level of emotion than "friction". I agree that there were articles/pieces done about a possible friction between them or possibly Trump being frustrated with him. Being possibly frustrated with him isn't anywhere close to the same as "hating him", nor is it the same as being "jealous" of him. I have yet to see either of those words used by any reporter in describing the Trump/Fauci relationship. I simply responded to your statement in which you attribute a level of bias and depth of emotion from the writer/reporter that simply hasn't existed in the stories that have been published about Trump and Fauci. Words actually matter Chuck. Nuance actually matters. Still, I suppose after spending almost four years taking what Trump has actually said or Tweeted and try to turn or twist his actual words to make it mean something it obviously didn't in order to defend your vote and, justify his lack of empathy or even basic understanding of what being "presidential" means, makes it a lot easier to misconstrue the difference between the words "frustration" or "friction" and the word "hate".
As for me closing up my business...interesting you would attempt to somehow tie that decision to some mythical thing the Obama administration did or didn't do that negatively affected my ability to succeed. I thought I sated it fairly clearly but, I'll restate it for you again. The very structure of the business changed and, it wasn't worth it for me to continue. I simply couldn't operate the same way the competition was. It was simply the free-market economy functioning the way it was supposed to. No hard feelings on my part and certainly nothing the Obama administration did or didn't do. Since you brought up Obama's economy though, let's remember unemployment dropped from 10% down to 4.7% during his term and the economy experienced GDP growth in 27 of 29 quarters, including the last 10 in row. So, I'm sorry to burst your bubble that Obama's economy was some kind of failure as the actual numbers (facts) say otherwise.
