Alex_Krycek

History seems to indicate that it isn't. The United States tried "pure capitalism". The result was robber barons, child labor, indentured servitude, shanty towns, and for centuries, outright slavery. The only part of the country not ruled by mafias was the anarchic wild west. The Soviet Union tried "pure socialism". The result was 100 years of an oppressive totalitarian regime that condemned tens of millions of innocent people to die in gulags, inflicted the intentional starvation on entire nations, and otherwise suffocated the human potential of its citizens without a shred of remorse. History seems to show that the more we move to one extreme or another, the more wretched society will be. Thus, the alternative seems to be that the more finely balanced these two systems are in practice, i.e. the more they work in unison, protecting both the individuals rights and also guaranteeing a robust public sector that protects everyone, then the more functional society will be. The problem is that calibrating these two systems in a way that actually works takes careful reflection on the part of politicians, a system that is fair and uncorrupted from special interests, and a populace with some semblance of sociological imagination (to see beyond their own meagre lot). So in other words, the United States is going to have some trouble.

Fair enough. But the fact remains: there will never be a time when the President's mental state is assessed with the true scientific rigor that you speak of. We're left only to hypothesize if the President, or someone running for President, is on the brink of senility. Scientific evidence will never be made available concerning this line of inquiry. Full stop. Consequently, one can either discuss this frightening possibility without obtaining the systematic analysis that you require, or one can blithely ignore the question that the leader of the most powerful country on Earth might be mentally unfit. That's the scary truth.

Well, here's the thing. First of all I understand your strict standards, but they are not applicable in this case for a couple of reasons. First, the mainstream press will never conduct the level of systematic analysis on Biden's mental state that is warranted. That's not going to happen - there is too much bias. They will attack Bernie Sanders all day long for having a heart attack, but Biden? Never. Is Biden's doctor going to conduct such an analysis? Again, not a chance. Too much money and power at stake. His doctor, just like Trumps "doctor", will give give him a clean bill of health in any and all circumstances and the establishment won't ask a single question about it. Second, there is too much at stake here. This is the Presidency. We already have one cognitively impaired individual in the Whitehouse, we don't need another if he leaves. This is a matter of national security, and nobody in the mainstream press will touch it. Even after a Yale School of Medicine psychiatrist spoke up about Trump's mental state, there was scant attention paid to it. https://news.yahoo.com/trumps-pattern-of-cognitive-decline-alarms-psychiatrists-110000099.html So we're left with quite a dilemma. The media won't focus on this. Biden and Trump's doctors are not honest actors. Yet this is a matter of national security. So we're left with people like Bragman to piece together any evidence that is out there and present a case based on real events, a case that adults can choose to believe or not. But denying the conversation because we can't obtain "systematic sampling and analysis" in a case like this is dangerous and counterproductive.

The video I posted constitutes evidence.

Trump is "afraid" of Biden? All signs are pointing to Trump being more intimidated by Bernie. In a recording of a private 2018 dinner, Trump says Clinton might have been harder to beat in 2016 if she had chosen Bernie Sanders as her running mate, Newsweek reports. "Had she picked Bernie Sanders it would've been tougher," says Trump. "He's the only one I didn't want her to pick." The notion that Trump in any way influences Putin is ludicrous. That's a one way street with Trump dancing to Putin's tune, not the other way around.

Joe Biden is 78 years old. It's not exactly a far fetched notion that a 78 year old would begin to show signs of cognitive decline. Are these bloopers, as some of you say, or a very real pattern of mental deterioration? Time will tell, but sometimes it takes careful observation from someone like Bragman to bring this kind of thing to our attention (since the mainstream press will ignore it completely to get Biden in the W.H.). A very unrealistic statement there. I''m the last person to support Trump, but he will absolutely crush Biden if they face off in the general. If Biden is the nominee, sit back and expect 4 more years of the orange clown. As for the comments about democracy itself: it's not perfect but it's the best we have - like science.

There have been numerous cases of Joe Biden showing signs of cognitive decline. The compilation video below (courtesy of Walker Bragman) shows recent examples of this. It's a troubling thought considering that Trump has already shown ample evidence of cognitive impairment and early dementia. Having a President of sound mind should not be a question of politics, and considering that Biden is the establishment's choice for the Democratic nominee, there is little chance that the mainstream press will draw attention to it. Fox has already begun their attacks, however, and surely these attacks will intensify if Biden becomes the nominee. https://twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/1234604568316665856?s=20

Interesting article on the effects of Vitamin D for preventing respiratory infection. Published before the COVID-19 outbreak. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/02/study-confirms-vitamin-d-protects-against-cold-and-flu/

Tough question. If I had to diagnose the problem I'd say it's a lack of sociological imagination (C. Wright Mills' term). Thus, humanitarian reform does work, as you pointed out. Norway, for example, has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world, and treats their prisoners the most humanely. However, if the populace (and their leadership) lacks the sociological imagination to see the bigger picture, or the populace (and their leadership) lack scientific understanding of the problem, then it doesn't matter what the facts are. Yet another reason why education is so paramount (another element of the problem). Without it, viable solutions slip past our collective mind like sand through the fingers of a neanderthal.

This gentleman has an excellent series on the evolving CV situation. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG-iSMVtWbbwDDXgXXypARQ

Ha. The New York Times is listed as "neutral / balanced". The chart must not measure their coverage of Bernie Sanders.

Good point. So what about viral load? Obviously fighting the infection means reducing the viral load, until eventually the virus is eliminated from the body. But what happens when A.) the body is struggling to fight the virus in the first place, and B.) the patient is continuously exposed to others with the virus (family members in close proximity), thus reintroducing the virus to the patient again and again, and thus not giving their body a chance to eliminate it.

Sleep is the cornerstone of good health. Great TED Talk by Matt Walker : "Sleep is Your Superpower" goes into detail. My point was that the different family members wouldn't be able to escape reinfection from those around them. So in effect their immune system might rid the body partially of the virus only to have the viral load increased again by being around others (such as elderly parents or grandparents) who still carried it. No doubt they would be in close proximity to each other, attempting to care for their siblings / parents etc, and thus continuously contracting the virus over and over again.

VIRAL LOAD / HEALTHCARE WORKERS / LACK OF SLEEP COMPROMISING THE IMMUNE SYSTEM Viral load, also known as viral burden, viral titre or viral titer, is a numerical expression of the quantity of virus in a given volume. It is often expressed as viral particles, or infectious particles per mL depending on the type of assay. A higher viral burden, titre, or viral load often correlates with the severity of an active viral infection. A doctor on youtube posted about this the other day. When examining the patterns of fatalities due to COVID-19, so far the WHO has reported that 4/5 patients suffer a mild infection, and then recover. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/17/coronavirus-causes-mild-disease-in-four-in-five-patients-says-who) Most of the deaths have been elderly patients or those with previously compromised immune systems. Most of the young patients who have died have been healthcare workers on the front lines. In fact the death rate so far is lower than SARS. The doctor made the point that healthcare workers are working around the clock and not getting enough sleep. This lack of sleep takes a massive toll on the immune system, preventing it from fighting the infection. On the other hand, most young people who are not healthcare workers who contract the virus have time to properly rest and recover, letting their immune systems function adequately and eliminate the virus. It seems this lack of sleep is a major contributing factor to the deaths of the young healthcare workers - i.e. the doctor who died this week). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/21/coronavirus-kills-wuhan-doctor-hundreds-infected-china-prisons I wonder if those who are locked in with their members family are similarly afflicted, due to the inability to get away from an infected environment. Would appreciate the insight of someone with a degree in medicine.

On the whole, yes, climate change is happening. The data is all but irrefutable at this point, and drastic action needs to be taken to mitigate the consequences. However the way the news media reports climate change is often misleading, and other causes can be attributed to global events that are often purportedly related to climate change. For example, concerning the Australian bush fires happening of late: many Australian farmers and forestry workers have said that policies from the Australian Green Party have lead to the increased magnitude of the fires. Instead of allowing forestry workers to carry out controlled burns of land to control tinder build up, or to let livestock roam free in certain areas, thus trampling down underbrush, foliage in certain areas has been allowed to grow unchecked thanks to protections from environmental legislation. This increase in dried out foliage being built up over the decades has created a tinder box, and the catalyst for the blazes (either from pyromaniacs or lightening) have not changed. Thus we have a situation where the news media is going berserk, attributing the scale and ferocity of the Australian fires to climate change, when in reality it is an ill advised and short sighted environmental policy that has lead to the increased likelihood of such "super-fires" coming into existence, due to the fact that an increase in fuel has been allowed to propagate.

I don't assume anything about your political affiliations (even though you just assumed that I do). The fact remains that your point about someone holding a sign being equivalent to the President actively using his power to sway a foreign leader into smearing a political opponent is simply absurd. Pure sophistry.

You didn't, actually, as it was an illogical statement. But anyway, let's move on. A Republican strategist, Mike Murphy, stated the other day that up to 30 Republican Senators have quietly voiced support for impeachment. Despite the common perception, Republicans are not a monolith when it comes to Trump (despite Moscow Mitch's cowtowing). Many Republican Senators harbor deep antipathy towards him because of his belligerent attacks on them and his disdain for the rule of law. We'll see how it plays out. The Dems have to do their part and at least give it to the Senate.

Oh come on. Please don't trivialize the conversation. Someone holding a sign and the President actively pressuring another foreign leader to investigate and potentially discredit a political rival are two completely different things. It must be harder and harder for them to mask it from the public.

No, there's no grey area here. Trump asked President Zelensky to investigate Biden, his political rival, in an attempt to influence a US election. That is blatantly illegal and undermines the Constitution, which he is sworn to protect. If impeachment were "totally partisan" as you put it, the Republicans would have impeached Obama during his first term. However, there was no legal basis to do so they resorted to petulant stonewalling instead.

This article provides an explanation: https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html But the ultimate standard is if the President is suspected to have broken the law. In this case by Trump's own admission he did - he called President Zelensky and specifically asked that a political opponent be investigated. That's 100% illegal. Interesting exchange from the Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, who is testifying on Capitol Hill right now. Maguire is the one who initial tried to withhold the whistle-blower's complaint against Trump. Schiff: And if that conversation involved the President requesting help in the form of intervention in our election, is that not an issue of interference in our election? Maguire: Chairman, once again, this was sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to look into– Schiff: I understand that, but you're not suggesting, are you, that the President is somehow immune from the laws that preclude a US person from seeking foreign help in a US election, are you? Maguire: What I am saying, Chairman Schiff, is that no one, none of us, is above the law in this country. I see your point, but in that sense many decisions to indict are largely political. For example a District Attorney choosing not to pursue charges against a rich teenager because his father is a pillar of the community is a political act. There may be a larger grey area about when to impeach the President, but ultimately Congress must rely on some kind of legal foundation to give impeachment proceedings genuine merit. Impeachment can't just be political - there must be some legal framework to found it on.

Calling impeachment a "political process" is inaccurate. Impeachment is a kind of legal proceeding designed to investigate and judge whether or not an elected official has violated their oath of office, and hence has violated the Constitution: Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official from office; it is the equivalent to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the statement of charges against the official. Once an individual is impeached, they must then face the possibility of conviction on the charges by a legislative vote, which is separate from the impeachment, but flows from it, and a judgment which convicts the official on the articles of impeachment would entail the official’s removal from office. And: The term impeachment refers to the legal process that takes place when charges are brought against a public official, to determine whether he or she can and should be removed from office. Contrary to popular belief, impeachment is not the actual removal from office, but the procedure that must be followed in order to achieve such a removal. If the trial that occurs following impeachment results in a conviction, the official is removed from office. To explore this concept, consider the following impeachment definition. Source: https://legaldictionary.net/impeachment/ And Trump already broke the law, by the way, by asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Biden: Federal law states it is illegal to "knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation." Trump's request to President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was not for campaign cash, but what's referred to as an "in kind" contribution that would arguably be of more value — damaging information that could be weaponized against Biden, a potential 2020 rival. No quid quo pro is needed (even though there was one). Trump is already guilty by his own admission. Case closed.

If there is rule of law in America, Trump's Presidency will end with his impeachment. If there isn't rule of law, he'll stay in office until at least 2020.

Interesting development relating to this subject: "Pig to human heart transplants 'possible within three years'. Hopefully this will have a big positive impact on those with organ failure / dysfunction. Quick Summary: Adapted pig hearts could be transplanted into patients within three years, according to a report citing the surgeon who pioneered heart transplantation in the UK. The anatomy and physiology of a pig’s heart is similar to that of a human’s, so they are used as models for developing new treatments. Hopes for a successful heart attack treatment were raised in May after a genetic therapy showed promise in pigs. Considerable obstacles remain, however, before the genetic therapy can be tested on human heart attack patients. Most of the treated pigs died after the treatment because the microRNA-199 continued to be expressed in an uncontrolled way. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/19/pig-to-human-heart-transplants-possible-within-three-years-terence-english

The point was that ethical considerations given to any particular species shouldn't be wholly dependent on how developed that organism is from an evolutionary standpoint. I say "wholly" because obviously we have to draw the line somewhere - insects, for example. We can't all be Jains and worry about stepping on an ant.

Is verbal ability and the use of language the only relevant metric to measure intelligence? Seems quite self serving and limited to our own species. I would argue that intelligence exists along a spectrum which includes moment to moment awareness, emotion, sensory ability, imagination, and above all the capacity to experience pain. If an alien species arrived and concluded that because humanity does not possess telepathic abilities, we are are therefore unintelligent, would it give them ethical license to confine us and treat us as they saw fit? Just a thought experiment. Perhaps we're not so intelligent after all then, if we can't even enjoy the day.