President Trump's briefings concerning the coronavirus

The figure that I have heard on the news--repeatedly--is 1.0 percent.

If one subtracts the 0.1 percent death rate from the seasonal flu, that leaves a difference of 0.9 percentage points.

Kapisch?

Do you really suppose that prejudicing the matter with the adjective "Lying" assists your case?

I am really not sure what the reason is for the miscommunication.

It is you who appears to be banging his head against the wall...

So you really believe--seriously?--that we are "collectively distributing financing to one another" as some sort of quid pro quo for our agreeing to "social distanc[ing]"?

If that is truly what you think, please point me to a quote from President Trump saying as much. (And no, not merely some words that could conceivably be twisted into that meaning.)

But there is something quite odd equating one's staying home with one's "labor" (or the lack thereof).

 

So, you cannot give any plausible explanation as to why China might have benefited by lying. We are simply supposed to accept your ipse dixit that it did so.

Got it...

 

Cite your souce.

Even assuming your faulty claim of 1%, that's still 10 times deadlier than the Flu.

I have no need to justify using an accurate descriptive term. If a House is Blue and I describe it as a Blue House, I have no need to justify the use of the descriptive word, other than to note it's accuracy. The massive deadly lying of the Chinese Government is well-known.

It's not "miscommunication", your claim is simply wrong, which you'll quickly realize when you attempt to support it.

Exactly. The Federal Government is following the Fifth Amendment. There is to be no "taking" for the "public good" without "compensation". You have repeatedly expressed your intention to not give up anything in this case for the public good, so naturally you will also refuse the compensation.

President Trump didn't write the 5th amendment.

No ... private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

The wages we are forgoing are our property.
In order to reduce the spread of this virus is the "public use"
The assistance is compensation.

No there isn't.

 

I have no responsibility to explain why Liars, lie, I merely need not refuse the obvious and abundant evidence OF their deadly lies.

"We"? Do you have a turd in your pocket? I presume that you speak only for yourself.

Of course not, rather: entitas ipsa involvit aptitudinem ad extorquendum certum assensum.

Reality involves a power to compel certain assent.

 

I already did: the news.

But perhaps you missed that part...

I have already said as much. And I have dismissed the difference, as it is merely 0.9 percentage points. (Please see post # 132 in this thread.)

(1) We should all be able to agree upon the color of a house (or the color of anything else, for that matter).

But that is hardly analogous to the use of the adjective "Lying."

(2) The fact that the Chinese government is not above lying--when it is in its (perceived) interest to do so--is really not in dispute.

But since you apparently cannot indicate just how lying, in this instance, might be beneficial to the communist Chinese government, I have no reason to believe that it is guilty of it in this particular instance.

No, he did not.

But what does that have to do with anything?

He also did not cite it as the reason that he was sending out these checks.

They are intended to stimulate economic activity--not to comport with the Fifth Amendment.

(To look for some constitutional reason to justify these checks, when they were clearly intended for an economic purpose, is simply bizarre...)

 

Oh, and are you asserting, then, that China lies 100 percent of the time?

Nonetheless, I really do not wish to interact with you any more. I emphatically do not come to a political forum--any political forum--for the purpose of arguing. (I am willing to debate--in a civil, non-confrontational manner--but not to wrangle endlessly. That is where I draw the line.)

Evidently, you are interested only in winning an argument (or attempting to do so, anyway).

And that is of absolutely no interest to me.

Good day, sir.

 

No you didn't. You have no credible source for the fabled 1% death rate you keep citing.

If you want to know WHY they lied, why are you asking me? Ask them, but keep in mind that they are well-known liars.

There is ALWAYS a CONSTITUTIONAL reason for EVERY action by the Federal Government. They have no authority beyond that we grant them via the Constitution.

 

Let's examine your argument:

i) China lied their asses off about Covid and many thousands are dying, worldwide as a result.
therefore
ii) China lies 100% of the time.

See how your argument falls apart? i) is not dependent on ii) being true. And WHY you thought that correctly asserting i) as true, necessarily implies claim ii) is not my responsibility. I need only point out that i) in no sense necessitates ii).