The president doesnt need to articulate anything.  People know what their self interest is.

I'm asking for effective leadership.  Not flailing around, scapegoating, name calling, misleading, lying, and polarizing.  He's either too stupid, or too inarticulate, to explain why he's adopted the position he's adopted in regards to reopening the economy.  

There's a very strong case for reopening the economy, even if it causes more deaths.  But he can't seem to explain it to the American people.  My theory is, the guy is just not cut out to be President.  He's unintelligent and hypersensitive.

Just admit that a lot of people are going to die from reopening the economy, and explain why the alternative is much worse.  Just lead.  That's all I'm asking.

It would be very hard to do that well, these days.
It might surprise you to hear me saying this, but too many people just hate Trump reflexively.
Just like too many people hated Obama reflexively.
For too many people, no matter how good of an argument Trump puts forward, it will seem unintelligent and hypersensitive to them.
The only way Trump can show real unifying leadership starts behind closed doors. If he can get a few prominent Democrats to sing the same tune as him about dealing with the virus, it will go a long way. All of the people out there who hate everything he says might listen if someone like Bernie Sanders or Chuck Schumer was out there backing up what he says.
That may sound unrealistic to you, but Governor DeSantis did this at the state level. He has two boards dedicated to discussing how to reopen Florida's economy, and both boards have Democrats on them. Meanwhile, Trump put Jared and Ivanka on his, and no Democrats.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

CMS admission guidelines and the fear of being overwhelmed by the surge.

Now I was not expecting that answer. CMS is a federal agency, and if they made a mistake, that's on Trump.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but CMS was not saying, "you should kick these people out," instead they were saying, "you won't be reimbursed unless these people have severe symptoms", right? 
Now if that's true, what does that say about the role of private hospitals in this country? Don't we keep most hospitals privates so they will compete with each other to see who can go above and beyond? yet every time we examine the situation, they seem to only be doing the bare minimum that will be reimbursed by the government...

He says it out of his own mouth and he doesnt see the contradiction.  My gosh!!!!

---

The president doesnt need to articulate anything.  People know what their self interest is.

I'm asking for effective leadership.  Not flailing around, scapegoating, name calling, misleading, lying, and polarizing.  He's either too stupid, or too inarticulate, to explain why he's adopted the position he's adopted in regards to reopening the economy.  

There's a very strong case for reopening the economy, even if it causes more deaths.  But he can't seem to explain it to the American people.  My theory is, the guy is just not cut out to be President.  He's unintelligent and hypersensitive.

Just admit that a lot of people are going to die from reopening the economy, and explain why the alternative is much worse.  Just lead.  That's all I'm asking.

U want him to lie?  Okay...  either ur....  nevermind. U didnt read my Churchil analogy did u?

---

I'm asking for effective leadership.  Not flailing around, scapegoating, name calling, misleading, lying, and polarizing.  He's either too stupid, or too inarticulate, to explain why he's adopted the position he's adopted in regards to reopening the economy.  

There's a very strong case for reopening the economy, even if it causes more deaths.  But he can't seem to explain it to the American people.  My theory is, the guy is just not cut out to be President.  He's unintelligent and hypersensitive.

Just admit that a lot of people are going to die from reopening the economy, and explain why the alternative is much worse.  Just lead.  That's all I'm asking.

It would be very hard to do that well, these days.
It might surprise you to hear me saying this, but too many people just hate Trump reflexively.
Just like too many people hated Obama reflexively.
For too many people, no matter how good of an argument Trump puts forward, it will seem unintelligent and hypersensitive to them.
The only way Trump can show real unifying leadership starts behind closed doors. If he can get a few prominent Democrats to sing the same tune as him about dealing with the virus, it will go a long way. All of the people out there who hate everything he says might listen if someone like Bernie Sanders or Chuck Schumer was out there backing up what he says.
That may sound unrealistic to you, but Governor DeSantis did this at the state level. He has two boards dedicated to discussing how to reopen Florida's economy, and both boards have Democrats on them. Meanwhile, Trump put Jared and Ivanka on his, and no Democrats.

You just proved the point that no matter what Trump does or what leadership he shows, it will ALWAYS be downplayed. There will ALWAYS be a backlash that is unwarranted. Look at your last sentence. The POTUS put together a bipartisan council to reopen America based on data and with the help of the medical community. Yet, you push the narrative that it is just Jared and Ivanka. The hate forces some people's eyes to remain closed.

---

It would be very hard to do that well, these days.
It might surprise you to hear me saying this, but too many people just hate Trump reflexively.
Just like too many people hated Obama reflexively.
For too many people, no matter how good of an argument Trump puts forward, it will seem unintelligent and hypersensitive to them.
The only way Trump can show real unifying leadership starts behind closed doors. If he can get a few prominent Democrats to sing the same tune as him about dealing with the virus, it will go a long way. All of the people out there who hate everything he says might listen if someone like Bernie Sanders or Chuck Schumer was out there backing up what he says.
That may sound unrealistic to you, but Governor DeSantis did this at the state level. He has two boards dedicated to discussing how to reopen Florida's economy, and both boards have Democrats on them. Meanwhile, Trump put Jared and Ivanka on his, and no Democrats.

You just proved the point that no matter what Trump does or what leadership he shows, it will ALWAYS be downplayed. There will ALWAYS be a backlash that is unwarranted. Look at your last sentence. The POTUS put together a bipartisan council to reopen America based on data and with the help of the medical community. Yet, you push the narrative that it is just Jared and Ivanka. The hate forces some people's eyes to remain closed.

That council was not bipartisan.  Check the roster.  Prove me wrong.

---

Now I was not expecting that answer. CMS is a federal agency, and if they made a mistake, that's on Trump.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but CMS was not saying, "you should kick these people out," instead they were saying, "you won't be reimbursed unless these people have severe symptoms", right? 
Now if that's true, what does that say about the role of private hospitals in this country? Don't we keep most hospitals privates so they will compete with each other to see who can go above and beyond? yet every time we examine the situation, they seem to only be doing the bare minimum that will be reimbursed by the government...

He says it out of his own mouth and he doesnt see the contradiction.  My gosh!!!!

---

Who will pay hospitals for COVID care for people who don't have private insurance?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You just proved the point that no matter what Trump does or what leadership he shows, it will ALWAYS be downplayed. There will ALWAYS be a backlash that is unwarranted. Look at your last sentence. The POTUS put together a bipartisan council to reopen America based on data and with the help of the medical community. Yet, you push the narrative that it is just Jared and Ivanka. The hate forces some people's eyes to remain closed.

That council was not bipartisan.  Check the roster.  Prove me wrong.

---

He says it out of his own mouth and he doesnt see the contradiction.  My gosh!!!!

---

Who will pay hospitals for COVID care for people who don't have private insurance?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-sta...nal-group/

---

You just proved the point that no matter what Trump does or what leadership he shows, it will ALWAYS be downplayed. There will ALWAYS be a backlash that is unwarranted. Look at your last sentence. The POTUS put together a bipartisan council to reopen America based on data and with the help of the medical community. Yet, you push the narrative that it is just Jared and Ivanka. The hate forces some people's eyes to remain closed.

That council was not bipartisan.  Check the roster.  Prove me wrong.

---

He says it out of his own mouth and he doesnt see the contradiction.  My gosh!!!!

---

Who will pay hospitals for COVID care for people who don't have private insurance?

The same people paying for them to be in the NH in the first place.  Or the over bloated bureaucracy that already covers patients over 65.  Or, you could have paid 100 bucks a night to a hotel that is vacant instead of the billions of dollars in lost tax revenue for a shutdown.  Or you could not chase the private charity out of town that's building hospital space for free because they dont support gay marriage.  Or the javits center, or the comfort.  Etc.  

Let me help u.  This policy is indefensible.  The smaller contributing bureaucratic details that lead to it are also indefensible.  States are on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in unemployment insurance to fund the shutdown.  Allowing sick NH patients to stay in vacant hospital beds wouldn't show up as a rounding error on the cost of the solution that you and your ilk proposed and defended.  Now that's criticizing within the current government framework.  

In my CASE FOR FREEDOM series I would point out that in a FREE SYSTEM this kind of demand would have been met by the private sector ages ago.  Why?  Because the state EXISTS to LIMIT healthcare options and capacity.  Free thinking entrepreneurs would have already developed overflow/quarantine capacity @ a price institutions and families and insurance companies would be willing to pay!

---

That council was not bipartisan.  Check the roster.  Prove me wrong.

---

Who will pay hospitals for COVID care for people who don't have private insurance?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-sta...nal-group/

OK, I admit I'm surprised.
Looks like he appointed a huge council with only members of Congress involved. But have they even met? Have they done any work? Do they have any early recommendations or early press releases?

Anyhow, I had read it would be a smaller panel including Ivanka and not including Democrats. Searching back, that was the original plan on April 13 and 14. This was according to Fox News and the New York Post. The release you linked to is on the 16th.  I don't know if this is a case of rumors or of the administration changing their minds.  That said, the panel is probably too big, because the point of the whole exercise needs to be getting near unanimous support for the report they produce, and to get members of both parties appearing together on TV signing the same song.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-sta...nal-group/

OK, I admit I'm surprised. I had read it would be a smaller panel including Ivanka and not including Democrats. Searching back, that was the original plan on April 13 and 14. This was according to Fox News and the New York Post. The release you linked to is on the 16th.  I don't know if this is a case of rumors or of the administration changing their minds.  That said, the panel is probably too big, because the point of the whole exercise needs to be getting near unanimous support for the report they produce, and to get members of both parties appearing together on TV signing the same song.

The council was just an initial response that included folks from all walks as it should. If you look at the published plan, it correctly puts the responsibility and decision making back on the Governors of the individual states. The media will never portray both parties in agreement, nor give credit where it is due.

---

That council was not bipartisan.  Check the roster.  Prove me wrong.

---

Who will pay hospitals for COVID care for people who don't have private insurance?

The same people paying for them to be in the NH in the first place.  Or the over bloated bureaucracy that already covers patients over 65.  Or, you could have paid 100 bucks a night to a hotel that is vacant instead of the billions of dollars in lost tax revenue for a shutdown.  Or you could not chase the private charity out of town that's building hospital space for free because they dont support gay marriage.  Or the javits center, or the comfort.  Etc.  

Let me help u.  This policy is indefensible.  The smaller contributing bureaucratic details that lead to it are also indefensible.  States are on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in unemployment insurance to fund the shutdown.  Allowing sick NH patients to stay in vacant hospital beds wouldn't show up as a rounding error on the cost of the solution that you and your ilk proposed and defended.  Now that's criticizing within the current government framework.  

In my CASE FOR FREEDOM series I would point out that in a FREE SYSTEM this kind of demand would have been met by the private sector ages ago.  Why?  Because the state EXISTS to LIMIT healthcare options and capacity.  Free thinking entrepreneurs would have already developed overflow/quarantine capacity @ a price institutions and families and insurance companies would be willing to pay!

I suspect you're not being intellectually honest.  This isn't productive.  We both know that no matter how the government decides to regulate hospitals or reimburse hospitals, you will find fault.  We both know that you can't just put these people in hotels without also providing precautions for the workers in those hotels.  And a hotel was never meant to be a place where someone is locked in 24/7, so you need more workers than usual, cooking food and cleaning laundry.  So that's definitely not $100/night.  It was nice that Samaritan's Purse tried to set up a field hospital, and whoever drove them out of NY should be ashamed of themselves, but they weren't a full solution either, obviously.  300 beds is better than no beds at all but it's not enough.  It looks like, a few weeks ago, Governor Cuomo walked back these orders and nursing homes in NY no longer have to take in these patients.  I guess he figured out where to put them. I don't know the details.  But I know as soon as you find any details about it, you will find fault.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The same people paying for them to be in the NH in the first place.  Or the over bloated bureaucracy that already covers patients over 65.  Or, you could have paid 100 bucks a night to a hotel that is vacant instead of the billions of dollars in lost tax revenue for a shutdown.  Or you could not chase the private charity out of town that's building hospital space for free because they dont support gay marriage.  Or the javits center, or the comfort.  Etc.  

Let me help u.  This policy is indefensible.  The smaller contributing bureaucratic details that lead to it are also indefensible.  States are on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in unemployment insurance to fund the shutdown.  Allowing sick NH patients to stay in vacant hospital beds wouldn't show up as a rounding error on the cost of the solution that you and your ilk proposed and defended.  Now that's criticizing within the current government framework.  

In my CASE FOR FREEDOM series I would point out that in a FREE SYSTEM this kind of demand would have been met by the private sector ages ago.  Why?  Because the state EXISTS to LIMIT healthcare options and capacity.  Free thinking entrepreneurs would have already developed overflow/quarantine capacity @ a price institutions and families and insurance companies would be willing to pay!

I suspect you're not being intellectually honest.  This isn't productive.  We both know that no matter how the government decides to regulate hospitals or reimburse hospitals, you will find fault.  We both know that you can't just put these people in hotels without also providing precautions for the workers in those hotels.  And a hotel was never meant to be a place where someone is locked in 24/7, so you need more workers than usual, cooking food and cleaning laundry.  So that's definitely not $100/night.  It was nice that Samaritan's Purse tried to set up a field hospital, and whoever drove them out of NY should be ashamed of themselves, but they weren't a full solution either, obviously.  300 beds is better than no beds at all but it's not enough.  It looks like, a few weeks ago, Governor Cuomo walked back these orders and nursing homes in NY no longer have to take in these patients.  I guess he figured out where to put them.  I don't know the details.  But I know as soon as you find any details about it, you will find fault.

Yeh...  we know.

---

It makes me laugh every time Mikel mentions intellectual honesty.

---

It makes me laugh every time Mikel mentions intellectual honesty.

The proper Russian name is Mikhail... if you want to keep your story straight...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I suspect you're not being intellectually honest.  This isn't productive.  We both know that no matter how the government decides to regulate hospitals or reimburse hospitals, you will find fault.  We both know that you can't just put these people in hotels without also providing precautions for the workers in those hotels.  And a hotel was never meant to be a place where someone is locked in 24/7, so you need more workers than usual, cooking food and cleaning laundry.  So that's definitely not $100/night.  It was nice that Samaritan's Purse tried to set up a field hospital, and whoever drove them out of NY should be ashamed of themselves, but they weren't a full solution either, obviously.  300 beds is better than no beds at all but it's not enough.  It looks like, a few weeks ago, Governor Cuomo walked back these orders and nursing homes in NY no longer have to take in these patients.  I guess he figured out where to put them.  I don't know the details.  But I know as soon as you find any details about it, you will find fault.

Yeh...  we know.

Do you know the details? are these details relevant to the point you're trying to make? Whatever the details are, someone's individual will was thwarted by the government. So you won't like it.
The idea that you can make a CASE FOR FREEDOM when it comes to this virus is, well, novel.  Certainly the founding fathers of this country would look at a lot of the things government does today, and say that people should have more freedom. But the founding fathers believed in quarantines. They didn't believe that freedom was the answer with regard to epidemics...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It makes me laugh every time Mikel mentions intellectual honesty.

The proper Russian name is Mikhail... if you want to keep your story straight...

Sorry. Didn't mean to misspell your name. I'm not from there.

---

Yeh...  we know.

Do you know the details? are these details relevant to the point you're trying to make? Whatever the details are, someone's individual will was thwarted by the government. So you won't like it.
The idea that you can make a CASE FOR FREEDOM when it comes to this virus is, well, novel.  Certainly the founding fathers of this country would look at a lot of the things government does today, and say that people should have more freedom. But the founding fathers believed in quarantines. They didn't believe that freedom was the answer with regard to epidemics...

Lol....

Quoting the founders in some vague reference to a general concept of quarantine to justify the greatest mass assault on our civil liberties in our nation's history is the Webster's dictionary definition of intellectual dishonesty.

I've taken the time line by line illustrating how even within a status quo role of government framework the policies implemented during this crisis were egregious to approaching criminality.

All of human history teaches us that in a broader context free people making the best informed decisions to serve their own self interest offers a better overall result than outsourcing that decision making to bureaucrats insulated from the consequences of their decisions and ideology. This has been PROOF of that, not an exception.

---

Do you know the details? are these details relevant to the point you're trying to make? Whatever the details are, someone's individual will was thwarted by the government. So you won't like it.
The idea that you can make a CASE FOR FREEDOM when it comes to this virus is, well, novel.  Certainly the founding fathers of this country would look at a lot of the things government does today, and say that people should have more freedom. But the founding fathers believed in quarantines. They didn't believe that freedom was the answer with regard to epidemics...

Lol....

Quoting the founders in some vague reference to a general concept of quarantine to justify the greatest mass assault on our civil liberties in our nation's history is the Webster's dictionary definition of intellectual dishonesty.  

I've taken the time line by line illustrating how even within a status quo role of government framework the policies implemented during this crisis were egregious to approaching criminality.

All of human history teaches us that in a broader context free people making the best informed decisions to serve their own self interest offers a better overall result than outsourcing that decision making to bureaucrats insulated from the consequences of their decisions and ideology.  This has been PROOF of that, not an exception.

No, you've shown that the government made bad decisions at different levels.  Presumably some of the decisions were also good, but you haven't brought any of those up, which is fine because you're trying to persuade.

But each time you show that a decision was bad, you can only show that by comparing the actual decision to a possible better decision. No entity can make these possible better decisions other than a government. When it comes to an epidemic, a bunch of people making different decisions that seem good at the time is no decision at all. If one restaurant opens up, many will open up. If the demand is there, many restaurants will open up to meet it. If any of these restaurants fails to manage crowds, and allows people to get close together, guess what, they get more business. More tables are open. and even people who thought they were about to get a socially distant restaurant experience, might suddenly find someone seated in the table next to them. Not so distant anymore.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol....

Quoting the founders in some vague reference to a general concept of quarantine to justify the greatest mass assault on our civil liberties in our nation's history is the Webster's dictionary definition of intellectual dishonesty.  

I've taken the time line by line illustrating how even within a status quo role of government framework the policies implemented during this crisis were egregious to approaching criminality.

All of human history teaches us that in a broader context free people making the best informed decisions to serve their own self interest offers a better overall result than outsourcing that decision making to bureaucrats insulated from the consequences of their decisions and ideology.  This has been PROOF of that, not an exception.

No, you've shown that the government made bad decisions at different levels.  Presumably some of the decisions were also good, but you haven't brought any of those up, which is fine because you're trying to persuade.

But each time you show that a decision was bad, you can only show that by comparing the actual decision to a possible better decision. No entity can make these possible better decisions other than a government. When it comes to an epidemic, a bunch of people making different decisions that seem good at the time is no decision at all. If one restaurant opens up, many will open up. If the demand is there, many restaurants will open up to meet it. If any of these restaurants fails to manage crowds, and allows people to get close together, guess what, they get more business. More tables are open. and even people who thought they were about to get a socially distant restaurant experience, might suddenly find someone seated in the table next to them. Not so distant anymore.

You clearly understand the concept of personal freedom even while you continue to assault it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No, you've shown that the government made bad decisions at different levels.  Presumably some of the decisions were also good, but you haven't brought any of those up, which is fine because you're trying to persuade.

But each time you show that a decision was bad, you can only show that by comparing the actual decision to a possible better decision. No entity can make these possible better decisions other than a government. When it comes to an epidemic, a bunch of people making different decisions that seem good at the time is no decision at all. If one restaurant opens up, many will open up. If the demand is there, many restaurants will open up to meet it. If any of these restaurants fails to manage crowds, and allows people to get close together, guess what, they get more business. More tables are open. and even people who thought they were about to get a socially distant restaurant experience, might suddenly find someone seated in the table next to them. Not so distant anymore.

You clearly understand the concept of personal freedom even while you continue to assault it.

I understand your point, but do you and JJ understand mine? 
What incentive exists, outside government intervention, for an individual restaurant to enforce social distancing?  People, historically, have enjoyed being in crowds.  How can an individual theater enforce social distancing in any sustainable way without government backup?  The last few people to enter before the show starts won't want to go all the way to the back row, when so many other seats are "open".  
And the theaters and restaurants that get more "lax" with this certainly get more customers through the door (turning fewer away) without any obvious decline in customer satisfaction.  That's how it worked in the past.  Their competitors will see it and do likewise.  Right?  
In these cases, the market forces that you and JJ want to unleash point to larger and larger crowds more and more frequently over time.
So, if the market forces are pointing the wrong way, only the government can correct that.
I don't see why you and JJ see this as a hill for your individualistic views to die on.  These social distancing measures are not permanent.  They may not end as soon as you like, but they will end.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You clearly understand the concept of personal freedom even while you continue to assault it.

I understand your point, but do you and JJ understand mine? 
What incentive exists, outside government intervention, for an individual restaurant to enforce social distancing?  People, historically, have enjoyed being in crowds.  How can an individual theater enforce social distancing in any sustainable way without government backup?  The last few people to enter before the show starts won't want to go all the way to the back row, when so many other seats are "open".  
And the theaters and restaurants that get more "lax" with this certainly get more customers through the door (turning fewer away) without any obvious decline in customer satisfaction.  That's how it worked in the past.  Their competitors will see it and do likewise.  Right?  
In these cases, the market forces that you and JJ want to unleash point to larger and larger crowds more and more frequently over time.
So, if the market forces are pointing the wrong way, only the government can correct that.
I don't see why you and JJ see this as a hill for your individualistic views to die on.  These social distancing measures are not permanent.  They may not end as soon as you like, but they will end.

I'm so glad my betters decided to ship my tax dollars off to a lab in Wuhan to research carona viruses.  What an immutable good that was.

---

You clearly understand the concept of personal freedom even while you continue to assault it.

I understand your point, but do you and JJ understand mine? 
What incentive exists, outside government intervention, for an individual restaurant to enforce social distancing?  People, historically, have enjoyed being in crowds.  How can an individual theater enforce social distancing in any sustainable way without government backup?  The last few people to enter before the show starts won't want to go all the way to the back row, when so many other seats are "open".  
And the theaters and restaurants that get more "lax" with this certainly get more customers through the door (turning fewer away) without any obvious decline in customer satisfaction.  That's how it worked in the past.  Their competitors will see it and do likewise.  Right?  
In these cases, the market forces that you and JJ want to unleash point to larger and larger crowds more and more frequently over time.
So, if the market forces are pointing the wrong way, only the government can correct that.
I don't see why you and JJ see this as a hill for your individualistic views to die on.  These social distancing measures are not permanent.  They may not end as soon as you like, but they will end.

The consumer has an incentive to pursue life safety and fulfillment of a like want or need. 

The producer has an incentive to meet said needs in order to attract customers and make profit.  

It's only the system that lifted the world out of poverty.  

Politicians have incentives to pursue their re-election that may or may not align with real world economic incentives.  

Bureaucrats are insulated from economic and political incentives (basically the death code of progressivism.)

---