BerniePragle

Exactly. The complexity of the Covid epidemic was impossible to deal with perfectly. Exactly how contagious was it, and how was it transmitted? Exactly how did it affect different people? Who was in contact with whom, and how were they in contact? Even with these answers it would have been difficult to come up with a plan that some people wouldn't have disagreed with, without them it was impossible. In lieu of a perfect plan initially, the best that could be done was a plan that changed as more info became available. Many in the media seized this as proof that "the fix was in", that our leaders had an "agenda", and that our medical experts were inept or in on "the fix", or both. Bottom line, this was a situation that it was probably prudent to err on the side of caution. That should be easy to see. This is/was not one of those things that fits into my side of the simple/complex discussion we had earlier. The human body is a mighty complex machine.

By now you ought to see that Mr. Parrish has a lot of thoughts of his own.

If you drew that just for me, I'm flattered. Actually, if you found it for me I'm still flattered.

Fascinating that one of your pet peeves seems to be pretty much the opposite of one of mine. I've always been frustrated when I see people adding a lot of arbitrary rules and proprietary wording to otherwise simple concepts, until they are no longer easily understood. Often this seems to be on purpose. Obviously, your career and my previous career necessitated a lot of complexity and specifics. However, I have no doubt that I could explain the most complex things I did so that you would understand them. Of course, the language, some of the mathematical techniques, and other things would seem foreign to you. I could explain those to you too! I'm pretty sure once you strip away all the political and financial rhetoric here, you're left with a very simple concept... Is the current national debt too big, given the population of our country, GDP, and lots of other stuff I don't know? Again, to put this in perspective that's $31 trillion ÷ 300 million people ≈ $100,000 per man, woman, child in the US. For a family of 4, $400K. Considering what I read about how many households would have trouble laying their hands on $400, let alone 1000 times that, it SIMPLY seems too much to me. (I suppose the fact that some Americans could lay their hands on a thousand times $400,000 probably skews things back to it being more reasonable for the country, I guess.) Of course nearly all households need borrowing for purchasing a house and probably a car. The objective for the individual should be to increase net worth through paying down the mortgage, investing in retirement funds, etc. The federal government keeps financing more and more houses, more and more cars, more and more pizzas, wings, and sodas. Give me 4 of those, 8 of those, and also a couple Happy Meals. Put it on my tab. What pisses me off is it's my money, my kids' money, my Grandkids' money... I suspect we're pretty close on our financial perspectives, though we go at it in a different way.

Obviously the conversation that my sister and I had was very much a philosophical exercise as opposed to a method of determining which candidate to vote for given the perverted system we have. The last time I remember a presidential candidate that wasn't a bought and paid for puppet of our Big Business and Ultra-Rich Guy process was 2008, Ralph Nader. I was one of the too few that voted for him 4 times. I challenged many people to READ what Mr Nader has written or listen to him and tell me what you don't agree with. That's a good list. I would add: A desire to see the reinvigoration of the middle class. Of course, this would require the elimination of the wealth redistribution schemes of the trickle down economics implemented by Reagan, Bush2, and Trump through tax breaks for Big Business and the rich, and the endless corporate welfare. Some of your points would obviously help this.

I have seen many more things misunderstood by making them too complicated than by making them too simple. I'm a simple guy.

Much humor needs an element of truth to be funny.

And, I'm the mathematician that always is bitching about people having no grasp of large numbers. Color me embarrassed. Lol. The 31 billion I mentioned is only 1/10 of what we owe Luxembourg! I usually put these federal budget/deficit numbers in terms of $ per man, woman, child in the US. In this case, the 31 trillion is about 100,000 per man, woman, child assuming 300 million people in the US. That makes it seem more realistic. I'm going to guess that you also don't run your personal finances like this.

Oopsie!

Thanks. Good info, Mike. It sounds like many, many creditors. No surprise, 31+ Billion is a lot of money. It also sounds like the SSA has been overtaxing us, then the federal government has been pi$$ing that away on whatever they want. That's just plain dirty.

That was a low blow.

The only source of information on Trump that I need:

I stand by my Trump = Flair analogy. My point was Trump's ever-present (but constantly changing...Goodbye Rudy) "legal team" saved his bacon same as Flair's posse did by the same methods. Now that I think about it, I'll even double down. There are even more similarities than I first thought. The more I think about it, the more I like it. I'm gonna give myself a gold star.

This reminds me of the old professional wrestler Ric Flair. Whenever he was in danger of losing a match, Flair's buddies would interrupt the match, distracting the referee. During the distraction, Flair would hit his opponent over the head with a chair (or some such nonsense) and Flair would jump on top of him. The now not-distracted ref would see Flair pinning the opponent and declare him the winner. Flair would strut around to the cheering of his adoring fans whooping and telling the world he was the greatest wrestler and lover the world had ever seen. Does anyone else see the comparison? (Trump's "legal team" = Flair's buddies.) Now that I think about it, the one flaw in my comparison is that, as I remember, Flair's fans seemed smarter than Trump's...

I fixed the typo for you. No sources need to be cited. This is what we Mathematicians call Proof by Inspection.

Ok, let's use a "little reasoning" here. Let's put aside all the legal and political wrangling. Do you think Trump bore no responsibility for the incident at the Capitol Jan 6? Do you not think he could have de-fused the situation, rather than fanning the fire? Do you not think he has continued to divide the country in order to inflate his own ego, regardless of the effects on anyone else? Do you not think he has a variable set of rules and truths, depending on his always egocentric view of the world and every situation? Bottom line, wouldn't you like to hear what he had to say in a situation in which he were, for once, at least legally obligated to be honest? I sure would, although I'm sure he would slither out, saved as usual by his ever-present legal team.

Last I knew that was the Happy Valley Hoss's Steakhouse Open. They must have changed sponsers.

"He never chooses an opinion; he just wears whatever happens to be in style." -Leo Tolstoy

Lol. Central Russia isn't exactly Aruba in winter either. He had 13+ kids, so apparently he found some indoor activities to his liking.

"You are all misleading one another, and are yourselves deceived. The sun does not go round the earth, but the earth goes round the sun, revolving as it goes, and turning towards the sun in the course of each twenty-four hours, not only Japan, and the Philippines, and Sumatra where we now are, but Africa, and Europe, and America, and many lands besides. The sun does not shine for some one mountain, or for some one island, or for some one sea, nor even for one earth alone, but for other planets as well as our earth. If you would only look up at the heavens, instead of at the ground beneath your own feet, you might all understand this, and would then no longer suppose that the sun shines for you, or for your country alone." — Leo Tolstoy Eleven Stories

You have to realize that it probably took a while to be festooned with those tattoos.

I have used this before but it seems especially apropos: “The common worldview, shared by most humans, is that there is one objective reality, and we humans can understand that reality through a rigorous application of facts and reason. This view of the world imagines that some people have already achieved a fact-based type of enlightenment that is compatible with science and logic, and they are trying to help the rest of us see the world the “right” way. As far as I can tell, most people share that interpretation of the world. The only wrinkle with that worldview is that we all think we are the enlightened ones. And we assume the people who disagree with us just need better facts, and perhaps better brains, in order to agree with us. That filter on life makes most of us happy—” ― Scott Adams, Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter

Point taken. I guess I should have narrowed it down to "economically". That leads to a conversation I've had many times with my sister. Whether we should vote for the honesty, integrity, intelligence, etc of the candidate, or whether we should vote for the campaigned upon policies of the candidate. If you vote for the first, you get honesty, integrity, intelligence, etc. If you vote for the second, you get the sacks of crap that we've gotten for way too long that are for sale to the highest bidder. How many of us would believe that Trump actually ascribes to the religious policies that he displays in order to get votes?