Andrew Cuomo's implosion

[crimson5pheonix]

NY Vaccine Czar Reportedly Questioned County Officials on Loyalty to Cuomo

"Using vaccine distribution as a tool to control local officials is despicable and a clear abuse of public trust."

www.commondreams.org

Now he's using his underlings to weaponize COVID to strongarm his opponents.

Y'know, not like Trump.

 

[tippy2k2]

I think they're also up to 7 women now saying he's been naughty towards them and Democrats seem to finally be on board with throwing him to the wolves.

Calls for him to resign are really starting to pile up...

 

[Seanchaidh]

I think they're also up to 7 women now saying he's been naughty towards them and Democrats seem to finally be on board with throwing him to the wolves.

Calls for him to resign are really starting to pile up...

(Some) liberals on Twitter are becoming ever more deranged in their defenses of him.

 

[tippy2k2]

(Some) liberals on Twitter are becoming ever more deranged in their defenses of him.

We've seen the same song and dance with Shitlibs every time

Is it a Republican? They need to be booted immediately. A blight upon everything!!!! How DARE they!?!?!?

Is it a Democrat? Let's let the process play out. They're all just Russian Plants! When they get to 26 (or whatever the case number was against Trump), then we can be mad!!!!

It would be funny if it wasn't so fucking sad (and predictable).

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I think they're also up to 7 women now saying he's been naughty towards them and Democrats seem to finally be on board with throwing him to the wolves.

Calls for him to resign are really starting to pile up...

took long enough. I mean it's funny republicans were saying for quite a few months about his incompetence (deliberate or accidental) round handling the pandemic such as pushing people into nursing homes who were showing symptoms and more recent info about doing the same with people in Special Educational needs shared living accommodations too

 

[Trunkage]

took long enough. I mean it's funny republicans were saying for quite a few months about his incompetence (deliberate or accidental) round handling the pandemic such as pushing people into nursing homes who were showing symptoms and more recent info about doing the same with people in Special Educational needs shared living accommodations too

I've been saying he's incompetent since about Easter last year. It was very deliberate and I can't believe he got away with it for this long.

 

[Avnger]

took long enough. I mean it's funny republicans were saying for quite a few months about his incompetence (deliberate or accidental) round handling the pandemic such as pushing people into nursing homes who were showing symptoms and more recent info about doing the same with people in Special Educational needs shared living accommodations too

Republicans complained about Cuomo being incompetent while praising Trump as the "stable genius" second-coming of Christ who was handling the "fake liberal COVID conspiracy" perfectly. Forgive us for not giving them credit at spotting self-serving politicians...

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Republicans complained about Cuomo being incompetent while praising Trump as the "stable genius" second-coming of Christ who was handing the "fake liberal COVID conspiracy" perfectly. Forgive us for not giving them credit at spotting self-serving politicians...

problem is Trump didn't say Covid was fake, he said the claims he was doing nothing about it was fake.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Trunkage]

Sure
Sure
Trump never called any aspect of Covid fake.

That twitter blast from Sean above represents the exact opinions I have on Trump and Cuomo on Covud. Both are to blame

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Sure
Sure
Trump never called any aspect of Covid fake.

I didn't say he didn't claim there were no aspects that were fake. I said Trump never said Covid itself is fake.

 

[tstorm823]

I didn't say he didn't claim there were no aspects that were fake. I said Trump never said Covid itself is fake.

Also, the number of times the Atlantic is wrong in their list is comical.

 

[Agema]

I didn't say he didn't claim there were no aspects that were fake. I said Trump never said Covid itself is fake.

There was nothing really wrong with the initial statement you complained about, which makes protesting it even more pointless when you accept Trump spent his time propounding misinformation and bad policy.

 

[Agema]

Also, the number of times the Atlantic is wrong in their list is comical.

Yes, here we go. Trump (or Fox, Newsmax, etc.) is a runaway train of factual inadequacy but can be excused for anything and everything because reasons. God forbid, however, a non-right news organisation makes a few errors or differences of opinion.

And that is the state of information quality in right wing America. They can lie and bullshit as much as they please, it's only "lamestream media" that has to be held to standards.

 

[tstorm823]

And that is the state of information quality in right wing America. They can lie and bullshit as much as they please, it's only "lamestream media" that has to be held to standards.

I don't think you need a partisan conspiracy to chuckle at inaccurate or poorly-argued fact-checks.

By inaccurate, I mean they did things like categorize "the warmer weather has a negative effect on that type of virus" as a lie, which is not only true, but they wrote this article in November when the fall weather was bringing in a visible surge in cases.

By poorly argued, I mean that they called it a lie when he said there would be more suicides from the shutdown than covid deaths, and rather than just say "there's not evidence of that and there is no possible way he could know that", they tried to compare it to the number of suicides in previous years, which is comically irrelevant.

 

[Agema]

By poorly argued, I mean that they called it a lie when he said there would be more suicides from the shutdown than covid deaths, and rather than just say "there's not evidence of that and there is no possible way he could know that", they tried to compare it to the number of suicides in previous years, which is comically irrelevant.

A lie on narrowest interpretation means a deliberate, knowing falsehood intended to deceive. However, in a wider sense, it is also accepted to mean something untrue through error, and something misleading or giving a false impression, with perhaps less strictness on absolute truth / false binary.

It's a lie on the most technical basis simply by the fact he said suicides "definitely" would be higher than covid-19 casualties with more lockdown. This is untrue - there's no guarantee at all. But it's a lie also in a looser, more important sense of deception.

Trump is perhaps more accurately a bullshitter - someone who just says what he feels like with no apparent interest or knowledge in whether it's not true or not. He can as easily be called a liar by the valid looser definition, even if he doesn't know that what he's saying is untrue. The second element is that he's making a prediction, which is not a fact to be obviously true or false at the point spoken to be clearly definable as a lie: on the narrowest definition. However, again, at a looser level, is this giving a misleading or false impression? It sure is. Here there is the relevance of the stats: in the USA, annual suicides are so hugely dwarfed by covid deaths that the uptick in suicides would have to be truly staggering. Given the sheer unlikelihood of this, it is more deceptive than realistic. A lie, then.

 

[tstorm823]

A lie on narrowest interpretation means a deliberate, knowing falsehood intended to deceive. However, in a wider sense, it is also accepted to mean something untrue through error, and something misleading or giving a false impression, with perhaps less strictness on absolute truth / false binary.

It's a lie on the most technical basis simply by the fact he said suicides "definitely" would be higher than covid-19 casualties with more lockdown. This is untrue - there's no guarantee at all. But it's a lie also in a looser, more important sense of deception.

Trump is perhaps more accurately a bullshitter - someone who just says what he feels like with no apparent interest or knowledge in whether it's not true or not. He can as easily be called a liar by the valid looser definition, even if he doesn't know that what he's saying is untrue. The second element is that he's making a prediction, which is not a fact to be obviously true or false at the point spoken to be clearly definable as a lie: on the narrowest definition. However, again, at a looser level, is this giving a misleading or false impression? It sure is. Here there is the relevance of the stats: in the USA, annual suicides are so hugely dwarfed by covid deaths that the uptick in suicides would have to be truly staggering. Given the sheer unlikelihood of this, it is more deceptive than realistic. A lie, then.

On that particular point, even as someone with serious concerns about the unintended consequences of lockdowns, I have no issue with calling that statement a lie. He has no way of knowing, particularly with the degree of certainty he expresses things, how covid deaths and suicides might measure up in the hypothetical then-future he was describing. You don't have to sell me on that being a lie.

But an assistant editor at a major publication should be able to explain that better than you and I, and trying to guess suicides caused by a pandemic based on years without a pandemic is not the way to do that. Basically, the author or that article is lying by the metrics Trump is lying, making an unbased statement on a question they can't know the answer to using faulty reasoning.

 

[Agema]

But an assistant editor at a major publication should be able to explain that better than you and I, and trying to guess suicides caused by a pandemic based on years without a pandemic is not the way to do that.

Assistant editors can write well, but they're not scientists or philosophers, so no we shouldn't necessarily expect the highest quality argument. But if the task is merely to illustrate how unlikely Trump's claim was, I think it serves the purpose okay.

 

[SilentPony]

I'm more amazed people thought the ancient Italian mobster busting life time politician wasn't grabbing tits and trying to make out with his staff. Like...fucking DUH. Next you're gonna tell me that Ted Cruz cheats on his wife, AOC has a domination fetish or Chuck Schumer doesn't know there's more than one sexual position. I thought these things were common knowledge.

Cuomo was always a piece of shit, he was just useful for the Democrats for awhile.

 

[Trunkage]

Assistant editors can write well, but they're not scientists or philosophers, so no we shouldn't necessarily expect the highest quality argument. But if the task is merely to illustrate how unlikely Trump's claim was, I think it serves the purpose okay.

I would argue that scientists usually aren't good at arguing because they can't convey an idea that impacts the general public.

As to the suicide topic, it was always weird to me that cancelling lockdowns would decrease suicide. If you're being forced into work that could lead to Covid, you are going to be stressed about your health and finances. If you go anywhere near your family, you could kill them. You could die just by buying lunch. That sounds like it could increase suicides to me.

It also weirded me out that Trump solution wasn't putting money into mental health services