10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not by the context I'm using.  If you are sure he had a policy to "spin the death toll" then supply a link.

The fact that they are spinning it allows one to infer the policy. Or are you under the impression that WH officials go out and say whatever they want to the press, rather than having coordinated talking points?

 

 

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

The fact that they are spinning it allows one to infer the policy. Or are you under the impression that WH officials go out and say whatever they want to the press, rather than having coordinated talking points?

 

 

Policy, in the context I'm using is not something that can be inferred. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy Note it mentions "Presidential Executive Orders". Read my posts assuming that's the context and maybe we can dispense with questions like this.

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Policy, in the context I'm using is not something that can be inferred. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy Note it mentions "Presidential Executive Orders".

Yes it mentions ""Presidential Executive Orders" as an example of policy. Not as its definition.

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Read my posts assuming that's the context and maybe we can dispense with questions like this.

 So you get to make up your own definition of a word, and we're all supposed to go with that? That's not how language works.

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes it mentions ""Presidential Executive Orders" as an example of policy. Not as its definition.

 

 So you get to make up your own definition of a word, and we're all supposed to go with that? That's not how language works.

You seem to be struggling with the definition of "context". Is this disingenuously or honestly?

Yes. I can use the word policy in the way I described. I can even clarify my usage. But I can't force your understanding.

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You seem to be struggling with the definition of "context". Is this disingenuously or honestly?

Yes. I can use the word policy in the way I described. I can even clarify my usage. But I can't force your understanding.

Nor can you force it to be on topic...

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nor can you force it to be on topic...

What are you talking about dim?

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What are you talking about dim?

Read the topic title...

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Read the topic title...

Everything I posted, at least with regard to the current "misunderstanding" is on topic or to support it. 

Clarifications on semantics included.

Edited November 2, 20205 yr by J.C.MacSwell

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

Everything I posted is on topic. 

Where does it ask who's reponcible?

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Where does it ask who's reponcible?

Surely any thorough comparison of success and failure would include discussion of responsibility. It would certainly be a valid topic of discussion.

What would be the point of discussing national Coronavirus successes and failures, without identifying causes and responsibilities, Dim ?

x-posted with Area54

Edited November 2, 20205 yr by MigL

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

What would be the point of discussing national Coronavirus successes and failures, without identifying causes and responsibilities, Dim ?

x-posted with Area54

Imagine that...

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What would be the point of discussing national Coronavirus successes and failures, without identifying causes and responsibilities, Dim ?

I don't know, maybe a mask???

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You seem to be struggling with the definition of "context". Is this disingenuously or honestly?

Yes. I can use the word policy in the way I described. I can even clarify my usage. But I can't force your understanding.

You simply linked to the wiki definition, which is "A policy is a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol."

So nothing here is inconsistent with the definition you provided, except your insistence that it means something else that you haven't actually specified..

 

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

You simply linked to the wiki definition, which is "A policy is a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol."

So nothing here is inconsistent with the definition you provided, except your insistence that it means something else.

 

I think I've made it pretty clear of the context I intended, at least to anyone reading in good faith.

Never did I say there could not be other uses of the word, but if it helps I meant a more formal definition than the broader sense it could be used.

Is that clear?

 

46 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think I've made it pretty clear of the context I intended, at least to anyone reading in good faith.

Never did I say there could not be other uses of the word, but if it helps I meant a more formal definition than the broader sense it could be used.

Is that clear?

 

No, actually, it's not. You've told us what you don't mean by policy. And. you then linked to a definition that's consistent with what others are using, which isn't consistent with your secret definition. You have not made it clear what you mean, and instead blame the people asking you to clarify, for not being able to read your mind.

 

Quote

 

Clearly we aren't using the same definition of "policy" or "policies". His recklessness and at times outright stupidity with regard to Covid 19 are not policy (my definition).

Along the lines of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy

 

Here you say you have a definition that differs from what CharonY used, but then link to the wikipedia definition. When I apply that definition, you tell me that's not the one you are using. But somehow your contradiction is my failing.

I followed that up with this:

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Policy, in the context I'm using is not something that can be inferred. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy Note it mentions "Presidential Executive Orders". Read my posts assuming that's the context and maybe we can dispense with questions like this.

 

Still confused?

Moving aside from semantics, the fact that you need to so tightly restrict and constrain the definition for your point to hold suggests maybe your point is a bit weak.

Presidents can support or oppose or influence a great many things even if there is no explicit policy underlying them. The change still happens due solely to who the president is and what they represent. 

Edited November 3, 20205 yr by iNow

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

Moving aside from semantics, the fact that you need to so tightly restrict and constrain the definition for your point to hold suggests maybe your point is a bit weak.

 

Okay.

 

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Presidents can support or oppose or influence a great many things even if there is no explicit policy underlying them. The change still happens due solely to who the president is and what they represent. 

Then why do you feel the need to say essentially the same thing?

On 10/31/2020 at 6:46 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

 His policies aren't even as bad as his leadership, rallies, and other example he sets, IMO. So to the degree that could be true, I would hope there might be some changes prior to his leaving office in January. At the very least he won't be holding mass rallies.

 

 

Are you asking why, if Biden wins, he cannot do more before inauguration while he’s only president-elect?

On another note, I’m not totally convinced Trump will stop holding rallies if he loses, but again... that’s not on-topic. 

I'm suggesting, or at least hoping, that as President elect Biden can have a more positive influence on the pandemic effort, and as a lame duck POTUS Trump might lose some influence on it.

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

On another note, I’m not totally convinced Trump will stop holding rallies if he loses, but again... that’s not on-topic. 

That thought did occur to me when I mentioned that, but surely not??

It is on topic though, given the potential for spreading the infection further.

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm suggesting, or at least hoping, that as President elect Biden can have a more positive influence on the pandemic effort, and as a lame duck POTUS Trump might lose some influence on it.

I tend to share that hope, but alas... While it’s a bit cliché, hope is not a strategy. 

He needs to win first, though. Until then, this is all academic. 

Speaking of rallies ...
D Trump, J Biden and K Harris have been criss-crossing and stumping in all the swing states, in last minute attempts to lean them in their own favor. M Pence, meanwhile, has been conspicuously invisible in news coverage.
There had been a Covid outbreak among his office staff.
Has he maybe contracted the virus, and the Trump team is keeping it under wraps so as not to make public perception worse with regard to their handling of the pandemic ?

52 minutes ago, MigL said:

M Pence, meanwhile, has been conspicuously invisible in news coverage.

Interesting hypothesis and evidence is certainly suggestive of him being positive for covid, but despite minimal coverage in the news, he did campaign in both Michigan and Pennsylvania today for a total of 4 event (which seems to refute the idea... but I also wouldn’t put it passed this administration to keep campaigning even after a positive test).

On 11/2/2020 at 10:42 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm suggesting, or at least hoping, that as President elect Biden can have a more positive influence on the pandemic effort, and as a lame duck POTUS Trump might lose some influence on it.

Here Biden seems to making an effort in that direction:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/09/joe-biden-coronavirus-task-force-nr-vpx.cnn

Hopefully it makes a difference.

During the last months, and in all the debates, D Trump has always claimed a vaccine is 'just around the corner', as a defense against his bungled Coronavirus response.
And Pfizer waits until D Trump loses the election t announce their vaccine is testing 90 % effective.

Reminds me of the American hostages in Iran being released just in time for R Reagan's election.

But I still like it.