However, with the 2016 U.S. election bringing both a Republican president and Congress to power, then-President Donald Trump and his party set their sights on undoing Dodd-Frank. In May 2018, Trump signed a bill that exempted small and regional banks from Dodd-Frank’s most stringent regulations and loosened rules put in place to prevent the sudden collapse of big banks.
I mean, this seems to be the salient point. Did you even read the article you posted (and yet failed to attribute)?
What are your thoughts on this information? Do you give it any credibility at all as far as circumstantial evidence for the lab leak theory? If not, why not?
that's seriously about the most stupid tweet I've ever read.
I’d love to hear what’s so “stupid” about the tweet thread (other than, of course, you disagree with it). I had never heard of Alex Washburne until I saw Nate Silver engage with him, but he seems like a smart guy with a lot of subject matter expertise (much more than all of us combined, I imagine), and he makes some interesting observations.
And I made a point to not cite anyone with Republican leanings, for fear that perhaps that person was once photographed with Donald Trump or something, which would of course render the opinions of said person null and void for eternity.
Washburne even highlights his gender pronouns in his Twitter bio. Doesn’t that earn him some street cred with progressives??
I’d love to hear what’s so “stupid” about the tweet thread (other than, of course, you disagree with it). I had never heard of Alex Washburne until I saw Nate Silver engage with him, but he seems like a smart guy with a lot of subject matter expertise (much more than all of us combined, I imagine), and he makes some interesting observations.
And I made a point to not cite anyone with Republican leanings, for fear that perhaps that person was once photographed with Donald Trump or something, which would of course render the opinions of said person null and void for eternity.
Washburne even highlights his gender pronouns in his Twitter bio. Doesn’t that earn him some street cred with progressives??
I'm not the one who called it stupid. But I will say that sometimes it's a good intellectual exercise if you can try to figure out what the other person might find stupid about it.
Whatever. I'll take this guy at his word that there's a there there, over your insistence that there's not, any day of the week. And seven times on Sunday (which is today).
And again, it's not a case-closed situation by any means. But when the other option is has zero direct evidence and zero proof of a market origin, the lab leak theory is plenty interesting and intuitive.
Just why have you bought into the natural transmission theory / MSM narrative, given the lack of direct evidence and zero proof? Does it hurt to be led around by the nose like that?
the YouGov studied quoted in the article includes this finding:
More Americans say the virus definitely or probably was released on purpose than say it definitely or probably was not. Two-thirds of Republicans believe it was leaked on purpose, while just 35% of Democrats believe that. One in five Republicans do not think what happened was done purposefully, compared to 49% of Democrats.
a purposeful leak of the virus isn't just a "lab leak theory." It's a conspiracy theory that frankly doesn't even make sense. Two thirds of Republicans and a third of Democrats think the Chinese government purposely released a deadly virus among its own people? To what end? An accidental leak at least seems like a plausible source, but on purpose? Really?
so if there hasn't been a ton of misinformation being peddled about the origin of COVID-19 for the past three years, why do so many people believe something that is implausible?
a purposeful leak of the virus isn't just a "lab leak theory." It's a conspiracy theory that frankly doesn't even make sense. Two thirds of Republicans and a third of Democrats think the Chinese government purposely released a deadly virus among its own people? To what end? An accidental leak at least seems like a plausible source, but on purpose? Really?
Sometimes I think that there's a direct correlation between how nonsensical a conspiracy theory is, and how many people believe it to be true.
a purposeful leak of the virus isn't just a "lab leak theory." It's a conspiracy theory that frankly doesn't even make sense. Two thirds of Republicans and a third of Democrats think the Chinese government purposely released a deadly virus among its own people? To what end? An accidental leak at least seems like a plausible source, but on purpose? Really?
This is actually the biggest obstacle for the lab leak theory. When the loudest voices insist on conflating the plausible lab leak theory with the implausible lab release conspiracy, it makes it very difficult to have any real discussion.
Apparently, a lot of the "faux fur" that has appeared on fashionable clothing over the last 20 years has actually been the skins of raccoon dogs who, on the whole, probably could have made better use of it.
Apparently, a lot of the "faux fur" that has appeared on fashionable clothing over the last 20 years has actually been the skins of raccoon dogs who, on the whole, probably could have made better use of it.
Now that is the most revolting image you have ever posted!
a purposeful leak of the virus isn't just a "lab leak theory." It's a conspiracy theory that frankly doesn't even make sense. Two thirds of Republicans and a third of Democrats think the Chinese government purposely released a deadly virus among its own people? To what end? An accidental leak at least seems like a plausible source, but on purpose? Really?
This is actually the biggest obstacle for the lab leak theory. When the loudest voices insist on conflating the plausible lab leak theory with the implausible lab release conspiracy, it makes it very difficult to have any real discussion.
I don't get what makes that difficult. If someone's being an idiot by saying an implausible scenario is the base case scenario, tell them that. I think that's a better response than marginalizing plausible theories just because they're embraced by the idiots who take it one step further into crazy town.
I don't get what makes that difficult. If someone's being an idiot by saying an implausible scenario is the base case scenario, tell them that. I think that's a better response than marginalizing plausible theories just because they're embraced by the idiots who take it one step further into crazy town.
Well to begin with, it's difficult to find anyone to even have such a conversation with. Take here on MOL, for instance. Out of all the people who've expressed the desire to talk more about this, I think you're the only one who's not a conspiracy-addled Trumpist -- and then it turns out that even you want to engage in what you admit is baseless speculation about Chinese bioweapons.
I suppose I could have a conversation with ml1, but it'd be pretty short:
"Hey, wonder if there's any progress on learning more about the origins of the pandemic."
"Hmm, it's still most likely a result of natural spillover, but there's a chance it could have come from an accident while doing research."
"Any definitive evidence either way yet?"
"No, not really."
"Ok then, guess we'll have to wait until there is."
Fair enough. I do remember my 8th grade social studies teacher, Mr. McInerney, would get red in the face when saying "You cannot trust communists." That left an impression on me, and to this day I think he was correct.
Fair enough. I do remember my 8th grade social studies teacher, Mr. McInerney, would get red in the face when saying "You cannot trust communists." That left an impression on me, and to this day I think he was correct.
Fair enough. I do remember my 8th grade social studies teacher, Mr. McInerney, would get red in the face when saying "You cannot trust communists." That left an impression on me, and to this day I think he was correct.
we do have a few communists here who share your views…. And conspiracy theories. Trust me.
I mean, this seems to be the salient point. Did you even read the article you posted (and yet failed to attribute)?