# At It Again



## paddler

They're at it again. Nothing they like better than despoiling pristine areas:

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...ion-finalizes-plan-to-open-up-alaska-wildlife


----------



## Vanilla

I'm surprised you weren't here posting about the GAOA?


----------



## rtockstein

That mother Fer.


----------



## Vanilla

Paddler missed the news on the GAOA, and also this one as well, I guess. He's usually so on top of posting things about the current administration and the outdoors...must just be a simple oversight.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...n-greenlights-hunting-expansion-at-nearly-150


----------



## Catherder

From the article. 

"with 21 national fish hatcheries also open for hunting and sport fishing."

Not sure how challenging it will be to fish in a hatchery? -Ov-



On a serious note; Center for Biologic Diversity=animal rights/anti hunting organization. Nuff said.


----------



## backcountry

I'm not sure I understand Vanilla's criticism. Trump signing a piece of legislation, what appears to be a good one, isn't the same as the administration unilaterally changing policy that likely impacts wildlife in a negative way. 

I need to read into the openings elsewhere mentioned in the second article. On its face it looks like it could be good for sportsman but I recognize within such a vague package could be a trojan horse or two as far as wildlife populations go. 

I personally don't have a problem with Center for Biological Diversity as they have often done good things for endangered species but I also recognize our hobbies can collide with them. I don't support many groups like that anymore (I don't even support Trout Unlimited because they have collided with my other hobbies more than once) as I prefer groups that know how to work across difference better. Just not many organizations that aren't hyper focused on one special interest instead of knowing how to seek compromise between stakeholders to foster long term sustainability.


----------



## Kwalk3

GAOA is one of the most positive pieces of conservation legislation passed in decades. Cory Gardner(R) was one of the main sponsors of the bill. (Most of those who voted against it were also (R), but still a bipartisan victory.)

This administration has opened up a lot of previously inaccessible refuge/hatchery land to hunting and fishing, which is a huge positive.

I'm not sure how I feel about the drilling in the ANWR. I'm also opposed to the Pebble Mine project. I'm also skeptical of the rollback of some of the clean water protections in the name of deregulation.

Nothing here is all good or all bad just because one party or administration is pushing the policy. But stuff like that doesn't matter when it's partisanship above all else.


----------



## Lone_Hunter




----------



## Vanilla

Kwalk3 said:


> GAOA is one of the most positive pieces of conservation legislation passed in decades. Cory Gardner(R) was one of the main sponsors of the bill. (Most of those who voted against it were also (R), but still a bipartisan victory.)
> 
> This administration has opened up a lot of previously inaccessible refuge/hatchery land to hunting and fishing, which is a huge positive.
> 
> I'm not sure how I feel about the drilling in the ANWR. I'm also opposed to the Pebble Mine project. I'm also skeptical of the rollback of some of the clean water protections in the name of deregulation.
> 
> Nothing here is all good or all bad just because one party or administration is pushing the policy. But stuff like that doesn't matter when it's partisanship above all else.


I am Vanilla, and I endorse this message. Entirely.

#Vanilla2040


----------



## Catherder

backcountry said:


> I personally don't have a problem with Center for Biological Diversity as they have often done good things for endangered species but I also recognize our hobbies can collide with them.


OK, I'll nibble.

My first exposure to the CBD (not that CBD!) was about 10 years ago when they were suing the Utah DWR and the state because they claimed the DWR's Bonneville cutthroat restoration program was inadequate, and they wanted to see the Bonneville Cutt listed as threatened or endangered. Whereas the DWR's Bonneville cutt program was well underway, the lawsuit seemed very frivolous to me. Fast forward to the present day and my opinion then has been validated.

Maybe I only hear about the "headline news" actions, but it has seemed that every other time we hear from these folks it is for legal action that restricts hunting and fishing opportunity as well as reasoned management of wildlife. Most notably with predators.



backcountry said:


> (I don't even support Trout Unlimited because they have collided with my other hobbies more than once) as I prefer groups that know how to work across difference better.


I will freely admit that fishing is #1 among my eclectic set of interests, but do explain. I've found TU to be an effective conservation organization that doesn't "collide" with other outdoor pursuits. In fact, many of their projects are synergistic with other non fishing related conservation objectives


----------



## backcountry

Mostly from how poorly local organizations manage compromise. My perspective comes from their work in the Arkansas River headwaters in Colorado and statements made during stakeholder meetings; it's second hand knowledge but from a source I trust in the whitewater community. I don't raft as much since we bought a house but I still consider it a passion. 

I've considered volunteering for local projects with TU that don't have any conflict with whitewater community but it's never aligned with our household needs. But I still won't donate to their organization because most don't allow you to direct monies to specific projects. Definitely a shame as I tend to value cold water habitat restoration in general.

They are a big organization with a lot of clout and that always has the potential to backfire. Their choices were just too prominent at that point for me to ignore or forget.


----------



## paddler

As stated above, the GAOA was passed with bipartisan support. First introduced by John Lewis in 2019, then reintroduced by Gardner in 2020. Trump merely signed it, he took no leadership role. His administration has waged war against conservation and our environment since day one.

I was on a motorcycle when it passed. Here are a few photos:


----------



## backcountry

I had one of those "motorcycles" land on Mexican Hat when I was trying to climb it solo. That was exciting but not as exciting as that manuever. 😁

Beautiful shot in the kiva. I miss exploring with just a map and a pair of binocs in that part of Utah. Been too long.

I think this administration has a complicated relationship with conservation. He passes and goes along with policies that are contradictory. I don't think the guy cares one bit about land or wildlife conservation and just passes whatever seems popular at the time. Makes it tough for me to judge his record in a clear cut fashion.


----------



## paddler

The guy in the helicopter is Mike Mower, the director at SUU Aviation. Largest school in the country and an excellent program. The photo was taken while he was doing a loop during his first solo aerobatic flight. SUU has hired Chuck Aaron to teach the instructors aerobatics in a helicopter. He pioneered aerobatics is known world wide. He performed at air shows around the country for ten years for Red Bull.

I was in another helicopter taking photos of Mike's first solo flight.


----------



## backcountry

Saw the announcement about them contracting with Chuck Aaron. That will definitely attract more candidates to come here. Great shot.


----------



## Vanilla

Over two weeks have passed and no mention of the Pebble Mine here. I wonder why?


----------



## longbow

Catherder said:


> From the article.
> 
> "with 21 national fish hatcheries also open for hunting and sport fishing."
> 
> Not sure how challenging it will be to fish in a hatchery? -Ov-


I can tell you from experience, the fishing is GREAT at our salmon hatchery.


----------



## taxidermist

"FAKE NEWS"!! Lets continue to keep America Great. America doesn't need a man that forgets his name in the WH.


----------



## Daisy

Vanilla said:


> Over two weeks have passed and no mention of the Pebble Mine here. I wonder why?


The president must be a member of UWN:

https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/0...t-the-pebble-mine-in-response-to-fox-news-ad/


----------



## High Desert Elk

Makes me wonder, is everyone ready to give up a lifestyle yet...?


----------



## Vanilla

High Desert Elk said:


> Makes me wonder, is everyone ready to give up a lifestyle yet...?


I don't want to give up my lifestyle, that's why I want to keep wild places wild.


----------



## backcountry

Per Pebble Mine...I haven't seen anything since the Army Corps letter. Something else happen? I've been waiting but haven't seen reporting on the next step, ie the company's official proposal on mitigation measures.

Was interesting that the Corps findings included habitat damage but no concern for the salmon. Didn't read the documents but a permit for 20 years of mining that had serious impact to river habitat seems like it would affect salmon populations as well. Inquiring minds (need to dig deeper).

Hopefully the permitting process works as intended.


----------



## wyoming2utah

paddler said:


> The guy in the helicopter is Mike Mower, the director at SUU Aviation. Largest school in the country and an excellent program. The photo was taken while he was doing a loop during his first solo aerobatic flight. SUU has hired Chuck Aaron to teach the instructors aerobatics in a helicopter. He pioneered aerobatics is known world wide. He performed at air shows around the country for ten years for Red Bull.
> 
> I was in another helicopter taking photos of Mike's first solo flight.


Coming from Cedar....that is also the most annoying program. I'm glad I don't have to live with all the air traffic that the program has brought that way...


----------



## paddler

Speaking of the environment, climate change, the deniers, etc, I'm with Patagonia:

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/5...message-on-clothing-tags-vote-the-a-holes-out


----------



## backcountry

Ugh, that's a lame move on their part. Patagonia is becoming a caricature of itself and everything wrong with the outdoor industry.


----------



## Vanilla

Definitely not a new issue for Patagonia. Never liked their crap anyway.


----------



## Ray

Vanilla said:


> Definitely not a new issue for Patagonia. Never liked their crap anyway.


Their gear isn't for outdoorsmen anymore (not sure if it ever was) it's for rich socialites that like to frequent ski resorts.

Their idea of being in the outdoors is sitting in the lodge, drinking hot cocoa, sniffing each other's farts.


----------



## paddler

Looks like there are a few folks who agree that we should protect the environment. Those shorts are sold out in all sizes. I only know that because I tried to buy a pair. 

It's at the point now that being a climate change denier should disqualify one from holding public office. Just as supporting Trump should.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Vanilla said:


> I don't want to give up my lifestyle, that's why I want to keep wild places wild.


Double edge sword. Remember the freshman level concept in economics: nothing is free, there ain't no "free lunch". On the one hand, you need fuel, energy, and other resources such as rare earth metals to make it all work. Somebody has to pay the price. On the other, a crystal clear high mountain creek with brookies begging to be hooked on an Adams presentation is a blast.



paddler said:


> It's at the point now that being a climate change denier should disqualify one from holding public office. Just as supporting Trump should.


Nobody is denying that the climate has shifted over the last 2 or 3 decades from what we consider the "norm" to be. However, the norm we perceive is a speck on the large view spectrum of weather patterns over the last few billion years. We know that much of the eastern US only a few short millennia ago was much more sub-tropic. We know there was a mini Ice Age in the the mid 17th century to early 18th century after a mid-evil "global warming". Archaeological evidence shows that southwestern cultures often stored grain and other cereals for times of famine. Today, we think we have it all figured out.

The ones preaching global warming and climate change are merely pandering to the mob that cannot research on their own or do not possess critical thinking skills.

To be extreme to swing the other way on society and industry to curb weather patterns is nonsensical at best and the hubris to think that humans are so smart as to control the weather is sophomoric as well. One massive volcanic eruption would do 10 fold more times climate "damage" than hundreds of years of drilling and venting relatively small amounts of methane ever would. FYI, more frequent seismic activity along the Wasatch Front means something.

I would be more concerned about people holding public office who have no knowledge of the principles of economics and a clear understanding of Constitutional governance...


----------



## backcountry

Ray said:


> Vanilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely not a new issue for Patagonia. Never liked their crap anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Their gear isn't for outdoorsmen anymore (not sure if it ever was) it's for rich socialites that like to frequent ski resorts.
> 
> Their idea of being in the outdoors is sitting in the lodge, drinking hot cocoa, sniffing each other's farts.
Click to expand...

Ugh, you really don't know much about Patagonia's history do you? Their gear and it's use makes most of us here look like the lodge sitting, fart sniffing socialites you just mocked. Their gear took people into some of the most inhospitable environs on the planet and still does.

They definitely have gear that's lifestyle oriented now. But a fair amount is still phenomenal gear for adventures like few of us experience.

I just can't afford their stuff anymore but that is true even with top tier hunting gear. And sewing political statements into tags doesn't make me want to buy anymore. It's political theater and grandstanding and my outdoor gear doesn't need to be part of my outward political identity. I'm done sorting ourselves like that.


----------



## Ray

I know a bit about their history, watched a documentary about em some time ago, also listened to the MeatEater podcast with the founder. 

I also know the type that wears/uses their gear and they’re exactly what I just described. They’ve turned into a fashion statement.

I wouldn’t use their gear if you gave it to me.

That’s a bit out of character for you, Soapbox, you typically enjoy shouting your political beliefs from the rooftops.


----------



## backcountry

Ray said:


> I know a bit about their history, watched a documentary about em some time ago, also listened to the MeatEater podcast with the founder.
> 
> I also know the type that wears/uses their gear and they're exactly what I just described. They've turned into a fashion statement.
> 
> I wouldn't use their gear if you gave it to me.
> 
> That's a bit out of character for you, Soapbox, you typically enjoy shouting your political beliefs from the rooftops.


Fine with politics but I have no problem calling out fabrications like you made up. The narrative that companies we disagree with somehow don't make legitimate gear is just nonsense. It's that type of sorting I'm fighting against. Patagonia definitely brought the heat on themselves but that doesn't change the fact that much of their gear was designed for legitimate adventure and has aided in some phenomenal achievements. The logic you use would be like saying King Camo sucks simply because hunters wear it into greasy spoon diners and stink like high heaven until the end of time. Just because I can smell bacon a basin over doesn't mean the hunting company doesn't make quality gear.

But I find consumer boycotts as ridiculous (and potentially harmful) as companies doing lame stuff like Patagonia did with these tags. This type of identity politics (company and consumer) is just a never ending feedback loop that sorts us into ever smaller competing factions. Sometimes my coffee maker, shoes and technical jacket are just serving a functional purpose and were found on super sale.

PS...you are just as likely to see their ski gear side and backcountry than in the lodge. Patagonia makes some great gear for dropping serious lines. And ironically it's barely the upper end of middling cost if you know anything about ski culture. Sadly I can't even justify that expense anymore. Having been a ski instructor at a cheap resort I can tell you middle class people wear Patagonia, not socialites. Socialites wear gear we've never heard of, as I can attest given I was profiled and not so subtly shown out of a Park City store I confused for a common gear shop. The ski jackets there made Patagonia look like walmart bought bibs.

*you'll have to do better with your ad hominem attacks if you are trying to get a rise out of me. We can disagree on political ideas without resorting to kindergarten name calling.


----------



## paddler

HDE, it sounds like you're an anthropogenic climate change denier. Or maybe I misinterpreted your post. As for "Constitutional governance", I'd like some of that. It would be a welcome change after the past almost four years.

I have no problem at all with calling out stupid stuff. Science really is a thing.


----------



## Ray

backcountry said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a bit about their history, watched a documentary about em some time ago, also listened to the MeatEater podcast with the founder.
> 
> I also know the type that wears/uses their gear and they're exactly what I just described. They've turned into a fashion statement.
> 
> I wouldn't use their gear if you gave it to me.
> 
> That's a bit out of character for you, Soapbox, you typically enjoy shouting your political beliefs from the rooftops.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine with politics but I have no problem calling out fabrications like you made up. The narrative that companies we disagree with somehow don't make legitimate gear is just nonsense. It's that type of sorting I'm fighting against. Patagonia definitely brought the heat on themselves but that doesn't change the fact that much of their gear was designed for legitimate adventure and has aided in some phenomenal achievements. The logic you use would be like saying King Camo sucks simply because hunters wear it into greasy spoon diners and stink like high heaven until the end of time. Just because I can smell bacon a basin over doesn't mean the hunting company doesn't make quality gear.
> 
> But I find consumer boycotts as ridiculous (and potentially harmful) as companies doing lame stuff like Patagonia did with these tags. This type of identity politics (company and consumer) is just a never ending feedback loop that sorts us into ever smaller competing factions. Sometimes my coffee maker, shoes and technical jacket are just serving a functional purpose and were found on super sale.
> 
> PS...you are just as likely to see their ski gear side and backcountry than in the lodge. Patagonia makes some great gear for dropping serious lines. And ironically it's barely the upper end of middling cost if you know anything about ski culture. Sadly I can't even justify that expense anymore. Having been a ski instructor at a cheap resort I can tell you middle class people wear Patagonia, not socialites. Socialites wear gear we've never heard of, as I can attest given I was profiled and not so subtly shown out of a Park City store I confused for a common gear shop. The ski jackets there made Patagonia look like walmart bought bibs.
> 
> *you'll have to do better with your ad hominem attacks if you are trying to get a rise out of me. We can disagree on political ideas without resorting to kindergarten name calling.
Click to expand...

As I stated previously, Imma call you soapbox until the day I die.

I think you miss the point of capitalism and free markets, I'm free, as a consumer, to take my business wherever I so choose. To suggest doing so is harmful in some way is idiotic at best and un-American at worst.

They brought it on themselves, by putting this divisive crap out there, I'm not going to support them financially, I'll give my money to those that advocate for causes I believe in and again, its my right to do so.

Next time you're at the mall, or in public in general, pay attention to the types of people sporting their gear, the vast majority aren't the types you're portraying but that's besides the point. they suck as a company, they create further division in the country. They're a leftist company and have even gone so far as to endorse several democrats over the years. They can screw off


----------



## backcountry

Ray said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a bit about their history, watched a documentary about em some time ago, also listened to the MeatEater podcast with the founder.
> 
> I also know the type that wears/uses their gear and they're exactly what I just described. They've turned into a fashion statement.
> 
> I wouldn't use their gear if you gave it to me.
> 
> That's a bit out of character for you, Soapbox, you typically enjoy shouting your political beliefs from the rooftops.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine with politics but I have no problem calling out fabrications like you made up. The narrative that companies we disagree with somehow don't make legitimate gear is just nonsense. It's that type of sorting I'm fighting against. Patagonia definitely brought the heat on themselves but that doesn't change the fact that much of their gear was designed for legitimate adventure and has aided in some phenomenal achievements. The logic you use would be like saying King Camo sucks simply because hunters wear it into greasy spoon diners and stink like high heaven until the end of time. Just because I can smell bacon a basin over doesn't mean the hunting company doesn't make quality gear.
> 
> But I find consumer boycotts as ridiculous (and potentially harmful) as companies doing lame stuff like Patagonia did with these tags. This type of identity politics (company and consumer) is just a never ending feedback loop that sorts us into ever smaller competing factions. Sometimes my coffee maker, shoes and technical jacket are just serving a functional purpose and were found on super sale.
> 
> PS...you are just as likely to see their ski gear side and backcountry than in the lodge. Patagonia makes some great gear for dropping serious lines. And ironically it's barely the upper end of middling cost if you know anything about ski culture. Sadly I can't even justify that expense anymore. Having been a ski instructor at a cheap resort I can tell you middle class people wear Patagonia, not socialites. Socialites wear gear we've never heard of, as I can attest given I was profiled and not so subtly shown out of a Park City store I confused for a common gear shop. The ski jackets there made Patagonia look like walmart bought bibs.
> 
> *you'll have to do better with your ad hominem attacks if you are trying to get a rise out of me. We can disagree on political ideas without resorting to kindergarten name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I stated previously, Imma call you soapbox until the day I die.
> 
> I think you miss the point of capitalism and free markets, I'm free, as a consumer, to take my business wherever I so choose. To suggest doing so is harmful in some way is idiotic at best and un-American at worst.
> 
> They brought it on themselves, by putting this divisive crap out there, I'm not going to support them financially, I'll give my money to those that advocate for causes I believe in and again, its my right to do so.
> 
> Next time you're at the mall, or in public in general, pay attention to the types of people sporting their gear, the vast majority aren't the types you're portraying but that's besides the point. they suck as a company, they create further division in the country. They're a leftist company and have even gone so far as to endorse several democrats over the years. They can screw off
Click to expand...

Call me whatever you want it's just a pathetic strategy. But if you want it to carry any punch you might want to do something with more force and effectiveness.

My citicism has nothing to do with capitalism. Buy whatever you want, that's your choice. You are just describing a form of performative identity politics that has nothing to do with the quality of the product. Same as Paddler talking about the products sudden popularity. You guys are doing the same thing. You are imbuing products with the same superficial politics and lifestyle you seem to criticize others for doing.

(I could care less what people at the mall wear. I haven't been in a mall in more than a decade. But it's a defacto reality that if you are in a mall than that is wear you will see clothes you disagree with; the only thing it reveals is you aren't on a portaledge in Yosemite or dropping a coulior in the Wasatch where you will most definitely see people wearing it for its intended purpose)

Nothing un-American about criticizing political ideas that are founded in caricatures of truth. The logic in your first response is emblematic of the lengths we go to bolster our partisan fox holes. It explains our current affairs about as well as anything: everything is a political statement, including clothes; we can judge people and companies on those products; people who wear products I disagree with are therefore my political enemy; political enemies are to be demeaned and ridiculed. And yes, as I said before, Patagonia fanned these flames as well. I just choose to call it out for the absurd political posturing it is and continue to buy gear that 1) I can afford and 2) functions well and is durable.

But carry on with the fear the "leftist" rhetoric. It's just a bit ironic given any complaint about "divisive"-ness.


----------



## backcountry

Just had a good laugh as I realized the user many assume is "liberal" is passionately criticizing the tools of "cancel culture" being advocated by someone complaining about "leftists". 

2020 has to be the most ironic political year in modern history.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> 2020 has to be the most ironic political year in modern history.


Oh, just wait!


----------



## backcountry

Reminds me of this meme and I fear you are correct.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Call me whatever you want it's just a pathetic strategy. But if you want it to carry any punch you might want to do something with more force and effectiveness.
> 
> My citicism has nothing to do with capitalism. Buy whatever you want, that's your choice. You are just describing a form of performative identity politics that has nothing to do with the quality of the product. Same as Paddler talking about the products sudden popularity. You guys are doing the same thing. You are imbuing products with the same superficial politics and lifestyle you seem to criticize others for doing.
> 
> (I could care less what people at the mall wear. I haven't been in a mall in more than a decade. But it's a defacto reality that if you are in a mall than that is wear you will see clothes you disagree with; the only thing it reveals is you aren't on a portaledge in Yosemite or dropping a coulior in the Wasatch where you will most definitely see people wearing it for its intended purpose)
> 
> Nothing un-American about criticizing political ideas that are founded in caricatures of truth. The logic in your first response is emblematic of the lengths we go to bolster our partisan fox holes. It explains our current affairs about as well as anything: everything is a political statement, including clothes; we can judge people and companies on those products; people who wear products I disagree with are therefore my political enemy; political enemies are to be demeaned and ridiculed. And yes, as I said before, Patagonia fanned these flames as well. I just choose to call it out for the absurd political posturing it is and continue to buy gear that 1) I can afford and 2) functions well and is durable.
> 
> But carry on with the fear the "leftist" rhetoric. It's just a bit ironic given any complaint about "divisive"-ness.


Hold on there, Bucko. I'm agreeing with Patagonia when they say that climate change deniers shouldn't be in a position to impact public policy. That's not superficial politics, nor is it partisan. It's about believing in science and acting accordingly.


----------



## backcountry

It's 100% superficial politics to sew that message into a garment tag. There is nothing about it beyond performance and identity. Buying it for the sewn tag is also performative politics. 

Hence the comparison to Ray. Different sides of the same coin. 

I say that as someone with a degree in biology who recognizes the legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change and is dumbfounded by the resilience of denialism in policy. That tag does nothing for policy or governance. It's pure catharsis.


----------



## Ray

backcountry said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a bit about their history, watched a documentary about em some time ago, also listened to the MeatEater podcast with the founder.
> 
> I also know the type that wears/uses their gear and they're exactly what I just described. They've turned into a fashion statement.
> 
> I wouldn't use their gear if you gave it to me.
> 
> That's a bit out of character for you, Soapbox, you typically enjoy shouting your political beliefs from the rooftops.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine with politics but I have no problem calling out fabrications like you made up. The narrative that companies we disagree with somehow don't make legitimate gear is just nonsense. It's that type of sorting I'm fighting against. Patagonia definitely brought the heat on themselves but that doesn't change the fact that much of their gear was designed for legitimate adventure and has aided in some phenomenal achievements. The logic you use would be like saying King Camo sucks simply because hunters wear it into greasy spoon diners and stink like high heaven until the end of time. Just because I can smell bacon a basin over doesn't mean the hunting company doesn't make quality gear.
> 
> But I find consumer boycotts as ridiculous (and potentially harmful) as companies doing lame stuff like Patagonia did with these tags. This type of identity politics (company and consumer) is just a never ending feedback loop that sorts us into ever smaller competing factions. Sometimes my coffee maker, shoes and technical jacket are just serving a functional purpose and were found on super sale.
> 
> PS...you are just as likely to see their ski gear side and backcountry than in the lodge. Patagonia makes some great gear for dropping serious lines. And ironically it's barely the upper end of middling cost if you know anything about ski culture. Sadly I can't even justify that expense anymore. Having been a ski instructor at a cheap resort I can tell you middle class people wear Patagonia, not socialites. Socialites wear gear we've never heard of, as I can attest given I was profiled and not so subtly shown out of a Park City store I confused for a common gear shop. The ski jackets there made Patagonia look like walmart bought bibs.
> 
> *you'll have to do better with your ad hominem attacks if you are trying to get a rise out of me. We can disagree on political ideas without resorting to kindergarten name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I stated previously, Imma call you soapbox until the day I die.
> 
> I think you miss the point of capitalism and free markets, I'm free, as a consumer, to take my business wherever I so choose. To suggest doing so is harmful in some way is idiotic at best and un-American at worst.
> 
> They brought it on themselves, by putting this divisive crap out there, I'm not going to support them financially, I'll give my money to those that advocate for causes I believe in and again, its my right to do so.
> 
> Next time you're at the mall, or in public in general, pay attention to the types of people sporting their gear, the vast majority aren't the types you're portraying but that's besides the point. they suck as a company, they create further division in the country. They're a leftist company and have even gone so far as to endorse several democrats over the years. They can screw off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Call me whatever you want it's just a pathetic strategy. But if you want it to carry any punch you might want to do something with more force and effectiveness.
> 
> My citicism has nothing to do with capitalism. Buy whatever you want, that's your choice. You are just describing a form of performative identity politics that has nothing to do with the quality of the product. Same as Paddler talking about the products sudden popularity. You guys are doing the same thing. You are imbuing products with the same superficial politics and lifestyle you seem to criticize others for doing.
> 
> (I could care less what people at the mall wear. I haven't been in a mall in more than a decade. But it's a defacto reality that if you are in a mall than that is wear you will see clothes you disagree with; the only thing it reveals is you aren't on a portaledge in Yosemite or dropping a coulior in the Wasatch where you will most definitely see people wearing it for its intended purpose)
> 
> Nothing un-American about criticizing political ideas that are founded in caricatures of truth. The logic in your first response is emblematic of the lengths we go to bolster our partisan fox holes. It explains our current affairs about as well as anything: everything is a political statement, including clothes; we can judge people and companies on those products; people who wear products I disagree with are therefore my political enemy; political enemies are to be demeaned and ridiculed. And yes, as I said before, Patagonia fanned these flames as well. I just choose to call it out for the absurd political posturing it is and continue to buy gear that 1) I can afford and 2) functions well and is durable.
> 
> But carry on with the fear the "leftist" rhetoric. It's just a bit ironic given any complaint about "divisive"-ness.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'll stick with soapbox, it's the most accurate name for you. someday, I may even shorten it to soapy.

I'm not going to lie soapbox, I only read the first paragraph then stopped. It's the same old crap with you, "blah blah blah (insert some leftist ideology) I'm a free thinker".


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> It's 100% superficial politics to sew that message into a garment tag. There is nothing about it beyond performance and identity. Buying it for the sewn tag is also performative politics.
> 
> Hence the comparison to Ray. Different sides of the same coin.
> 
> I say that as someone with a degree in biology who recognizes the legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change and is dumbfounded by the resilience of denialism in policy. That tag does nothing for policy or governance. It's pure catharsis.


I disagree. It's about raising awareness and holding people accountable. I say that as someone with a BA in biology, an MA in cell physiology, and an MD, who recognizes the threat posed by science deniers whether it be climate change, or pandemics, etc. You're entitled to your own opinion, but don't assume my motivation.


----------



## Vanilla

Jon, you going to recommend this vaccine to your patients? Looking for a little free advice here.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's 100% superficial politics to sew that message into a garment tag. There is nothing about it beyond performance and identity. Buying it for the sewn tag is also performative politics.
> 
> Hence the comparison to Ray. Different sides of the same coin.
> 
> I say that as someone with a degree in biology who recognizes the legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change and is dumbfounded by the resilience of denialism in policy. That tag does nothing for policy or governance. It's pure catharsis.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. It's about raising awareness and holding people accountable. I say that as someone with a BA in biology, an MA in cell physiology, and an MD, who recognizes the threat posed by science deniers whether it be climate change, or pandemics, etc. You're entitled to your own opinion, but don't assume my motivation.
Click to expand...

Oh please do share how a lame political message on a garment tag that scratches your buttcrack can hold people accountable? And not some esoteric argument but how a tag actually is directly related to political accountability: a tag with no specific name, no mention of science or even a cause. (Lame but a brilliant PR move, people can project whatever they want into it just like you did).

And please show me how such a garment tag "raises awareness" given Patagonia's pretty stable demographics. As you can see from Ray's comments, it likely has the opposite effect on the people we need to move AGW policy forward.(Don't know Ray's thoughts on AGW but he isn't exactly embracing their strategy)

Both of those are more of a stretch than me trying to fit into my patagonia board shorts from a decade ago.

You comments are the prime example. Your politics is well formed and stable, from what you share on this forum. You didn't change awareness from the tag and undoubtedly were already voting based on your stated values. Yet you still rushed out to buy a pair of shorts because of a tag no one but you will see.

But somehow that's not about identity or performative politics? And companies are cashing in on it more than ever. And Patagonia did exactly that with a bit of string that cost them about a penny. Talk about return on investment.

If those shorts ever go on sale I'll buy them but not for the tag but because Patagonia board shorts often make great backpacking attire. But like most shorts I'll cut out the tag because even without the political grandstanding I find em irritating.

Sincerely,

Soapie

*PS...I missed your comment about who should be allowed to govern. Another example of the extremist political sorting this country is being forced into. That's were we cross from accepting the limitations of science (ie it only is one way to inform policy given policy is inherently subjective and value driven) into the realm of scientism. I love science but truly fear scientism. I think there is evidence such a philosophy is a variable (alongside but subordinate to the "merchants of doubt") in why denialism is so durable in the US.


----------



## backcountry

Paddler,

I clearly didn't execute my solidarity with accepting climate science well enough. I too agree denialism poses a risk. My credentials were an indirect reference to the previous post about such acceptance lacking critical thinking. I already knew you were more credentialed than I. Sorry for the poor wording.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Jon, you going to recommend this vaccine to your patients? Looking for a little free advice here.


We don't know nearly enough about any vaccines yet. I would say we need to listen to experts and not allow political pressure to rush the release. We don't know about the safety or efficacy. If it's like the seasonal flu vaccine, which is, on average, 50% effective, we will still need to continue with public health measures. The flu vaccine is developed a year in advance, so we have to guess which strains to target. Trump says the coronavirus vaccine will be ready in November, maybe October. The experts predict Q2-Q3 2021. As with all else, believe Trump at your peril.

I get the flu vaccine every year. I will take and recommend a coronavirus vaccine when the experts tell me it's safe. After all, I'm high risk by age criteria. I also wear a mask and don't go to dance parties. I've been social distancing for decades.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's 100% superficial politics to sew that message into a garment tag. There is nothing about it beyond performance and identity. Buying it for the sewn tag is also performative politics.
> 
> Hence the comparison to Ray. Different sides of the same coin.
> 
> I say that as someone with a degree in biology who recognizes the legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change and is dumbfounded by the resilience of denialism in policy. That tag does nothing for policy or governance. It's pure catharsis.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. It's about raising awareness and holding people accountable. I say that as someone with a BA in biology, an MA in cell physiology, and an MD, who recognizes the threat posed by science deniers whether it be climate change, or pandemics, etc. You're entitled to your own opinion, but don't assume my motivation.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what's your specialty?


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> HDE, it sounds like you're an anthropogenic climate change denier. Or maybe I misinterpreted your post. As for "Constitutional governance", I'd like some of that. It would be a welcome change after the past almost four years.
> 
> I have no problem at all with calling out stupid stuff. Science really is a thing.


Not really, dr. Pollution caused by man, and it's effects it has had on localized ecosystems is not the same thing as global climate change (caused by man).

It's arrogant to think that man has complete control over the weather and any associated climate change when man itself is merely a variable among many that contributes to it like other phenomena has demonstrated over the eons.

Still waiting for an argument to be made on what caused the most recent swings in climate that had real life impact to civilization ("little ice age" that followed a period of mid-evil global warming) relative to what is being observed now and the validity that it is not merely a coincidence that an increase in emissions is the popular narrative at the time.

*IF* the change we are witnessing has been fast-tracked by man, then it is also arrogant to think that the reverse can be done as quickly when the natural history of the planet shows it takes decades and even centuries to occur and correct itself. However, the mass amount of "pollutants" being released into the atmosphere from the west coast fires may very well have a larger global impact. The fires are not necessarily caused solely by an absence of moisture, but by the idiotic range management policies *NOT* being practiced.

A very large event such as Mt. St. Helens erupting or any other large event in the ring of fire would escalate those changes to be made. We are talking mega-tons of atomic bomb like energy spewing particulate matter and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that data proven will have an impact on climate.

So, I again ask, who's willing to give up a lifestyle to make the sudden change professed by "experts" that needs to be done?

Post Script: No politician, (R) or (D) has demonstrated a complete appreciation of Constitutional law for decades. They are all self-serving, both sides...


----------



## paddler

Ray said:


> Out of curiosity, what's your specialty?


Boarded in Family Medicine, did my residency at the U of U from 1982-85. Graduated med school in 1982 at UCLA. Did emergency medicine for ~17 years, have been doing urgent care for the past 19 years. I believe in science, and making evidence-based decisions.


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Not really, dr. Pollution caused by man, and it's effects it has had on localized ecosystems is not the same thing as global climate change (caused by man).
> 
> It's arrogant to think that man has complete control over the weather and any associated climate change when man itself is merely a variable among many that contributes to it like other phenomena has demonstrated over the eons.
> 
> Still waiting for an argument to be made on what caused the most recent swings in climate that had real life impact to civilization ("little ice age" that followed a period of mid-evil global warming) relative to what is being observed now and the validity that it is not merely a coincidence that an increase in emissions is the popular narrative at the time.
> 
> *IF* the change we are witnessing has been fast-tracked by man, then it is also arrogant to think that the reverse can be done as quickly when the natural history of the planet shows it takes decades and even centuries to occur and correct itself. However, the mass amount of "pollutants" being released into the atmosphere from the west coast fires may very well have a larger global impact. The fires are not necessarily caused solely by an absence of moisture, but by the idiotic range management policies *NOT* being practiced.
> 
> A very large event such as Mt. St. Helens erupting or any other large event in the ring of fire would escalate those changes to be made. We are talking mega-tons of atomic bomb like energy spewing particulate matter and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that data proven will have an impact on climate.
> 
> So, I again ask, who's willing to give up a lifestyle to make the sudden change professed by "experts" that needs to be done?
> 
> Post Script: No politician, (R) or (D) has demonstrated a complete appreciation of Constitutional law for decades. They are all self-serving, both sides...


Not surprisingly, I've heard all these arguments before. Including your false equivalency of the last four years with anything we've seen before. Climate change is real, man is a significant cause, and we need to address it sooner rather than later.

And, DJT is the most dangerous threat to our democracy we have ever seen. His lies, corruption and willful disregard of our constitution are unprecedented. Period.


----------



## Ray

From the sounds of it, I’m sure you have a very impressive CV.

I have two questions for you.

1. what if the vaccine passes clinical trials?
2. What are your thoughts on hydroxychloroquine?


----------



## paddler

Ray said:


> From the sounds of it, I'm sure you have a very impressive CV.
> 
> I have two questions for you.
> 
> 1. what if the vaccine passes clinical trials?
> 2. What are your thoughts on hydroxychloroquine?


The consensus on hydroxychloroquine is that the risk outweighs the benefits. So, no. I addressed the vaccine above.

What I don't think the general public fully comprehends is that doctors work in repair shops. We try to fix problems that people come in with. Public health measures have a far larger impact on population health. So vaccines, hygiene, clean air, water and safe food are more important than what I do by far. I read once that public health measures contribute about 85% to the improvement in our quality of life. Modern medicine is reported to contribute about 15%. Humbling.


----------



## backcountry

Yeah, elk isn't making a scientific argument. he's doing an appeal to emotion. there is nothing new in his statements that hasn't been said by denialist for years. there isn't remotely anything of the same scientific merit that counters the years of peer reviewed science.

And he's falsely representing the goals of policy. No one is trying to "control the weather". The goal is to reduce our carbon footprint as a variable in climate. But I'm guessing from their comments they still confuse the difference between weather and climate. 

I'm at a point where I sincerely don't believe there is much hope for changing the minds of the scientifically illiterate. I think most Americans really don't understand the science and get most of their education from non-scientific sources. They can be reached and reasoned with. But they are different than the type of politics Elk is practicing. Actively spreading known falsehoods and misinformation isn't worth my time anymore. Somehow believing "expert" is an insult says it all.

I have zero fracks to give with this level of posturing. 

*Per the pure politics of AGW policy... I think there is a sincere argument to be made that our history and government structure set us up to fail with a problem of this type and scale. Our constitution wasn't designed for the type of global collaboration it takes to facilitate policy needed to alter so much behavior. At the end of the day we get to influence out households and know we tried while others actively obfuscated in the face of overwhelming evidence. Some people will just always refuse to accept evidence that we can negatively affect climate and that it's always been about trying to protect the range of climate in which our species survives and thrives. I can't change that reality.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Yeah, elk isn't making a scientific argument. he's doing an appeal to emotion. there is nothing new in his statements that hasn't been said by denialist for years. there isn't remotely anything of the same scientific merit that counters the years of peer reviewed science.
> 
> And he's falsely representing the goals of policy. No one is trying to "control the weather". The goal is to reduce our carbon footprint as a variable in climate. But I'm guessing from their comments they still confuse the difference between weather and climate.
> 
> I'm at a point where I sincerely don't believe there is much hope for changing the minds of the scientifically illiterate. I think most Americans really don't understand the science and get most of their education from non-scientific sources. They can be reached and reasoned with. But they are different than the type of politics Elk is practicing. Actively spreading known falsehoods and misinformation isn't worth my time anymore. Somehow believing "expert" is an insult says it all.
> 
> I have zero fracks to give with this level of posturing.
> 
> *Per the pure politics of AGW policy... I think there is a sincere argument to be made that our history and government structure set us up to fail with a problem of this type and scale. Our constitution wasn't designed for the type of global collaboration it takes to facilitate policy needed to alter so much behavior. At the end of the day we get to influence out households and know we tried while others actively obfuscated in the face of overwhelming evidence. Some people will just always refuse to accept evidence that we can negatively affect climate and that it's always been about trying to protect the range of climate in which our species survives and thrives. I can't change that reality.


I'm not sure our Constitution prevents us from collaborating with other countries on a global scale. Witness the Paris Climate Accord. Too bad that the current administration is bent on erasing Obama's legacy just out of pure spite and jealousy.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the sounds of it, I'm sure you have a very impressive CV.
> 
> I have two questions for you.
> 
> 1. what if the vaccine passes clinical trials?
> 2. What are your thoughts on hydroxychloroquine?
> 
> 
> 
> The consensus on hydroxychloroquine is that the risk outweighs the benefits. So, no. I addressed the vaccine above.
> 
> What I don't think the general public fully comprehends is that doctors work in repair shops. We try to fix problems that people come in with. Public health measures have a far larger impact on population health. So vaccines, hygiene, clean air, water and safe food are more important than what I do by far. I read once that public health measures contribute about 85% to the improvement in our quality of life. Modern medicine is reported to contribute about 15%. Humbling.
Click to expand...

Please cite your sources on risks outweighing the benefits.

I personally know two Infectious Disease MD's that advocate for its use, especially in early treatment.
Additionally, I know an EM/IM (double boarded) that also recommends its use and is in a hospital that was hit fairly hard.

From the doctors I've spoken to, most are for its use.


----------



## Ray

I do agree 100% that people need to take better care of themselves first. The inactive lifestyles people live, coupled with absurd eating habits has lead to most of the health problems you see.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> I'm not sure our Constitution prevents us from collaborating with other countries on a global scale. Witness the Paris Climate Accord. Too bad that the current administration is bent on erasing Obama's legacy just out of pure spite and jealousy.


Our Constitution alone doesn't prevent such collaboration but our history plus an intentionally bifurcated Congress makes it a herculean effort that America is showing its not up for. Our country as a whole, including you and I, is too dysfunctional to find the path forward in our democratic republic.

And the Paris Climate Accord isn't exactly a great example of working within the framework of the constitution. It's an example of unilateral action and exemplifies how the imperial presidency didn't start with Trump, even if he exploded previous norms that moored the office closer to constitutional shores. If Obama had secured the 2/3 consent of the Senate than you'd have a legitimate treaty that honored the constitution. Instead we get another executive order that partisans love to hate until they control the WH.

It's a prime example of how the left also plays an important role in our failures in governance (and AGW policy). I have no love for partisans who aren't honest about the real, complex history that led to these outcomes. I have no love for Trump's abuses and wanton disregard for the environment/climate but I dislike gerrymandering historical facts equally as much.

It's not as simple as garment tags want us to believe.


----------



## paddler

Ray said:


> Please cite your sources on risks outweighing the benefits.
> 
> I personally know two Infectious Disease MD's that advocate for its use, especially in early treatment.
> Additionally, I know an EM/IM (double boarded) that also recommends its use and is in a hospital that was hit fairly hard.
> 
> From the doctors I've spoken to, most are for its use.


Do your own homework. I'm not going to argue with you.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite your sources on risks outweighing the benefits.
> 
> I personally know two Infectious Disease MD's that advocate for its use, especially in early treatment.
> Additionally, I know an EM/IM (double boarded) that also recommends its use and is in a hospital that was hit fairly hard.
> 
> From the doctors I've spoken to, most are for its use.
> 
> 
> 
> Do your own homework. I'm not going to argue with you.
Click to expand...

I have, you on the other hand, I'm not so sure of. You're letting politics get in the way of proper treatment


----------



## backcountry

Ray said:


> paddler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite your sources on risks outweighing the benefits.
> 
> I personally know two Infectious Disease MD's that advocate for its use, especially in early treatment.
> Additionally, I know an EM/IM (double boarded) that also recommends its use and is in a hospital that was hit fairly hard.
> 
> From the doctors I've spoken to, most are for its use.
> 
> 
> 
> Do your own homework. I'm not going to argue with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, you on the other hand, I'm not so sure of. You're letting politics get in the way of proper treatment
Click to expand...

This is one of those cases you could both be right. The scientific and medical process is intentionally slow before recommending treatment. Without robust studies the scientific consensus doesn't favor novel treatments.

Individual doctors observe anecdotes and don't perform scientific studies (for the most part). Those anecdotes can both favor and disfavor treatment, depending on the luck of the draw. But anecdote isn't science.

Global pandemics stress our systems. People improvise, including doctors. Hydroxychloroquine got stuck in the black hole of slow science, a novel virus and politics. Trump jumped the gun and pushed an off label use before we had enough data to analyze. Then a opportunistic charlatan created a bogus dataset, that got caught faster than normal, but still managed to influence policy.

We still don't know with confidence what the best course for hydroxychloroquine is, hence skepticism. But there is some evidence that prophylactic use could prevent the viral load needed to lead to disease in certain groups. But that evidence is still relatively limited and caught in the same political death spiral as the other incidents. We need more peer review trials before using massive portions of society as guinea pigs. We don't do well with uncertainty as a nation and a pandemic makes that worse.

It was a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Ray

backcountry said:


> paddler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure our Constitution prevents us from collaborating with other countries on a global scale. Witness the Paris Climate Accord. Too bad that the current administration is bent on erasing Obama's legacy just out of pure spite and jealousy.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution alone doesn't prevent such collaboration but our history plus an intentionally bifurcated Congress makes it a herculean effort that America is showing its not up for. Our country as a whole, including you and I, is too dysfunctional to find the path forward in our democratic republic.
> 
> And the Paris Climate Accord isn't exactly a great example of working within the framework of the constitution. It's an example of unilateral action and exemplifies how the imperial presidency didn't start with Trump, even if he exploded previous norms that moored the office closer to constitutional shores. If Obama had secured the 2/3 consent of the Senate than you'd have a legitimate treaty that honored the constitution. Instead we get another executive order that partisans love to hate until they control the WH.
> 
> It's a prime example of how the left also plays an important role in our failures in governance (and AGW policy). I have no love for partisans who aren't honest about the real, complex history that led to these outcomes. I have no love for Trump's abuses and wanton disregard for the environment/climate but I dislike gerrymandering historical facts equally as much.
> 
> It's not as simple as garment tags want us to believe.
Click to expand...

Valid point


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> This is one of those cases you could both be right. The scientific and medical process is intentionally slow before recommending treatment. Without robust studies the scientific consensus doesn't favor novel treatments.
> 
> Individual doctors observe anecdotes and don't perform scientific studies (for the most part). Those anecdotes can both favor and disfavor treatment, depending on the luck of the draw. But anecdote isn't science.
> 
> Global pandemics stress our systems. People improvise, including doctors. Hydroxychloroquine got stuck in the black hole of slow science, a novel virus and politics. Trump jumped the gun and pushed an off label use before we had enough data to analyze. Then a opportunistic charlatan created a bogus dataset, that got caught faster than normal, but still managed to influence policy.
> 
> We still don't know with confidence what the best course for hydroxychloroquine is, hence skepticism. But there is some evidence that prophylactic use could prevent the viral load needed to lead to disease in certain groups. But that evidence is still relatively limited and caught in the same political death spiral as the other incidents. We need more peer review trials before using massive portions of society as guinea pigs. We don't do well with uncertainty as a nation and a pandemic makes that worse.
> 
> It was a recipe for disaster.


https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003252


----------



## Ray

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those cases you could both be right. The scientific and medical process is intentionally slow before recommending treatment. Without robust studies the scientific consensus doesn't favor novel treatments.
> 
> Individual doctors observe anecdotes and don't perform scientific studies (for the most part). Those anecdotes can both favor and disfavor treatment, depending on the luck of the draw. But anecdote isn't science.
> 
> Global pandemics stress our systems. People improvise, including doctors. Hydroxychloroquine got stuck in the black hole of slow science, a novel virus and politics. Trump jumped the gun and pushed an off label use before we had enough data to analyze. Then a opportunistic charlatan created a bogus dataset, that got caught faster than normal, but still managed to influence policy.
> 
> We still don't know with confidence what the best course for hydroxychloroquine is, hence skepticism. But there is some evidence that prophylactic use could prevent the viral load needed to lead to disease in certain groups. But that evidence is still relatively limited and caught in the same political death spiral as the other incidents. We need more peer review trials before using massive portions of society as guinea pigs. We don't do well with uncertainty as a nation and a pandemic makes that worse.
> 
> It was a recipe for disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003252
Click to expand...

I'm largely in agreement but there are also studies that could be used to justify off-label use by doctors. And we can't ignore how the faulty dataset used in the Lancet study muddied the waters.

The situation is FUBAR. I made an early mistake in trusting experts talking about QT interval issues when the medical science on that wasn't as clear cut as they presented. Politics undoubtedly got in the way. Trump got ahead of the science and pushed a questionable treatment. That set it up for failure for the get go. It's use as a treatment is still largely unsupported. But for prevention and prophylactic use there is room for optimism. This is where science can be contradictory and difficult to navigate.

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal....uine-could-still-have-a-role-against-covid-19

I fall into the camp of not testing medicines on populations for novel problems without knowing for sure the reward outweighs the risk. But that is value oriented, not science. Doctors go off label with anecdotal support to back it up all the time. I'm largely in agreement but recognize Ray isn't out in left field on this one he just approaches it from a different perspective and likely risk acceptance. I'm glad not to be a citizen of India but their gambit could pay off.


----------



## paddler

There is always room for optimism early on. But, optimism isn't science. The data isn't looking good as of this date. My daughter is a pulmonary intensivist at the U, so takes care of the sickest of the sick in the ICU up there. She was lead author on a paper regarding COVID 19:

https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en...ications-come-from-inflammatory-response.html

They're not using hydroxy up there. Dex, plasma and remdesivir if people are sick enough. There is one state sponsored trial in the outpatient setting.

The take home message is politics should stay out of medicine. Corollary A is, if Trump says it, it's false until proven otherwise. Worthless POS.


----------



## Ray

The one I posted from Henry Ford is from July, not old at all. They saw 2541 patients across six hospitals, death rate for those they used hydroxychloroquine on was 13% those they didn’t the death rate was 26.4%. That’s not insignificant and it’s not optimism, those are actual results. Using it it literally cut the death rate in half


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> We don't know nearly enough about any vaccines yet. I would say we need to listen to experts and not allow political pressure to rush the release. We don't know about the safety or efficacy. If it's like the seasonal flu vaccine, which is, on average, 50% effective, we will still need to continue with public health measures. The flu vaccine is developed a year in advance, so we have to guess which strains to target. Trump says the coronavirus vaccine will be ready in November, maybe October. The experts predict Q2-Q3 2021. As with all else, believe Trump at your peril.
> 
> I get the flu vaccine every year. I will take and recommend a coronavirus vaccine when the experts tell me it's safe. After all, I'm high risk by age criteria. I also wear a mask and don't go to dance parties. I've been social distancing for decades.


I'm definitely not an anti-vaxer. I too get a flu shot every year since contracting influenza A in 2011. I used to not get it because I didn't think it was worth the time, but after those 48 hours of pure misery in the spring of 2011, I figured it was worth the 50% shot to not have to deal with that again. Seriously, there was a 8-10 hour period on one of those days that I almost wished I was dead. I never imagined being able to feel that crappy.

Candidly, the only thing I care about with this upcoming vaccine is the safety of it. If it's only 30% effective, but safe, I'll take it. And my family will too. My problem is that I don't know who "the experts" on this are anymore. Politics have overtaken everything these days, and I'm simply not concerned about what anyone's team is telling them to say. So who does one listen to anymore for that? It's all quite confusing, to be perfectly honest. Probably just the way that the powers that be on both sides want it.


----------



## Critter

I'll agree with Vanilla on this one. If they offer a safe vaccine I'll take it but then I'm in the upper percentile of those with underlying health problems that would benefit from one.

I actually think that some of the problems with what is suggested and what isn't along with what might work and who takes it and what it does is just pure hate for that group that claims that it does something. 

So tomorrow I'll walk into a pharmacy and ask for the super duper action hero type of flu vaccine that will make my arm hurt for a few days and be done with it. 

Another vaccine that people should look at is the Shingles vaccine. If you have ever known anyone who has had it you will run, not walk down to the local Dr. office or pharmacy to get one. I got the single shot a number of years ago and my Dr told me last year that I really should get the new one, which I will.


----------



## backcountry

Waiting for the trials to produce their reports and then analyze the side effects myself. We are already seeing what is predicted from history, ie several vaccines trials experiencing speed bumps. I'm hopeful that at least a few will make it through given the crazy number of candidates and quality of work being done.

I recommend reading the primary source to anyone that has the ability. If it's peer-reviewed then the data should be laid bare (I know even there the Lancet study muddies the waters but it's the best we have until other professionals dig through the details). That's were I made my mistake with hydroxychloroquine earlier this year. The risks are real but not quite what the public facing experts were saying this winter.

This vaccine is going to be the most politicized one in recent history. I don't think the ugliness is over but I'm hopeful there will be enough quality information to make informed decisions when the time comes. But most of our households should brace for early to mid 2021 for access, at the earliest. Any earlier is a gift and an incredible success story.

May your households stay safe!


----------



## Ray

I unfortunately can’t get a flu shot as I’m allergic to eggs. They have a nasal spray but from what I was told, it’s really only effective in children. So I just keep my immune system up with adequate sleep, proper diet and regular exercise.

If the vaccine is safe, I’ll take it for sure, even though I’m not in a “at risk” group.


----------



## paddler

Ray said:


> The one I posted from Henry Ford is from July, not old at all. They saw 2541 patients across six hospitals, death rate for those they used hydroxychloroquine on was 13% those they didn't the death rate was 26.4%. That's not insignificant and it's not optimism, those are actual results. Using it it literally cut the death rate in half


The one you posted was a retrospective review, not an RCT. They even published a follow up mea culpa, as they probably received a fair amount of criticism for pushing the drug so hard. Not their finest hour.

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/08/hydroxychloroquine-an-open-letter


----------



## backcountry

Stating "our promising Henry Ford treatment study should be considered as another important contribution" isn't exactly a mea culpa. They fully support doing RCT but recognize the benefit of intermediate research like they conducted. It was transparent in design and needed no apology. 

Your response was an example of the politicking you seem to condemn (and they did in the letter you linked). Science is imperfect and often contradictory at this stage. They own that yet contributed to the body of work around Covid-19. Retrospective studies can be just fine at this stage and actually contribute to more meticulous research down the road. Maybe a double blind study will show a variable that wasn't controlled for (like practitioner bias) led to the results but it's also possible that decrease in mortality could be attributed to hydroxychloroquine. 

We simply don't know and that is fine. I remain skeptical myself (at least about treatment) but your misrepresentation of their response doesn't really help with the hydroxychloroquine issue.


----------



## Ray

There are other studies you can look up that show its had a positive impact. so to suggest its Ineffective before, as backcountry puts it, the results are officially out is dangerous and could potentially lead to medical malpractice.

I’ll continue to take guidance from my associates I mentioned earlier. I’m not going to ask a plumber for advice on an electrical issue.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Stating "our promising Henry Ford treatment study should be considered as another important contribution" isn't exactly a mea culpa. They fully support doing RCT but recognize the benefit of intermediate research like they conducted. It was transparent in design and needed no apology.
> 
> Your response was an example of the politicking you seem to condemn. Science is imperfect and often contradictory at this stage. They own that yet contributed to the body of work around Covid-19. Retrospective studies can be just fine at this stage and actually contribute to more meticulous research down the road. Maybe a double blind study will show a variable that wasn't controlled for (like practitioner bias) led to the results but it's also possible that decrease in mortality could be attributed to hydroxychloroquine.
> 
> We simply don't know and that is fine. I remain skeptical myself (at least about treatment) but your misrepresentation of their response doesn't really help with the hydroxychloroquine issue.


Your interpretation is different from mine. The study looks to have elicited letters to the editor critical of it. It looks like more of an apology to me, especially when they say at the end they will have no further comment. They appear to have overplayed their hand. Most conclusions in scientific papers are far more circumspect.

This is from Up to Date on COVID 19, updated September 9, literature review current through August:

_Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine - We suggest not using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine in hospitalized patients given the lack of clear benefit and potential for toxicity. In June 2020, the US FDA revoked its emergency use authorization for these agents in patients with severe COVID-19, noting that the known and potential benefits no longer outweighed the known and potential risks [78].

Both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro [79]. However, accumulating data from controlled trials suggest that they do not provide a clinical benefit for patients with COVID-19 [80-84]. According to a preliminary, unpublished report from a large randomized trial evaluating a number of potential therapies for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, there was no difference in 28-day mortality among 1561 patients who were randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine compared with 3155 patients who received standard care (26.8 versus 25 percent, rate ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.96-1.23); hydroxychloroquine also did not decrease length of hospital stay [80]. Based on these data, the hydroxychloroquine arm of the trial was closed. The World Health Organization also terminated the hydroxychloroquine arm of its large SOLIDARITY trial, and the United States National Institutes of Health terminated its trial of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients; each cited a lack of benefit based on preliminary data from the trials [81,82,85]. In another open-label trial of hospitalized patients who required no or only low-flow oxygen supplementation (≤4 L/min), hydroxychloroquine (with or without azithromycin) did not improve clinical status at 15-day follow-up compared with standard of care [84].
_
Take it if you like. I hear bleach is good, too, or maybe UV light.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating "our promising Henry Ford treatment study should be considered as another important contribution" isn't exactly a mea culpa. They fully support doing RCT but recognize the benefit of intermediate research like they conducted. It was transparent in design and needed no apology.
> 
> Your response was an example of the politicking you seem to condemn. Science is imperfect and often contradictory at this stage. They own that yet contributed to the body of work around Covid-19. Retrospective studies can be just fine at this stage and actually contribute to more meticulous research down the road. Maybe a double blind study will show a variable that wasn't controlled for (like practitioner bias) led to the results but it's also possible that decrease in mortality could be attributed to hydroxychloroquine.
> 
> We simply don't know and that is fine. I remain skeptical myself (at least about treatment) but your misrepresentation of their response doesn't really help with the hydroxychloroquine issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation is different from mine. The study looks to have elicited letters to the editor critical of it. It looks like more of an apology to me, especially when they say at the end they will have no further comment. They appear to have overplayed their hand. Most conclusions in scientific papers are far more circumspect. We'll see when more data is available.
Click to expand...

It's fine to admit you were wrong. I was early on with my confident comments on hydroxychloroquine. But I'm not likely to relent on criticizing this approach.

An easy way to show it was a mea culpa is to cite a quote that states guilt, error or apology. I've reread it three times and didn't see a single one. If I am wrong show me. Same goes for the linked letter to the editor by the study's actual authors: not a mea culpa but a direct addressing of criticisms and points of clarity. They clearly think the study is "as another important contribution" which isn't something you say when you are expressing a mea culpa about a botched research paper.

Outside criticism is part of science just like building off of studies like this will be (hence citations). But it's not evidence they are apologizing for their work. Executives choosing to only respond to other medical professionals or scientists in the future isn't an admission of guilt especially when the sentences prior criticize the politicization of the very drug they are studying. Sentence and paragraph structure point to no longer wanting to fuel political battles as a research and medical center. That's understandable.

It's pretty simple to admit the study Ray linked to is limited in scope and needs analysis under more rigorous design. That's completely fine. But trying to deny it's validity within those limitations taken into consideration is politics, not science. And we continue to see the world play fast and loose with that distinction even when the consequences are obvious.

I regret my part in that and think a little introspection this far into the pandemic is fair for everyone. We are all being impacted by uncertainty and struggling with that differently. But science doesn't have to be a willful victim of that process.


----------



## backcountry

I just saw your edit. I have no interest in taking it. As stated before, I'm largely against jumping the gun on such matters but also recognize politics has polluted our responses. I'm personally pretty risk adverse on such medical options.

Reality is we don't know with certainty. Yet medicine often moves forward without certainty. Heck, off label use of drugs often moves forward with little empirical research to back it up. The entire hydroxy chloroquine situation is FUBAR because of so many factors, including those of us who pushed too hard back against it this spring. Including tossing in completely unrelated jabs at Trump. We continue to make science a victim at a time we desperately need trust in it.

I hope practitioners have immense skepticism in the drug. But I'm also willing to look at the evidence that contradicts my general conclusions. Doing otherwise is a disservice to the process.


----------



## backcountry

Ray said:


> There are other studies you can look up that show its had a positive impact. so to suggest its Ineffective before, as backcountry puts it, the results are officially out is dangerous and could potentially lead to medical malpractice.
> 
> I'll continue to take guidance from my associates I mentioned earlier. I'm not going to ask a plumber for advice on an electrical issue.


A point of important clarity:

I'm optimistic myself as there are other studies that lend evidence to the hypothesis that hydroxy chloroquine used prophylactically could protect high risk individuals like healthcare workers. That said, the scientific work is far from complete. We need RCT studies that control for variables better than the programs in India did.

Interpreting Paddler's criticism generously shows there is reason for hesitation. In this case, scientific skepticism is warranted. We don't have a robust series of studies yet that are confidently supporting the hypothesis that HQ reward outweighs risk. The studies are all over the place.

It complicated with the history of medical off label use of prescription drugs. That is where politics has really entered and left an indelible mark. Political tribes have staked their territory and the battle continues. I sincerely regret not behaving with more restraint in that regard this spring but I'll move forward with more vulnerability to evidence and more conviction to always dig deeper.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I just saw your edit. I have no interest in taking it. As stated before, I'm largely against jumping the gun on such matters but also recognize politics has polluted our responses. I'm personally pretty risk adverse on such medical options.
> 
> Reality is we don't know with certainty. Yet medicine often moves forward without certainty. Heck, off label use of drugs often moves forward with little empirical research to back it up. The entire hydroxy chloroquine situation is FUBAR because of so many factors, including those of us who pushed too hard back against it this spring. Including tossing in completely unrelated jabs at Trump. We continue to make science a victim at a time we desperately need trust in it.
> 
> I hope practitioners have immense skepticism in the drug. But I'm also willing to look at the evidence that contradicts my general conclusions. Doing otherwise is a disservice to the process.


My edit was for Ray, in reference to his believing his personal sources over comprehensive, up to date literature reviews.

I'm a late adopter, ie, all that "First, do no harm" admonition. I don't prescribe off label, either.

I reference Trump because he pushed HCQ hard and continues to push unproven therapies and completely ridiculous notions. He's a moron, and will say anything if he thinks it will benefit him politically. It's disappointing that after a mere 20,000 lies (as of July 9) people still believe him about anything.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> backcountry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw your edit. I have no interest in taking it. As stated before, I'm largely against jumping the gun on such matters but also recognize politics has polluted our responses. I'm personally pretty risk adverse on such medical options.
> 
> Reality is we don't know with certainty. Yet medicine often moves forward without certainty. Heck, off label use of drugs often moves forward with little empirical research to back it up. The entire hydroxy chloroquine situation is FUBAR because of so many factors, including those of us who pushed too hard back against it this spring. Including tossing in completely unrelated jabs at Trump. We continue to make science a victim at a time we desperately need trust in it.
> 
> I hope practitioners have immense skepticism in the drug. But I'm also willing to look at the evidence that contradicts my general conclusions. Doing otherwise is a disservice to the process.
> 
> 
> 
> My edit was for Ray, in reference to his believing his personal sources over comprehensive, up to date literature reviews.
> 
> I'm a late adopter, ie, all that "First, do no harm" admonition. I don't prescribe off label, either.
> 
> I reference Trump because he pushed HCQ hard and continues to push unproven therapies and completely ridiculous notions. He's a moron, and will say anything if he thinks it will benefit him politically. It's disappointing that after a mere 20,000 lies (as of July 9) people still believe him about anything.
Click to expand...

You realize you're going to have 4 more years of him, right?


----------



## paddler

Ray said:


> You realize you're going to have 4 more years of him, right?


So, I'm guessing you're a supporter? Why?


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you're going to have 4 more years of him, right?
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm guessing you're a supporter? Why?
Click to expand...

Yes sir, I am. Whats the alternative? Lawless streets, Right to bear arms attacked, Freedom of speech turned into "hate speech" and Freedom of religion taken away.

According to the radicals on the left, I'm the problem with our country, simply for being a straight white male. Why would I support those that see me as evil for things I can't control?

The radicals also view America as the worlds greatest evil rather than the worlds greatest country, I can admit we have problems but we're far from the worst country in the world. They want to tear down our country and restructure it, which I don't agree with.

Ultimately, I believe in our Constitution and I see the radicals (not the entire left) try to attack it day after day, in an attempt to erode it. I want to preserve the principles it was founded on


----------



## paddler

I think one term in the White House for a Russian asset is enough.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> I think one term in the White House for a Russian asset is enough.


&#128514; you watch too much CNN, good sir.


----------



## Jedidiah

paddler said:


> I think one term in the White House for a Russian asset is enough.


How do you watch your garbage Democrat institution getting taken down because of their illegal and reprehensible investigation into completely baseless allegations and still call the president a Russian asset? Wake up dude, and get a grip.


----------



## Daisy

Fear is a helluva drug.


----------



## paddler

Daisy said:


> Fear is a helluva drug.


Especially when combined with stupidity, racism and aggrieved white privilege. I try to remember they're probably good people, just listening to the wrong information sources. But there comes a point....


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> Daisy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fear is a helluva drug.
> 
> 
> 
> Especially when combined with stupidity, racism and aggrieved white privilege. I try to remember they're probably good people, just listening to the wrong information sources. But there comes a point....
Click to expand...

The left has made it to where the word racist has lost all of its weight, it means nothing now and people don't care anymore.

Last I checked, we aren't the ones that are scared, we're about to appoint another Supreme Court Justice &#128526;


----------



## paddler

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." I believe that to be true, except when Russia interferes. I'm less sure that every country gets the government it deserves. Nobody deserves Trump, not even his deluded supporters.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." I believe that to be true, except when Russia interferes. I'm less sure that every country gets the government it deserves. Nobody deserves Trump, not even his deluded supporters.


We prefer deplorables, thank you very much.


----------



## paddler

Ray said:


> We prefer deplorables, thank you very much.


As you wish.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

paddler said:


> Especially when combined with stupidity, racism and aggrieved white privilege.


 Holy dog****. It amazes me people actually believe that crap. That is demoralization in full effect there.

These next few months should be "interesting" as conversation between America's two opposing factions is pretty much over.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded

Ray said:


> Yes sir, I am. What's the alternative? Right to bear arms attacked,
> 
> not taking sides just stating Bump stocks were banned in late 2017 and no one blinked an eye. doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do though . paddler some times NOT starting a new thread might be the BEST thing to do in these trying times - chill.


----------



## Ray

7MM RELOADED said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes sir, I am. What's the alternative? Right to bear arms attacked,
> 
> not taking sides just stating Bump stocks were banned in late 2017 and no one blinked an eye .
> 
> 
> 
> I did
Click to expand...


----------



## Ray

I'll just leave this right here


----------



## Jedidiah

paddler said:


> Especially when combined with stupidity, racism and aggrieved white privilege. I try to remember they're probably good people, just listening to the wrong information sources. But there comes a point....


Ya know, we watch your party sit and scream about racism and fascism while your military wing BLM and Antifa are going around intimidating specific races and causing young Black kids to be killed in big cities, we watch your leaders be investigated and proven to be the actual perpetrators of the crimes they accuse Trump of, and we watch the contempt from the deluded masses like you and it just makes our position stronger.

This is exactly the response we expected when we voted for the man who was going to exterminate the evil in Washington, it's not a surprise. My advice to you is to get informed on actual facts and stop spouting your liberal abuse because when it all gets wiped away, you're going to need some factual basis to your existence.


----------



## backcountry

The next couple months is going to get ugly. You've got Paddler openly calling people racist and stupid for voting for Trump and then Ray seemingly enjoying videos of citizens struggling with political news. That about sums up how our partisan factions have embraced negative partisanship with open arms.

There is a world in which Trump voters aren't as Paddler assumes. There is a world in which "leftist" aren't out to destroy America and equally care about our Constitution and freedoms. We are currently living in that reality. Our fellow Americans aren't our enemies no matter how much rhetoric wants us to believe that idea. 

I don't know the path forward but I surely hope our citizens don't continue to fan the flames of hate against each other. That doesn't end well for anyone.


----------



## Ray

backcountry said:


> The next couple months is going to get ugly. You've got Paddler openly calling people racist and stupid for voting for Trump and then Ray seemingly enjoying videos of citizens struggling with political news. That about sums up how our partisan factions have embraced negative partisanship with open arms.
> 
> There is a world in which Trump voters aren't as Paddler assumes. There is a world in which "leftist" aren't out to destroy America and equally care about our Constitution and freedoms. We are currently living in that reality. Our fellow Americans aren't our enemies no matter how much rhetoric wants us to believe that idea.
> 
> I don't know the path forward but I surely hope our citizens don't continue to fan the flames of hate against each other. That doesn't end well for anyone.


I don't think it's the political news they struggle with, I think it's mental issues.


----------



## Jedidiah

I'll tell you backcountry, the things I've seen in the last 4 months have changed the way I think so firmly I doubt anything in the world could change my mind. I watched the opinion expressed by Nick Cannon in his podcast and then more importantly the support he got from major celebrities like Oprah and it completely removed any left leanings I might have ever had, and it's done the same for a lot of other people. Then I watch months more of rabid left Democrat city, local, and Federal officials lie, cheat, and scream and for me it's over with. No one should ever trust the left again. Say what you want you Democrat shills, we're completely galvanized against you at this point.


----------



## Ray

Jedidiah said:


> I'll tell you backcountry, the things I've seen in the last 4 months have changed the way I think so firmly I doubt anything in the world could change my mind. I watched the opinion expressed by Nick Cannon in his podcast and then more importantly the support he got from major celebrities like Oprah and it completely removed any left leanings I might have ever had, and it's done the same for a lot of other people. Then I watch months more of rabid left Democrat city, local, and Federal officials lie, cheat, and scream and for me it's over with. No one should ever trust the left again. Say what you want you Democrat shills, we're completely galvanized against you at this point.


This &#128175;

Before 2015, I honestly never cared about politics, not even in the slightest, then I started to see the attacks on our country and our constitution and it sickened me.

The left is completely power hungry and want to do away with all of our checks and balances in order to obtain it. It's flat out disgusting.


----------



## Ray

Trying to do away with the electoral college, trying to pack the Supreme Court.. come on now


----------



## backcountry

I don't doubt "both sides" have plenty of reason to hate their political opposition. And I sincerely believe it's going to get worse but I remain hopeful about the "united" portion of our country in the big picture.

We get to decide how to build our country each day. I'm clearly passionate about ideas but at the end of the day I recognize they are differences in ideas and the people expressing them truly care about our country. We are all patriots. We are all trying to remain informed about how to solve problems. We are all Americans.

Time will tell.


----------



## Jedidiah

backcountry said:


> We are all Americans.


I disagree with that statement at this point, especially with the report on the investigation into Hunter Biden coming out today. Read the thing, Joe Biden and his son are not Americans, it's disgusting to call the elder Biden and his son the same kind of patriot I am. I fully include the Democrat governors, mayors and representatives in that statement.


----------



## paddler

I think Trump will be leading early on, the night of the election and will declare victory. I further predict the Republicans will try to suppress/invalidate mail in ballots, and attempt to prevent counting them. We'll see how it goes. We may not know the results for a week or more. I think it's going to be very ugly.

Given the hypocrisy of McConnell and the Republicans, if Biden wins, Democrats take over the Senate and keep the House, I think you'll see a spirited discussion about expanding SCOTUS. Especially if the ACA is gutted and Roe is threatened. Republicans are on the wrong side of history.


----------



## backcountry

That's the final cue to bail. Best of luck folks.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> I think Trump will be leading early on, the night of the election and will declare victory. I further predict the Republicans will try to suppress/invalidate mail in ballots, and attempt to prevent counting them. We'll see how it goes. We may not know the results for a week or more. I think it's going to be very ugly.
> 
> Given the hypocrisy of McConnell and the Republicans, if Biden wins, Democrats take over the Senate and keep the House, I think you'll see a spirited discussion about expanding SCOTUS. Especially if the ACA is gutted and Roe is threatened. Republicans are on the wrong side of history.


You're a daydreaming Johnny, good sir. I think Trump will win by a landslide, then the left will try to fight the results for months. There's no way they gain control over the senate, ain't happening buddy.

Then the Dems will blame Russia again, maybe even China this time.


----------



## paddler

Ray said:


> You're a daydreaming Johnny, good sir. I think Trump will win by a landslide, then the left will try to fight the results for months. There's no way they gain control over the senate, ain't happening buddy.
> 
> Then the Dems will blame Russia again, maybe even China this time.


And they'd be right:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...irecting-influence-operation-denigrate-biden/


----------



## paddler

Jedidiah said:


> I disagree with that statement at this point, especially with the report on the investigation into Hunter Biden coming out today. Read the thing, Joe Biden and his son are not Americans, it's disgusting to call the elder Biden and his son the same kind of patriot I am. I fully include the Democrat governors, mayors and representatives in that statement.


Do facts matter? Wait, don't tell me. I already know:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...of-wrongdoing-by-biden/ar-BB19lMlR?li=BBnb7Kz


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a daydreaming Johnny, good sir. I think Trump will win by a landslide, then the left will try to fight the results for months. There's no way they gain control over the senate, ain't happening buddy.
> 
> Then the Dems will blame Russia again, maybe even China this time.
> 
> 
> 
> And they'd be right:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...irecting-influence-operation-denigrate-biden/
Click to expand...

When a sentence has the word "probably" in it, you might want to take it with a grain of salt.

Meanwhile, you have Iran and China pushing for Biden.


----------



## paddler

Ray said:


> When a sentence has the word "probably" in it, you might want to take it with a grain of salt.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have Iran and China pushing for Biden.


Oh, you mean like when Johnson said his investigation would "probably" show Biden was guilty of wrongdoing, but it didn't? Or the Benghazi investigation, which didn't show wrongdoing by Clinton?

What's your source for your Iran and China allegation? Brietbart? Fox? Hannity? Info Wars? Fox? You know they're "probably" BS, right?

When the CIA assesses high probability, you should pay attention. The others listed above, not so much.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a sentence has the word "probably" in it, you might want to take it with a grain of salt.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have Iran and China pushing for Biden.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean like when Johnson said his investigation would "probably" show Biden was guilty of wrongdoing, but it didn't? Or the Benghazi investigation, which didn't show wrongdoing by Clinton?
> 
> What's your source for your Iran and China allegation? Brietbart? Fox? Hannity? Info Wars? Fox? You know they're "probably" BS, right?
> 
> When the CIA assesses high probability, you should pay attention. The others listed above, not so much.
Click to expand...

&#128514; for a man of science you sure have a butt load of bias.

You probably also have high malpractice I'm guessing


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Anyone else been buying up some PPE? I have. I just realized today, ive been subconsciously replacing everything that was in my mobility bag that I had to turn in when I left active duty.


----------



## Jedidiah

Don't forget pet supplies. Most people do.


----------



## rtockstein

1. Both parties are scummy
2. Trump's constant statements that are either outright lies or egregiously offensive are an embarrassment to our country.
3. Trump wants to resume nuclear testing on US soil in the west. WTF


----------



## paddler

Anybody see Trump saying to just get rid of the ballots? Nice. He'll also try to mess with the electoral college by having electors appointed by Republican legislatures. Cool.


----------



## Jedidiah

rtockstein said:


> 1. Both parties are scummy


Use one party to end both.


----------



## paddler

Jedidiah said:


> Use one party to end both.


False equivalence. Again.

There is no longer a Republican party. What's left of the smoldering ruin is the party of Trump.

Not sure why backcountry split. The things I said that set him off actually happened after my post today. Trump will try to delegitimize the election results and claim victory.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> Jedidiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use one party to end both.
> 
> 
> 
> False equivalence. Again.
> 
> There is no longer a Republican party. What's left of the smoldering ruin is the party of Trump.
> 
> Not sure why backcountry split. The things I said that set him off actually happened after my post today. Trump will try to delegitimize the election results and claim victory.
Click to expand...

Hell, he's probably the smartest one here for backing out of the conversation. These discussions yield no fruit and are often reduced to attacks on one another.

The irony of that statement isn't lost on me either, as I, at times, am guilty of it myself.

At the end of the day, you know my stance and I know yours, we're not going to change one another's views on political issues. so, why bother?


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Ray said:


> At the end of the day, you know my stance and I know yours, we're not going to change one another's views on political issues. so, why bother?


Which is why, generally speaking, at a level much larger then just this thread, the conversation is... has been... over.

I'm done talking to the other side. I'm angry. I'm angry that these jackwagons want to "burn it all down". You people would do well to watch your rhetoric. Some people take that kind of talk VERY seriously.

Though I am angry, I am not advocating the use of violence; but realize, that this picture, isn't just a meme anymore, plan accordingly.


----------



## Jedidiah

The only people who said anything about nuclear testing on US soil are your idiot liberal left media. The only fact that exists on that is that the Trump administration discussed live nuclear testing, the rest is your talking head morons feeding you the speculation you love.

Trump made some tongue in cheek statements about ballots and you run around screaming he's going to do away with voting. Get different drugs or stop taking so much of the ones you're on.

You don't even know what the "lies" you're talking about are. You get told by Bri Bri on CNN that they are lies and never look into the facts or actually watch what was said and you smugly call the president a liar based on your third party information. You just don't get it, the contempt we have for your side isn't a mutual thing where we're both wrong. You're uninformed programmed masses, not equals in a debate. There is no "side of history" for you, you're getting ready to be written out of history. Can you tell me who the Federalists and the Whigs were? I bet not. In 150 years someone will ask what the Democratic party was.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Ray said:


> Very true. The loud 1% needs to be put in their place.


 Your a better man then I am, I'm not as discerning.

edit:
I'm done here because I'm weary of this. I tried to stay out of it, I even tried to derail the politics in the beginning of it. It just became too much to stay silent. Now, I've said more then enough, and I'm done with it.


----------



## rtockstein

Jedidiah said:


> The only people who said anything about nuclear testing on US soil are your idiot liberal left media. The only fact that exists on that is that the Trump administration discussed live nuclear testing, the rest is your talking head morons feeding you the speculation you love.
> 
> Trump made some tongue in cheek statements about ballots and you run around screaming he's going to do away with voting. Get different drugs or stop taking so much of the ones you're on.
> 
> You don't even know what the "lies" you're talking about are. You get told by Bri Bri on CNN that they are lies and never look into the facts or actually watch what was said and you smugly call the president a liar based on your third party information. You just don't get it, the contempt we have for your side isn't a mutual thing where we're both wrong. You're uninformed programmed masses, not equals in a debate. There is no "side of history" for you, you're getting ready to be written out of history. Can you tell me who the Federalists and the Whigs were? I bet not. In 150 years someone will ask what the Democratic party was.


I don't watch or read CNN news and I check multiple news sources on information. I know that I can't outright trust information that's given by news sources because they're all biased.

Yes I know who the Federalists and Whigs were and I know the people who founded this country didn't want political party factions for the very reason of what we've experienced over the last 10 or so years.

Yes I know the administration discussed live nuclear testing to put pressure on China and Russia for negotiations. Whether or not the administration pushes for it to happen doesn't matter. The fact they they discussed it is all too troubling. All nuclear efforts since the 90s have been for nonproliferation and control.

I have no issue with voting Republican. I wish John McCain were alive and well and running again so I could vote for him! I want to vote for the best leader for our country. President Trump is not that. Everyone knows he speaks on exaggerated terms and makes statements that are often not true. Lies aside, his statements that some consider to be 'straight' talk are usually just belittling offensive. Any man who talks about sexually assaulting a woman because he can because he is a star should not be our president. Or at least that is MY opinion and moral conviction.

So before you resort to hurling insults and attempt to tear down someone's credibility by making ridiculous accusations, you should consider that your type of statements are exactly what escalate the tension between all of us Americans that hold differing political opinions.


----------



## Jedidiah

rtockstein said:


> 3. Trump wants to resume nuclear testing on US soil in the west. WTF


Too late dude. You showed who you are when you said the above. If you can't make an argument without spreading lies, nothing you're saying now is worth my or anyone else's time.


----------



## paddler

I have a hard time having civil discussions with those on the right, as we don't agree on facts. Trump lost me when he championed birtherism, as it demonstrated he had no respect for the truth. Nothing he has done since then has changed that opinion, in fact, everything he has done has reinforced it.

He is a malignant narcissist, a pathological liar, whose life has been one of criminality, who brags about grabbing women's genitals, who paid porn stars to stay quiet about liaisons, who welcomed Russian interference in our last election and will do so again.

I don't understand how supporting him is consistent with Mormon values, or family values of any religious persuasion. He's a danger to democracy, as he admires autocrats around the world and aspires to be one. Further, he's a moron.

Many here have made statements echoed in the right wing bubble, I think if they paid attention to responsible news sources they would not do so. But, as they have stated, they're locked in. I watch MSNBC, and recognized the left bias. But I also review other sources, what some call the "lamestream" media, like the Times, the Post, Rueters, BBC, etc. I wish more people would.


----------



## rtockstein

Jedidiah said:


> rtockstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Trump wants to resume nuclear testing on US soil in the west. WTF
> 
> 
> 
> Too late dude. You showed who you are when you said the above. If you can't make an argument without spreading lies, nothing you're saying now is worth my or anyone else's time.
Click to expand...

Yes I believe I did make the argument without spreading lies in my last response. The fact that they discussed it means that he wants to. It's that simple. I did not say that he is pushing for it.

Maybe you do actually think am worth your time considering you've replied to my post a couple of times &#128521;


----------



## Jedidiah

There have never been actual verified criminal charges against Trump. He didn't pay Stormy Daniels, his lawyer did without his knowledge or consent, and when asked Cohen could only say he did it because "a candidate" told him to. No one in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, and as a matter of fact all those wastes of humanity in the FBI who faked the information that said he did are currently under investigation and will no doubt be indicted for it. No one has any respect for either of you guys at this point because you can't seem to make a statement on here without lying. You should have quit three pages ago but hey, I'm glad to keep going and see how bad you really are if you want.


----------



## rtockstein

Anyway, we'll agree do disagree. I know I'm not going to convince anyone of anything. I for some reason thought I should share my thoughts on the subject. 

Yes that drilling in Alaska is a double edged sword! I love my untouched wilderness but also enjoy the amenities of modern day life.


----------



## Critter

For my .02 cents worth.  

Why do liberals say that Trump is a pathological lair and then believe every little thing that he says or what others claim he says as far a what they want to make a case against? 

Then the liberals come out and condemn Sarah Palin for putting a bulls eye target or scope cross hairs onto a liberal stronghold or candidate, and then don't say anything about something like what Don Lemon said the other night about blowing up the system? Then there is the First Amendment, from what I have seen it is only for liberals and no one else. They condemn any conservative that wants to speak somewhere with mostly violence and ignorance all the while claiming their First Amendment rights to free speech without allowing a opposite viewpoint to be expressed.


----------



## Ray

Critter said:


> For my .02 cents worth.
> 
> Why do liberals say that Trump is a pathological lair and then believe every little thing that he says or what others claim he says as far a what they want to make a case against?
> 
> Then the liberals come out and condemn Sarah Palin for putting a bulls eye target or scope cross hairs onto a liberal stronghold or candidate, and then don't say anything about something like what Don Lemon said the other night about blowing up the system? Then there is the First Amendment, from what I have seen it is only for liberals and no one else. They condemn any conservative that wants to speak somewhere with mostly violence and ignorance all the while claiming their First Amendment rights to free speech without allowing a opposite viewpoint to be expressed.


Exactly! They've become the party of hypocrites, Their mantra is "do as I say, not as I do". They're the true fascists.


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> For my .02 cents worth.
> 
> Why do liberals say that Trump is a pathological lair and then believe every little thing that he says or what others claim he says as far a what they want to make a case against?
> 
> Then the liberals come out and condemn Sarah Palin for putting a bulls eye target or scope cross hairs onto a liberal stronghold or candidate, and then don't say anything about something like what Don Lemon said the other night about blowing up the system? Then there is the First Amendment, from what I have seen it is only for liberals and no one else. They condemn any conservative that wants to speak somewhere with mostly violence and ignorance all the while claiming their First Amendment rights to free speech without allowing a opposite viewpoint to be expressed.


So, are you saying that Trump has not lied more than 20,000 times since taking office, as tabulated by the Post? Where was Obama born? Straight answers, please.

It's amazing that his apologists often will say he was kidding, or it was tongue-in-cheek, etc. He's the president, his words matter, we shouldn't have to guess if one statement or another is serious. He's an entirely despicable human being, hard to see why Mormons, Evangelicals, etc, support his immorality.


----------



## Critter

I'm not saying a thing about it. 

I just saying that liberals are picking and choosing what they want to believe and what they are not going to believe. 

I could care less about Obama, it is gone and is irrelevant here.


----------



## paddler

Critter said:


> I'm not saying a thing about it.
> 
> I just saying that liberals are picking and choosing what they want to believe and what they are not going to believe.
> 
> I could care less about Obama, it is gone and is irrelevant here.


I'd like to hear what you think about Trump's lying. The Post says the count is more than 20,000 as of July 9, 2020. Do you believe that? Anyone? Ray, Jed?


----------



## Jedidiah

paddler, you get told by CNN and MSNBC what was said and you don't watch the actual video of the whole speech. Time and time again I hear about these "lies" that your guys keep talking about and then I watch the actual video of the speech and it's completely out of context, every single time. The 20,000 lies thing is a tabulation of all of those instances. I'm not apologizing, I'm saying you're told things out of context and fail to look at the actual statements made.

I'm also going to say something about rtockstein's "Trump wants to resume nuclear testing on US soil in the west WTF" and then saying oh yeah, of course I know that statement wasn't true, psh. That's not an uncommon occurrence for me, virtually all arguments I have with leftists include a statement like that that is 95% false, said that way knowingly and on purpose, and then retracted immediately. Do you remember acting that way even a year ago? I don't remember you guys talking that way until recently and honestly it's very concerning.


----------



## rtockstein

Jedidiah said:


> I'm also going to say something about rtockstein's "Trump wants to resume nuclear testing on US soil in the west WTF" and then saying oh yeah, of course I know that statement wasn't true, psh. That's not an uncommon occurrence for me, virtually all arguments I have with leftists include a statement like that that is 95% false, said that way knowingly and on purpose, and then retracted immediately. Do you remember acting that way even a year ago? I don't remember you guys talking that way until recently and honestly it's very concerning.


I didn't retract that statement and I stand by it.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> Critter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying a thing about it.
> 
> I just saying that liberals are picking and choosing what they want to believe and what they are not going to believe.
> 
> I could care less about Obama, it is gone and is irrelevant here.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to hear what you think about Trump's lying. The Post says the count is more than 20,000 as of July 9, 2020. Do you believe that? Anyone? Ray, Jed?
Click to expand...

Give me a list of all 20k lies, direct quotes and please provide the conversation in it's entirety, as context is important.


----------



## Jedidiah

rtockstein said:


> I didn't retract that statement and I stand by it.


Then there's something even worse going on with you, and I don't need to keep talking to either of you about it. Have a good life guys!


----------



## rtockstein

Jedidiah said:


> rtockstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't retract that statement and I stand by it.
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's something even worse going on with you, and I don't need to keep talking to either of you about it. Have a good life guys!
Click to expand...

I wish you the best, Jed!


----------



## paddler

Jedidiah said:


> paddler, you get told by CNN and MSNBC what was said and you don't watch the actual video of the whole speech. Time and time again I hear about these "lies" that your guys keep talking about and then I watch the actual video of the speech and it's completely out of context, every single time. The 20,000 lies thing is a tabulation of all of those instances. I'm not apologizing, I'm saying you're told things out of context and fail to look at the actual statements made.
> 
> I'm also going to say something about rtockstein's "Trump wants to resume nuclear testing on US soil in the west WTF" and then saying oh yeah, of course I know that statement wasn't true, psh. That's not an uncommon occurrence for me, virtually all arguments I have with leftists include a statement like that that is 95% false, said that way knowingly and on purpose, and then retracted immediately. Do you remember acting that way even a year ago? I don't remember you guys talking that way until recently and honestly it's very concerning.


So, are you saying he hasn't lied more than 20,000 times? A simple yes or no, if you please.



Ray said:


> Give me a list of all 20k lies, direct quotes and please provide the conversation in it's entirety, as context is important.


Do your own homework. Same question I asked Jed above. So, are you saying he hasn't lied more than 20,000 times? A simple yes or no, if you please.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> Jedidiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> paddler, you get told by CNN and MSNBC what was said and you don't watch the actual video of the whole speech. Time and time again I hear about these "lies" that your guys keep talking about and then I watch the actual video of the speech and it's completely out of context, every single time. The 20,000 lies thing is a tabulation of all of those instances. I'm not apologizing, I'm saying you're told things out of context and fail to look at the actual statements made.
> 
> I'm also going to say something about rtockstein's "Trump wants to resume nuclear testing on US soil in the west WTF" and then saying oh yeah, of course I know that statement wasn't true, psh. That's not an uncommon occurrence for me, virtually all arguments I have with leftists include a statement like that that is 95% false, said that way knowingly and on purpose, and then retracted immediately. Do you remember acting that way even a year ago? I don't remember you guys talking that way until recently and honestly it's very concerning.
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you saying he hasn't lied more than 20,000 times? A simple yes or no, if you please.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a list of all 20k lies, direct quotes and please provide the conversation in it's entirety, as context is important.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do your own homework. Same question I asked Jed above. So, are you saying he hasn't lied more than 20,000 times? A simple yes or no, if you please.
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to Put a large some of money on no, he hasn't. He would have to average 13.7 lies every single day of his presidency, which I highly doubt is even possible.

Not saying he doesn't lie, but I guarantee it isn't anywhere near 20k. Hell, you couldn't show me a politician who doesn't lie.


----------



## Critter

He a politician, at least his is now and politician's lie. 

How about "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"

Or, "your premiums will go down not up"

I lost out on both counts. 

Now if you are believing even a quarter of what Biden is spewing I have some beach front property for you in Nevada.


----------



## Jedidiah

In Joe Biden's America 200 million people have died of COVID-19, there's been 150 million gun related deaths, and there's 720 million women in the US. Joe Biden failed the third grade, and then failed law school and not just because he's a plagiarist, because he's also incredibly dumb. When he did pass law school finally, it was at the 76th place out of 85. Joe's not just a liar, he's so incredibly stupid (and always has been, it's not just the dementia of the last couple years) that it should literally be a crime that he ever got elected to anything at all.

Failed the third grade. True story, look it up.


----------



## paddler

Ray said:


> I'd be willing to Put a large some of money on no, he hasn't. He would have to average 13.7 lies every single day of his presidency, which I highly doubt is even possible.
> 
> Not saying he doesn't lie, but I guarantee it isn't anywhere near 20k. Hell, you couldn't show me a politician who doesn't lie.


So, you don't believe 20K, despite the fact that the Post has been tabulating the number since early in his term. How many times would you guess he's lied? Was his birtherism a lie? That was enough for me, an immediate disqualification. Remember when he said he sent private investigators to Hawaii and "You wouldn't believe what they're finding." He was right, I didn't believe anything he said.

I trust your math. Given that almost everything he says is false, 13.7/day sounds about right.


----------



## Kwalk3

Long past time for this one to be shut down.................Started out mostly respectful and discussing the issues pertaining to the outdoors. Has predictably turned into a partisan bickerfest(there are other words that are not forum friendly that would be more fitting).


----------



## Daisy

Kwalk3 said:


> Long past time for this one to be shut down.................Started out mostly respectful and discussing the issues pertaining to the outdoors. Has predictably turned into a partisan bickerfest(there are other words that are not forum friendly that would be more fitting).


You are correct, let me try to get this thread back on track with the latest news regarding Pebble:

https://www.adn.com/business-econom...ns-after-release-of-secretly-recorded-videos/


----------



## paddler

He is unfit for office, a threat to our country, the environment and the world. He must not be reelected. Listen to Cardillo:

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/5...or-robert-cardillo-speaks-out-against-erratic


----------



## Ray

#4MoreYears


----------



## Dunkem

*Closed*

Enough


----------

