President Trump urges Governors to open public school before summer?

Jump to Last Post 1-8 of 8 discussions (248 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image81
    Credence2posted 4 months ago

    Why would he suggest this?

    While younger people are generally more resilient to the ill effects of the virus, they are not completely safe  nor immune.

    How do you get kids to maintain 6 feet distance from one another?

    People seem to forget that asymtomatic children can still pass the virus to more vulnerable adult populations. Parents and siblings?

    Will the kids be required to wear masks?

    Seems to me that although we are all in a hurry to get things back to normal, as part of the process, this is not a good place begin. The importance of compliance with any moderation of these lockdowns is crucial and I am more confident with adults participating, as understanding that and taking the lead.

    There are others parts of the economy that can be opened more carefully.

    This seem like just another bad idea stack upon several others.

    Your thoughts?

    A little background.......

    https://news.yahoo.com/trump-urges-gove … 55235.html

    1. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      I can only conclude from Trump's words and actions that he does not want the virus to be mitigated. Every step of the way, he has either ignored or minimized the threat, ignored or contradicted the experts, or actively took steps to make the situation worse,

      What else can we conclude?

      1. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Seems to me the adult thing to do to not allow children to be placed in harms way.

        Conservatives complaint to the President about a shortage of Kool Aid with their red meat is reported, the President responds, "let them drink bleach".

        Not want the pandemic mitigated? He had better reverse course, because if the Economy is in a shambles by next November, there will be hell to pay.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Children as a rule are not as adversely affected by this virus but it would be nearly impossible to get them to follow social distancing and hand washing/face touching guidelines. They would inevitably spread it to their families, teachers and school staff and many more people would die,

          Trump has been told this, I'm sure. Does he want more people to die? I'm  beginning to think so.

          1. IslandBites profile image88
            IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            As much as I loathe Trump, I wouldn't say that. He wants the states to open, so he needs kids at schools. He's only capable of thinking in terms of money and ratings. He knows his only strong point to run the election campaign was "the economy" and now that's gone. Yes, it would be a disaster. And yes, it is going to be counterproductive to his goal. But I dont think he can help it. Not enough matter (or decency and common sense) there.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Two months ago, I would have agreed that is his only motivation. Now, I am not so sure, He is a very sick man.

              1. Eastward profile image93
                Eastwardposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Psychiatrists would agree with you.

                Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale conference:
                https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … oJX7nW37hA

                1. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  They not only "would" agree, they DO agree and have written books and essays about it.

                  One I recommend is The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump by Dr. Bandi Lee and 32 (I think that is what the number is up to now) other contributors

          2. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

            I used to think that the guy was just unusually dumb for the things he said and did, but with these latest screw ups, I am beginning to believe that it may well be more, the psychiatrist sofa?

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              This is a highly disturbing article.

              https://www.salon.com/2020/04/25/psycho … yEXJ5wafTw

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                You are right, it is a highly disturbing article, and just as disturbing is that someone would feel affirmed by it. I think it is a safe bet that Salon readers consider Fox as a fake and biased source—yet they promote an article like your link. *Geesh

                Just look at the lead-in photo:

                https://hubstatic.com/14990966.png

                Sure looks like a purposely biased message to me.

                Then there is the first subtitle:
                "Leading psychotherapist and author on Trump's worsening sadistic "addiction" to causing harm, pain and death"

                ". . .  sadistic "addiction" to causing harm, pain and death"

                That doesn't sound like the voice of a scholarly observation to me. It doesn't add to a credibility trust—right from the start.

                And then there was the tone of the article, as illustrated by the author's word choices.

                But, that is just my opinion. If you want to present that article as a credible comment then have at it. I sure wouldn't.

                It just looks like a nasty opinion hit-piece to me, and if such a piece were offered by a Trump supporter they would be crucified for it.

                GA

                1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  I agree with much of what you said. I also think Trump is a sadistic m@otherfuc!er and that my opinion is backed up by his actions over the course of decades, not to mention what is known about malignant narcissists in general.

                  I "get" that it is hard for many to swallow, but there is way more evidence that Trump is a malignant narcissist than that he is a selfless crusader who loves America and its people.

                  You know me by now, I think. I have been sounding the alarm from the beginning and there has been nothing but mounting evidence to support my initial fear that he is a dangerously mentally ill person.

                  So, yeah, the article is a hit piece on a sick man who needs to be hit.

                  Some of y'all will eventually  figure this out but I fear it will be too late. It probably already is too late.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image59
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    I see him as a sociopathic personality. Not having a conscience or able to take responsibility for his words and actions.

                  2. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, you have been "sounding the alarm" all along. And I have never faulted you for that opinion. But . . . when you post a link to an article like that Salon piece and promote it as "highly disturbing" as if it was anything more than an opinion hit-piece it is a different thing.

                    GA

    2. Eastward profile image93
      Eastwardposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      I agree with your take that seems to be yet another terrible idea, Credence. The children are still vulnerable, and as you mention, they can certainly bring home the virus to infect even more susceptible parents, grandparents, and other family members.

      It's likely another moronic Trump rambling that his administration will scramble to make look somewhat coherent. With children back in school, it will also be easier to try and force parents back to work.

      I'd love to see the call for a general strike gain more traction, and for workers to demand some concessions from the government and large corporations before getting back on the treadmills. However, people need to eat and that's a major complication in urban areas. It's the usual American dilemma, workers lose traction as they work more hours with little to no time off, benefits, or saving--backed into their respective corners. And with a President urging them to put their children into harm's way.

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        "I'd love to see the call for a general strike gain more traction, and for workers to demand some concessions from the government and large corporations before getting back on the treadmills. However, people need to eat and that's a major complication in urban areas. It's the usual American dilemma, workers lose traction as they work more hours with little to no time off, benefits, or saving--backed into their respective corners. . . "

        Wow. . . That sounds familiar.

        GA

        1. Eastward profile image93
          Eastwardposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Care to extrapolate?

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            No need. It's just a familiar refrain unrelated to the conversation.

            GA

      2. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Well, Eastward, I have to think that there is some sinister intent here. I said from the beginning that Trump does not care about people over the economy which will determine his reelection chances which is tied into that monster ego of his.

        1. Eastward profile image93
          Eastwardposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          At first I just thought Trump only viewed the world in terms of what benefited him, Credence. As things progress, and as the psychiatrists from the link I replied to Pretty Panther with hold, sadistic tendencies are likely part of the Trump abomination.

    3. tsadjatko profile image64
      tsadjatkoposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      So the corona virus is why we should keep the schools closed? Why because of the death rate or how contagious it is?

      That data for the flu is now known to be worse than COVID-19 so imagine there was no COVID-19 You’d be keeping the schools closed for the flu? We’ve never done that before in recent times, why now?

      1. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

        I don't know if you have noticed, but we have yet to get a handle on this thing.

        I am not a pandemic disease expert,  but neither are you or Trump.

        This malady is killing people at rates beyond previous flu outbreaks, it is relatively easy to transmit and can infect its host and be infectious to others without their showing symptoms for days. Kids could spread the virus much more widely than, say, warehouse workers under modified lockdown.

        It is irreponsible to throw our most vulnerable into the breach based solely on the advice of our stable genius. The schools should be the very last institutions removed from restrictions, not the first.

        A little background......

        https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ … -syndrome-(SARS)

        1. Randy Godwin profile image59
          Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          I'm surprised some Trump enablers cannot look at the numbers and realize it's worse than the flu. Others....not so much....

          1. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Like the old movie line, "they can't handle the truth".

            1. Randy Godwin profile image59
              Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Or an episode of Seinfeld. lol

            2. CHRIS57 profile image61
              CHRIS57posted 4 months agoin reply to this
          2. tsadjatko profile image64
            tsadjatkoposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            I’m not surprised at the ignorance of the TDSyndromocrats to try and blame everything on Trump and just “shoot the messenger” whenever they can’t accept the facts.

            Rather than just parroting headlines From their favorite fake news media they’d know the truth if they actually looked at study results:

            The study from New York I just heard about is a remarkable new development in what we know about the Wuhan Coronavirus.
            One in four New Yorkers may have already contracted the illness and not known they had it. That’s not even close to the result we expected. And it’s not the only study to find stunningly widespread infections. There are many such studies, from around the world. This new evidence means that the virus is far less deadly — a full order of magnitude less deadly — than authorities told us it was. At the same time, the same research also suggests that the virus is incredibly easy to spread between adults — which is another way of saying, the Wuhan coronavirus is nearly impossible to control. We know that because we haven’t managed to control its spread. Our national mass quarantine hasn’t worked.

            You’d never know that from listening to the people in charge. Given the suffering and disruption their policies have caused, you’d think our politicians would be staying up late double checking their assumptions. They’re doing the opposite. They’re ignoring the science, because it indicts their judgements. A recent analysis published in the Wall Street Journal found virtually no correlation at all between how quickly a state locked down and how deadly that state’s coronavirus outbreak was. You’d think that would be breaking news on every channel. Needless to say, it’s not.

            From Australia, meanwhile, we have new evidence that for huge segments of the population, this virus poses no meaningful risk. Researchers there tracked 18 students and staff who contracted the coronavirus, across 15 different schools. They concluded that about 850 people had come into close physical contact with the virus carriers. Yet they found only two cases of secondary coronavirus infections at school. None of them involved students infecting adults. In other words, this strain of coronavirus is extremely mild in children: It's hard for kids to get, and hard for them to spread. If they do get it, their risk of dying is, mathematically, almost zero. Keep in mind, this is all in dramatic contrast to ordinary influenza. Children contract and spread the flu very easily. The annual flu is much more dangerous to young people than the coronavirus is.

            Why is this relevant? Because we’ve shut down education nationwide. Many schools are considering staying closed next fall. For kids and their families, it’s been a complete disaster. Who exactly has been saved by doing this? They don’t even bother to tell us. “Shut up and lock down. You’ve saving lives. People will die if you don’t.” But those are political slogans. They’re not science.  Increasingly, people fluent in the actual science of epidemiology are asking hard questions about what we’re doing. Here’s a physician and researcher from California called Dr. Dan Erickson. He and a partner just delivered a 50-minute briefing on the latest numbers in their state. The video has since been viewed millions of times online. After looking carefully at the data, they’ve concluded that California should end its shelter-in-place order:

            Dr. Dan Erickson: "We've seen 1,227 deaths in the state of California, with a possible incidence or prevalence of 4.7 million. That means you have a 0.03 chance of dying from COVID-19 in the state of California. 0.03 chance of dying from COVID in the state of California. Does that necessitate sheltering in place? Does that necessitate shutting down medical systems? Does that necessitate people being out of work?"

            In other words, are the lockdowns worth it? What’s the answer of that? Many politicians couldn’t seem less interested in asking. Just today, the San Francisco Bay area announced it will be extending its lockdown until the end of May, five weeks from now. What’s the scientific justification for doing that? None. There isn’t any.

            You may remember what they first told us, back in February and March: We’ve got to take radical steps in order to quote, "flatten the curve." Six weeks later, the curve has been flattened, but not because of the lockdowns. The virus just isn’t nearly as deadly as we thought. Hospitals never collapsed. Outside of a tiny number of places, they never came close, at least not from an influx of patients. Instead the opposite happened: thanks to the lockdowns, hospitals have begun to collapse from a lack of patients. Politicians who couldn’t pass ninth-grade biology decided that practicing physicians shouldn’t be trusted to calculate the risk of transmitting the virus. So they banned so called “non-essential” procedures, many of which are in fact essential. The result: In many hospitals, entire floors have been mothballed. Doctors and nurses are being furloughed. In the middle of a pandemic. This is insanity. How long will we have to live with it?

            Earlier this month, Doctor Anthony Fauci, whom we’re required by law to respect no matter what he says, suggested that, in fact, we may never be allowed to resume normal life:

            FAUCI: if back to normal means acting like there never was a corona virus problem, I don't think that's going to happen until we do have a situation where you can completely protect the population. (edit) if you want to get to pre corona virus, you know, that might not ever happen in the sense of the fact that the threat is there.

            Other "experts" on TV warned that full-blown lockdowns will be necessary until a vaccine or treatments are found. What they didn’t mention is that scientists have never produced a single approved vaccine or anti-viral drug for any other strain of Coronavirus. So it could be a while. That seemed to please frequent television guest Zeke Emanuel.

            EMANUEL: Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications. (edit) Is all that economic pain worth trying to stop COVID-19? The truth is we have no choice.

            When a political operative like Zeke Emanuel, someone with a long history of lying, begins a sentence with the phrase, "the truth is,” you ought to be on guard. When he ends that sentence with, “we have no choice," you should to be terrified. In fact we've always had a choice. Other countries made different choices. They’re not waiting for a vaccine to open their societies. Why should they? There’s no precedent for doing that. We spent millions of dollars and more than 15 years trying to develop a vaccine for the SARS virus. Scientists never found one. Did we halt life in the United States? Of course not. You may not even remember it happened. The science hasn’t changed much since then. Unfortunately, American politics have changed a lot. And that’s the difference.

        2. tsadjatko profile image64
          tsadjatkoposted 4 months agoin reply to this
          1. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Thanks... I hope that it was the correct link as it pointed to an NBC article that basically supported my points.

    4. Ken Burgess profile image90
      Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this



      From the Article:
      "I had a breaking moment where I had to lock myself in the bathroom and cry," Yarlin Matos, with seven young kids at home, told The New York Times. "It was just too much."

      Sadly, many people who are parents, shouldn't be.

      I agree with you Credence, there is no reason to have our kids go back to school until after the summer break. 

      If we are going to put over 30 million people out of work, have Farms and Businesses take billions in losses, why on earth would we send our kids back to school now, with just weeks left in the school year?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        For the schools to act as daycare.  A rationale I disagree with.

        Of course, it will also employ some janitors and such, but that seems a pretty slim reasoning, too.

      2. tsadjatko profile image64
        tsadjatkoposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        So Ken, Even though we now know putting 30,000,000 people out of work was obviously a mistake (read this)
        https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/347 … ost4135778

        You think we should continue making the same mistake? Tit for tat is your reasoning for a solution? That doesn’t sound like the Ken I know.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image90
          Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Did you mean to link back to this thread?

          Having kids go back to school should be the last thing on the list.

          Opening up businesses, putting people back to work, all for it.

          There are 3 weeks left to the school year here in Florida, it doesn't make much sense to go back now, the State has already determined that school would be completed online for the remainder of the year, everything else has been mothballed.

          I have no idea what you mean with the "tit for tat" comment.

          1. tsadjatko profile image64
            tsadjatkoposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Ken did you read that link? Yes it was factual studies I posted about. If you read it you should know everything about what I’m talking about!

            “If we are going to put over 30 million people out of work, have Farms and Businesses take billions in losses, why on earth would we send our kids back to school now,”

            In light of the studies what you said there represents tit for tat. You don’t see that?

            Read the link Ken like this:

            “This new evidence means that the virus is far less deadly — a full order of magnitude less deadly — than authorities told us it was. At the same time, the same research also suggests that the virus is incredibly easy to spread between adults — which is another way of saying, the Wuhan coronavirus is nearly impossible to control. We know that because we haven’t managed to control its spread. Our national mass quarantine hasn’t worked.“

            Which means saying we have to keep schools closed because even though it didn’t work since we did the economic shutdown We have to also not open schools means to keep them shut down Solely because we shut down the economy is tit for tat.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image90
              Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              That MAY all be true, its far less deadly, etc.

              MY point is, the schools are already shut down, in my state (FL) they have already come up with an alternative for the rest of the school year.

              WE as a Nation have already paid the price... people are out of work, they have only just begun to open up a small amount of what was closed.

              So, in what world does it make sense to send kids back to school to risk any exposure, when we have already paid the price to keep them safe?

              Maybe in some other State they have two months to go and want to get that time in... but in Florida it would make no sense, school ends on May 27 and that last week of it is for the teachers, not the students... so essentially 3 weeks of kids going to school.

              1. tsadjatko profile image64
                tsadjatkoposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                You have a point, what in the world could they learn in three weeks?

                We have the best high school education in the whole world but you have to go to college to get it, so yeah, three weeks of high school
                is nothing of value.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image90
                  Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Interesting that you have such a positive outlook on our school systems, and feel so much can be learned in 3 weeks...

                  The Kids will never recover, never be able to learn that information in another way, or in another class next year... it has to be these three weeks, right now, and in school!

                  Even if 5% of the kids that return to school die, because we miscalculated, or because the virus mutated, its worth it!

                  Very interesting position for a person who is afraid that someone is going to stalk them through the internet, or hunt them down in a deranged and delusional state...  I'm not one of those people that fears such things...

                  "These are intelligent, informed and well-spoken, thinking, patriotic Americans who know the risks of the internet and deem it worth the risk to take credit for what they say and think, feeling their background and/or credentials lend important weight to their expression and they are loath to allow any small threat of "nut cases" to stifle their freedom of speech in any way. (Frankly, I pitty any "nut case" who would dare tangle with their ilk). These people deserve our respect and our prayers, but admittedly (with respect to taking credit, :-) I am not one of them, especially when it concerns controversial subjects which can be hot buttons for the "mentally deranged".

                  I don't see the value of risking my kids for three weeks of school, feel free to send yours.

      3. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Agree Ken, I think that  subjecting  our kids as the first line of attack against this pandemic is cowardly, at best.

        We can do better than that.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image90
          Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          I don't look at it as "cowardly", I think it is nonsensical given how little time left remains for school this year, here in Florida anyways.

          Another issue, in addition to what I typed above in another response, is that they have worked diligently (the government state/fed and media) to create this hysteria over the virus... you can't just snap your fingers and reverse it in one day and say 'OK go back to school'.

          I would say at least half the parents would not send their kids... who suffers for that decision?  How is that 'enforced'?

    5. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Not only that, but kids become lethal bullets for their older parents and grandparents.

  2. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 4 months ago

    This is sad but too true. Would feel bad for all the liberals.

    https://hubstatic.com/14990305.jpg

    1. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      well, Mike, psychologically speaking, and generally speaking, those who possess the personality characteristics that lead to unwavering support of authoritarian leaders are not liberals.

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Let's just say...it is conservatives leading the protests against the out of control authoritarian governors in each state.  It is the liberals believing anything told to them by their leaders and following them like sheep.  So psychologically speaking, it's obvious, based on recent events, liberals are more likely to accept authoritarian leaders than conservatives.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Sure, if one took Mike's description as accurate while ignoring the many studies done by actual experts.

          1. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Isn't it obvious based on recent events that it are liberals who "possess the personality characteristics that lead to unwavering support of authoritarian leaders."

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              No. And which authoritarian leader are you referring to? The one whose own guidelines for "opening" haven't  yet been met by a single state?

              1. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Waiting to see links to your alleged studies.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/11/cover-politics

                  Politics & personality

                  For decades, political psychologists have explored why we are drawn to the views and values of one party over another. Examining data from more than 200 such studies from around the world, Jost and colleagues explored the relationship between political ideology and multiple categories of motivation, including dogmatism, personal need for order and structure, and tolerance for uncertainty. Across studies, conservatives score higher than liberals on tests of dogmatic thinking and cognitive rigidity. To a lesser degree, conservatives also have higher needs for order and structure. Liberals tend to have a higher tolerance for uncertainty and a greater need for cognition, which researchers measured with statements such as “I find satisfaction in deliberating hard and for long hours” (Political Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2017).

                  Jost’s research also suggests that a preference for authoritarian leadership styles is associated with Republicans—and with support for Trump in particular. Since at least the 1960s, research has shown that voters who prefer authoritarian styles are more likely to favor Republican presidential candidates, and 2016 was no different. But Jost and his colleagues wondered how that preference might describe voters who favored Trump over other Republican primary candidates.

                  They found that Trump supporters scored higher than other Republican supporters on two particular facets of authoritarianism: authoritarian aggression and group-based dominance (that is, a preference for group-based social hierarchies). These voters were more likely to support statements asserting that the country needs more law and order and that some groups are naturally inferior to others (Womick, J., et al., Social Psychology and Personality Science, Vol. 10, No. 5, 2019).

                  Over the past three decades, Americans who are high in authoritarianism have increasingly shifted into the Republican Party, Federico says. Many left-leaning authoritarians have responded by becoming less politically engaged, he and his colleagues found—paying less attention to politics and choosing not to vote, for example (The Journal of Politics, Vol. 79, No. 3, 2017).

                  1. Readmikenow profile image96
                    Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    From the study provided.

                    Liberal bias?

                    "The research on politics and personality is not without critics, who have suggested that a liberal bias in the field of­ psychology paints conservatives in a negative light. In recent years, scientists have begun studying this assertion. In one example, psychologist Jay Van Bavel, PhD, of New York University, and colleagues recruited a politically diverse sample of U.S. residents to code 194 original social psychology studies for ideological slant. Then the researchers examined published replication attempts of those studies...they found evidence that research aligned with liberalism was less replicable or less statistically robust than research aligned with conservatism (Reinero, D.A., in press).

                    Research has shown that social psychologists are more likely to identify as liberals."

        2. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          LOL,  by definition that is not true.

          They don't call the well-known study into why some people are prone to follow authoritarians (from trying to understand why so many otherwise intelligent people followed Hitler (and now Trump) to their graves) Right-wing Authoritarian Followers for nothing.

          Probably about 85% of people who have this trait are conservatives.  The other 15% are far Left liberals.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image83
            PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Mike and I already went through this. He first tried to distort the evidence by selective quoting, then didn't respond when called on it. Very courageous. Lol

  3. Eastward profile image93
    Eastwardposted 4 months ago

    Supporting fascism to own the libs! Classic.

    1. Readmikenow profile image96
      Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      You are funny.  You misinterpreted the meme.  The fact you also saw liberals as I suggested speaks volumes.

      1. Eastward profile image93
        Eastwardposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        So the meme isn't commentary on liberals paying attention to social distancing and stay home orders while conservatives seem to want to defy these things? I could mostly care less about labels like "liberals" or " conservatives" when the real camps are already constructed in most Americans minds. Divide et impera.

  4. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 4 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14992191.jpg

    1. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      I trust you are not one of the sheeple and are hosting large family get togethers, inviting your friends over for beer and BBQ, and hosting sleepovers for your kids' friends. I imagine you are also going shopping at every whim and ignoring social distancing when you do. Masks? Not for Mike. He's too smart to fall for that.

      Am I right? We're jealous of all that freedom you are experiencing due to your independent thinking. I'd love to hear about it. Care to share?

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        "We're jealous of all that freedom you are experiencing due to your independent thinking."

        No you're not.

        You're angry because there are so many people who have the courage to not give into the fear the hype.  You're angry because not everyone is mindlessly obedient to the dictates of the government.

        You hate the fact there are people who are willing to stand up for their rights and call out the inaccuracies in the media and other news sources.

        You're not jealous at all.

        All of you are envious of all the people who have the courage and conviction to stand up for what they believe in.

        It's a shame the rest of you don't have this.  Nobody can help any of you with that one but yourselves.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          lol, your post sounds kind of angry. I just want to hear about all the good times you are having because of your freedom. How many people have you seen socially this week? Were there plenty of hugs and back slapping? Did you offer your friend a taste of that new beer you're  drinking? Did your Kids enjoy playing with their friends?

          I mean, here is your chance to share how your courage is making your life so much better than ours. Educate us. The sheeple need you!

          1. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            No reason to further anger already angry people.  It serves no purpose.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Aw, I never realized how considerate you are. Your concern for the feelings of us sheep is touching. I like how you know that referring to us as cowardly sheep will not bother us at all, but sharing the joy you are experiencing because of your courage and freedom will really piss us off.

              Brilliant!

        2. Randy Godwin profile image59
          Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Is that a yes?

        3. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Mike, are you and conservatives that are so anxious to open it ALL up willing to take the lead, intermingle, go without masks, subject yourselves to the risks first and foremost or is it like that Lt. Governor in Texas who ask specific demographics, the seniors, to be willing to risk their lives first, so that Walmart can return to normal business hours? Is it all OK as long as it is not you or yours on the firing line, up front?

          This has nothing to do with government control. Nations across the globe have been using quarantine methods like this. But only the rightwingers seem to want to defy medical science and pout like toddlers about realities most of us have long accepted as necessity.

          Give me liberty or give me death? I will believe you much more when more of you are willing go to the scaffold rather than just tell others to do so.

          Isn't always easy to talk when you have no skin in the game?

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            "Are you and conservatives that are so anxious to open it ALL up willing to take the lead, intermingle, go without masks, subject yourselves to the risks first and foremost . . . "

            Mike can answer for himself but speaking for myself, yes. I am willing to risk my health to reopen the economy.

            GA

            1. Ken Burgess profile image90
              Ken Burgessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              For the record, neither I or my wife ever left the front lines, but if I had, I certainly would be willing to return to them.

              I commend you for your willingness to stand up for what you believe in, no matter the odds or the consequences.  That's the type of spirit that once made this country great.

              1. Credence2 profile image81
                Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Ken, I always have respect for anyone who puts their money where their mouth is, even if I am on opposite sides of the fence. I,  grudgingly, will cheer them on not wanting them to face the enemy short of everything being done to balance the scales on a calculated risk.

            2. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

              That is very commendable, GA. It is good to see some that have the most vested interest in maintaining the current system being willing to defend it with their lives rather than allowing the poor and those otherwise more susceptible to infection and death with little to be gained from their economic standpoint, reviving the national economy and being "pushed" into the forefront.

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                That feels like sarcasm Cred. If it's not then my response may be off-kilter.

                I don't know that I have any more of a "vested interest" in seeing our nation recover than any other citizen. And I don't know what you mean by the poor being "pushed into the forefront." Unless it is that you think the well-off can just continue to stay safe in their homes with no financial worry and access to delivery of anything they want. Is that what you mean?

                As a senior citizen with less than excellent health, I am probably at least as susceptible as those poor folks you mentioned.

                However, to be clear, my comment wasn't meant to imply I would be jumping into any rugby scrums or rubbing shoulders in a bar, or shaking hands with everyone I meet.

                Did I misinterpret your comment? Do you disagree with any reopening under the plan that has been discussed?

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image81
                  Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Sorry, don't mean to be sarcastic, you are a hero as the first to make the commitment that you have.

                  I think that people who are willing to do this deserve all the support and reasonable preparation we can give.

                  As for the poor pushed to the forefront, I mean the people who cannot sit at laptops but have to work as bus drivers, chicken pluckers and the like. They generally have a higher death toll and are greater risk for infection beforehand simply because of the environment they have to function within. Yeah, don't the rich always have the option of sitting things out and just worry about their portfolio?

                  Sorry, you may well be more susceptible, but the poor have less of an incentive to see everything roar back to life as they have been functioning on a limb, anyway.

                  if you are going into the breach, you should be adequately equipped and armed with the law and modifications of the lockdowns taking the sacrifice that people make toward this end into consideration. Are the powers that be taking your sacrifice seriously?

                  1. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    I now understand what you mean by the folks at the forefront, but that's life bud. Bus drivers, janitors, servers . . . those are all essential jobs and only a foolish person would diminish their importance.

                    That they are typically low-paying jobs done by the less financially secure folks is just a fact of life. That shouldn't be a knock against folks that can work from home, (laptops?), because I suspect many of them are as financially distressed as the janitor that is glad to be able to get back to work. So I disagree with your thought about who has an incentive to get the economy going so they can get back to work.

                    My perception of your comment is that you hold a thought that influenced your perception of this issue. It has nothing to do with the "poor" or those most susceptible, but everything to do with a perception of status and inequality.

                    If I needed a paycheck to feed my family I would be glad to have a janitor's job and would not at all feel like I was being pushed "to the forefront" in doing that job.

                    GA

          2. tsadjatko profile image64
            tsadjatkoposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            “ I will believe you much more when more of you are willing go to the scaffold rather than just tell others to do so.”

            And on what information do you base that bogus statement? By any poll or study you can find conservatives are always the ones most willing to “go to the scaffold,” volunteer their time and money to charitable causes and to make such a statement as you have is prejudicial and tells a whole lot more about you than any conservative.

            Liberals? Yeah they’ll “go to the scaffold” as long as they are using (or wasting) other people’s money and resources (by way of the government) to do it.

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

              What is bogus, T?

              And what information do you have to support that conservatives are so much more generous than progressives and liberals, besides your own opinion?

              I am not beating up on conservatives, specifically. I am just saying that since the drive to open the economy short of proper medical preparations and precautions are driven by them, they should be on the front line leading the charge and not pushing the weak and the more vulnerable from behind.

          3. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            I always like to ask the question of what will anybody do when the money runs out?  It will run out if the economy doesn't get moving.  What then?  What happens when the government can't afford to provide services or pay or its bills?  Would you prefer a world where we have millions of people without a place to live or food to eat, but, nobody has the corona virus?

            I have a belief that part of being liberal involves having not concept of economic reality.  Most liberals I ask such questions give me a blank stare and can't answer it. 

            Should we wait until the money runs out before starting the economy?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              "I have a belief that part of being liberal involves having not concept of economic reality."

              This I can agree with.  My view of the liberal philosophy on economics is much the same: "There is always somebody that has money that we can take from them".  And when the money runs out (as we saw as manufacturing left the country in droves) they will borrow from another country.

            2. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Of course, I am concerned about the problem of the economy being stagnant for too long. I am with the states and municipalities being in charge of safely opening different sectors of the economy, taking whatever precautions necessary to minimize risk in the process.

              For example, a disaster in Indiana regarding Tyson chicken processing plants. Over 40 percent infection rate of 900 persons among approximately 2,000 employees. The President considers this as a necessary industry, but who does the plucking? No real leader should ask others to do what he or she is not willing to do.  A failed approach to say the least for those unfortunate enough to work in the poultry processing business.

              Yes, lets get it open. But lets do it in a way that things do not backfire.

              We libs are aware of economic reality, but we are also aware of recklessness, negligence and just jumping into the breach taking irresponsible risks that are unnecessary and could have been avoided with just a little more planning and preparation from the beginning.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Well said.

                Why can't the president be flexible on the meat packing plants and allow temporary closures for those with outbreaks of the virus? Or am I misunderstanding the order?

  5. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 4 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14993641.jpg

  6. PrettyPanther profile image83
    PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago

    My goodness. The two righties who enjoy pontificating on what liberals believe are at it again. Such fun!

    I am only speaking for myself, but I do believe we must open the economy, but in a smart and methodical way based on science. Let me remind you that if we had not taken steps to flatten the curve, the highly contagious nature of this virus would have resulted in an exponential explosion of illness and death, which also would have crippled the economy at a much higher cost.

    Instead, because most states and citizens followed the advice of experts, we slowed the spread to a more manageable pace. Now, we should look at ways to gradually open the economy and continue to keep the infection rate manageable. It is a balancing act, and people will inevitably disagree on the methods and pace of opening, but I believe we should listen to those who know what they're talking about and follow their recommendations.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      While I agree whole heartedly, there is a problem with the concept.

      Most, if not all, of the "experts" I hear on the subject approach it from one, and only one, side.  Health care workers don't care about the economy and have no idea what can (and will) happen if we stay shut down too long.

      Economists don't care about starting the pandemic all over - all they care about is a viable economy

      Business cares only that they re-open before bankruptcy - they don't care about either economy OR re-infection.

      And bored people sitting at home care only that they get out and have fun again.

      The problem is that there are many, many facets to the problem, and our "experts" typically address only one of them when making recommendations.  Which leaves it to a politician somewhere, probably ignorant in all the areas, to make the call...and most of them care primarily about their re-election, setting aside the economy, business bankruptcies, re-infection and anything outside of their political power. sad

      1. PrettyPanther profile image83
        PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        I think you are not giving the smart and knowledgeable people enough credit. Most governors are listening to a range of voices from all  sectors.  Most, if not all, have or are developing a plan to reopen, using real data. Sadly, national leadership is lacking and some governors will  put their people at unnecessary risk.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          That's what I said; it is up to the politicians, ignorant of any of the facets of the problem to make decisions.  Yes, they listen to various experts, but then still have to decide.  Some will decide right, and some will pay attention to the demonstrators that provide for their next election.  Some will take the plan developed by that "national leadership" you say is nonexistent, modify it to meet their specific needs and problems, and use it; some will listen to the screams of other people ignorant of either and use that.

          If you're suggesting that a central government could ever design a plan for every location, well, I would highly disagree.  States, and even cities, is where the decision must be made.  Where the "boots on the ground" are, not where a far off committee makes decisions based on politics.

          In case you missed it, here is the basic Trump plan; a plan that most states are using as the root of their own plan: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/1 … lan-191959

          1. PrettyPanther profile image83
            PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Sigh.... I used the word "lacking," not "nonexistent. "

            Yes, politicians make certain decisions and we hope they listen to the experts and intelligently listen, learn,  and synthesize their data and advice into a reasonable plan. That is how our system is set up. Obviously.

            That is why it is so important for us to do our due diligence as responsible citizens and select leaders with enough humility, compassion, and intelligence to do their jobs in a competent and caring manner.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              I suppose there could be a different meaning to "lacking" than "not there".  If you meant "marginal" or "minimal", I apologize.

              Yes, that's how it's set up.  And then we complain about every move they make because it isn't what we want them to do, because they didn't have the hindsight we now have, because they are not polished speakers or have orange hair.

              "That is why it is so important for us to do our due diligence as responsible citizens and select leaders with enough humility, compassion, and intelligence to do their jobs in a competent and caring manner."

              LOL  Leaders like Hillary, Trump and Biden, right?  Maybe I'm just old and jaded, but it seems more and more that the "responsible citizens" of the country will elect whoever has the most charm and promises them the most money from federal coffers.  Those "bread and circuses" are far more important than the needs of the nation.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, you are jaded. And, your "whoever has the most charm" comment elicited a hearty guffaw.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image59
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Good going on leaving the "old" out of the equation, Sandy. tongue

                  By the way, Island Bites has received a ban for some unknown reason. Anyone witness any bannable action she performed?  Or is this another "bickering" ban? Whatever the F**K that means on a political thread ...

                  1. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    I am sorry to hear that. I can't imagine any possible reason for a ban. Did she tell you this?

                    GA

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image83
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Sorry, I just now saw this. I didn't see anything that should warrant a ban. And no bickering, either.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  It should, for it's a sad state of affair when we pick a president based on how neat their suit or hair is, how much they remind us of royalty, or how pretty they speak.

                  And an even sadder thing when we pick based on how much we personally will benefit from whatever it is being promised to us.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    That's not how I pick but to each their own. I do want them to be at least as articulate as my neighbor's ten-year-old, though.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Finally, Wilderness wrote something I can agree with.

          2. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            That plan looks reasonable to me. I think leaving the decisions up to states and localities is the smartest choice.

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              I think we have to, GA.  The federal government simply is not capable of either:
              1. Knowing and understanding the needs/problems of all localities in the country
              2. Removing politics from their decisions
              3. Making timely decisions

              While 2) may not be true of all localities either, it is my feeling that they will come a lot (a lot closer to it than the feds will.  Can you imagine a bi-partisan committee (has to be bi-partisan because we don't trust either party to make decisions) fighting over when coffee shops can open in Paducah, Ky?  It would be years before people could exit their doors, let alone open a business or go to school!

        2. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

          I have to concur with your reply to Wilderness' comment, Panther.

          Yes, IT can be done when saner heads prevail and unfortunately, none of those heads are found as part of the Executive Branch in Washington.

  7. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 4 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14994264.jpg

    1. Randy Godwin profile image59
      Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Yes indeed, you guys had excellent success under Dubya. lol Who cleaned up THAT mess, Mike?

    2. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      What Mike purposefully forgets is that conservatives do much poorer, historically, at economic good times in America than liberals.  (I have to phrase it like that since Democrats were conservatives prior to 1937 while Republicans were the liberals.)

      Conservatives were responsible for roughly one 2008-sized recessions or bigger roughly once every 5 - 6 years from when the nation was created to the Great Depression in 1929 - ONE EVERY 5 or 6 YEARS!!! Think about it. 

      Ever since the introduction of Keynesian economics, that rate dropped to ZERO, until the Conservative recession of 2008 when Republicans dumped Kaynes in favor of a system that never worked well.)  Between 1938 and 2007, no recession was as big as the one in 2008.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image59
        Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        I'm sure Mike will disagree with this, Scott. Or simply avoid commenting on your post. After all, he's out partying with his pro-Trump cronies about this time. While we cowards continue to follow safe guidelines, so pray for him....

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          I do take some comfort in knowing that these idiots who keep congregation will, over time and through natural selection, reduce in numbers as they get sick, with some dying; dying because of their own stupidity. 

          Worse though are those people who will get sick and/or die because these really stupid people infected them from their thoughtless actions.

          I track Covid cases daily and have noticed that since April 27, each succeeding day has produced an increasing number of new cases, both worldwide and in America.  I wonder if today's numbers will break that trend.

      2. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        You guys are funny.  Not a fact just an opinion. 

        Not a clue as to what happened to cause the 2008 recession.

        "It originated as a result of the subprime mortgage crisis—and in Western Europe."

        It is something that is owned by Democrats and Republicans.

        Now, a little honest research, if that is possible by anyone on the left, would show the subprime mortgage crisis is something that developed over years and different administrations.  I suggest you not look too deeply into it.  This is a bit complicated and I'm sure it would probably make you more confused history than you already are at this point.

        But...if you want to try....

        https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/recession

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          "Not a clue as to what happened to cause the 2008 recession." - Now THAT is funny.  I wrote a book on it and discussed that one, and many others in well sourced detail.

          ""It originated as a result of the subprime mortgage crisis—and in Western Europe."" - THAT is not even close to being correct - those are Opinions and not Fact.

          The 2008 Great Recession didn't "originate" for either of those two places or reason.  In FACT, Western Europe was a victim of our collapse.  In FACT subprime mortgages facilitated the housing collapse but wasn't responsible for it.  What WAS responsible was the relaxation of financial regulations (a perennial conservative goal) which permitted subprime mortgages to flourish.

          It is NOT A FACT that "the subprime mortgage crisis is something that developed over years and different administrations. ".  It developed from bad law by the Republican Congress in 1999 - 2000, with a little help from Clinton, and the Republican Congress and President from 2000 to 2006.  YOU need to do some real research Mike rather than rely on conservative talking points.

          1. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Thank you for providing nothing more than your opinion.  There are many in the world of economics who disagree with you.  I value their opinion over yours.

            Again, you are funny.

            1. tsadjatko profile image64
              tsadjatkoposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              But Mike, he wrote a book on it with sources! That put forth as his primary proof means his opinion has to be true, don’t you know? Shame on you, any left winger who writes a book proves their opinion has to be the the last word, don’t you know?

              Of course writing the book is all that is necessary, doesn’t matter that no one ever read it or reviewed it.

              Funny I don’t see his book listed here: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article … psugar.com

              1. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Until you read the book, your unfounded opinion is worthless.

            2. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              "Thank you for providing nothing more than your opinion. " - AND THAT is just an opinion based on nothing since you have haven't read my well sourced book.

              And no - "many" is a gross overstatement.  Those that do disagree are conservative economists who are wedded to their PROVABLY failed theories.

              1. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                This is the point in a conversation with you where I wish you well with the delusional world you have created for yourself.  That delusional world is not a place I wish to visit, but I wish you great health and happiness with the delusions you have have created.  I know they're important to you.

                1. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Good, please stay out since my world is one of reality and facts.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image96
                    Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Okay, and you have a good day.  May all your dreams and wishes come true.  I wish you only the best.

  8. GA Anderson profile image92
    GA Andersonposted 4 months ago

    Damn. This thread has gotten mean.

    Tell you what . . . I will light a campfire around dusk and we can all Zoom in for some marshmallow toasting?

    GA

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

      I am partial to chocolate, how about smores?

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        S'mores are over-rated. Just gimme the chocolate and marshmallows. I will save the Grahams for a crunchy snack.

        GA

      2. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Credence2,

        I have to say I am a smores man. I prefer an a fire and making them yourself. 

        Put me down as someone is pro-smores!

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

          See, we can agree about something....

          1. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            I just hope no anti-smores jerks respond looking for a debate.  They'll get one! big_smile

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              I am a purist. Roasted marsmallows: yes. S'mores: No.

              Each item--the marsmallow, the Hershey bar, the graham cracker--stands perfectly alone and is diminished when combined with the others. ;-)

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Absolutely!  Chocolate and crackers have no business associating with a perfectly browned and softened marshmallow.  Perfection stands alone; anything more can only diminish it.

                1. Readmikenow profile image96
                  Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  So, you are against the free association of chocolate, graham crackers and softened marshmallows? This is something that has been a staple of American campfires since the late 1920s!  There are those of us who refuse to give into the dictatorial belief of keeping these groups separate from one another.  The integration of graham crackers, chocolate and marshmallows is a statement of what it means to live in a free America.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Absolutely!  While chocolate and crackers are OK as long as they stay on their side of the tracks, they are not welcome to hobnob with their superiors. 

                    Marshmallow supremacy forever!

                2. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Those are two different tastes bud. You are right about the glory of a nicely roasted campfire marshmallow, but you are wrong that a soft chocolate combination isn't a step-above.

                  I am going to make you guys jealous. I have a supply of marshmallows and Herxeyh bars, and a campfire ring in my back yard. It's dusk here now, (8pm Eastern), and I am going to light up a campfire, grab my martini, and have some soft chocolate and roasted marshmallows. Eat your hearts out.

                  I might even post some pictures to rub it in.

                  GA ;-)

                  1. IslandBites profile image88
                    IslandBitesposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Yuck, marshmallows. You guys can keep them, but give me all the chocolate. big_smile

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image83
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 months agoin reply to this
              2. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                I agree, except for the sans-chocolate part. Hot marshmallow and soft chocolate is a heavenly taste.

                GA

          2. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Sure you agree, but you both are still wrong. S'mores are an over-rated Girl Scout bit.

            First, they never tell you that the best S'mores happen when you let the Hersey bars get soft—they must be soft for a good S'mores!  Otherwise, you just get a double crunch of graham crackers and hard chocolate bars with hot marshmallow oozing out onto your fingers.

            If you want a really good S'mores, (and have to have the Grahams), then make sure your Grahams have been opened long enough to soften slightly, (usually overnight), and that your Hersey bars are also soft enough to be pliable. Then you have a great S'mores.

            Been there, done that, dozens and dozens of times. My method: open the Graham packs to air the night before use. Set the Hersey bars near the campfire so that the radian heat softens them. Then toast your marshmallows and make your S'mores. If you doubt my method—try it once just once and you will become a believer.  ;-)

            GA

            1. Readmikenow profile image96
              Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Put me down as someone who is not a food segregationist!

              I believe in the s'mores brown, black and white joining together to create something incredible.

              It's the American way.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Hmm.  Would you approve of white chocolate, or dark, in a s'more?  Or must it be the brown kind?  Would pink or green marshmallows be acceptable?

                https://www.amazon.com/Ziyad-Halal-Mars … NrPXRydWU=

                1. Readmikenow profile image96
                  Readmikenowposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  We in the S'mores loving community openly respect the diversity S'mores can provide our community.  We believe strongly in a S'mores lovers right to create the S'mores of their choice. Freedom to create the S'mores of your choice is a hallmark of our community!

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Freedom, yes.  Just keep it behind closed doors so that the rest of can enjoy properly made marshmallows in peace, not having to look at your disgusting abomination.  Not having to be a part of the destruction of the perfection of a perfectly done marshmallow.

              2. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Okay, you're down.

                GA

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)