Democrats who think for themselves are punished by other Democrats

1. 94

   Readmikenowposted 3 years ago

   Two Democratic reps under attack by their own party after praising President Trump
   
   “If only it were a joke or somehow funny, but it’s not.  If you even mention President Trump in a positive manner while serving as a Democrat politician, prepare to be walked off the proverbial pirate ship’s plank and your career dies a horrible death.
   Recently, two Democratic US Representatives, both of whom happen to be black, have recently talked about President Trump in a positive light. The reaction of the Democratic party and voter base has been astonishing, if not sickening.
   Kyle Olson of Brietbart reported that Michigan Democrats are actually considering a formal reprimand or censure of Representative Karen Whitsett (D – Detroit) after she praised President Trump and criticized Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer over each leader’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
   
   https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/two … RnfaIBeUfU

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Party solidarity (formally termed "Partisanship") has a far higher priority than the country, state or the people.  Just as the people are infants, unable to reason or care for themselves and thus require politicians to do so, politicians are but toddlers, unable to make decisions for themselves and thus require party leaders to do so.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely, they are operating under the belief (misguided or not) that they will reclaim power (Senate & Presidency) in 2020.
      
      When they do so, they will be ready to shut down all dissenters, "re-educate" those who try and oppose them, remove all real competition to their power.
      
      This is a necessity to move America forward toward the Agenda 2030 goals of International Authorities claiming control and superceding national and state government authority.
      
      This is also why the Democratic party has openly championed in their debates issues like Open Borders, Gun Control, Universal Pay and Healthcare, not because these topics are popular with most Americans, but because these are hard goals set forth in Agenda 2030 and this is ultimately what they will work to accomplish.
      
      This is also why the effort to denigrate Trump and destroy those who support him has been constant since before he was even sworn in, it is clear he opposes these efforts (as was clearly evident in his speech to the UN) and they will do anything to get him out of the way.
      
      Do a search on:
      Unsealed Documents CONFIRM FBI Plot Against Trump Staff
      FBI Documents show Agents Sought To TRAP Michael Flynn
      FBI Documents Show Comey Protected Clinton
      New Emails on Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Meeting Prove FBI Cover up
      
      The FBI has left a trail of breadcrumbs as to what went on and why, in their efforts to derail Trump, and protect Clinton. They lost that battle, but the war wages on, and they will likely do anything or sacrifice anyone to derail Trump from winning 2020.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Are you saying Trump doesn't cause a lot of his own problems, Ken? Do you think this has something to do with his falling poll numbers, or because of the dislike for him by those of us on the left? His mouth is his worst enemy...

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            He causes his problems with the positions he takes.
            
            For example, his insistence to put America first is a real and goes counter to what efforts the UN, BIS, BIA, IMF, WB, and International Corporations have been striving towards for decades.
            
            His positions are in direct opposition to Agenda 2030 (which happens to be the very positions the Democrats were advocating during their debates), and he is directly opposed to allowing China to supplant America on the global stage.
            
            This alone aligns some of the most powerful forces in the world today against him.  From billionaires like Soros, Bloomberg, and Steyer who have contributed hundreds of millions to various non-profits and political campaigns to oppose him... to nations like China who are far more intrusive in our elections and campaigns than Russia could ever hope to be.
            
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkzvMq4l2SI
            
            
            
            There are two types that loathe Trump, based on politics alone... those that want to usher in drastic change in America be they Globalists, Communists, or loyalists to foreign powers (China, Russia, etc.).
            
            And those that believe everything they are told about him by the likes of CNN, MSNBC, etc. as they have painted the man to be worse than Hitler and have advocated that position without relent for 4 years now.
            
            
            
            That is true enough.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Wesman Todd Shawposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Does that remind you of yourself, Randy?

               replyreport
      2. 81

         Wesman Todd Shawposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I'd much rather see a civil war than see open borders and gun control democrats in power.

         replyreport
2. 90

   Kenna McHughposted 3 years ago

   People who judge people by identity are not very sane. An individual who can differentiate is rare but very able.

   replyreport
3. 79

   Credence2posted 3 years ago

   But, is it not true that Republicans that think for themselves are punished by other Republicans?
   
   The late Senator John McCain comes to mind, or perhaps we might consider the unfavorable reviews given to Mitt Romney as of late?
   
   Is this not just another partisan shtick?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Of course, what did you expect from Mike?  He knows everything about a liberal's mind, but not much about a conservative's.

      replyreport
   2. 94

      Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think John McCain or Mitt Romney were threatened with "formal reprimand or censure." for what they did.  This is public punishment that will be part of the official record of the House.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I guess this explains all of those people who were lambasted by Trump and other conservatives when they testified against him in the impeachment proceedings. They were punished and lost their positions for doing their patriotic duty.
         
         Or was this the Left?

         replyreport
      2. 79

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Six of one and half dozen of the other, Mike. The way the Republicans savagely behave when one of theirs get out of lockstep certainly do not make them  into relative "independent thinkers", not by a long shot.
         
         I don't think the idea of formal reprimand is going nowhere as the men involved have done nothing wrong.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            "I don't think the idea of formal reprimand is going nowhere as the men involved have done nothing wrong."
            
            You are 1,000 percent correct. One representative was a woman and the other was a man. 
            
            So, one representative spoke about her own personal experience.  She was being honest.
            
            “Whitsett gained fame in the media, but drew ire from Democrats as she publicly praised and met with the president concerning his recommendation to use hydroxychloroquine, saying that the drug touted by the president saved her life after she’d been diagnosed with Covid-19.”
            
            Another Representative shared his opinion.  The democrats didn't like it, but his constitutes supported him.
            
            “Another representative who has endured an immediate firestorm for their statements and actions is Vernon Jones (D – Lithonia).  He initially tendered his resignation over the nuclear-level blowup that resulted after his praise and endorsement for the president, but with amazing support from his constituents, Jones says he will now stay on to fight against “left-wing bullies.”
            
            So, the Democrats like Maxine Waters, Shirley Jackson Lee, Nancy Pelosi and others can say the most hate-filled false rhetoric and the Democrat party is okay with it.  Two Democrats share their opinion or speak about their personal experience, and the Democrat party wants to punish them.
            
            Does anyone see how really messed up it is to do something like this?

            replyreport
      3. 86

         Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, Mitt Romney being left out of the CPAC conference wasn't censure.  Just another example of the right's hypocrisy on full display.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I hope you realize not being asked to speak at a conference is far different from formal reprimand and censure.
            
            Not being asked to speak at a conference is not censure at all, it just means those in charge of the conference had better speakers.  Besides, Romney has spoken at CPAC before.  There really isn't a connection between the two.  I do admire you for trying.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I hope you understand not being invited is a form of censure.  I do admire you for your failure to understand the English language.
               
               https://www.businessinsider.com/matt-sc … ote-2020-2

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Good try...now attach the word "formal" and you may be getting warm.  CPAC cannot formally censure anyone.  Romney is not an employee of CPAC.  They are an organization who holds conferences and that's it. They are not an arm of the government.  Have you ever been to a CPAC conference?  Many people don't go when they are invited.  This is far different from a formal censure and reprimand from a governmental body.  Geeeze!

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Now go look at the title of this thread...Democrats who think for themselves are punished by other Democrats.
                     
                     I guess in your warped version of reality, a conservative who does not get invited to attend what is billed as the 'largest and most influential gathering of conservatives in the world' is not punishment.  The fact that the chairman says he fears for Romney's physical safety is a reward too.

                     replyreport
4. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 3 years ago

   60,000 + dead because of his incompetence. I'd question anyone who praised him. How many days until Jan. 20, 2021?

   replyreport
   1. 89

      GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "60,000 + dead because of his incompetence."
      
      And "anyone" might question you for making such a statement. Do you really think a perfect national response would have resulted in zero deaths?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Did she say they would be zero deaths with a better response, Gus? Are you reading between the lines now?

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Nope, I read her exact words. "60,000 + dead because of his incompetence." She blamed all 60,000+ deaths on Trump's incompetence.
            
            Did you read "between the lines" and understand that she only meant some of those deaths were due to his incompetence?
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I agree with you on this one. Her statement did blame all 60,000+ deaths on Trump. I view her as a reasonable person based on other posts she has made, so I think she might clarify but, yeah, as it stands, that is what she said.

               replyreport
            2. 89

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               To paraphrase, still waiting for you to answer the question Randy; did you read between the lines of her comment to understand she didn't mean what she wrote?
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Do you not think that ignoring intelligence briefs about the coming pandemic,  allowing members of his administration to remove key positions responsible for identifying and responding to such a pandemic, and misleading the American public about the severity of the issue because he does not understand the science behind it has lead to an increase in fatalities?
                  
                  All the deaths was a dumb statement, but certainly an intelligent man like yourself has to concede that Trump's lack of action and misleading statements has led to this being much worse than it should have been. 
                  
                  I don't remember the economy cratering under H1N1 or Ebola.  Why not?  Because there was action taken early and our leadership trusted intelligence and the science.  Clearly, that didn't happen here.
                  
                  Here is the latest idiocy:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-slams- … 50117.html
                  Trump blames Obama Administration for not leaving him tests for a virus that did not exist yet.  Why they didn't look into the future to design the specific test for this virus is beyond all of us Democrats.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Overall, America's response to the pandemic has been reasonable.  Some things could have been better, some probably went too far, but the overall response has been reasonable given the information and tools we had to work with.
                     
                     Before you claim that Trump's response was totally inadequate, that his efforts cost thousands of lives, you might want to consider Sweden's response, which was basically to ignore it all.  And they have a lower infection rate, per capita, than the US - which one was better?

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        America's response was extremely delayed.  The warnings were there and were ignored, and Trump's administration hindered the response by removing people dedicated to directing a swift response.  Trump has pushed false information out and often contradicts himself and the medical professionals.  He's been, and continues to be, a disaster.
                        
                        Sweden did take a different approach, but they did not ignore it all.  They took many important steps, while aiming to keep businesses open.  Death rates are higher there than in the US.
                        https://qz.com/1842183/sweden-is-taking … -covid-19/

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           The warnings were there, were they?
                           
                           Jan. 21, Dr. Fauci: "This is not a major threat to the people of the United States and this is not something that the citizens of the United States should be worried about right now,” Fauci said during an interview with Newsmax’s Greg Kelly." 
                           
                           Feb. 26, Dr. Fauci: “When you have a pandemic that involves multiple countries, travel restrictions become almost irrelevant because you can’t keep out the entire world,” Fauci said during an interview with CNBC News."  (Now he applauds our restrictions)
                           
                           Feb. 29, Dr. Fauci: “Right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you’re doing on a day-by-day basis,” Fauci said in response to a question about changing lifestyle habits. “Right now the risk is still low, but this could change.”
                           
                           March 9, Dr. Fauci: “If you are a healthy young person, there is no reason if you want to go on a cruise ship, go on a cruise ship,” Fauci told reporters at a White House briefing."
                           
                           And so on.  It's real easy to ignore that Trump got many different versions of what was happening, and to ignore any that don't show him as making bad judgement calls because he didn't take the advice that turned out more correct.  We all make errors in predicting the outcome of a novel occurrence, even our top people.
                           
                           Yes, the death rate is slightly higher in Sweden.  But the infection rate is considerably lower.  Is that because they aren't treating the sick appropriately?  Does it mean their population is more susceptible to dying from it?  I don't know, which is why I mentioned the infection rate.
                           
                           And while Sweden took a few steps, they were nothing compared to what the US is doing.  Starting with social distancing, stay-at-home and business closures.  So which was the better response? 
                           
                           https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 … us-threat/

                           replyreport
               2. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I understood what she meant to say, Gus. Did you think she meant all the deaths were due to Trump's incompetence?

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     That's what she said. Are you now an advocate for interpreting words for what you think was the intended meaning when it contradicts the stated meaning?
                     
                     A lot of folks around here have a problem with others "putting words in their mouth."
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Whatever Gus....

                        replyreport
         2. 96

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            No between the lines necessary: her statement was exceedingly plain that all 60,000 are his fault.

            replyreport
      2. 94

         Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I suppose using this logic, obama is responsible for the thousands of deaths that occurred during the h1n1 pandemic.

         replyreport
   2. 81

      Wesman Todd Shawposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      LOL. You must be kidding. Everyone knows that if you die of a stroke, have the CHINESE virus, even with no symptoms of it - they mark the death (completely incorrectly) as death by CHINESE virus.
      
      I can hardly wait to cast my straight republican ticket vote in November. Trump is the greatest POTUS of my lifetime, and the only one to have ever kept any campiagn promises.

      replyreport
5. 89

   GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

   What I think is that your first paragraph is presumptuous and that any answer I might offer would be equally presumptuous.
   
   I don't remember enough about the H1N1 or ebola issues to answer that question either. Do you know of the early actions that negated the need for a national lockdown then? What are the differences between the three viruses?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      An interesting paragraph I came across.  Be aware, though, that I haven't been able to verify it at all.
      
      "If anyone is still wondering why Covid10 is 'different' from other viruses:
      "“This is the only disease in the last 100 years that has gone from not being in the top 75 causes of death to becoming the number one cause of death in this country every day,” Osterholm said. (Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of a group of infectious disease experts)"
      
      If true, and I generally trust the FB poster where I got it, it says quite a bit.
      
      *edit* This rather confirms the same story:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health … li=BBnb7Kz

      replyreport
   2. 86

      Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      'Do you know of the early actions that negated the need for a national lockdown then?'
      
      Yes, there are plenty of differences, especially pertaining to Ebola.  It's worth the time to research if you're interested to know how an organized government is supposed to function in the time of a potential global pandemic.
      
      It will open your eyes to the failures we've had during Covid-19.

      replyreport
6. 86

   Valeantposted 3 years ago

   At the beginning of January, Azar was notified by Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about the virus, which was at the time spreading through the Chinese city of Wuhan. Azar then notified the White House and sent a report to the National Security Council, The Washington Post reported.
   
   Azar first briefed Trump about the threat the virus posed on Jan. 18 while the president was at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, according to both the Post and The New York Times.
   
   Then, on Jan. 30, Azar briefed the president again on the virus, this time warning that it had the potential to become a pandemic, the Times reported. Trump reportedly told Azar that he was being alarmist.
   
   By the end of January and beginning of February, a majority of the intelligence contained in Trump's daily briefings was about the coronavirus, The Post reported last month. At the same time that he was getting those briefings, the president was publicly downplaying the risk of the virus.
   
   "The system was blinking red," one US official with access to the intelligence told The Post. "Donald Trump may not have been expecting this, but a lot of other people in the government were — they just couldn't get him to do anything about it."

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      What would you have done as president?  Early on, say in January?
      
      Would you have instituted a travel shutdown, against the wishes and demands of the rest of the world, as Trump did?
      
      Would you have told the CDC to find a test, as Trump did?
      
      Would you have shut down the country, causing tens of thousands of people to lose their businesses, homes and other things they worked a lifetime for, based on reports from China of a new, unknown disease?  A government know to be untruthful?
      
      Would you have forced GM and other businesses to immediately re-tool their factories to produce ventilators and masks that we didn't know if we would need or not?
      
      Would you have printed Trillions of dollars to hand out, knowing the inflationary effect?
      
      Would you repeatedly tell the American public that we would soon face massive shortages in toilet paper and food, or would you present a calming manner?
      
      Would you have immediately shut down all meat packing plants, leaving people to eat their pets?  Would you have forced farmers to forego planting crops or raising livestock?
      
      Would you have shut down all nursing homes, preventing people from visiting their loved ones?
      
      Assuming you could have forced Congress to agree with your actions (unlikely) what would you have done, in January or even February, given that you had conflicting reports of the dangers we might face?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Perhaps following this would've been the correct choice, Dan?
         
         https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume … aybook.pdf

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            And perhaps not.  Same question to you; what would you have done differently, as president, if presented with the same information and circumstances?
            
            (And why does the tab show Chinese characters when I pull up your link?  Is the site in China?)

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Returning a question to you...do you have any idea of the steps that were taken to prevent the Ebola virus from affecting the United States?

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Nope.  I answered, now will you?

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I also answered.  I would have run the playbook that Obama ran during Ebola.  The one where only a few cases made it to the US.

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        How about the playbook that obama ran during the H1N1 flu where he didn't declare a national emergency until over 1,000 people had died from it.  Nothing closed down.

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           H1N1 started in Mexico, but was believed to be the United States, not abroad, as cases emerged in California in early April.  That's why I compare the government response more to Ebola that also emerged outside the United States.
                           
                           The Obama Administration declared the virus a public health emergency on April 26 with only 20 cases and no deaths, in the same month it became known.
                           
                           On that same day, the CDC distributed 11 million regimens of anti-viral drugs and personal protective equipment including over 39 million respiratory protection devices (masks and respirators), gowns, gloves and face shields, to states (allocations were based on each state’s population).
                           
                           A request for 7.65 billion from Congress 2 days later to start developing vaccines and other measures.
                           
                           The WHO didn't declare H1N1 a pandemic until June 11.
                           
                           By October 5 (just six months later), a vaccine was being administered and everyone had access to it by the end of December.
                           
                           So while it wasn't declared a national emergency until October 24, there were certainly steps being taken by the administration and it wasn't downplayed like Trump - 'it'll just go away on its own.'  Your statement intimating that the Obama Administration hadn't taken decisive action pertaining to H1N1 was a bit misleading.
                           
                           As for things not closing down, H1N1 had a mortality rate of just .02%.  Covid-19 is around 2% now, but will likely change once it becomes more known how many actually had the virus in the future. 
                           
                           https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-pa … e-flu.html

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              Wait.  An anti-viral drug was being distributed by the millions...without knowing if it was effective or not?  Does this remind you of Trump's suggestions for hydroxychloroquine?
                              
                              And a vaccine was also distributed without testing (you apparently cannot perform necessary tests in less than nearly a year)?  Aren't we up in arms over such things now, blaming Trump for any suggestion that we do such a thing?
                              
                              Then, with Covid 19 having a (reported) mortality rate of over 200 times that of H1N1 we're now incensed that we require closings?

                              replyreport
            2. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               It's stored in cloud is all I know. Did Trump follow the guidelines? It's concerning pandemics, among other illnesses, and the way to approach them.

               replyreport
   2. 89

      GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "Then, on Jan. 30, Azar briefed the president again on the virus, this time warning that it had the potential to become a pandemic, the Times reported. Trump reportedly told Azar that he was being alarmist.
      "
      
      Yet one day later, on Jan. 31 Pres. Trump issued travel restrictions on China. It sounds like he was taking Azar's warning seriously.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         At a House subcommittee hearing on the coronavirus on Feb. 5, Ron Klain, White House Ebola response coordinator under the Obama administration, took issue with the characterization of the travel restrictions as a travel “ban.”
         
         “We don’t have a travel ban,” Klain said. “We have a travel Band-Aid right now. First, before it was imposed, 300,000 people came here from China in the previous month. So, the horse is out of the barn.”
         
         “There’s no restriction on Americans going back and forth,” Klain said. “There are warnings. People should abide by those warnings. But today, 30 planes will land in Los Angeles that either originated in Beijing or came here on one-stops, 30 in San Francisco, 25 in New York City. Okay? So, unless we think that the color of the passport someone carries is a meaningful public health restriction, we have not placed a meaningful public health restriction.”
         
         Indeed, on Jan. 24, a week before the travel restrictions, the CDC confirmed two cases of the novel coronavirus in the U.S. from people who had returned from Wuhan, China, where the outbreak began.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            “We don’t have a travel ban,” Klain said. “We have a travel Band-Aid right now. First, before it was imposed, 300,000 people came here from China in the previous month. So, the horse is out of the barn.”
            
            This makes good sense and is excellent reasoning for those that wish to end the stay-at-home before we should.  After all, the horse came out of the barn months ago; there is no reason to limit human contact any more.
            
            Or at least it makes good sense if you don't care about limiting the spread and only care about yourself.  Or about politics and the desperate desire to somehow show that Trump did nothing to control the spread of Covid 19.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               'Or about politics and the desperate desire to somehow show that Trump did nothing to control the spread of Covid 19.'
               
               Showing the mistakes that were made, specifically, not taking the threat seriously until it had already reached the United States, is not the same as one making a claim that Trump did nothing.  But once it was already here, downplaying it to the American public certainly didn't help control the spread either.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  What mistakes?  Not locking down the borders and airports to anyone (American or not) wishing to enter the country?  Somehow I very much doubt he could have done that - the lawsuits would have been immediate.

                  replyreport
      2. 86

         Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         The U.S. government was slow to understand how much coronavirus was spreading from Europe, which helped drive the acceleration of outbreaks across the nation, a top health official said Friday.
         
         Limited testing and delayed travel alerts for areas outside China contributed to the jump in U.S. cases starting in late February, said Dr. Anne Schuchat, the No. 2 official at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
         
         In her article, Schuchat noted that nearly 2 million travelers arrived in the U.S. from Italy and other European countries during February. The U.S. government didn't block travel from there until March 11.
         
         “The extensive travel from Europe, once Europe was having outbreaks, really accelerated our importations and the rapid spread,” she told the AP. ”I think the timing of our travel alerts should have been earlier."
         
         She also noted in the article that more than 100 people who had been on nine separate Nile River cruises during February and early March had come to the U.S. and tested positive for the virus, nearly doubling the number of known U.S. cases at that time.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Do you believe that had Trump demanded a lockdown of NYC in January it would have happened?  Because I certainly don't.  Just as I don't believe he could have prevented Americans from coming home.
            
            Individual states, of course, are another matter.  I still struggle with the constitutional legality of either banning interstate travel OR quarantining anyone entering the state, but it is being done.

            replyreport
7. 86

   Valeantposted 3 years ago

   I might have followed the playbook that worked so well with the Ebola pandemic.  The one where only a few cases made their way to the United States because it was taken very seriously by a leader who sent American doctors out to attack it in the international community so that it didn't affect our daily lives.
   
   Seriously, go look at how the US handled that and compare it to how Trump has handled this one.  It's night and day.
   
   And I definitely wouldn't have tried to talk science if I were a functioning illiterate.
   

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Then you cannot list anything you would have done differently in the early stages, given the information we had?  Best you can say is you might have followed a generic playbook that did not address our specific circumstances.
      
      Doesn't sound like you have any real grip at all.

      replyreport
8. 81

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 3 years ago

   I'll leave this here:
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      What sort of doctor is Candace Owens?

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Here's what the actual doctors think on that conspiracy...
         
         https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ … hony-fauci

         replyreport
      2. 81

         Wesman Todd Shawposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         More of one than you.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            She's a Right wing nutjob. Who cares what she thinks other than Trump apologists?

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Wesman Todd Shawposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               You're a left wing nutjob. Who cares what you think other than communists?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't post idiotic memes no one takes seriously. That would be you...

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Wesman Todd Shawposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     You're the exact sort of person my memes make fun of. I don't expect you to see them with anything but a commie's eyes.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm a "commie" because I don't want to have a dictator as POTUS? And because your memes are moronic?  Okay! 

                        replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I would really like to see some proof of 2).  I see the claim a lot, but not a shred of proof.
      
      And, of course, that means "more" than any extra costs from weeks in the hospital rather than days, use of ventilators rather than not, etc.  More than the extra costs can justify, in other words.

      replyreport
9. 81

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 3 years ago

   Here's another fine look at the mass media, which everyone knows is completely biased for the hellish left wing party.
   
   It's almost enough to cause one to wonder just what sort of persons own and control the fake news media.
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Most of us can discern between actual news services who aim to put out credible news and those who are more deceitful without painting the entire media with the same stroke as the outliers.
      
      In this case, the NY Post did use a photo from Jacksonville while the Facebook post had a different headline, but also discussed the beach openings in Florida, hence the same photo.
      
      https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/one-p … -websites/
      
      Solid conspiracy theory to back up your warped view of the media though.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      DUH! Photos are shared by many news services. The photo on the left doesn't claim it was taken in LA. Fooled you though!

      replyreport
10. 94

    Readmikenowposted 3 years ago

    

    replyreport
    1. 96

       wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

       Our country is replete with laws designed to protect us from others around us.  Drunk driving laws (all vehicle laws for that matter).  Health standards for restaurants.  Fire codes for buildings and occupancy limits.  OSHA and it's cousins.  Leash laws for dogs.  Airline inspections of planes and TSA checks.  Firearm usage within city limits.  Pollution controls and limits for cars.  No burning regulations, including fireplaces. 
       
       Are safety rules concerning COVID, helping to prevent your actions from harming others (however unintentional) any different?

       replyreport
       1. 94

          Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Can we agree there is a difference between rules and laws?
          
          A law has been debated and approved by different governmental bodies.
          
          It seems a Covid-19 rule is dictated by whatever a governor believes is necessary. It doesn't have to be debated, discussed or even voted upon. These "rules" are all over the place and not universal.
          
          South Dakota didn't lock down at all.  Michigan had their governor telling people they couldn't even purchase paint because of Covid-19.
          
          Bad analogy.

          replyreport
          1. 96

             wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

             I don't see it as a bad analogy at all: the examples were of laws (or rules) designed to protect people from bad actions of others.  Not things like murder or assault, but things that were not intended to cause harm.  So are the COVID rules, and I can't see that it matters whether an emergency rule (enacted under the laws governing emergency actions by governors) or a law debated by congress. 
             
             No, the rules are not identical, but then neither are the circumstances.  Years ago, when states began enacting drunk driving laws, there were several holdouts (Montana, as I recall, and Texas among others)  Those states, with their wide open roads and little traffic, found no reason to limit the freedoms of their citizens (and the people didn't want it either, regardless of any death toll), and some held out for years and years.  Very similar to COVID rules, where some states are using federal guidelines and some are not.

             replyreport
             1. 94

                Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                I still believe rules are different from laws.
                
                There is no uniformity in the Covid rules.  In many cases, they make no sense.  In some states they are protesting and battling against their state's covid rules and in other states they are not. 
                
                There are guidelines, but it is a choice of whether to follow them.

                replyreport
                1. 96

                   wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                   But Mike, with 50 different states, 50 different circumstances, 50 different political policies and 50 different populations of people, how could they ever all be the same?  That's like complaining that not all states have the same sales tax and some of them don't have one at all.

                   replyreport
11. 81

    Wesman Todd Shawposted 3 years ago

    The great stonetoss. <3
    
    
    
    
    

    replyreport
    1. 94

       Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

       Excellent!

       replyreport
       1. 96

          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Now this one IS good, for I see our COVID response as a very slippery slope and as a teaching tool for politicians wishing to exert more control.

          replyreport