Stanford study: Trump rallies led to 30,000 COVID cases, 700 deaths
- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago
0https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article … IrUb-S5AdQ
I don't know about you, but I would feel horribly guilty and responsible if I engaged in a non-essential activity, in a way that ignored scientific and medical advice, and caused just one death, not to mention 700.
Why do you think Trump, and the supporters who attend rallies and spread the disease to others do not seem to feel responsible or guilty for their role in these deaths?
Does it bother you that a leader of a civilized nation conducts himself this way?First I would have to see the data and the reasoning process to come up with the results.
Beyond that, if you were a restaurant owner would you feel bad that you likely contributed to the spread? If you owned a shopping mall and opened it? Would you feel bad if you participated in a BLM protest? If you as pastor led your congregation in worship and song? (https://www.opb.org/news/article/easter … -outbreak/)
The point being that making the opportunity available to people to gather and spread the virus has been, and continues to be, done by millions of people every day. But you want to condemn one single person for doing what those millions continue to do. Shouldn't you be beating your breast over the unnecessary activities taking place all over the country?If I ignored scientific and medical advice, yes, I would feel guilty.
ALL of those things mentioned, along with thousands of others, are ignoring "scientific and medical advice". Unless you are sitting in your house, not going out at all except for groceries (unless you could get delivery) so are you.
We are ALL leaving our homes for "unnecessary" reasons; even to work could be called "unnecessary" as we still have millions out of work and still making it.Really? Medical experts, testifying in their specialty, are advising that it's OK to join protests, walk the mall and sing at crowded churches?
It's only really bad to the left if orange man involved.
The part that is not true is that we are all ignoring medical advice. You are trying to distract from the fact that Trump and his supporters who attend rallies without masks and without social distancing are knowingly spreading disease and death. That is not the same as a person who, say, heads to the coast and wears a mask and avoids people.
I will agree that a person who walks the mall without a mask and without social distancing could also be responsible for spreading the virus.
But, the president has a special obligation to lead by example or, at the very least, to do no harm, wouldn't you say?So why is Trump making rallies with thousands of people without masks if specialists advise that it is not OK to join rallies?
He does so, because he does not listen to specialists. You are contradicting yourself Wilderness.
Stanford has published a number of Covid-19 studies that turned out to be false or misleading.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog … d-19-study
Was your study peer reviewed? I doubt it.
From the article: "Research coming out of Stanford and published at top scientific journals is more likely to be speculative and razzle-dazzle than research at middle tier institutions and in middle tier journals, just because Stanford is only likely to hire and promote people who prioritize that type of work."
Stanford is notorious for publishing articles that are less than candid. Give a researcher enough grant money and he will publish anything you want.
Here is another article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieport … 1073e71517
The list goes on and on.None of those articles address this particular study. All academic studies should be examined with a skeptical eye, for sure,
Care to do that specifically with this one? So far, nothing you have shared or stated is relevant to this study.I asked you a direct question which you failed to answer.
I take it you do not know if the article is peer reviewed and if so, what rating it has been given.
No, I do not care to do your homework for you. You chose the study and you can back it up.
And yes, it is relevant that all Covid studies coming out of Stanford are less than candid.
Since when do conservatives care about peer review? If they did, there'd be no argument about global warming.
Your statement shows a lack of understanding regarding consensus among scientists, not to mention peer review. But, I am not surprised.
Would you mind explaining how his two-sentence statement shows a a lack of understanding regarding consensus among scientists, not to mention peer review?
This is your opportunity to educate both me and crankalicious, since my knowledge of the nature of scientific consensus does not conflict with crank's statement.She can't. When it comes to global warming, conservatives consistently rely on people who are not experts and "studies" that are not peer-reviewed and ignore those vast numbers of studies that are peer-reviewed and establish the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from man-made sources.
That they suddenly want to cite lack of peer review on a statement about COVID spread is humorous at best.This introduction, by scientists, explains scientific consensus and peer review. I'll leave it up to you and PP to educate yourselves by reading if you care to, which I highly doubt.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ipcc-w … C2SXcn3Y6E
What bothers me are the crowds of rioters and looters which gravitate from one democratically-run city to the next. They obviously don't care about anyone other than themselves...as they take advantage of businesses when they are most vulnerable, as they stuff their trunks with stolen property, they aren't thinking about what they may be spreading in the process. How many people have they infected along the way? How many of them are super-spreaders? If Stanford hasn't considered this study, perhaps they should.
Of course that's what bothers you.
Care to comment on the actual topic of the thread?I think it's legitimate to question whether protesters are spreading the virus. Those are big crowds.
However, when your president encourages crowds of people and encourages them not to wear masks, that's a different thing entirely. He's the president. He's supposed to be smart. He's supposed to provide leadership. He's supposed to keep Americans safe.
Interesting study, although it yet has not been vetted, and the study has not yet been peer-reviewed by experts in public health, epidemiology, and infectious diseases to determine how valid the study’s methods, results, and conclusions may be or has it been published in a scientific journal.
(Reuters) - Stanford University economists estimate that President Donald Trump’s campaign rallies have resulted in 30,000 additional confirmed cases of COVID-19, and likely led to more than 700 deaths overall, according to a paper posted online this weekend. The word estimate tells me Reuters is being careful not to add credence to the study.
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-ele … NKBN27H1IG
However, I must agree the rallies were unnecessary and could have most certainly provided a venue to spread COVID. I think Trump was careless with American's health, and it was a poor decision to hold huge rallies.
For the sake of argument, should have Stanford considered doing a study on the three months of daily protests that occurred in several Democratic states this past summer? These protests were pretty much nightly, in Portland we had a common of protesters living in a park for many months. I would surmise that the summer of love would make the rally stats look minuscule to the months of nightly protest.
It does bother me that Trump held his huge rallies, it also bothers me that we had over three months of protesters gathering nightly in huge crowds. I guess the people that attended Trump's rallies had as much right to support their candidate for president by what one could just rename as peaceful rallies. Maybe it all comes down to given rights. Supporters of any given groups should have equal rights, should they not?Yes, of course. One very big difference between the protests and Trump rallies is the level of mask wearing among attendees.
If 10% wear a mask as opposed to near 0 I don't see much difference in a large crowd. But of course I'm speaking of the evening and night time riots, not the (mostly) peaceful protests during the day.
Yes, that is true, it did appear that most protesters wore masks. That would even be a more interesting study. It would be very interesting to know did masks help prevent the spread of COVID in large crowds or not?
In my opinion, large crowds would certainly increase the spread of COVID. It would appear there are two sides and both are dug in, and falling back on their rights. One group, feel they have the right to demand all citizens use mitigations to protect them from COVID. The other feel they have the right to return to normal without mitigations. All comes down to individual rights. I would think any kind of mandate mitigations will be looked at as impeding 14th Amendment which protects individual rights. Stepping on one's liberty may not go over well.
The behaviour of President Trump is structural. He does not trust science. He does not believe in climate change, an even bigger challenge then COVID. Accoerding to him COVID will just go away...
Trump showed in this crisis time that he simply can not handle the job. He is good with words, but as soon something needs to be done he is nowhere to be seen. No action, no plan.
I feel sorry for you guys and hope that the US starts to act normal again soon. As the last 4 years there was more division and arguments then never before. The tweets of the president def, did not help to solve it. Trump is not a bridge builder, more a chasm builder.The level of support for Trump from people I thought I knew has been disheartening to say the least. I hope we rid ourselves of this divisive, incompetent con man this election. If not, I fear my beloved country will never get back to competence and decency. I am so mortified that the rest of the world has also had to deal with the malignant narcissist's nonsense.
You know, Peter, it is giving him more credit than he deserves. Trump is not "good at words" either.
When he speaks, his true intent is always quite evident on the surface. A man with the finesse and subtlety of a busted chain saw.LOL, many agree with you, but his supporters seem to be quite mesmerized.
Panther, his supporters are just drones not programmed to think outside the box that Trump had designed for them.
I will agree that those who attend rallies without masks and chant "Lock her up" and "Fire Fauci" have fallen for the con.
This statement seeks to blanket a group and could be taken as an insult by those that don't agree with your sentiment. I support the President and find your comment offensive.
Ya think Sharlee, you are so nice! This 'discussion' has gone the direction it is meant to go, when driven by the left, the insults come out and right into the ditch it goes.
No offense meant, but, at least around here based on observation virtually everything he says is willingly accepted, regardless of its actual content. Trump has become virtually synonymous with the Republican Party.
What I say is no more offensive than "blanket statements" routinely made about the Left, here and elsewhere about its candidates and supporters.No, you are actually wrong many here that are clearly conservative call Trump out when they find he says something that is offensive or illogical. I look for complete context in the president statements before deciding to support them or not. I would also think it appropriate that Trump is certainly synonymous with the Republican party... He is at this point the head of our party.
And calling anyone or any group "drones" is an insult. Hopefully, others take note of your view, one can pick up subtle hints to one's personality through comments. In my view the statement was discriminatory.
Oh well, the cat is out of the bag.So, you are fine with his "Lock her up" chants directed at Gov. Wittmer?
What about his wish to count no more ballots after election day?
His defense of Kyle Rittenhouse?
His use of the term "patriots" to describe the Trump supporters who derailed a Biden appearance with their highway bullying?
His call to right-wing militias to be "poll watchers"?
That is what you're voting for and it's just a tip of the ice berg.It is clear you did not comprehend my comment or I may not have been clear enough. If the president says or does something I find offensive, I certainly have not and would not defend his words or actions. I have made it clear I support his job performance and disagree with some that post here. In regards to your list of questions. The chant 'Lock her up" I find it crude, and unnecessary. I don't think this form of speech does nothing. In fact, I see little sense in protesting. In Michigan, we have enough signature to recall our Governors. The signatures at this point are being vetted. Shouting lock her up does little to solve problems, using the law in my view is a better path.
Counting ballots, I think we need a bit more time due to the pandemic to count votes.
I have watched the Rittenhouse videos and feel they speak loudly that he was defending himself. Just my view and I am very sure he will receive a fair trial
.I have not heard Trump call for the right-wing militia to poll watch. I have heard him put out a plea to the general public and at his rallies first debate "to "go into the polls and watch very carefully" It's clear that over the past months: militias and far-left militants have become a very visible symbol of polarized America, and have been deploying themselves with increasing belligerence at protests and other social events.
I don't in any respect feel that Joe Biden's vision for America is a sound one that would lead us forward. My truth is I see a very frail somewhat confused mand that has a history of no real accomplishments. He has chosen a VP that's views are offensive to me. I voted for Trump, due to his accomplishments, he was hired to do a job, in my opinion, he is a man with the ability to solve problems. His demeanor at times offense me. However, I did not hire him for his personality.
So, it's clear we have completely different thought processes, and as you see we disagree widely when it comes to our political views. I can respect your views. I do not feel the need to defend my vote. However, I was glad to address your questions.I was giving you an opportunity to "call him out" as you said you and other conservatives do. Since I don't see any forum conservatives except you doing that (on occasion), and sometimes GA (when pressed), I have a hard time seeing your statement that "many" do it as accurate.
Also, I would say that a vote for Trump is an acceptance of all of his behavior. You are, in essence, saying that you are willing to give him another four years because nothing he has done do far is so unacceptable to you that you would consider him unfit.I can see where you feel there is some that post here unwilling to see Trump can do no wrong. I have made a note of that fact.
It is true I accept Trump's behavior in lieu of his behavior. I look at the Presidency as a full-time job. A job that has become so much harder over the years. I weigh my choice carefully and have come to put more weight on job performance, and problem-solving. I have come to see over many years that words just have come to mean less, and deeds mean so much more. I look to who will keep to the constitution that offered me a wonderful life. A life where I was given so many opportunities to thrive as did my children. I hope to provide the same opportunities and pride of the American dream to my grandchildren.
So, I guess this is the main reason I have voted for Trump. I have watched the country falter for the last 20 years, and I just feel we must put on the brakes at this point in our history. In my view, the country-leaning left will somewhat destroy all that we have strived to keep special about America.
So, at this point, I have once again two candidates both with flaws. However, I have an incumbent that I feel has done a very good job, his deeds speak louder than his words, his behavior. Yes, his word weighs heavily on my mind. But his work ethic, and clear will to solve problems outweigh his words. You see I have listened to many president's words for many years, well thought out words that in the end were empty promises. Men that in my view let the country falter badly.
In 2016, I had to make a very hard session, and in the end, I feel I voted for the right man.
So, no I do not consider him unfit due to words. His deeds are what sticks out at this point. And yes mistakes have been made, but has not every president made mistakes? In my view, it appears this president has been battered daily for words until many have come to not be able to even recognize his accomplishments.
How to put this... as much as you dislike Trump, and feel he is unfit to be president, I feel the same about Biden. Biden clearly suits your views of a man that speaks to your needs in a president. My needs are different. We are all individuals, and it's fine if you feel one's political views define a person. I look at political views as views that don't define a person. But gives one aspect of a person's individual needs, and thought process.
I hope I have clarified my position in regard to Trump.You don't have to defend yourself.
And I don't think politics define a person. I think that values and character define a person.I was not defending myself, only reaching out to share my view, do to hoping you might see we may just have some other common values, goals, etc... I am always open to answering questions, sharing, as you did by asking questions. I think this kind of reasoning helps bridge the divide. If we don't share the divide will be cemented.
That you don't see anyone complaining or expressing dissatisfaction with Trump is because you don't listen, and because you (and others on these forums) are so wrapped up in his faux pas statements that you can't see beyond your personal dislike. Demanding that if others don't join you on your "Trash Trump" bandwagon, while concentrating on minutia and ignoring his actions taken for the country, means you aren't going to hear it, either.
As far as being "unfit": if I hire a mechanic (Trump) to fix the gasoline leak in my car I don't care if he chews and spits tobacco, dresses inappropriately and curses like a sailor as long as he fixes the leak. On the other hand, hiring a mechanic (Biden) to fix that leak, after he says he will change the oil and poke holes in the brake lines to relieve excess pressure, is NOT someone I want in control of my life at the wheel of that car.
One is "unacceptable" in things that are strictly secondary to fixing my car while the other is completely incapable of doing it and will, in fact, cause enormous damage.
And that is the difference: you want the suave, polished statesman because you will ignore his actual work; I want someone to do the job that needs doing and while I would like that statesman it is strictly secondary to what I need.
It is just my perception, but liberals seem to be far more concerned with appearance than with function, and that is reflected in the hatred of Trump. Appearance is far more important than the actions actually accomplished and the effect on the country, and liberals in general hate that he is not that accomplished, pretty statesman they want to see. His accomplishments are ignored, twisted into failures, credited to someone else or simply reduced to the inconsequential. All that's left, then, is the appearance that liberals find so important.First, I did not say I "don't see anyone complaining or expressing dissatisfaction with Trump."
Second, I do not demand people trash Trump.
Third, your mechanic analogy is not even close to accurately reflecting the situation. Trump is the guy who tells you "I know more about car repair than anyone!" "Only I can fix it!" Then guts your car, takes your money, sues you if you give him a bad review, and calls you a "loser."
Give me a freakin' break.That's what I said: you refuse to acknowledge his very real accomplishments, twisting them into failures rather than the successes they are.
Trump sees unfair trade agreements and fixes them; you ignore it. Trump sees China constantly stealing intellectual property and takes steps to stop it; you ignore it. Trump sees an army of people illegally crossing the border every year and builds a wall to help stem it: you say it doesn't matter. Trump accomplishes a historic peace agreement in the Middle East, something we haven't seen ever, and you pretend it didn't happen. Trump produces the lowest black employment ever and you complain Obama did it. Trump sees punitive rules against business and ends them, producing the lowest unemployment in decades and you again say Obama did it with those same rules that excising them produced the result. Trump takes steps to prevent terrorism from countries that refuse to vet their travelers and you turn it into evil, accusing him of racism (or anti-Muslim if you are a little more careful of your own language).
The list just goes on and on and on of accomplishments you refuse to acknowledge or turn into something evil...while complaining that he is "unfit" because he doesn't talk as you think he should. He is not perfect of course, and he has made errors - notably the failure to endorse masks and distancing - but he has made significant improvements, too. Accomplishments you totally gloss over, saying he can only "ruin the car" and then (with that big mouth) says something you don't want to hear.
"I was giving you an opportunity to "call him out"
"I would say that a vote for Trump is an acceptance of all of his behavior."
These kinds of statements make it pretty clear where you stand on everyone Trashing Trump, and they are but the tip of the iceberg. You have made it very plain that anyone that doesn't join you is to be trashed as well, with comments that if people fail to agree that Trump is evil incarnate then they are little but trash as well (paraphrased).
Jon is a friend of mine. I bet he sums up your view of Trump well:
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/20 … for-trump/Trump supporters have perfected the art of rationalization to epic heights of near perfection.
Sadly, a president's words echo loudly across the nation and world and have far reaching effects and consequences.
But, hey, he chose to ignore all that so he could get his goodies and still sleep at night.To perspectives that differ from yours, I don't think their reasons for supporting Pres. Trump, in spite of . . . are thought of as rationalizations.
For instance:
"Sadly, a president's words echo loudly across the nation and world and have far reaching effects and consequences."
I agree. Pres. Trump isn't the typical, (or desired), symbolic representation of our nation, but, we have to decide which is more important to us and our nation; symbolism or policy decision. We would all be winners if we could have both, but if we can't which is more important to our nation?
I don't like Trump as a man. I want what you seem to want, a statesman-like president that symbolizes the best of America to both its citizens and the world, but . . . the article of Crankalicious' link isn't the first I have seen that presents, in my opinion, a very valid case for prioritizing policy over appearance when you can't have both.
GAI'm sorry, but you are characterizing lies and bullying as merely symbolic. They are actions in and of themselves that are magnified to the nth degree when coming from the POTUS.
I cannot and will not ever agree that this behavior can be ignored in favor of so-called policy. That is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of those who want their goodies without taking responsibility for the harm that comes with it."That is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of those who want their goodies without taking responsibility for the harm that comes with it."
Sounds very much like the liberal policies: we want what we want without consideration (or responsibility) for the harm it will cause in the future."That is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of those who want their goodies without taking responsibility for the harm that comes with it."
"Sounds very much like the liberal policies: we want what we want without consideration (or responsibility) for the harm it will cause in the future."
No difference that I can see...except that it is liberals rather than people actually trying to do the right thing for the country. The right thing, WITH concern for the future rather than just a good feeling today.There is your opinion, liberals are not doing the right thing for the country. That is your opinion and many of us can take that as an insult to progressive minded people. Who are YOU to say who desires to do the right thing for the country?
But that is your opinion. So my opinions can't be considered an attack while your opinions are the absolute correct view of things, rather than what it really is: your opinion.Score one for Credence2. Except for any part that dealt with name-calling, I agree with you Cred. Each side thinks their side is the right one.
I could go on a bit about your too-rigid anti-Right stance, but I won't. It looks like you could use a lull in the fight. ;-)
GAToo rigid of a stance against the Right? They say by overwhelming numbers that the concept of "diversity" is troubling. I am diversity incarnate within this society, how could I be comfortable throwing my lot in with such people?
A rapport between me and the Right, I doubt it, their very ideology excludes my very existence as a citizen here.
I have plenty of fight left, and the Right is a determined and dangerous enemy for me and all that I hold dear..
So, if anything, I will double down on my angst with the pole of American ideological thought.
https://time.com/5628283/trump-tweets-r … e-america/Oh lordy lordy Cred. I only made it a third of the way into your article.
Maybe I need to recognize that you and I see Conservatives, (aka "The Right"), as two different things. But even so, I like my view of what Conservatives are, and want, better than your view of them.
GABut, but, can you see how we can hold a dim view of people who would continue to support a man who declared victory when it clearly wasn't so and is actively trying to halt counting of the citizens' votes? Aren't these the tactics of dictators and tyrants?
Do you really find that much difference between the political posturing of "We've won the election!" and "We will win tonight!" as voting appears to give them the lead everywhere? Or is it just another dig at the President for his exaggerations...the same exaggerations his opponent made but in different words?
As far as halting the count, is there a reason you didn't mention the rest of the story - the reason the halt was sought was that Republicans had no input and no opportunity to look over the shoulder as votes were counted? Isn't that (refusing an opponent the opportunity to be a part of the process) the mark of the dictator and tyrant and something that should be fought tooth and nail (except by Trump, who must quietly accpet whatever liberals demand)?"the reason the halt was sought was that Republicans had no input and no opportunity to look over the shoulder as votes were counted? "
That is just an excuse Wilderness, who was denying Republicans the option to oversee the process?
It's checkmate, Wilderness, Trump is through, no divisive smoke and mirrors, not this time.
You missed the entire point. The two quotes are saying the same thing, but one is acceptable and one is not.
Both express opinions (in that "harm" being caused)...but the first is acceptable because it shows the evils of a conservative. The second, exactly the same line of thinking, is NOT acceptable because it shows the evils of a liberal.
Of course, I want to disagree with your thought about lies and bullying because I didn't think, (or intend it to be), that was the meaning of my "symbolic" point. My point was to symbolic as a view presented. Whether it be of a scoundrel or a statesman.
As for the choice of accepting or rejecting that behavior, balanced against policy agreement -- that is a personal choice that all folks must make.
GA
Close. I would choose a different candidate in a heartbeat if they espoused the same kind of changes, but kept a lid on their mouth and were more statesman like. But it IS actions that count more for me than appearance.
How about you? Do you like the changes listed in that link? Do you approve of what he has actually accomplished or do you simply write it off as "Obama did it"?
Do you approve of better trade agreements?
Do you approve of stopping the funding of Obamacare on the backs of young people just starting out in life?
Do you approve of encouraging companies to return to the US via a tax rate more in line with the rest of the world?
Do you approve of NATO countries paying their own way rather than the US picking up the lion's share of the bill for their protection?
Do you approve of originalist judges or do you want those voting from a liberal bias?
Do you approve of slowing the migration over our southern border or do you want open borders so that we support the world's poor?
Is your primary goal in electing a President to install someone that will "comfort us in times of panic, inspire us during our challenges and, with great dignity, embody and project the American character." or do you look for someone that will work to fix our problems and make the country a better place to live? Do you want a President that is our spiritual leader or one that understands our needs and addresses them?
Is appearance and a "good feeling" more important than actions? Because, once more in this election, we cannot have both. Choose one or the other.
(So, overall I agree with your link, but not entirely. I do not like Donald Trump, I would not care to "break bread" with him, but he is doing a better job and taking actions our country needs than the last half dozen presidents. And a FAR better job than any liberal candidate in recent years, including the beloved Obama.)Wilderness, you are just politically conservative, no need for the elaborate explanation why Trump is your preference, anyone with two legs and conservative would be.
But, on the other side politically, I can not support Trump based on both his behavior and the principles of him and the GOP party.
But this is the first time that an incumbent's behavior figures prominently into my adverse opinion of any prior President, Republican or not.
As for the quality of the job you say that he has done, that too, is a matter of opinion and millions of citizens will share that opinion with you, today.So? Which of the items listed do you disagree with? Do you disagree that NATO should pay their share of their own protection?
Do you understand how many tens of millions of folks you have just categorized? Do you really think half of our nation's citizens belong in Hillary's 'deplorable' basket?
No wonder you lean Progressive. The rest of the nation needs you folks to lead us because we can't survive as a nation without the wisdom of your guidance.
That was how your comment sounded. Geesh!
GAI actually agree with you that it was over the top, which is why I tried to narrow it down to the yahoos who attend his rallies. Still probably insulting to some, but in my opinion, Trump supporters invite these types of characterizations by supporting a guy who cheers jailing his political opponents. And that's just one thing among many very concerning behaviors.
I think I understand your perspective, and the visuals can be taken either way, but I think any; yahoo, drone, or deplorable, characterization needs to start from the same original question of the 2016 election; "Why" is a Trump supporter a Trump supporter?
You may think the visual of a bearded, beer-bellied, gun-toting yahoo yelling at a rally supports your thought, but remember, there are yahoos among all of us.
Right beside that yahoo at the rally you might also see a professional-dressed married couple—wearing masks, voicing the same enthusiastic support. Do you put them in the yahoo bucket too?
However, in the spirit of full disclosure, I can't argue your point that some of Pres. Trump's statements do support your thought. ;-)
GA
Fine, but don't let me read about another conservative consigning all liberal and progressive thinkers to a common fruit basket again. I will be watching and waiting to pounce. So, conservatives, on your on notice.
And by the way,
----
"The rest of the nation needs you folks to lead us because we can't survive as a nation without the wisdom of your guidance."
-----
Well, you kinda do..... once we dispense with Trump, we will demonstrate how to build back better...*sigh . . . Back to the 'you did it so it's okay for me to do it too' mantra.
"Build back better . . ."? If Biden wins I hope you are right. But I will still hold on to my stash of salt shakers .
GAUnfortunately, my life mantra will always be " if you can't take, don't dish it out".
Otherwise the inequality I see all around me would simply be exacerbated just that much more.
I simply can't afford to be the optimist you are, the status quo has been designed to work for you. For many of us others, that is not the case.Really? The inequality you perceive would be worse if you didn't make nasty, offensive posts? If you weren't so rude in calling people that disagree names?
That would lessen the "inequality"?Isn't it truly fascinating how Trumpers get all riled up about comments they find offensive on a forum while simultaneously rationalizing how obnoxious lying and bullying from the President of the United States are just words that don't matter as long as the policy meets their personal approval.
Truly fascinating.What name calling?
I don't assault people personally, but I am free to express my disparity with Trumpers, conservatives, Republicans and Rightwingers in general, just as you and others behave regarding the left, am I not?
I am not here to "tickle anyone's ears".
My opinion is anti-right and rightwing, but it is my opinion solely.
"Unfortunately, my life mantra will always be " if you can't take, don't dish it out".
Speaking of the status quo . . . how has that mantra worked out for you these past few decades? It seems to be your status quo.
We have gone from JFK and MLK to Trump. Maybe it is time for optimism and new directions.
GAOptimism and "new directions" was what I was anticipating until the introduction of Donald Trump. The silence of the Republican party and conservatives over his inappropriate comments in regards to race and xenophobia is loud and clear.
I just shows me that "progress" is as fragile a thing a gossamer and we can quickly and easily revert to less pleasant times for us all, at least for US, anyway.Buggers! Score another one for Credence2.
GA
Definitely true. But some things work..
I just saw today this video on youtube, Which makes you think..
How Donald Trump Answers A QuestionIt does make some think. Others not so much, as they will listen to the words, spin them as necessary to support their bias, and declare the worst possible interpretation is the actual "intent".
What bias?
Same thing for Bernie Sanders.
How Bernie Sanders Answers A Question
Not sure the President does not respect science. I think he appears to be worried about a collapsing economy. This would be disastrous, as he says the cure can't be worse than the diseases. The economy misy be considered, it would be a poor leader if he let his country collapse under any circumstances. It well appears even though the infection rate is high, the death toll is low. This is not readily being reported. IT is also not being reported that our economy's third quarter was very good. In fact, it was predicted the third quarter would be poor. It well appears we are coming back, more so than many European countries. This president was hit with a large crisis, as were all leaders of most countries. It would seem Trump is doing all he can to bring relief from this huge problem. Many just will not recognize what he has done.
Is your country stabilized at this point?Can you explain to me how requiring people to wear masks and social distance at his rallies would be disastrous for the economy?
I was addressing Peters -- " He does not trust science. He does not believe in climate change, an even bigger challenge then COVID. Accoerding to him COVID will just go away.."
Just pointing out it may not be that he does not trust science but in some respects felt the cure could be worse than the disease. He was certainly referring to the economy, as well as several other variables when he made that statement. he has made the statement frequently following up with concerns about the economy, suicides, etc.
Not sure the President does not respect science..
Well to me you should listen to science advisers and be humble about your own "opinions" about cures.. And not threaten to fire them when they have different opinions then you have.
And it is a pastern by Trump, he does not believe in Climate Change either, as it does not suit him politicly. And climate change is even a worse crisis then COVID.
Is your country stabilized at this point?
Nope. We don't have a lockdown yet, like Germany. But it is close. Gatherings with more then 6 persons are forbidden. Facemasks are obligatory everywhere even in the open air. There is a curfew. (between 12.00 and 06.00 you need permission to be on the streets.)
It's tough. The whole cultural industry is in a deep pit. (concerts restaurants, bars, theatre, dance, the art world.) Not many realize it but the cultural sector created millions of jobs and money. Cinemas are closing, etc. But this is the sector that's paid least attention to by a government. (as it is often seen as a hobby. - tell that to actors, color editors, photographers, etc etc)
On top of that there is hardly any tourism now in Spain. A huge income pillar.
It's for sure that live has changed and will never go back to normal.
This is simply the start of a world wide crisis (even the word depression is used!). And it will take a couple of years... Depending on how a government will handle it. But I think there should be something like a New Deal. The EU is working on one. But Northern Europe(especially The Netherlands) is not keen on helping Southern Europe. Which I think is a disgrace. In good times you work together. But especially in bad times you help each other.
I'm not talking about the UK any more, as they committed economical suicide with leaving the EU. Being a small country in a big world, ouch.. They will hit tough in the years to come. The rows in front of the foodbanks are already lengthening..
Valencia where I live (not in the city but on the country side..best place to be at the moment..) is doing relatively well compared to the rest of Spain. Especially Madrid is hit hard. As they did not want to put the national rules in place and cared more for the economy. They paid with dead people for it..
Why one country is hit harder then the other is a complex question. But What showed is that a lot of countries (US, UK, The Netherlands, Spain) where not prepared for it, and did not prepare themselves for the second wave. As they all had a terrible healthcare system that could not deal with the administration, quantities of people, lack of money, or what ever reason. The first wave was understandable (although the UK, The Netherlands and the US could have seen it coming.) but the preparation for the second wave is just terrible politics from all these countries. Germany did much better in this respect. (although it's in lockdown now.) And I think it helped that Angela Merkel had a science background and understood the implications early on. Instead of Trump who is a salesman and has no clue about science.
Sorry for the long reply.Sweden is better off (in terms of deaths per million population) than Spain, the US and the UK. It begins to look like they may be the winners in the long haul as their 7 day death toll per million is 0.1 while the rest of us are looking at 20 deaths per million as cases and deaths suddenly spike.
Perhaps we should all have "prepared" as Sweden did, "denying" the science and maintaining an economy. It may not take long until we begin counting deaths in riots (like those in Spain) as part of COVID deaths, and if so, Sweden is looking even better as a winner.Sweden is different then Spain if you look at society and social behaviour.
More than half of Swedish households are single-person, compared with Spain 25.4%
Spain is much more contact oriented society then Sweden.
Also complete different climate.
So pretty difficult to compare.
I think if you look at the US it will also be difficult to compare Florida with Alaska.
Yep, no action and no plan where there is a problem.
Which is why we see remarkable progress in Middle East peace.
Which is why we are actually doing something about our southern border.
Which is why we had the best employment ever for minorities.
Which is why we have better trade agreements.
As far as not being a chasm builder - the political chasm in the US has reached the point where nothing can build a bridge to cross it; it would be like building a wooden bridge to the moon.
I have followed this thread pretty closely, I have watched it progress into more or less a -- Why I could never vote for Trump. Which is fine, everyone has the right to express their view, their feelings. What sticks out on this thread like a sore thumb --- are comments about "why I can't vote for Trump, and undertones of "why I dislike conservatives.
Yet, there is no sharing of why they are voting for Joe Boden. That subject is "pin-drop quiet".
So, in regard to what I have read, I am left to consider do some comments truly speak loudly. Here are two statements that seem to clearly say. I could never vote for a person that I find their behavior unacceptable, I can ignore policies at all costs to the Country.
"I cannot and will not ever agree that this behavior can be ignored in favor of so-called policy."
"But, on the other side politically, I can not support Trump based on both his behavior and the principles of him and the GOP party."
Again, behavior, principles over policies... Willing to vote on behavior, principles... Does this kind of thinking consider the difficulty of the job of a president? Those statements seem to be saying behavior for some is more important than policies, a promising agenda. What bothers me in regard to the above comments is in my view they are so telling, so defining of their truthful attitudes
Does it bother anyone that some in the country consider the most important quality of a president is behavior over agenda, policies? Has the presidency become a popular competition for some? Just no need to have other qualities, such as a good agenda for the country.
And why is this all about not voting for Trump? Why not about why vote for Biden. I have read nothing of what he can offer the country or anything about his past record. His history is turbulent with failures, and I see no bashing of his character for his racist comments. If those that sit on a lofty pedestal choose to ignore his behavior, his history, it would seem hypocritical.
This thread was telling, the transparency is blinding.Sharlee, if this is directed at me, I told you that as a progressive the policies of Donald Trump and the Republican Party are sheer anathema.
And yes, the added fly in the ointment is that I dislike the man, personally, and I did not have that attitude about previous Republican presidents in so intense a way. Trump's current record is fraught with failure on several fronts, but again, that is my opinion.
Trump's record regarding racial matters have proven much more problematic than that of Biden. Rather than say he is a racist, I would say that he exploits racial anxieties within this society to his advantage.
Behavior and decorum is part of the job and while I did not care for the policies of neither Reagan or Bush II, they were not associated with the kind of rubbish that one finds in tabloid papers. That is the difference.
I would not have voted for Ronald Reagan, George Bush, etc. the policies and values expressed by the Democrats are much closer to my own. And that has been true for me since the Nixon/McGovern contest of 1972.
So what Joe Biden brings to the table at a minimum is that he is not Republican and in these times that has to be a good start.
Your idea of what is a "good agenda" for the country and mine are two different things, and there is no objective yardstick to use saying one is better than the other. The voters will decide that.In my opinion, Joe Biden is not only a racist, but he is also innately racists... This video gives an example of his thoughts about human beings he calls preditors. However, one thing you might find positive in regard to Biden, he is not a republican. And I must say, I am pleased he is not...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oDHSt-CKtc
"I would not have voted for Ronald Reagan, George Bush, etc. the policies and values expressed by the Democrats are much closer to my own. "
Yes, one of the example comment was yours.
I appreciated your reply, but yet still all about the President's behavior, decorum.
"I would not have voted for Ronald Reagan, George Bush, etc. the policies and values expressed by the Democrats are much closer to my own. "
As I read and came to this sentence, I thought for a moment you were going to share something in regards to values you feel Democrats have.
You followed up with another sentiment --- "So what Joe Biden brings to the table at a minimum is that he is not Republican and in these times that has to be a good start."
However, once again no follow up with, no explanation of "what Biden brings to the table?"
I certainly agree we disagree on the agenda that might benefit the country, and that's Ok. But, I have articulated my thoughts about Trump's as well as Biden's agenda.
To repeat my sentiment --- Does it bother anyone that some in the country consider the most important quality of a president is behavior over agenda, policies? Has the presidency become a popular competition for some? Just no need to have other qualities, such as a good agenda for the country.I am a Democrat, Sharlee,
I believe in climate change and appropriate actions to protect planet Earth against the predator corporate class.
I believe in restraints imposed on big business to protect labor and the environment. Conservatives believe that restraining laissez faire capitalism is socialism. The truth is somewhere in the middle and that is what is up to debate. I want more effort restraining laissez fair Capitalism, rather than less.
I believe that profligate militarism and its associated expense should be contained.
I am pro choice within the purview of Roe vs Wade.
I believe that private academies should not be subsidized by the tax payer and support the principle of public schools as equal opportunity starts in the education system.
I support the concept of Government as necessary for well over 300 million people within an infinitely complex society. Hooterville, as an idea and concept, simply no longer exists, except in Idaho, of course.
if we get the special interests out of the governing process, it can be what it was always intended to be.
Just touched on a few things, I can probably find more.Now that is a comment I can respect. You offered information on your beliefs. Not just a mirage of platitudes. Although moral platitudes are often and can be interesting or thoughtful, they just don't offer a picture of substantial reasoning that can back up the moral side of a conversation.
"I want more effort restraining laissez fair Capitalism, rather than less."
Why? What is the long term effect of what you want? Will it produce a better, more affluent lifestyle for all or will it produce a lowering of the standard of living for all?
Questions the left never seem to address, for all that appears to matter is today.
I believe that private academies should not be subsidized by the tax payer"
Why? If the cost to the taxpayer is no higher than a public school why do you care? Assuming, of course, that the kids get basically the same education.
I would LOVE to get the special interests out of the governing process. Whether it be corporations, BLM, KKK, the idiot women all dressed in white on the Democrat side of the House to show solidarity with their specific special interest, or anything else - get it out. Not sure what that leaves for addressing legitimate concerns to the legislature, though.
I'm sorry, I missed your question earlier, you had asked if I cared to comment on the subject at hand, I thought I had when I expressed my bigger concern of rioters, looters, anarchists and common criminals.... out spreading their germs, as they spread fear, chaos and mayhem.
But, to address your specific concern of Trump Rallies. No, I would not feel horribly guilty! People attend these rallies of their own free will. No one is forcing them to attend, there are no guns pointed at their heads. IF, an individual chooses to go, but doesn't feel 100% safe, they may elect to wear protective gear; whether it be a mask, gloves, mosquito netting, a face shield...whatever makes them comfortable. I think most people attending are just happy for the opportunity to be a part of history. They are there to enjoy the experience, they do not live in fear, they are not looking for offense, they are just living life, taking the punches as they come, but not giving up/missing out on opportunities, not staying home...because of what might or might not happen.I don't expect anyone to stay home. Go do whatever you want, as long as you wear a mask and social distance, two things Trump specifically ridicules and does not require at his events.
So glad to hear you would not feel guilty if you attended an event without a mask, ignored social distancing, and unknowingly spread the virus to multiple people. Glad to hear your conscience would be free of angst.Aren't you all about choices? I choose not to feel guilty for living my life. I am sorry that you can't understand that.
Did you see 57,000 people showed up for a Trump rally in PA?
Without riots, without looting, without attacking police.
I think that speaks volumes. The left doesn't care about covid exposure as long as violence accompanies their gatherings. Why are they worried about Trump rallies?
I don't wonder.- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago0
Trump is now saying he might fire Dr. Fauci after the election. I wonder how many people think that's a good idea?
"the four researchers examine infection patterns in 18 separate counties before and after they hosted Trump rallies between June 20 and Sept. 22."
That's it? This is bogus.
The researchers didn't take the time to survey people who contracted Covid to see if they had been to a Trump rally. There was no effort to connect the deaths to individual's who had attended the rally. The only connection is the infection and deaths is there was a rally by President Donald Trump?
What other things were going on in these counties? The article doesn't mention the name or location of the counties they examined. I would like to see other counties with high infection rates with NO President Trump rallies and compare the two.
This is pretty awful work.
Can't take this serious.I am not bearded nor do I have a beer belly, but I am {always} gun-toting and have been known to get loud!
I've just returned from voting and if the party-like atmosphere outside of the polling place is any indication of the direction this election is going...buckle up and get prepared...for our economy is about to BOOM like nobody's business!I would expect the President of the United States to respect the advice of medical experts and behave in a fashion that sets the example and give due consideration to the health prospects of those that pile up to support him in these rallies of his.
I don't see this.- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago0
A general note to those who think I value or choose appearance over policy.
I vote for policy and character. I am very progressive and voted for Elizabeth Warren in the primaries. However, if Warren spent her time rage-tweeting, calling veterans "losers," bragging about grabbing men's crotches, and threatening to lock up her political opponents, there would be no way in hell I would consider her fit for dog catcher much less POTUS. Any person behaving that way in pretty much any job would be fired in a heartbeat,
Trump is getting fired tonight, What proof is there Republicans had no input and no opportunity to look over the shoulder during vote counts other than the President's tweets of fraud? Those rules are established before the election is my understanding. If they didn't like how far away they could stand, they could have protested before the election.
Related Discussions
- 166
Pipe Bombs and White Powdered Substances, Oh my!!
by Mike Russo 6 years ago
President Trump, you have done it this time with your fake news, enemy of the people, and blame the democrats for everything rhetoric. It started with a package containing a live pipe bomb and white powder substance dropped off at George Soros house.Then mail detection equipment found packages with...
- 30
A Level of Stupidity So Staggering...
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
President Trump ridiculed former President Obama and Joe Biden for the size of the crowds at their campaign rallies. As if the fact that President Trump had larger crowds meant he is somehow doing better.Of course, Obama and Biden are holding socially distanced, safe rallies while President Trump...
- 626
The Harris Trump Debate. Who do you think won.
by Mike Russo 6 months ago
I believe Kamala pushed everyone of Trump's buttons in the debate. She was in her former prosecutor mode. She was calm and looked at Trump many times. He never looked at her once. She acted as if she was in a court room and talking to the jury about Trump. She had him on the...
- 67
Trump gave a speech in Iowa tonight. Why was Fox News the ONLY channel to carry
by Greg Schweizer 7 years ago
Trump gave a speech in Iowa tonight. Why was Fox News the ONLY channel to carry the speech?
- 32
“Trumps Taxing Tariffs” Causing “BANKRUPTCY Bloodbath” For Our Farmers
by JAKE Earthshine 5 years ago
Just the messenger here relaying the hardcore news: That’s what investigative reports are apparently revealing and I suppose it would be safe to assume that NONE of his BRILLIANT Minds within this Circus Clown Show of a nightmarishly chaotic white house has told Donald that when you impose trade...
- 140
It Sounds Like It's Time to Recap Right-Wing Failures
by J Conn 3 years ago
There seems to be a lot of right-wing partisan rage at this site in the last month. Let's recap why there was a need for a change.- Covid-19 Denialism that led to an additional 450,000 dead Americans.- Covid Denialism that led to an added $7.8 trillion to the national debt in just four...