COVID-19 Megathread 5: The Trumps catch COVID-19 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 20, 2024, 01:46:19 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  COVID-19 Megathread 5: The Trumps catch COVID-19 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: COVID-19 Megathread 5: The Trumps catch COVID-19  (Read 269422 times)
cg41386
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 979
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.39, S: -7.74

« on: June 21, 2020, 10:44:32 PM »

Now, the fact that the US is incapable of having a coordinated federal response that brings the virus down back to manageable levels nationwide and is unable to introduce anything mandatory (like mandatory masks or actually forbidding any large gatherings such as rallies or crammed indoor spaces) is a completely different story.

I also generally have a hard time with making things mandatory. Sometimes it's necessary, but usually I expect people to exercise personal responsibility.

Yeah, good luck with the personal responsibility part.
Logged
cg41386
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 979
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.39, S: -7.74

« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2020, 04:56:21 PM »

Article

Banning religious singing while blessing marxist riots. It is my opinion that I hope Californians violently oppose this and the evil governor. Thus is beyond tyrannical.

Rioting (violence, destroying private property, looting) is illegal and always has been.
Peaceful protest is protected by the 1st Amendment and when people wear masks, hasn’t been shown to cause a public health risk. It’s a combination of being outside and people wearing masks that makes it safe.
Singing indoors with groups has been the source of multiple superspreader events leading to illness and deaths. This is a smart and sensible public health measure which will save lives. If you’re “pro-life”, you’ll stand with the government.

Im not "pro-life" im "pro-freedom". Religious worship is more important to me than "peaceful" protests. Especially when enforcement is extremely discriminatory. The media literally called it terrorism to protest the lockdowns then immediately flipflopped if you were protesting for communist garbage. There is nothing sensible about this. This is a fricking authoritarian coup via the big corporations who control the media.

Yawn. You don’t need a church to worship. Worship from home.
Logged
cg41386
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 979
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.39, S: -7.74

« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2020, 09:05:24 PM »

News flash- it isn’t just churches. Christians still aren’t being persecuted.
Logged
cg41386
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 979
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.39, S: -7.74

« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2020, 06:49:20 PM »

Why hasn't any state at least tried a selective lockdown of just people over 60?

For one thing, because states cannot do any such thing.

People who are over 60 require food/shelter/etc to survive, and have to pay for food/mortgages/rent/etc. Some of those people get social security or are retired anyway, but not all.

Any such program to ensure that all people over age 60 (or whatever other criteria there might hypothetically be) would need to be a federal program, because only the Federal government has a money printing machine (or the ability to impose other solutions outside of the monetary system).

So besides anything else, your entire arc of questioning, "why don't states try x" or "why don't states try y" is barking totally up the wrong tree. States cannot make functional, effective, and coherent policy in response to a pandemic. Only the Federal government can. And the Federal government (at least the executive, Trump) has no interest in making any sort of pandemic policy other than "hopefully it will just go away."

As long as that remains the case, USA can and will have no policy, and no real ability to "try" any ideas that you or anyone else might think up.

Wouldn’t the same arguments apply even more strongly to any universal stay-at-home order?
Like, when a state like California eased their lockdown, why didn’t they at least do it in phases starting with younger people only?

Or wouldn’t it be better for people’s livelihoods to open up restaurants, but only permit them to serve people under 60?

You really need to know what you’re talking about before making ridiculous posts like this. In many of the states with the more recent outbreaks, there has been a significant number of positive cases among relatively younger people.
Logged
cg41386
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 979
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.39, S: -7.74

« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2020, 09:18:43 PM »

I don't think gyms should close. Lots of people gained weight during quarantine. Also, being in good shape helps your immunity. That's one area where I think the cure is worse than the disease. Members should forced to maintain strict social distancing and wipe down their equipment after use. And the gyms should be thoroughly cleaned every day.

1) There are other ways to exercise without going to a gym
2) You can lose weight by watching your diet
3) In case you haven’t heard, there is no “immunity” to this yet. Perfectly otherwise healthy people have died.
4) In case you haven’t noticed by now, a not so insignificant number of Americans cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
Logged
cg41386
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 979
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.39, S: -7.74

« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2020, 12:03:10 PM »

Couldn’t have happened to a better person.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 8 queries.