WHAT DOES AMERICA REALLY THINK?

[KristiD]

Well, according to the dinar guru site that is conducting an election poll, as of this writing 1,750 people said they would vote for Trump as opposed to only250 who said they'd vote for Biden.  Right now Trump is running 7 to 1with Biden, at least with dinar holders.  Another 100 or so don't want to vote. 

 

[KristiD]

And according to a Rasmussen poll from July 24th, 48-50% of people are likely to vote for Trump overall, AND 49% of blacks (which is up fromt he 40% that I'd last read about) will likely to vote for him AS WILL 57% of other minorities.  The latino/a's, which according to wikipedia represent almost 17 of the US population, must be part of the other minorities.  Gotta say both these polls make me feel a lot better after reading about all the rioting last night across the country.

 

 

 

[coorslite21]

Should be a good thread... 

I'm pretty simple minded on this.....polls like anything statistical can be manipulated to any result desired...

 

My own CL21 poll of 1 goes this way....you have about an even number rabid on the right, and left, that vote straight party ticket....even if its Porky Pig or Minny Mouse on the ballot..  

 

Then you have the independents.....the free thinkers that are usually pretty intense in their study of candidates......I doubt many will support Biden due to his lack of mental clarity.  

 

Some years ago the right fractured off a bit with the teaparty.....this was costly to the the right during the elections in that period......same is happening now with the left and the radical socialist movement represented by Sanders and the squad.......IMO they look at a vote for Biden as just as bad as one for Trump......I believe many will do a write in for a third party candidate....

 

Throw in a Kanye West candidacy......who might he take votes from?

 

Anyhow....hope more will weigh in on the subject....CL

[8th ID]

12 hours ago, coorslite21 said:

IMO they look at a vote for Biden as just as bad as one for Trump.

This is why Biden has been agreeing with some of the policies of Sanders and the squad. This is why he appointed Beto to look at his gun control policies. He is swinging himself far left to get those votes. This will alienate him from those demonrats in the center.

[Shabibilicious]

I think we all agree that polls don't mean a whole lot, whereas actions have consequences.....Trump has 145K deaths on his record for a terrible lack of response....He did his level best to put the responsibility on the Governor's, of which many are Dems and it was working out for him politically, now that the Red states are suffering too, there's no place for him to hide.  He failed miserably as pOTUS, zero leadership.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV 

[coorslite21]

1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said:

I think we all agree that polls don't mean a whole lot, whereas actions have consequences.....Trump has 145K deaths on his record for a terrible lack of response....He did his level best to put the responsibility on the Governor's, of which many are Dems and it was working out for him politically, now that the Red states are suffering too, there's no place for him to hide.  He failed miserably as pOTUS, zero leadership.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV 

 

Do you find any value in half of the deaths occurred in just 5 states.....all with Dem Governors  who shipped covid patients to retirement homes.....or was that Trump's doing as well?......like you....just an opinion......but based on the numbers...   CL

[Shabibilicious]

3 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Do you find any value in half of the deaths occurred in just 5 states.....all with Dem Governors  who shipped covid patients to retirement homes.....or was that Trump's doing as well?......like you....just an opinion......but based on the numbers...   CL

 

I find it completely reprehensible that any Governor thought putting covid patients in nursing homes was a good idea.....But, I also feel Trump and his administration failed miserably because a quarter of all cases in the world are in this country.  And it's impossible for those numbers to be cooked just to make Trump look bad....He really has failed us all.  Now, I give him credit for the 180 he has pulled recently....too bad it didn't happen months ago.  Now the nonbelievers are so far gone, they'll never do the responsible thing and wear a mask for the good of their fellow Americans. 

 

GO RV, then BV 

[new york kevin]

Shabs ! I find it reprehensible that people think there is a simple play book to handle a pandemic in these modern times. Thats in addition to pretending that a as yet non exhistent untested vaccine will cure the man made viral pandemic anyway.  In January POTUS Trump was vilified by the corrupt press and democrats of this country for doing SOMETHING as an attempt to mitigate the spread of c.v. ;  he stopped travel to and from China . Due to China being the epicenter of the virus. Why did they do that ?  Why did they discount and demonize the use of hydroxychloroquin  as a therapeutic agent when Trump mentioned its effectiveness in battling the diease ? Because it was off script ? How many medicines in this country and the world mitigate or cure diseases, that were at one point "off script." Why does many in this country discount accepted science ? IE: the fact that sun light, specifically UV rays kills viruses ; UV rays kill this virus as well. Science such as the scientific fact that the weave of non-N95 masks will not stop the spread of any virus, this virus. Why blame this President for the slow walking of any progress towards a cure for this virus by the opposing parties representatives in the federal gov ? State gov ?  The number of cases of CV are going up in  this country for a few reasons. 1. Because this POTUS has made testing so widely available . Plus because he insists they continue to be used. 2. Because of draconian Cuomo like policies such as sending all positive and active covid patients to be kept in Nursing homes. Or 3. Releasing prisoners from jail. Prisoner's  jailed and sentenced to decades of time for their vicious crimes . Prisoners released i to the public relm , to stop the spread of CV . Thats not prison reform, the likes this POTUS has put in place, thats transporting active CV patients into a vector that insures the seeding of this virus into the as yet innocent and unaffected population . In other words, this stupid policy merely spreads it further. Why not set up a isolated ward in prison to treat said prisoners, in prison ? Surely that would be the better option ? At least it would prevent a correlating rise in violent crimes in certain areas. 

[umbertino]

 

Quote

Then you have the independents.....the free thinkers that are usually pretty intense in their study of candidates......I doubt many will support system" rel="">support Biden due to his lack of mental clarity.

End Quote

 

As an outsider, non-US citizen and consequently non-voter....I have to agree

[Shabibilicious]

14 minutes ago, new york kevin said:

Shabs ! I find it reprehensible that people think there is a simple play book to handle a pandemic in these modern times. Thats in addition to pretending that a as yet non exhistent untested vaccine will cure the man made viral pandemic anyway.  In January POTUS Trump was vilified by the corrupt press and democrats of this country for doing SOMETHING as an attempt to mitigate the spread of c.v. ;  he stopped travel to and from China . Due to China being the epicenter of the virus. Why did they do that ?  Why did they discount and demonize the use of hydroxychloroquin  as a therapeutic agent when Trump mentioned its effectiveness in battling the diease ? Because it was off script ? How many medicines in this country and the world mitigate or cure diseases, that were at one point "off script." Why does many in this country discount accepted science ? IE: the fact that sun light, specifically UV rays kills viruses ; UV rays kill this virus as well. Science such as the scientific fact that the weave of non-N95 masks will not stop the spread of any virus, this virus. Why blame this President for the slow walking of any progress towards a cure for this virus by the opposing parties representatives in the federal gov ? State gov ?  The number of cases of CV are going up in  this country for a few reasons. 1. Because this POTUS has made testing so widely available . Plus because he insists they continue to be used. 2. Because of draconian Cuomo like policies such as sending all positive and active covid patients to be kept in Nursing homes. Or 3. Releasing prisoners from jail. Prisoner's  jailed and sentenced to decades of time for their vicious crimes . Prisoners released i to the public relm , to stop the spread of CV . Thats not prison reform, the likes this POTUS has put in place, thats transporting active CV patients into a vector that insures the seeding of this virus into the as yet innocent and unaffected population . In other words, this stupid policy merely spreads it further. Why not set up a isolated ward in prison to treat said prisoners, in prison ? Surely that would be the better option ? At least it would prevent a correlating rise in violent crimes in certain areas. 

 

What....no mention of stupid people gathering in mass numbers and sharing the virus with each other?  As for the facts on the "travel ban", see the following:

 

 

FACTCHECK POSTS

The Facts on Trump’s Travel Restrictions

By Robert Farley

Posted on March 6, 2020

---

• President Donald Trump has made a number of misleading statements about his decision on Jan. 31 to impose travel restrictions related to the novel coronavirus epidemic.

• Trump has referred to the travel restrictions as a “travel ban.” There isn’t an outright ban, as there are exceptions, including for Americans and their family members.
• Trump said he was “bold” in imposing travel restrictions even though “everybody said, it’s too early, it’s too soon” and “a lot of people that work on this stuff almost exclusively” told him “don’t do it.” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said the decision stemmed from “the uniform recommendations of the career public health officials here at HHS.”
• Trump said Democrats “loudly criticized and protested” his announced travel restrictions, and that they “called me a racist because I made that decision.” Trump is overstating Democratic opposition. None of the party’s congressional leaders and none of the Democratic candidates running for president have directly criticized that decision, though at least two Democrats have.
• Trump said the travel restrictions “saved a lot of lives” and reduced U.S. COVID-19 cases to “a very small number.” But experts say there isn’t enough data to make that determination. A study in the journal Science found the various travel limitations across the globe initially helped to slow the spread, but the number of cases worldwide rose anyway because the virus had already begun traveling undetected internationally.

Azar declared a public health emergency for the novel coronavirus on Jan. 31, and announced the travel restrictions to and from China, effective Feb. 2. On Feb. 29, Trump expanded those travel restrictions to Iran. Trump has repeatedly boasted that his decision to impose the travel restrictions was bold and worked. But his rhetoric has sometimes stretched the facts.

A Travel ‘Ban’?

For starters, health experts say Trump was wrong to refer to the travel restrictions as a “travel ban,” as he did in a telephone interview on March 4 with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. During a town hall on March 5, Trump said he “closed down the borders to China and to other areas that are very badly affected.” That’s not accurate.

As Azar explained when he announced the travel restrictions on Jan. 31, the policy prohibits non-U.S. citizens, other than the immediate family of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, who have traveled to China within the last two weeks from entering the U.S.

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.

Furthermore, Klain said, the import of goods from China is exempt from the travel restrictions, “and, of course, the people who fly the planes and drive the boats that bring those goods from China. We couldn’t ban that activity. We vitally need that. Ninety percent of the antibiotics in this country come from China. All kinds of vital medical supplies … we will use to treat people. So, travel bans … that’s not what we’re imposing, that’s not what exists.”

As part of the travel restrictions, Azar announced that any U.S. citizen returning to the U.S. who had been in Hubei Province in China in the previous 14 days would be subject to mandatory quarantine and health screening. U.S. citizens returning from mainland China outside Hubei Province were ordered to undergo health screenings and “up to 14 days of monitored self-quarantine to ensure they’ve not contracted the virus and do not pose a public health risk,” Azar said.

At the time the restrictions were announced, there were only six confirmed cases of the novel virus in the U.S. The outbreak, which began in Wuhan, China, at the end of 2019, has now spread to more than 70 countries, including the U.S. According to a Johns Hopkins University case tracker and a New York Times database, as of March 6, more than 250 people in the U.S. have been infected with the new disease, known as COVID-19, and at least 14 have died.

Did Trump Buck the Experts?

Trump has repeatedly said that his decision to impose the travel restrictions on Jan. 31 was made despite objections from most of the experts on containing the spread of infectious disease.

“But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that,” Trump said on March 4.

Asked by Hannity the same day about his rationale at the time he made the decision, Trump said, “I would say everybody said, it’s too early, it’s too soon, and good people, brilliant people, in many ways, doctors and lawyers and, frankly, a lot of people that work on this stuff almost exclusively. And they said, don’t do it.”

Trump repeated this claim at his town hall in Scranton on March 5, saying that as soon as he heard that China had a problem with the coronavirus, he asked how many people the U.S. had coming in from China. “Nobody but me asked that question,” Trump said. Trump added that his decision to impose the travel restrictions was made “against the advice of almost everybody.”

Everybody? Not according to Azar, who said it was the “uniform” recommendation of experts in his department.

“The travel restrictions that we put in place in consultation with the president were very measured and incremental,” Azar told reporters on Feb. 7. “These were the uniform recommendations of the career public health officials here at HHS.”

The World Health Organization cautioned against the overuse of travel restrictions, but stopped short of saying that Trump’s decision in the U.S.  — or anyone else’s in other countries — was inappropriate.

“[W]e reiterate our call to all countries not to impose restrictions inconsistent with the International Health Regulations,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told its executive board. “Such restrictions can have the effect of increasing fear and stigma, with little public health benefit. So far, 22 countries have reported such restrictions to WHO. Where such measures have been implemented, we urge that they are short in duration, proportionate to the public health risks, and are reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.”

As we said, three experts called by Democrats at a House subcommittee hearing on Feb. 5 questioned the decision. Dr. Jennifer Nuzzo, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, was one of them.

Nuzzo, Feb. 5: [W]e need to seriously reexamine the current policy of banning travel from China and quarantining returning travelers. All of the evidence we have indicates that travel restrictions and quarantines directed at individual countries are unlikely to keep the virus out of our borders. These measures may exacerbate the epidemic’s social and economic tolls and can make us less safe. Simply put, this virus is spreading too quickly and too silently, and our surveillance is too limited for us to truly know which countries have active transmission and which don’t. The virus could enter the U.S. from other parts of the world not on our restricted list, and it may already be circulating here.

The U.S. was a target of travel bans and quarantines during the 2009 flu pandemic. It didn’t work to stop the spread, and it hurt our country. I am concerned that by our singling out China for travel bans, we are effectively penalizing it for reporting cases. This may diminish its willingness to further share data and chill other countries’ willingness to be transparent about their own outbreaks. Travel bans and quarantines will make us less safe if they divert attention and resources from higher priority disease mitigation approaches that we know are needed to respond to cases within the United States.

… We often see, when we have emerging disease outbreaks, our first instinct is to try to lock down travel to prevent the introduction of virus to our country. And that is a completely understandable instinct. I have never seen instances in which that has worked when we are talking about a virus at this scale.

Respiratory viruses like this one, unlike others–they just move quickly. They are hard to spot because they look like many other diseases. It’s very difficult to interrupt them at borders. You would need to have complete surveillance in order to do that. And we simply don’t have that.

During the hearing, Dr. Jennifer Bouey, chair of China policy studies at the Rand Corporation, agreed saying that the policy to restrict travel “doesn’t help that much in this–the current situation.”

But according to Paul Offit, chair of vaccinology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, those kinds of opinions were in the minority at the time the president made his decision.

“I don’t know anyone who thought the travel restrictions were a bad idea early on,” Offit told us in a phone interview.

When a virus like that is restricted to one location, as it appeared to be early on, travel restrictions can lessen the odds of it spreading to this country, Offit said. Over time, however, and as cases began to be identified in the U.S., travel restrictions make much less of a difference, he said.

Epidemiologists and former U.S. health officials told Time that the initial travel restrictions were valid and “likely helped to slow the spread of the virus. The problem, they say, is that once it was clear that the virus was within our borders officials did not pivot quickly enough to changing circumstances.”

Democratic Criticism

Trump has repeatedly claimed that Democrats have “loudly criticized and protested” his imposition of the travel restrictions, and have called the decision “racist.” But while leading Democrats have been outspoken in their criticism of the president’s overall response to the epidemic, very few have criticized his decision to impose limited travel restrictions.

“I took a lot of heat,” Trump said during a Feb. 27 press conference. “I mean, some people called me racist because I made a decision so early. And we had never done that as a country before, let alone early. So it was a, you know, bold decision. It turned out to be a good decision. But I was criticized by the Democrats. They called me a racist because I made that decision, if you can believe that one.”

At a rally in South Carolina the following day, Trump said Democrats “loudly criticized and protested” his decision.

“But, anyway — but we’ve done an incredible job because we closed early,” Trump said in a meeting with African American leaders on Feb. 28. “And actually, the Democrats said I was a racist. Not from black-people standpoint, but from Asian-people standpoint, from Chinese-people standpoint. They said I was a racist because I closed our country to people coming in from certain areas. They called me a racist.”

We reached out to the Trump campaign and asked for names, but we did not get a response. We scoured news clips and could find only a couple instances of elected Democrats criticizing the president’s action to restrict travel.

In the House subcommittee hearing on Feb. 5 that we referenced earlier, several witnesses called by the Democrats expressed concerns about the travel restrictions and warned they could do more harm than good.

And at least one Democrat agreed.

“The United States and other countries around the world have put in place unprecedented travel restrictions in response to the virus,” said Democratic Rep. Eliot L. Engel. “These measures have not proven to improve public health outcomes, rather they tend to cause economic harm and to stoke racist and discriminatory responses to this epidemic.”

A day earlier, Democratic Rep. Ami Bera, who presided over the hearing, told Politico, “In our response we can’t create prejudices and harbor anxieties toward one population.” Bera told Politico the decision to impose travel restrictions “probably doesn’t make sense” given that the outbreak had already spread to several other countries by that point. “At this juncture, it’s going to be very hard to contain the virus,” Bera said.

But the Democratic leaders in Congress have simply not mentioned Trump’s travel restrictions.

In a Feb. 25 tweet, Trump claimed that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer “didn’t like my early travel closings.” Trump’s comment appears to be based on a fabricated tweet that circulated widely on Facebook.

Schumer has been critical of the Trump administration’s response to the spread of the novel coronavirus. But he hasn’t mentioned the travel restrictions in that criticism.

In Trump’s Fox News interview on March 4, host Sean Hannity said former vice president and current Democratic challenger Joe Biden “accused the president of being xenophobic, while he was trying to protect the health of the American people.”

On the day Trump imposed the travel restrictions, Biden did criticize Trump for his “record of hysteria and xenophobia,” but it is unclear whether Biden was referring to Trump’s travel restrictions, or Trump’s overall qualifications to deal with the epidemic.

“We have right now a crisis with the coronavirus, emanating from China,” Biden said on Jan. 31 at a campaign event in Iowa. “A national emergency worldwide alerts. The American people need to have a president who they can trust what he says about it, that he is going to act rationally about it. In moments like this, this is where the credibility of the president is most needed, as he explains what we should and should not do. This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia – hysterical xenophobia – and fearmongering to lead the way instead of science.”

In an op-ed published several days prior in USA Today, Biden similarly argued: “The possibility of a pandemic is a challenge Donald Trump is unqualified to handle as president.” Biden wrote that he recalled “how Trump sought to stoke fear and stigma during the 2014 Ebola epidemic.” Trump, Biden wrote, “railed against the evidence-based response our administration put in place — which quelled the crisis and saved hundreds of thousands of lives — in favor of reactionary travel bans that would only have made things worse.”

Although Democratic leaders and Democratic presidential candidates have been highly critical of Trump’s response to the coronavirus, we couldn’t find any examples of them directly and clearly criticizing the travel restrictions.

In a Feb. 4 letter to Trump, Democratic Reps. Nita Lowey, chair of the Appropriations Committee, and Rose DeLauro, chair of one of the subcommittees, wrote that they “strongly support” the president’s decision to declare a public health emergency in response to the novel coronavirus outbreak, and they specifically cited the administration’s actions to impose “significant travel restrictions.”

Have Travel Restrictions ‘Saved a Lot of Lives’?

Trump said his “bold” decision has since been vindicated, that it has “saved a lot of lives” and that because of his decision “that’s why we have a very small number of people that we have to really worry about.”

At a press conference on Feb. 29 attended by Trump, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, praised “the original decision that was made by the president” to impose travel restrictions to and from China.

“We prevented travel from China to the United States,” said Fauci, who has worked for multiple administrations. “If we had not done that, we would have had many, many more cases right here that we would have to be dealing with.”

But not everyone agrees.

Nuzzo, the senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said there’s no evidence, at least, that the travel restrictions have saved lives or reduced the number of cases in the U.S.

“We have not seen any evidence that shows the travel restrictions stopped or slowed down transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19,” Nuzzo told us via email. “It is possible that it did, but there is no evidence to show this. Rather there are a number of reasons to believe that this may very well not be the case.”

Chiefly, she said, that’s because “we weren’t seriously looking for cases in the US.”

“If you had mild infection, you were not tested,” Nuzzo said. “If you had viral pneumonia not requiring oxygen but had not been to Wuhan, you wouldn’t have been tested.”

“Prior to the US travel restrictions, China began suspending outbound flights,” Nuzzo said. “Airlines also began canceling flights due to low travel volume. Then, the US implemented travel restrictions, which further reduced travel from China. The exception was Americans who were returning home from China. These folks were subject to quarantine upon return. A number of cases were found among these individuals. If you only test travelers from China and you greatly reduce the number of travelers coming from China, then you would be likely to not find many cases.

“But it doesn’t mean the virus hadn’t entered the US prior to travel restrictions,” Nuzzo said, as data now suggests occurred in Washington state.

Also, she said other countries, including Japan, Singapore and Korea, had a significant number of coronavirus cases, but they weren’t subject to travel restrictions. The U.S. “would likely not have picked it up” if travelers coming to the U.S. from those countries “because we weren’t using these other countries as criteria for testing.”

A modeling study published in Science magazine on March 6, “The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak,” concluded that, “In areas affected by the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), travel restrictions will only modestly impact the spread of the outbreak,” according to a press release for the study.

“Based on the study’s results, the authors say the greatest benefit to mitigating the epidemic will come from public health interventions and behavioral changes that achieve a considerable reduction in the disease transmissibility – factors like early detection, isolation, and handwashing,” according to the press release.

The authors concluded that travel restrictions introduced by the Chinese government in Wuhan in Jan. 23  and the halting of airline flights to and from China starting in early February at first slowed the spread of the disease to the rest of the world. Even still, a large number of individuals exposed to the virus had been traveling internationally without being detected and, the authors note, the number of imported cases around the world went up in a matter of weeks.

“Moving forward we expect that travel restrictions to COVID-19 affected areas will have modest effects, and that transmission-reduction interventions will provide the greatest benefit to mitigate the epidemic,” the authors wrote.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-travel-restrictions/

 

 

GO RV, then BV

[Pitcher]

The bigger question will be what will Democrats do when the polls are wrong again and President Trump is re-elected.  

 

John Kerry has stated there will be a revolution.  I think it has already started. 

[new york kevin]

16 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

What....no mention of stupid people gathering in mass numbers and sharing the virus with each other? 

You mean like the crowds of domestic terrorists gathered to protest the rule of law in this country , demanding secession from the USA. Those who claim that arson, distruction of private and public property, murder, rape, and anarchy in CHOP, Oregon like areas, that these actions are not crimes but rather valid forms of "protests." Or that the domestic policy of selective enforcement of laws in these Chicago-like areas, are not largely responsible for the stratospheric white on white and black on black murder rates? Those people ? You know if you want a truly open and valid discussion.         Yes Sir, Pitcher. It has started. Thats what these Chop/Chicago areas are , seeds the Dems have planted in the US, that they hope will transplant quickly and take root, across the US.       I wonder how they will respond when, by the mere enforcement of laws already on the books their revolutionary efforts are thwarted. History will repeat itself !!! The Democrats , who were created to be the representatives of the  Pro-Slavery Movement in then 1861-1865 USA will find their separatist selves defeated and this time jailed. Residing in their own covid created Petri dish like prisons. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by new york kevin

[Shabibilicious]

3 minutes ago, new york kevin said:

You mean like the crowds of domestic terrorists gathered to protest the rule of law in this country , demanding secession from the USA. Those who claim that arson, distruction of private and public property, murder, rape, and anarchy in CHOP, Oregon like areas, that these actions are not crimes but rather valid forms of "protests." Or that the domestic policy of selective enforcement of laws in these Chicago-like areas, are not largely responsible for the stratospheric white on white and black on black murder rates? Those people ? You know if you want a truly open and valid discussion.           

 

Yes, them too....I'm referring to any large group of Americans who gather, for whatever reason, and are not properly social distancing or wearing masks....THOSE PEOPLE, ALL OF THEM.

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

If mask wearing was not an acceptable deterrent to the spread of germs and air born viruses, doctors and medical staff wouldn't wear them.....it really is that simple.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the loss of personal freedoms.   

 

GO RV, then BV

[nstoolman1]

3 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

If mask wearing was not an acceptable deterrent to the spread of germs and air born viruses, doctors and medical staff wouldn't wear them.....it really is that simple.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the loss of personal freedoms.   

 

GO RV, then BV

Drs wear an entirely different mask than the ones most people are wearing. T-shirt, underwear, bra,coffee filters, bounce sheets are not the same. The paper masks I have bought at HD and Lowes I can spit through them. I would think the(smart) people would be quiet and let the (stupid) people die off. Don't bring up old,sick or compromised individuals because I agree masks should be worn. 

[Shabibilicious]

12 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

Drs wear an entirely different mask than the ones most people are wearing. T-shirt, underwear, bra,coffee filters, bounce sheets are not the same. The paper masks I have bought at HD and Lowes I can spit through them. I would think the(smart) people would be quiet and let the (stupid) people die off. Don't bring up old,sick or compromised individuals because I agree masks should be worn. 

 

Couple of questions then....Did you buy the paper masks you can spit through specifically for this pandemic? And....can you spit through your paper mask and another person's paper mask at the same time, or does a level of safety exist when both people are wearing masks, even useless paper ones?

 

GO RV, then BV

[nstoolman1]

Yes to your first question.

To your second ? Can't say, haven't tried, not going to. Not my job. My job is to keep me, and mine safe. If everyone stayed that course we would be better off. See someone w/o a mask, avoid them. 

[new york kevin]

Shabs, masks not designed to handle N95 issues, will not handle N95 issues. We are here because the ill and immuno compromised, do not wear the proper masks. Though most immuno compromised people I come in contact wear the proper masks for preventative reasons. I think the largest objections are the manner in which many state governments have done away with the self evident rights we have enjoyed since 1776.  In my state of California, Newsom has declared churches cannot worship . What happened to the constitutional right that governments will not legislate the restriction of religion ? 

[coorslite21]

41 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

If mask wearing was not an acceptable deterrent to the spread of germs and air born viruses, doctors and medical staff wouldn't wear them.....it really is that simple.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the loss of personal freedoms.   

 

GO RV, then BV

Amen to that!

[Shabibilicious]

6 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

Yes to your first question.

To your second ? Can't say, haven't tried, not going to. Not my job. My job is to keep me, and mine safe. If everyone stayed that course we would be better off. See someone w/o a mask, avoid them. 

 

Awesome, that's exactly what my wife and I do, as well.....I'm glad you changed the way you're handling it, as I believe you posted previously that you didn't need to wear a mask if everybody else was.  If I'm misremembering that, or it was somebody else who posted that stance, I apologize.  

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited July 27, 2020 by Shabibilicious

[Shabibilicious]

5 minutes ago, new york kevin said:

Shabs, masks not designed to handle N95 issues, will not handle N95 issues. We are here because the ill and immuno compromised, do not wear the proper masks. Though most immuno compromised people I come in contact wear the proper masks for preventative reasons. I think the largest objections are the manner in which many state governments have done away with the self evident rights we have enjoyed since 1776.  In my state of California, Newsom has declared churches cannot worship . What happened to the constitutional right that governments will not legislate the restriction of religion ? 

 

Ahh....churches can't worship, or churches can't worship in person?  

 

GO RV, then BV

[new york kevin]

The point I am trying to make is the constitutional right to freedom of religion. I am referencing the 1st Amendment of course. And as Constitutional/Fed Law Trumps state law Newsom cant fiat the 1st Amendment away.     

Edited July 27, 2020 by new york kevin

[new york kevin]

19 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

If mask wearing was not an acceptable deterrent to the spread of germs and air born viruses, doctors and medical staff wouldn't wear them.....it really is that simple.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the loss of personal freedoms.   

 

GO RV, then BV

We in the medical industry are issued N95 masks designed to filter out viruses and by that design bacteria. We are not wearing doo rags over our faces .  Ad hoc masks whose designs have not been tested as to what if anything bacterial , viral or otherwise they can or cannot filter out. Thats a fact. By the way, your huge litany of "Facts on Trumps travel ban " are not facts at all. You did spell Trump correctly, thats a fact. Your diatribe places all of the Dems propaganda talking points in one location. Talking points represented as fact, are still just talking points. Trump banned travel to and from China, in an attempt to slow the spread of cv, thats a fact . Nancy Pelosi in Feb was walking through China Town in fece filled streets of San Francisco in an attempt to ridicule the travel ban as being ineffective in its intent and racist. Embracing people dispite the then suggestion to social distance and wash hands. Thats a fact. Fauci himself said on air that the ban originally thought to be premature, saved hundreds of thousands of lives by lowering the then death rate from an estimate of 2,000,000 +, to then of 150,000  .  That also is a fact. The Hospital ship sent to NY,  and temporary hospitals (MASH Units) built in the Travis Center to handle the flow of CV patients so the other Hospitals could handle the everyday surgeries, traumas and the like, well these places went practically unused. Thats a fact . Hydroxychloroquin,  though off script, given early on in a positive cv patient , is an effective therapeutic . Exceptions being the elderly and other patients with comorbitties and or compromised immune systems . Thats a fact. Gov Cuomo, in the end didnt need all the ventilators he was screaming  for . Vents Trump had built under the Defense Production Act, that are now being exported to poorer countries. Thats a fact. Cuomo, in the end will also be singularly responsible for the deaths of thousands for his order to send all cv patients to nursing homes and locking them in there. While simultaniously releasing, presumably positive cv  violent and non violent prisoners into the general population. Thats a fact. This stupid policy, repeated in many states , is thought to be one of the reasons "hot spots" are flaring up around the US. On top of the predicted flare ups , "second wave" , as the country did open up . Leading to herd immunity , a less popular but additional necessary step to beating this man made diease. Thats a fact.  Unless these is a playbook on how to manage a pandemic, to say this POTUS has done little to nothing is a lie, thats a fact. Arrgh, I have to leave for work ...

Edited July 28, 2020 by new york kevin

[md11fr8dawg]

18 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Ahh....churches can't worship, or churches can't worship in person?  

 

GO RV, then BV

 

But you can go gamble at the Vegas casinos with NO social distancing. Nice try Shabs, oh and by the way the Annenberg Public Policy Center is a left wing advocacy group that owns FactCheck.org, (kind of like the stalwart of truth Snopes). I clicked on the author of your piece (Robert Farley) and there IS NOT ONE article he has written recently that is not suffering from greater TDS that you and caddie man display. Fascinating!!

[nstoolman1]

19 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Awesome, that's exactly what my wife and I do, as well.....I'm glad you changed the way you're handling it, as I believe you posted previously that you didn't need to wear a mask if everybody else was.  If I'm misremembering that, or it was somebody else who posted that stance, I apologize.  

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Shabs, I only wear a mask when required to enter a store or business. I refuse to wear one outside. We always wear one at the nursing facility out of precaution.