"Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts"

[Ray From Cleveland]

I can't breath with a mask on. I couldn't stand oxygen masks when i WENT in for an operation, I tolerate the mask less than those. I have problems breathing. I'll stay home until whenever. I don't want to live in a world where everyone wears a mask.

Since that Uterus holds a life and removing it would cause it's death.
Not wearing a mask will not cause me to die and even so, I'm an adult able to make my own choices but the child isn't.

A growing body of evidence supports the idea that wearing face masks in public, even when you feel well, can help curb the spread of the coronavirus — since people can spread the virus even without showing symptoms. That's the main reason to wear a mask: to protect other people from you.

However that's not written in stone, it's what the left wishes to believe. While you can find studies and such to show they work, I can find studies that say they don't. It's subjective, just like man made global warming, or the effects of hydroxychloroquine.

Because there is no consensus, then it should be the individuals choice whether to wear a mask or not.

I think there is a huge consensus among just everybody in the healthcare field in regard to mask wearing. Of course it probably does not include your local bartender who is out of work, Sam the Surfer, and my granddaughter that thinks wearing a mask makes her look ugly. And there is a lot evidence coming contact tracing that shows that people that are asymptomatic are spreading the virus.

I read the opposite from the CDC just a few weeks ago. This tells you how everything changes. First a mask was no good, now it's mandated in cities and states across the country. Before asymptomatic people were low risk for spreading, now the risk of spreading is the same.

I think there is a difference between going to a restaurant and going to a doctors office. Doctors are exposed to ill people day in day out. For most of us, we will probably never be around a person with Covid unless you are a socialite, or your business relies on personal contact with people all day long. Although our antibody testing is far from perfected, some are suggesting that we are already in the herd process and there's no stopping it.

The problem with this thing is we've never experienced anything like it; at least with the technology we have today. Who knows......next year at this time, they may be telling us what a waste of time and money it was for us to wear a mask. We simply don't know.

Early on CDC said that masks would not protect you which was true then and is basically true today. Actually, there is a very small amount of protection for the wearer but not much. Herd immunity as defined by the scientist is a calculated estimate based on transmission rate and reproductive numbers for the virus. For this virus herd immunity is 70% of the population having been exposed, that is they have antibodies. That can be off by 10 or 15%. If the scientists definition of herd immunity is used, there should not be much difference in the calculation.

We may not have all the details of a virus but we know a lot about epidemics and how to control them. For example any airborne virus or a virus whose most common transmission is through the air, the key to stopping transmission is preventing the virus from reaching a host. Masks, plastic shields, staying away from the source of virus, staying at home, etc prevents the spread, a really easy to understand concept but pretty hard to implement in a large population.

We also know a lot about a virus based on the characteristics of the family. There are 6 types of coronavirus that can infect humans which includes Mers and SARS. They have many of the same characteristic but there are some differences. It's really fortunate that there was work done developing the SARS vaccine because this gave researchers a starting point in developing the vaccine for this member of the family. Making changes to the vaccine can be very simple. However, every time you change the vaccine you start over in testing. This is why it takes so long to develop a vaccine. The fact that we are willing to accept a vaccine which has is not very effective, 40% makes it more likely we will get one sooner rather later.

It's wishful thinking, but there certainly is no guarantee a vaccine can be developed. We still don't have vaccines for HIV, flu, even the common cold.

If a new vaccine came out and was approved by September, many Americans would be hesitant to take it including myself. It reminds me of when I bought my first computer and read up on it. It was a Dummy's book. The author warned his readers to never buy software 2.0. 2.0 software is the original version. When thousands of people use it problem free in trials, it's different than when you start passing it out to millions of people. That's when they discover the hidden flaws and imperfections. It's why you always wait until version 2.2. or 2.3 to come out. Those are the versions where the flaws have been corrected.

It's the same with new medications. Yes, it undergoes intense testing, but we won't know the results or drawbacks until it's been used on tens of millions of people. Even then, it could take years to find out if it has any long-term negative effects.

Before I take it, I would need 100% guarantee from my doctor that it won't have any harmful effects on me, corroborated by my cousin, who is a retired research doctor that supervised the laboratory where she worked. Until I get that, I may wait for a while if and when a vaccine comes out.

I agree with your assessment of a vaccine with a few exceptions.
We do have a vaccine for the flu. I get one every year. A vaccine to prevent the common cold has been difficult to make, primarily because there are more than 200 different varieties of viruses that can cause colds. Also, if there were such a vaccine, you would have to get a new one every year like the flu vaccine, plus it would probably be not very effective due to the rate these viruses mutate.

The HIV is nothing like the coronations family of viruses. The problem developing a vaccine for HIV lies in genetic makeup of the virus. Unlike coronavirus, HIV has an incredibly fast replication cycle, less than 24 hour. However, the real show stopper is that HIV is prone to frequent replication errors, churning out mutated copies of itself which recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person.

This coronavirus is very similar to SARS which we have developed a vaccine. Also most of the organizations developing vaccines have already proved in the lab that their vaccine kills the virus and is so far harmless to humans. The big question market is how effective the vaccine will be. Typically vaccines like these are 40% to 70% effective. The CDC has implied that a 40% effective vaccine would be acceptable. Think about what this really means. If we are able to produce enough of the vaccine to make it available like the flu vaccine at every primary care doctors office, every pharmacy, hospital, and public health clinic, we might be able to get the same inoculation numbers as the flu vaccine which is 45% of the population by the end of next year. So we might just have have 148 million vaccinated with 40% less chance of getting the virus and the remainder no protection since they were not vaccinated. After a year or so we get more effective vaccines and thus more protection. My guess is we will reach herd immunity about the time of 2024 election.

I don't think we're going see an unemployment rate of less than 5% for at least a year or so and people will dying from coronavirus for many years, hopefully at a greatly reduced rate.

BTW You will never get a 100% guarantee that a vaccine will not harm you. Deaths caused by vaccines are less than 2 per million and in almost all of those cases the person had a compromised immune system or had other conditions. You're probably more likely to get killed by a lightening strike than a vaccine.

I happen to be one of those people. I am 60 years old, and one of my two major medical conditions is the number one condition associated with death. It's one of the reasons I'd be so hesitant to take it.

If we (or others) do develop a vaccine for this thing, it should be able to wipe it out. Unlike the flu, it won't mutate so rapidly or differently, if it does at all. Experts have said if it would, then a weaker much less deadly strain would take it's place, unlike the flu. And if it does again, the next strain will be weaker yet.

Plus I think careless people have become more conscious of cleanliness now. You still can't find hand sanitizer or liquid soap in some stores. Fortunately for me, one of my tenants works at a store where they had and abundance of it because of customer limitations. She brought home some sanitizer for me and I was grateful she did. I should have plenty for while, at least until the shelves get fully stocked again. In addition, GoJo, the people who make Purell, are opening up a factory in my suburb. With some luck, they will let the citizens buy direct from them. And thanks to President Trump, there is this:

US bets on small, untested company to deliver COVID vaccine

When precious vats of COVID-19 vaccine are finally ready, jabbing the lifesaving solution into the arms of Americans will require hundreds of millions of injections.

fox8.com

Every vaccine is different. For the influenza vaccine given to day, you should avoid it if you:

• Have had an allergic reaction after a previous dose of influenza vaccine, or have any severe, life-threatening allergies.
• Have ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome (also called GBS).

In order to wipe out the coronavirus, we would need a participation much more than the 45% we get with the influenza vaccine. The CDC did a big study of why people don't get the flu vaccine. As it turns only about 2% of the population has medical condition to disqualify them. If everyone that was eligible to take the flu shot did, we would nearly wipe it out. That means last year we would have saved the lives of nearly 57,000 people, prevented an illness that sickens nearly 40 million people plus an economic impact in the hundreds of millions.

With over 50 vaccines in test trials, I don't think we will need to worry about a vaccine being available next year.

I only take the flu shot once in a while. I've known many people who came down with illness after they took the shot. Some years, you get vaccinated for one strain, but a new strain comes out that makes the original vaccine worthless.

I have little doubt a vaccine for Covid will be made, it's just a matter of how effective it is, how many people get it, how many are restricted from getting it, and any serious side-effects many of us will be waiting for before we have confidence it's beneficial to us.

The reason you have a flu shot every year is to pickup protection for new strains of the viruses.

Viruses making you ill go back years when live viruses were used in most vaccines. That is no longer necessary. Today, if one person get's a flu shot and get's sick, they are almost certain to spread the news. However, for the tens of thousands of people that get flu shots and have no reaction at all, they remain silent. Ray, how often do people stop you on the street or call you and say, "Ray, guess what I got a flu yesterday and I feel just fine. My wife and I and most of my brothers and sisters have been getting flu shots every year for over 40 years and I can't remember anyone telling me they got sick. Thy myth that flu shots will make you sick has certainly contributed to the number of people that don't get vaccinated which cost us tens of thousands of lives every year.

I'm sure a majority don't get sick, but if you feel well, and then are faced with the possibility of getting sick because of the shot, you just don't take it. The times I've taken it, I've never experienced such a thing, but that doesn't mean it will always be that way in the future. My sister, who spent much of her life working in the hospital, took the shot and got the flu a week later.

If an when a vaccine comes out, I'm sure a lot of people will have reservations about getting one for some time. We can't deal out the media in this game. They will search high and low for stories of people getting ill or dying, because that's what sells newspapers and brings people to their internet
site, even if it is all bullshit. President Trump is absolutely correct when he says how dishonest most of our media is. They don't care about informing people, they care about making money, even if it's a disadvantage to society as a whole.

The vaccine tracker has 40 vaccines in progress.
There will certainly be a choice.

And Trump is last person you want to hear from about the media.
Because his favorite is OAN, a questionable source, at best.

OAN is not really mainstream media, just media with a very small audience.

I (like most people I'm sure) are anxious for a safe and reliable vaccine to come out. Yes, people are working 24/7 around the globe to get it done. Of course, the winner of the race will get very wealthy provided no serious side-effects happen when they start vaccinating tens or hundreds of millions of people.

I've seen great economies and terrible economies. I've seen people predicting the end of the world for one reason or another. I've seen situations that look hopeless for not only myself, but more importantly, the country. But this is a new animal we've never experienced before. This is like a nightmare that won't stop, and you're just praying to wake up and realize it was nothing but a terrible dream.

Yes it is a nightmare. We are now retired with all the money we need to see the world, visit or favorite restaurants go to baseball and football games, attend jazz festivals, plays, concerts, spend much needed time at my local gym, and visit all my grandchildren, yet I sit at this damn computer, watch old movies, and clean out the the storage room for the third time. With probably only a few years left on this earth, I sure as hell hate to spend my time like this but having experience with a ventilator I certainly don't want to spend any time there either. I know a lot of people that have it worse, but it still really sucks.

However, looking at the situation from a more global point of view, this country made it through the depression which lasted about 10 years and it was far worse than this.

Ray, I would really be surprised to see much change for at least a year. I figure by then we will either have a vaccine that is reducing the spread of the virus or we will have better treatments that will take the fear out of the disease.

And both are being worked on every living minute. People who had the virus and survived, developed antibodies that fight Covid off. Blood transfusions have a very encouraging future even if no vaccine is produced. As more people get it and recover, more subjects can donate this valuable plasma, particularly to front line healthcare workers, first responders, and eventually to people like me who are at high risk.

Medications have been politicizes such as hydroxychloroquine. Many doctors and experts say it is helping their patients with proper dosage. The problem is, Trump endorsed it's use, and now we have people on the right supporting the treatment, and people on the left, plus the MSM, who are against it for no reason other than Trump saying doctors who believe in the results should be allowed to prescribe it.

Everything in our country today is about politics unfortunately.

hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore, meaning it helps zinc to be absorbed into cells. But it doesnt do any good unless you have zinc available. Zinc is one of the components of a functioning immune system. The other components are avoiding sugar in diet, adequate vitamin D levels, and vitamin C in diet. But perhaps just as effective zinc ionophore is quercetin, which can be supplemented over the counter, or just by eating quercetin containing foods.

So, the reason hydroxychloroquine is "politicized" is because nobody explains such things. And that these components are relevant to any virus, flu or covid or whatever. Trump is too brain dead to be able to tell people about such things.

Laura has experts on her show all the time about how it works, what real studies show, and how they are treating patients successfully with the combo of drugs. After all, she's the one who brought HCQ to light. Trump just happens to watch her show.

WaPo did an opinion piece a while back, ‘The real reason Trump is obsessed with hydroxychloroquine,’ and it has some insight.

Basically, he’s looking for that silver bullet that ‘cures’ the virus, makes everyone think he’s brilliant, and he wins the election. It’s desperation.

Put in the frame of disinfectant injection, and it makes sense. Trump cures pandemic using only a turkey baster, some pliers and a bottle of dish soap. He wants to be the guy that discovered bleach. He wants to be smart again.

A study came out saying ‘Hydroxychloroquine’ works—and he’s like, ‘See, I told you so!’ He’s vindicated.

Well.....it actually has worked. Trump promoted it because he believes it has worked here and abroad. Trump will do anything to get this behind us, and I support anybody that has the same goal.

It's the left that politicized it, not Trump. If Trump originally came out and said he's against the use of HCQ, the left would have been shouting from the rooftops how Trump is not for saving Americans. How Trump is hoping we turn to a solution from a company he has investments in. Every news outlet on cable television would be promoting the use of HCQ, and demanding that it be made as an over the counter drug for anybody to get their hands on.

Unfortunately Trump is new at politics, and didn't think this out clearly before supporting the use of HCQ.

I'm ok with a president giving advice on basketball or the stock market. The worst that can happen is some money is lost or the team loses. In the field of medicine bad advice can result in people dying. Trump is not a doctor and as far as I can tell, he has absolutely no background in science. Recommendations on medical treatment should come from people who know what they talking about.

When the President ever addressed this product, he has always stated for people to discuss the use of it with their doctor first. They really have no choice though, because it needs to be prescribed.

My question is why did the president say anything about this to the public? If the article he read made him think that there might be something to it, he should have handed it to FDA for investigation.

It appears to me that Trump can not resist being a commentator whether he has any knowledge of the subject or not. As Donald Trump the businessman that's fine but not Donald Trump the president. Words have power and a huge amount of power when they come from the president. It might be pleasing to hear a president speaking to you like your next door neighbor but that is a big mistake. What the president says needs to be sanitized because we all say things at times we don't mean or that's incorrect. It doesn't mean much if we do it but not the president. Once the president says something it will be written in stone. If his words are subject to interpretation, as most of what Trump says when he's off script, his opposition will interpret his words negatively and his supporters will interpret them positive. And the rest will just scratch their head wondering what the fuck the president really mean by saying this.

Trump's inability to control his mouth and speak coherently is the major reason I would never vote for him.

Come now Flopper, I'm sure you have a list of reasons, including that he's with the Republican party.

Trump never said don't use X, and use HCQ instead. There was nothing better at the time, and still isn't, although there are new breakthroughs with remdesivir. It's much more costly of course, and research is still ongoing.

My point here is that by Trump talking about HCQ, nobody got hurt by it. If anything, he may have saved many lives because of it. If you didn't see that video I posted, I suggest you watch it. I know, I hate watching videos here too, but it's reasonably short.

If you don't have the time, it's a state rep that gave Trump credit for saving her life. The clinicians gave up hope for her while suffering with Covid, and then she demanded that they give her HCQ, because she seen the President support it's use. And BTW, she's a Democrat.

Her doctors were hesitant, but thought to themselves, why not? We have little to lose at this point.

After all her suffering, she claims to have seen improvements in her condition within a few hours of taking the combo. It only got better from there, and eventually she made a full recovery.

She probably still won't vote for Trump, but wanted to show her support for this drug to help others that may be in her position right now.

I said his inability to control his mouth and speak coherently is the major reason. Of course I have more and you've probably read a number of them but being a republican is not the only reason to vote against him.

Unlike most presidential candidates who fought for the presidency to make changes, Donald Trump fought for the presidency to just win. The republican issues he select were just a means to an end, winning. The same is true as president. The issue is of little importance but winning is everything. If Trump wins this election, you better hope the democrats don't get control of congress. If that happens, you will see a new Donald Trump that will make you wonder whether he was ever a republican. Trump will do anything to win. If he decides to back a bill and that means given a democrat congress a liberal supreme court judge, he would do it in heartbeat. The issues mean nothing to him. They never have because as you said, he's not a politician.

Well........we could take that risk that Trump might do these things. On the other hand, if Biden wins, we know these are things he will do. So our better odds are voting for the reelection of President Trump.

President Trump has made changes, many of which he ran on. He did a fantastic job on the border in spite of Democrats who want an open one. He went around them by using military funds for the wall he promised us. He attacked immigration on every level possible: From pressuring Mexico to stop migrants from crossing their country to get to ours, to redoing asylum applications which now must be done at their embassy, to creating policy that all asylum applications will be rejected IF they were offered asylum in Mexico or elsewhere, to addressing the Birther Tourism problem, to the Visa problem, which he currently decided if they are going to have virtual college classes, they can return home and take them from their own country; just every possible level.

Yes, Trump concentrated on winning, because winning is the only way he could make the changes he wanted. How could he make any changes by losing? Every presidential or congressional candidate concentrates on winning first.

What makes me confident that Trump will not be a lame duck? President Trump has lost over a billion dollars of net worth since running for this position. He has donated every presidential paycheck. IMO, he's not in this for himself, he's in this for us. No President in our history has given up so much to do this job than President Trump.

That's why I think your theory is flawed.

I completely disagree with your statement, "Trump concentrated on winning, because winning is the only way he could make the changes he wanted." In the campaign, Trump concentrated on the changes you wanted because it was the only way he could win the election. The same is true now.

I'll agree that his motives are irrelevant as long he accomplished what you want. However looking ahead, suppose I'm right and his motive is strictly to win and the particularly issues are irrelevant to him. If he wins the election and democrats win the congress, do you really think he would go down fighting for an immigration bill you want and the repeal of Obamacare that would fail in congress. Or would he work with democrats and pass a landmark immigration reform bill and a healthcare bill that surpasses Obamacare in coverage and benefits. A true republican politician would never turn his back on the party and would go down swinging rather support such liberal issues, but Trump is not a politician and he would not chose to end his 2nd term as a loser.

What he has been doing for three and a half years is winning. So correct, why would he change that?

If he wins the election and Democrats keep the House, and even get a majority in the Senate, not much changes except for the possibility of not getting his judges nominated should that come about, which I think it will; Ginsburg isn't going to make it another four and a half years.

There may be slight changes in the House if Republicans take it, but that would hinge on how many more Republicans we have. We need to out vote the RINO's and TDS people, and the same goes in the Senate if we keep that. So I think no matter what happens, Commie Care will continue to be with us unless some issue or another surfaces and they take that up to the Supreme Court.

What do you mean nothing changes? If democrats controls the House and Senate, they can block every piece of legislation Trump proposes, de-fund any project including the wall, strip his budget, block any appoints, nix his nomination of judges, change the laws under which he operates, and kick him and any of his people out of office. Do you really think the master deal maker would put up with that for 4 years. He would be cutting deals right and left with congress to put his signature on historic liberal legislation.

Well we can agree on Obamacare, it's going be with us a long time simple Republicans don't want to tackle healthcare. Republicans controlled the congress and presidency in Trump's first 2 years and the best they could do was remove the mandate which just pushed rates up leaving most of Obamacare in place because republicans had no replacement.

Like I said, nothing changes except when it comes to SC nominees, because he won't have a Republican led Senate to confirm. Democrats in the House are already stopping everything Trump has proposed. They can't defund anything because doing so would still require the Presidents signature. Please explain how they would kick him out of office. You do know that even if they pulled another fake impeachment, you still need 2/3 of the Senate for removal, and they have no power to remove anybody from his administration either.

First, off if congress approves the budget and the president refuses to sign it, the budget will go back to congress. If the House and Senate do not agree on a bill, then either can call for a budget reconciliation bill. This bill provides government funding but not necessarily what president wants. If only requires a simple majority in each house and does not require the president's signature.

It's true that that a 2/3 vote in a Senate impeachment trial is required to convict. However, if democrats control the Senate, republicans in the Senate can not dismiss the bill of impeachment without a trial as they did this year. That means democrats can conduct the trial at their leisure, even modifying the bill of impeachment and calling as many witnesses as they see necessary to convince a handful of republicans to vote against Trump. All republicans in the Senate backing trump when he's a lame duck, is not likely.

Democrat control of senate also means all federal judges and the 1200 presidential appointments have to be approved by the senate as well as most trade deals and treaties or modifications there of.

What I am saying is most of the Trump destruction to the nation could be stopped by a democrat congress but not erased. However Trump could still do quite a bit of damage through executive orders, forcing the country into war, and declarations of national emergencies.

A war? A war with whom?

There will never be enough Republicans in the Senate to make 2/3. It's never happened before and likely never will unless we get an actual criminal. Any Republican Senator who would vote that way may likely be ending their political career. Then there is the party. Such an action just might spark a reemergence of Tea Party people wanting to make the Tea Party an actual party, thus ending any kind of leadership by Republicans in the White House, Senate, and yes, in the House. In other words, it's never going to happen.

When it comes to disagreements, Democrats love to shutdown the government. Why? Because the media is totally on their side and willing to lie for the party, since they are actually part of the party anyway. They simply blame it on whoever the Republican(s) are in charge.

If you consider what Trump did the last three and a half years as damage, let's hope for much more damage the next four and a half years.

A war (military action) against any nation that would in his mind be a win for Donald Trump.

A win for what? After he's re-elected, he doesn't have to win anything. He had plenty of opportunity to start a war. He's done everything in his power to avoid conflicts.

The simple joy of winning. If you don't understand that, you don't understand anything about Trump. Throughout Donald Trump's presidency, his business career, and his personal life, when has he every not been engage in a fight with reporters, entertainment personalities, family, politicians, employees, etc. Trump has never been very picky about his opponents, anybody, from a plumbing contractor he owns $500, to the Director of FBI . The only thing Donald Trump loves more than a good fight is winning. What he wins is irrelevant as are most of the most issues.

Nobody wins anything with war unless it's a very substantial reason. 99% of Donald Trump's conflicts are with people that start with him first. If you don't understand that, then it is you who doesn't understand President Trump. It's not characteristic for Donald Trump to draw first blood.

Trump's confrontational manner is where things go wrong. Trump makes a comment about the terrible acting in a movie, a less than complimentary comment about BLM, a comment about a governor inability to manage the riots, ect. This is baiting and he has been doing this most of his life. If Trump's not in a fight, he's looking for one. This is not something that's accidental. As Trump has said, "I love conflict."

Republican strategist Alex Castellanos described Trump perfectly when he said, "

“He is not interested in pleasures such as art and food and friendship, and he doesn’t seem to be motivated by love or creative impulses. The one exception is his drive to create conflict, which brings him the attention of others. When he says he likes to fight—all kinds of fights—he is telling the truth,”

Trump's insatiable desire for conflict is not responsible for America's problems such as the virus or the resulting economic slowdown, it just makes it worse because conflict withing a nation or an organization results in people working at cross purposes.

Trump Defends West Wing Turnover: ‘I Like Conflict’

President Donald Trump on Tuesday described West Wing conflict as beneficial to his decision-making process and said “everybody” wants to work on his staff, dismissing suggestions the administration was in turmoil after the departure of several senior aides in recent months.

www.wsj.com

I don't think Trump's words are anything by trying to ward off problems. When he said he likes or loves battles, it's sort of like when a peacock fans it's features to make it look larger than it is; to frighten it's enemies in order to stay out of conflict, not create it.

I've seen very few times Trump has ever attacked somebody that didn't start with him first. The only possible exception to that is if they attacked somebody he loves, respects, or works with. If he criticized an actor, a Governor, a gold star father, I guarantee if you look deep enough, they said or did something to him first.

 

[Flopper]

I don't think Trump's words are anything by trying to ward off problems. When he said he likes or loves battles, it's sort of like when a peacock fans it's features to make it look larger than it is; to frighten it's enemies in order to stay out of conflict, not create it.

I've seen very few times Trump has ever attacked somebody that didn't start with him first. The only possible exception to that is if they attacked somebody he loves, respects, or works with. If he criticized an actor, a Governor, a gold star father, I guarantee if you look deep enough, they said or did something to him first.

That depends of what you call, "starting it first". If you look back at some of the Trump battle of words, you'll see they most often start with Trump attacking some group or person for some action by the group or person which elicits a respond which is exactly what he wants. It's no different than what goes on here and elsewhere on the internet, people using inflammatory and upsetting language to start a quarrel.

Trump has issued over 20,000 tweets since he entered office and most of those tweets created discord and division. Trump is a contrarian by nature. Whatever experts agree on, Trump will try to cast doubt on it. It doesn't matter what it might be from astronauts on the moon, Obama's birth certificate, or the number of people at his inauguration.

When the coronavirus came along and the WHO declared it a pandemic, Trump could not resist the urge to downplay it. So it became just the common flu and then a democrat hoax. When it was suggested in late February that travel from Europe be stopped because Cornonavirus was coming into the US from Europe, Trump just ignored it for 3 weeks. When it was suggested by his response team that he use the Defense Production Act to solve the shortages of equipment, supplies, and test kits, he said the states should buy what they needed so hospitals were bidding against each other for supplies that hardly existed. When his response team called for more testing Trump resisted and claimed we have enough testing. His own hand picked medical advisors stated that there is enough evidence to support the wearing a mask and the need is there, what does Trump do? He announced he will not be wearing a mask. When governors and mayors were urging or requiring people to wear masks, Trump says it should be an individual choice creating open deviance in places that were being hard hit by the virus.

It should have been ridiculous easy for Trump to become the hero and bring the virus under control and avoid the economic impact we are seeing today. All he needed to do was establish the seriousness of the virus on day one, enact the Defense Production Act, and support the actions of his response team. Of course that was not going to happen. Trump could not resist occupying center stage and the only way he could do that was to create controversy which is his typical reaction.

Deaths are now 141,000 and the rate has risen to nearly a thousand a day. I guess we will never know how many lives and families have been destroyed by Trump's foolishness.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think Trump's words are anything by trying to ward off problems. When he said he likes or loves battles, it's sort of like when a peacock fans it's features to make it look larger than it is; to frighten it's enemies in order to stay out of conflict, not create it.

I've seen very few times Trump has ever attacked somebody that didn't start with him first. The only possible exception to that is if they attacked somebody he loves, respects, or works with. If he criticized an actor, a Governor, a gold star father, I guarantee if you look deep enough, they said or did something to him first.

That depends of what you call, "starting it first". If you look back at some of the Trump battle of words, you'll see they most often start with Trump attacking some group or person for some action by the group or person which elicits a respond which is exactly what he wants. It's no different than what goes on here and elsewhere on the internet, people using inflammatory and upsetting language to start a quarrel.

Trump has issued over 20,000 tweets since he entered office and most of those tweets created discord and division. Trump is a contrarian by nature. Whatever experts agree on, Trump will try to cast doubt on it. It doesn't matter what it might be from astronauts on the moon, Obama's birth certificate, or the number of people at his inauguration.

When the coronavirus came along and the WHO declared it a pandemic, Trump could not resist the urge to downplay it. So it became just the common flu and then a democrat hoax. When it was suggested in late February that travel from Europe be stopped because Cornonavirus was coming into the US from Europe, Trump just ignored it for 3 weeks. When it was suggested by his response team that he use the Defense Production Act to solve the shortages of equipment, supplies, and test kits, he said the states should buy what they needed so hospitals were bidding against each other for supplies that hardly existed. When his response team called for more testing Trump resisted and claimed we have enough testing. His own hand picked medical advisors stated that there is enough evidence to support the wearing a mask and the need is there, what does Trump do? He announced he will not be wearing a mask. When governors and mayors were urging or requiring people to wear masks, Trump says it should be an individual choice creating open deviance in places that were being hard hit by the virus.

It should have been ridiculous easy for Trump to become the hero and bring the virus under control and avoid the economic impact we are seeing today. All he needed to do was establish the seriousness of the virus on day one, enact the Defense Production Act, and support the actions of his response team. Of course that was not going to happen. Trump could not resist occupying center stage and the only way he could do that was to create controversy which is his typical reaction.

Deaths are now 141,000 and the rate has risen to nearly a thousand a day. I guess we will never know how many lives and families have been destroyed by Trump's foolishness.

Well I'm calling you out on this one. Give me an example of Trump attacking somebody that didn't say anything about him, had no impact on his presidency or reputation, or attacked somebody he loved or worked with. Even if you could find one, it would be one in a million.

The WHO didn't declare a pandemic until mid March according to Live Science.com. Trump started action in late January. No, nothing drastic, but taking measures nevertheless. Need the day by day actions, just ask.

Trump did use the Defensive Protection Act. He got into a huge battle with 3-M, who were selling masks to China before us. As for the bidding war, he was unaware of that. When his administration found out about it, he put a stop to it. And when did the President ever say we didn't need more testing kits? I heard him say we have plenty, but at no time did he ever say we don't need to slow down or stop making them.

 

[Flopper]

I don't think Trump's words are anything by trying to ward off problems. When he said he likes or loves battles, it's sort of like when a peacock fans it's features to make it look larger than it is; to frighten it's enemies in order to stay out of conflict, not create it.

I've seen very few times Trump has ever attacked somebody that didn't start with him first. The only possible exception to that is if they attacked somebody he loves, respects, or works with. If he criticized an actor, a Governor, a gold star father, I guarantee if you look deep enough, they said or did something to him first.

That depends of what you call, "starting it first". If you look back at some of the Trump battle of words, you'll see they most often start with Trump attacking some group or person for some action by the group or person which elicits a respond which is exactly what he wants. It's no different than what goes on here and elsewhere on the internet, people using inflammatory and upsetting language to start a quarrel.

Trump has issued over 20,000 tweets since he entered office and most of those tweets created discord and division. Trump is a contrarian by nature. Whatever experts agree on, Trump will try to cast doubt on it. It doesn't matter what it might be from astronauts on the moon, Obama's birth certificate, or the number of people at his inauguration.

When the coronavirus came along and the WHO declared it a pandemic, Trump could not resist the urge to downplay it. So it became just the common flu and then a democrat hoax. When it was suggested in late February that travel from Europe be stopped because Cornonavirus was coming into the US from Europe, Trump just ignored it for 3 weeks. When it was suggested by his response team that he use the Defense Production Act to solve the shortages of equipment, supplies, and test kits, he said the states should buy what they needed so hospitals were bidding against each other for supplies that hardly existed. When his response team called for more testing Trump resisted and claimed we have enough testing. His own hand picked medical advisors stated that there is enough evidence to support the wearing a mask and the need is there, what does Trump do? He announced he will not be wearing a mask. When governors and mayors were urging or requiring people to wear masks, Trump says it should be an individual choice creating open deviance in places that were being hard hit by the virus.

It should have been ridiculous easy for Trump to become the hero and bring the virus under control and avoid the economic impact we are seeing today. All he needed to do was establish the seriousness of the virus on day one, enact the Defense Production Act, and support the actions of his response team. Of course that was not going to happen. Trump could not resist occupying center stage and the only way he could do that was to create controversy which is his typical reaction.

Deaths are now 141,000 and the rate has risen to nearly a thousand a day. I guess we will never know how many lives and families have been destroyed by Trump's foolishness.

Well I'm calling you out on this one. Give me an example of Trump attacking somebody that didn't say anything about him, had no impact on his presidency or reputation, or attacked somebody he loved or worked with. Even if you could find one, it would be one in a million.

The WHO didn't declare a pandemic until mid March according to Live Science.com. Trump started action in late January. No, nothing drastic, but taking measures nevertheless. Need the day by day actions, just ask.

Trump did use the Defensive Protection Act. He got into a huge battle with 3-M, who were selling masks to China before us. As for the bidding war, he was unaware of that. When his administration found out about it, he put a stop to it. And when did the President ever say we didn't need more testing kits? I heard him say we have plenty, but at no time did he ever say we don't need to slow down or stop making them.

At a speech in Lima, Ohio, on Wednesday, President Trump went off script into a five minute, ad-libbed attack on the late Sen. John McCain, a celebrated Vietnam War veteran and a former prisoner of war. Lost amid the unusual verbal attack on a deceased war hero by a sitting president was an inaccurate claim about veterans' issues.

President Trump slammed McCain for failing to pass a bill to expand VA services — a bill which in fact was originally sponsored by Sen. McCain.

It's not the first time the president has picked a fight with John McCain. It was the first major fight, though, since John McCain died of brain cancer seven months ago. Trump called the dead senator ungrateful and claimed, falsely, to have approved McCain's funeral at the National Cathedral. Trump is so combative that he has to picks fights with a dead man.

Among False Claims, Trump Attacked McCain For Failing Veterans

President Trump's attack on the late Sen. John McCain included an inaccurate claim about McCain's role in reforming the VA. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., called Trump's remarks "deplorable."

www.npr.org

The 23 people, places and things Donald Trump has attacked on Twitter as president

The main targets that have drawn Trump's ire since he was sworn in on Jan. 20.

www.politico.com

In the WHO meeting of Jan 30, they declared a public health emergency. They certainly could not declare a pandemic with only 1 confirmed case out side of China (Thailand). In the meeting they said, " China quickly identified the virus and shared its sequence (Jan 5th), so that other countries could diagnose it quickly and protect themselves, which has resulted in the rapid development of diagnostic tools.

Further on Jan 30th, the committee said, "The Committee believes that it is still possible to interrupt virus spread, provided that countries put in place strong measures to detect disease early, isolate and treat cases, trace contacts, and promote social distancing measures commensurate with the risk."

China provided all countries including US the information they need to build test kits on Jan 5th. The WHO declared a public health emergency of Jan 30 and reiterated that all countries had the information needed to rapidly develop diagnostic tools to detect the virus. The WHO did exactly what they should have done in regard to the virus. The fault lies with the Trump administration who failed to use the data provided by China on Jan 5th to produce working test kits as dozens of other countries did.

Trump's attack on the WHO is an obvious attempt to shift the blame for his administration's failure. The question he will never answer is why did his administration fail so badly when dozens of other countries working with the same information provided by China and the WHO succeed. South Korea used the information provided by China to created 3 million test kits in 2 months. They reduced the number cases in March by 90%. Today South Korea's total number of deaths is 294, life is near normal and unemployment is 4.3%. This could have been the US if we had a president that was committed and was able to provide the leadership needed instead creating conflicts and dissent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think Trump's words are anything by trying to ward off problems. When he said he likes or loves battles, it's sort of like when a peacock fans it's features to make it look larger than it is; to frighten it's enemies in order to stay out of conflict, not create it.

I've seen very few times Trump has ever attacked somebody that didn't start with him first. The only possible exception to that is if they attacked somebody he loves, respects, or works with. If he criticized an actor, a Governor, a gold star father, I guarantee if you look deep enough, they said or did something to him first.

That depends of what you call, "starting it first". If you look back at some of the Trump battle of words, you'll see they most often start with Trump attacking some group or person for some action by the group or person which elicits a respond which is exactly what he wants. It's no different than what goes on here and elsewhere on the internet, people using inflammatory and upsetting language to start a quarrel.

Trump has issued over 20,000 tweets since he entered office and most of those tweets created discord and division. Trump is a contrarian by nature. Whatever experts agree on, Trump will try to cast doubt on it. It doesn't matter what it might be from astronauts on the moon, Obama's birth certificate, or the number of people at his inauguration.

When the coronavirus came along and the WHO declared it a pandemic, Trump could not resist the urge to downplay it. So it became just the common flu and then a democrat hoax. When it was suggested in late February that travel from Europe be stopped because Cornonavirus was coming into the US from Europe, Trump just ignored it for 3 weeks. When it was suggested by his response team that he use the Defense Production Act to solve the shortages of equipment, supplies, and test kits, he said the states should buy what they needed so hospitals were bidding against each other for supplies that hardly existed. When his response team called for more testing Trump resisted and claimed we have enough testing. His own hand picked medical advisors stated that there is enough evidence to support the wearing a mask and the need is there, what does Trump do? He announced he will not be wearing a mask. When governors and mayors were urging or requiring people to wear masks, Trump says it should be an individual choice creating open deviance in places that were being hard hit by the virus.

It should have been ridiculous easy for Trump to become the hero and bring the virus under control and avoid the economic impact we are seeing today. All he needed to do was establish the seriousness of the virus on day one, enact the Defense Production Act, and support the actions of his response team. Of course that was not going to happen. Trump could not resist occupying center stage and the only way he could do that was to create controversy which is his typical reaction.

Deaths are now 141,000 and the rate has risen to nearly a thousand a day. I guess we will never know how many lives and families have been destroyed by Trump's foolishness.

Well I'm calling you out on this one. Give me an example of Trump attacking somebody that didn't say anything about him, had no impact on his presidency or reputation, or attacked somebody he loved or worked with. Even if you could find one, it would be one in a million.

The WHO didn't declare a pandemic until mid March according to Live Science.com. Trump started action in late January. No, nothing drastic, but taking measures nevertheless. Need the day by day actions, just ask.

Trump did use the Defensive Protection Act. He got into a huge battle with 3-M, who were selling masks to China before us. As for the bidding war, he was unaware of that. When his administration found out about it, he put a stop to it. And when did the President ever say we didn't need more testing kits? I heard him say we have plenty, but at no time did he ever say we don't need to slow down or stop making them.

At a speech in Lima, Ohio, on Wednesday, President Trump went off script into a five minute, ad-libbed attack on the late Sen. John McCain, a celebrated Vietnam War veteran and a former prisoner of war. Lost amid the unusual verbal attack on a deceased war hero by a sitting president was an inaccurate claim about veterans' issues.

President Trump slammed McCain for failing to pass a bill to expand VA services — a bill which in fact was originally sponsored by Sen. McCain.

It's not the first time the president has picked a fight with John McCain. It was the first major fight, though, since John McCain died of brain cancer seven months ago. Trump called the dead senator ungrateful and claimed, falsely, to have approved McCain's funeral at the National Cathedral. Trump is so combative that he has to picks fights with a dead man.

Among False Claims, Trump Attacked McCain For Failing Veterans

President Trump's attack on the late Sen. John McCain included an inaccurate claim about McCain's role in reforming the VA. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., called Trump's remarks "deplorable."

www.npr.org

The 23 people, places and things Donald Trump has attacked on Twitter as president

The main targets that have drawn Trump's ire since he was sworn in on Jan. 20.

www.politico.com

In the WHO meeting of Jan 30, they declared a public health emergency. They certainly could not declare a pandemic with only 1 confirmed case out side of China (Thailand). In the meeting they said, " China quickly identified the virus and shared its sequence (Jan 5th), so that other countries could diagnose it quickly and protect themselves, which has resulted in the rapid development of diagnostic tools.

Further on Jan 30th, the committee said, "The Committee believes that it is still possible to interrupt virus spread, provided that countries put in place strong measures to detect disease early, isolate and treat cases, trace contacts, and promote social distancing measures commensurate with the risk."

China provided all countries including US the information they need to build test kits on Jan 5th. The WHO declared a public health emergency of Jan 30 and reiterated that all countries had the information needed to rapidly develop diagnostic tools to detect the virus. The WHO did exactly what they should have done in regard to the virus. The fault lies with the Trump administration who failed to use the data provided by China on Jan 5th to produce working test kits as dozens of other countries did.

Trump's attack on the WHO is an obvious attempt to shift the blame for his administration's failure. The question he will never answer is why did his administration fail so badly when dozens of other countries working with the same information provided by China and the WHO succeed. South Korea used the information provided by China to created 3 million test kits in 2 months. They reduced the number cases in March by 90%. Today South Korea's total number of deaths is 294, life is near normal and unemployment is 4.3%. This could have been the US if we had a president that was committed and was able to provide the leadership needed instead creating conflicts and dissent.

As I stated, Trump seldom if ever attacks somebody unless they messed with him first. McCain was the Republican working with the coupe to get Trump. He got a hold of the dossier to give to Comey which started a lot of the mess they created.

As for the test kits, we didn't need to make any because we already had them. The CDC had the only test kits the FDA approved of, so it's the only ones we could have used. Unfortunately, they were defective and had to start all over again once we needed them. Plus at the time you are indicating, nobody had any idea it would ever have gotten this bad. I know you want to blame Trump for everything including how high the tides are in the ocean, but you're only making yourself feel good. The rest of the country understands what really happened.

 

[Flopper]

I don't think Trump's words are anything by trying to ward off problems. When he said he likes or loves battles, it's sort of like when a peacock fans it's features to make it look larger than it is; to frighten it's enemies in order to stay out of conflict, not create it.

I've seen very few times Trump has ever attacked somebody that didn't start with him first. The only possible exception to that is if they attacked somebody he loves, respects, or works with. If he criticized an actor, a Governor, a gold star father, I guarantee if you look deep enough, they said or did something to him first.

That depends of what you call, "starting it first". If you look back at some of the Trump battle of words, you'll see they most often start with Trump attacking some group or person for some action by the group or person which elicits a respond which is exactly what he wants. It's no different than what goes on here and elsewhere on the internet, people using inflammatory and upsetting language to start a quarrel.

Trump has issued over 20,000 tweets since he entered office and most of those tweets created discord and division. Trump is a contrarian by nature. Whatever experts agree on, Trump will try to cast doubt on it. It doesn't matter what it might be from astronauts on the moon, Obama's birth certificate, or the number of people at his inauguration.

When the coronavirus came along and the WHO declared it a pandemic, Trump could not resist the urge to downplay it. So it became just the common flu and then a democrat hoax. When it was suggested in late February that travel from Europe be stopped because Cornonavirus was coming into the US from Europe, Trump just ignored it for 3 weeks. When it was suggested by his response team that he use the Defense Production Act to solve the shortages of equipment, supplies, and test kits, he said the states should buy what they needed so hospitals were bidding against each other for supplies that hardly existed. When his response team called for more testing Trump resisted and claimed we have enough testing. His own hand picked medical advisors stated that there is enough evidence to support the wearing a mask and the need is there, what does Trump do? He announced he will not be wearing a mask. When governors and mayors were urging or requiring people to wear masks, Trump says it should be an individual choice creating open deviance in places that were being hard hit by the virus.

It should have been ridiculous easy for Trump to become the hero and bring the virus under control and avoid the economic impact we are seeing today. All he needed to do was establish the seriousness of the virus on day one, enact the Defense Production Act, and support the actions of his response team. Of course that was not going to happen. Trump could not resist occupying center stage and the only way he could do that was to create controversy which is his typical reaction.

Deaths are now 141,000 and the rate has risen to nearly a thousand a day. I guess we will never know how many lives and families have been destroyed by Trump's foolishness.

Well I'm calling you out on this one. Give me an example of Trump attacking somebody that didn't say anything about him, had no impact on his presidency or reputation, or attacked somebody he loved or worked with. Even if you could find one, it would be one in a million.

The WHO didn't declare a pandemic until mid March according to Live Science.com. Trump started action in late January. No, nothing drastic, but taking measures nevertheless. Need the day by day actions, just ask.

Trump did use the Defensive Protection Act. He got into a huge battle with 3-M, who were selling masks to China before us. As for the bidding war, he was unaware of that. When his administration found out about it, he put a stop to it. And when did the President ever say we didn't need more testing kits? I heard him say we have plenty, but at no time did he ever say we don't need to slow down or stop making them.

At a speech in Lima, Ohio, on Wednesday, President Trump went off script into a five minute, ad-libbed attack on the late Sen. John McCain, a celebrated Vietnam War veteran and a former prisoner of war. Lost amid the unusual verbal attack on a deceased war hero by a sitting president was an inaccurate claim about veterans' issues.

President Trump slammed McCain for failing to pass a bill to expand VA services — a bill which in fact was originally sponsored by Sen. McCain.

It's not the first time the president has picked a fight with John McCain. It was the first major fight, though, since John McCain died of brain cancer seven months ago. Trump called the dead senator ungrateful and claimed, falsely, to have approved McCain's funeral at the National Cathedral. Trump is so combative that he has to picks fights with a dead man.

Among False Claims, Trump Attacked McCain For Failing Veterans

President Trump's attack on the late Sen. John McCain included an inaccurate claim about McCain's role in reforming the VA. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., called Trump's remarks "deplorable."

www.npr.org

The 23 people, places and things Donald Trump has attacked on Twitter as president

The main targets that have drawn Trump's ire since he was sworn in on Jan. 20.

www.politico.com

In the WHO meeting of Jan 30, they declared a public health emergency. They certainly could not declare a pandemic with only 1 confirmed case out side of China (Thailand). In the meeting they said, " China quickly identified the virus and shared its sequence (Jan 5th), so that other countries could diagnose it quickly and protect themselves, which has resulted in the rapid development of diagnostic tools.

Further on Jan 30th, the committee said, "The Committee believes that it is still possible to interrupt virus spread, provided that countries put in place strong measures to detect disease early, isolate and treat cases, trace contacts, and promote social distancing measures commensurate with the risk."

China provided all countries including US the information they need to build test kits on Jan 5th. The WHO declared a public health emergency of Jan 30 and reiterated that all countries had the information needed to rapidly develop diagnostic tools to detect the virus. The WHO did exactly what they should have done in regard to the virus. The fault lies with the Trump administration who failed to use the data provided by China on Jan 5th to produce working test kits as dozens of other countries did.

Trump's attack on the WHO is an obvious attempt to shift the blame for his administration's failure. The question he will never answer is why did his administration fail so badly when dozens of other countries working with the same information provided by China and the WHO succeed. South Korea used the information provided by China to created 3 million test kits in 2 months. They reduced the number cases in March by 90%. Today South Korea's total number of deaths is 294, life is near normal and unemployment is 4.3%. This could have been the US if we had a president that was committed and was able to provide the leadership needed instead creating conflicts and dissent.

As I stated, Trump seldom if ever attacks somebody unless they messed with him first. McCain was the Republican working with the coupe to get Trump. He got a hold of the dossier to give to Comey which started a lot of the mess they created.

As for the test kits, we didn't need to make any because we already had them. The CDC had the only test kits the FDA approved of, so it's the only ones we could have used. Unfortunately, they were defective and had to start all over again once we needed them. Plus at the time you are indicating, nobody had any idea it would ever have gotten this bad. I know you want to blame Trump for everything including how high the tides are in the ocean, but you're only making yourself feel good. The rest of the country understands what really happened.

Blaming Trump? He's the fucking president. Everyone of those people in his administration work for him. Every agency head, every deputy and every cabinet member serves at the pleasure of the president. He sets domestic policy as well as foreign policy and when those polices fail, it is his responsibility, not China, not the WHO, not Obama, or anyone else he has tried to blame. Trump is not an outsider, he is the leader and that carries awesome power and responsibility.

And yes, the US did have to make test kits. A test has to be developed for every new virus and that is not possible until the genome is releases including the DNA sequencing which came in the 1st week of January. We probably had tests developed for the SAR virus which is similar and may have require just modification which should have made the job all the simpler.

Trump downplayed the seriousness of virus during first two critical months after China release the data needed for testing. The US kits did not work. The CDC was completely unprepared to deal with the first major breakout in Washington. FDA regulations prevented labs in the states from processing test kits. No one bothered to purchase the reagents needed to process the tests. When the CDC corrected the test kit problem, they didn't get ordered in quantity till the end of March. The president was telling the states that test kits had been shipped when the vendor had not even manufactured the kits. And when it came to light, the US stockpile of emergency supplies and equipment was near depletion, Trump blames Obama and tells the hospitals they need go find their own supplies and equipment. And the Trump response to all this, "Not My Responsibility. Well, we will see if the voters agree.

 

[boedicca]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

"There was a libertarian streak among resistors," Ralph Nader told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

• A small but vocal minority of people in the US are protesting face-mask mandates.
• In the early 1980s, the public-safety battle was over seat belts. Most Americans didn't use them, and 65% opposed them being enforced by law.
• "There was a libertarian streak among resistors," car-safety pioneer Ralph Nader told Business Insider. "They took the stance that 'you're not going to tie the American people up in seat belts.'"
• More than 50 years after "Unsafe at Any Speed," Nader said, "We are a very hard society to change cognitively.""""

So let's take the politics out of this mask thing and get healthy again!
Protect yourself, protect your friends and take your tip from the scientists and docs!

Link to governors declaring martial law and putting states' entire populations under house arrest until they all wore seat belts?

 

[esalla]

View attachment 358712

That doesn't make it legal. Ask the bakery shops that got sued for refusing to bake a cake for gay weddings.

Being gay isnt a virus you can catch retard.

Didn't the sign you posted say "to anyone?"

Yes. Why do you ask?

Well anyone would include gay couples, wouldn't they?

It would include them as well if they were not wearing masks. Why do you ask? Dont you know what anybody means?

Then do this: Open up a business and refuse to serve anybody without a mask. They will go to your competitor and shop with them, and you'll likely lose their business for life.

When our state first adopted CCW laws, we gave vendors an option to hang a sign on their door stopping armed customers from entering. If they had that sign on their door and you went in armed, you were breaking the law. So most stores did hang those signs on their doors and windows.

As more and more people got their license, they quit patronizing those businesses and went elsewhere. Today, you don't even see those signs in the windows and doors any longer because they couldn't afford to lose all that business.

Again, I wear my mask when in public, but it's my own choice which it should always be. If somebody else doesn't want to wear one, that's their choice too. It's likely that people who had this thing will never get it again, and there are people who have the antibodies to never get it. Why should those people be forced to wear any mask at all?

I would shop at any business not requiring me not to act like a retard in a mask

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think Trump's words are anything by trying to ward off problems. When he said he likes or loves battles, it's sort of like when a peacock fans it's features to make it look larger than it is; to frighten it's enemies in order to stay out of conflict, not create it.

I've seen very few times Trump has ever attacked somebody that didn't start with him first. The only possible exception to that is if they attacked somebody he loves, respects, or works with. If he criticized an actor, a Governor, a gold star father, I guarantee if you look deep enough, they said or did something to him first.

That depends of what you call, "starting it first". If you look back at some of the Trump battle of words, you'll see they most often start with Trump attacking some group or person for some action by the group or person which elicits a respond which is exactly what he wants. It's no different than what goes on here and elsewhere on the internet, people using inflammatory and upsetting language to start a quarrel.

Trump has issued over 20,000 tweets since he entered office and most of those tweets created discord and division. Trump is a contrarian by nature. Whatever experts agree on, Trump will try to cast doubt on it. It doesn't matter what it might be from astronauts on the moon, Obama's birth certificate, or the number of people at his inauguration.

When the coronavirus came along and the WHO declared it a pandemic, Trump could not resist the urge to downplay it. So it became just the common flu and then a democrat hoax. When it was suggested in late February that travel from Europe be stopped because Cornonavirus was coming into the US from Europe, Trump just ignored it for 3 weeks. When it was suggested by his response team that he use the Defense Production Act to solve the shortages of equipment, supplies, and test kits, he said the states should buy what they needed so hospitals were bidding against each other for supplies that hardly existed. When his response team called for more testing Trump resisted and claimed we have enough testing. His own hand picked medical advisors stated that there is enough evidence to support the wearing a mask and the need is there, what does Trump do? He announced he will not be wearing a mask. When governors and mayors were urging or requiring people to wear masks, Trump says it should be an individual choice creating open deviance in places that were being hard hit by the virus.

It should have been ridiculous easy for Trump to become the hero and bring the virus under control and avoid the economic impact we are seeing today. All he needed to do was establish the seriousness of the virus on day one, enact the Defense Production Act, and support the actions of his response team. Of course that was not going to happen. Trump could not resist occupying center stage and the only way he could do that was to create controversy which is his typical reaction.

Deaths are now 141,000 and the rate has risen to nearly a thousand a day. I guess we will never know how many lives and families have been destroyed by Trump's foolishness.

Well I'm calling you out on this one. Give me an example of Trump attacking somebody that didn't say anything about him, had no impact on his presidency or reputation, or attacked somebody he loved or worked with. Even if you could find one, it would be one in a million.

The WHO didn't declare a pandemic until mid March according to Live Science.com. Trump started action in late January. No, nothing drastic, but taking measures nevertheless. Need the day by day actions, just ask.

Trump did use the Defensive Protection Act. He got into a huge battle with 3-M, who were selling masks to China before us. As for the bidding war, he was unaware of that. When his administration found out about it, he put a stop to it. And when did the President ever say we didn't need more testing kits? I heard him say we have plenty, but at no time did he ever say we don't need to slow down or stop making them.

At a speech in Lima, Ohio, on Wednesday, President Trump went off script into a five minute, ad-libbed attack on the late Sen. John McCain, a celebrated Vietnam War veteran and a former prisoner of war. Lost amid the unusual verbal attack on a deceased war hero by a sitting president was an inaccurate claim about veterans' issues.

President Trump slammed McCain for failing to pass a bill to expand VA services — a bill which in fact was originally sponsored by Sen. McCain.

It's not the first time the president has picked a fight with John McCain. It was the first major fight, though, since John McCain died of brain cancer seven months ago. Trump called the dead senator ungrateful and claimed, falsely, to have approved McCain's funeral at the National Cathedral. Trump is so combative that he has to picks fights with a dead man.

Among False Claims, Trump Attacked McCain For Failing Veterans

President Trump's attack on the late Sen. John McCain included an inaccurate claim about McCain's role in reforming the VA. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., called Trump's remarks "deplorable."

www.npr.org

The 23 people, places and things Donald Trump has attacked on Twitter as president

The main targets that have drawn Trump's ire since he was sworn in on Jan. 20.

www.politico.com

In the WHO meeting of Jan 30, they declared a public health emergency. They certainly could not declare a pandemic with only 1 confirmed case out side of China (Thailand). In the meeting they said, " China quickly identified the virus and shared its sequence (Jan 5th), so that other countries could diagnose it quickly and protect themselves, which has resulted in the rapid development of diagnostic tools.

Further on Jan 30th, the committee said, "The Committee believes that it is still possible to interrupt virus spread, provided that countries put in place strong measures to detect disease early, isolate and treat cases, trace contacts, and promote social distancing measures commensurate with the risk."

China provided all countries including US the information they need to build test kits on Jan 5th. The WHO declared a public health emergency of Jan 30 and reiterated that all countries had the information needed to rapidly develop diagnostic tools to detect the virus. The WHO did exactly what they should have done in regard to the virus. The fault lies with the Trump administration who failed to use the data provided by China on Jan 5th to produce working test kits as dozens of other countries did.

Trump's attack on the WHO is an obvious attempt to shift the blame for his administration's failure. The question he will never answer is why did his administration fail so badly when dozens of other countries working with the same information provided by China and the WHO succeed. South Korea used the information provided by China to created 3 million test kits in 2 months. They reduced the number cases in March by 90%. Today South Korea's total number of deaths is 294, life is near normal and unemployment is 4.3%. This could have been the US if we had a president that was committed and was able to provide the leadership needed instead creating conflicts and dissent.

As I stated, Trump seldom if ever attacks somebody unless they messed with him first. McCain was the Republican working with the coupe to get Trump. He got a hold of the dossier to give to Comey which started a lot of the mess they created.

As for the test kits, we didn't need to make any because we already had them. The CDC had the only test kits the FDA approved of, so it's the only ones we could have used. Unfortunately, they were defective and had to start all over again once we needed them. Plus at the time you are indicating, nobody had any idea it would ever have gotten this bad. I know you want to blame Trump for everything including how high the tides are in the ocean, but you're only making yourself feel good. The rest of the country understands what really happened.

Blaming Trump? He's the fucking president. Everyone of those people in his administration work for him. Every agency head, every deputy and every cabinet member serves at the pleasure of the president. He sets domestic policy as well as foreign policy and when those polices fail, it is his responsibility, not China, not the WHO, not Obama, or anyone else he has tried to blame. Trump is not an outsider, he is the leader and that carries awesome power and responsibility.

And yes, the US did have to make test kits. A test has to be developed for every new virus and that is not possible until the genome is releases including the DNA sequencing which came in the 1st week of January. We probably had tests developed for the SAR virus which is similar and may have require just modification which should have made the job all the simpler.

Trump downplayed the seriousness of virus during first two critical months after China release the data needed for testing. The US kits did not work. The CDC was completely unprepared to deal with the first major breakout in Washington. FDA regulations prevented labs in the states from processing test kits. No one bothered to purchase the reagents needed to process the tests. When the CDC corrected the test kit problem, they didn't get ordered in quantity till the end of March. The president was telling the states that test kits had been shipped when the vendor had not even manufactured the kits. And when it came to light, the US stockpile of emergency supplies and equipment was near depletion, Trump blames Obama and tells the hospitals they need go find their own supplies and equipment. And the Trump response to all this, "Not My Responsibility. Well, we will see if the voters agree.

The President does not oversee what all of our 140 federal agencies are doing every minute of the day, nor educate himself on their expertise of each department, nor does he do their inventories to see what they have or don't have enough of. That's why we have those agencies, so they can concentrate on their work instead of the politicians doing it. The people in the CDC and FDA are the same people who were there under DumBama. HTF would Trump know those tests were not going to work if they didn't??

Watch the leftist cable news. They are making a huge deal because Trump and Fauci are at odds over mandating masks. I could just imagine what the same leftist media would do if Trump told the FDA they had to approve this, or the CDC can't do that, and they had to do things Trump's way. The media would be in their glory.

When people look out their window and see problems with their environment, they may place some of the blame on the President. However when they look out the window and see woe across the entire planet, they know their President isn't to blame.

The MSM has been doing 95% negative reporting on the President since his first day in the office. A lot of people don't pay attention to politics like we do. Some are at best headline readers. If Creepy Joe doesn't chicken out of the debates, tens of millions of Americans will be hearing the Presidents side of this entire virus situation for the first time, and yes, after what they hear, will express their feelings in November.

 

[Flopper]

I don't think Trump's words are anything by trying to ward off problems. When he said he likes or loves battles, it's sort of like when a peacock fans it's features to make it look larger than it is; to frighten it's enemies in order to stay out of conflict, not create it.

I've seen very few times Trump has ever attacked somebody that didn't start with him first. The only possible exception to that is if they attacked somebody he loves, respects, or works with. If he criticized an actor, a Governor, a gold star father, I guarantee if you look deep enough, they said or did something to him first.

That depends of what you call, "starting it first". If you look back at some of the Trump battle of words, you'll see they most often start with Trump attacking some group or person for some action by the group or person which elicits a respond which is exactly what he wants. It's no different than what goes on here and elsewhere on the internet, people using inflammatory and upsetting language to start a quarrel.

Trump has issued over 20,000 tweets since he entered office and most of those tweets created discord and division. Trump is a contrarian by nature. Whatever experts agree on, Trump will try to cast doubt on it. It doesn't matter what it might be from astronauts on the moon, Obama's birth certificate, or the number of people at his inauguration.

When the coronavirus came along and the WHO declared it a pandemic, Trump could not resist the urge to downplay it. So it became just the common flu and then a democrat hoax. When it was suggested in late February that travel from Europe be stopped because Cornonavirus was coming into the US from Europe, Trump just ignored it for 3 weeks. When it was suggested by his response team that he use the Defense Production Act to solve the shortages of equipment, supplies, and test kits, he said the states should buy what they needed so hospitals were bidding against each other for supplies that hardly existed. When his response team called for more testing Trump resisted and claimed we have enough testing. His own hand picked medical advisors stated that there is enough evidence to support the wearing a mask and the need is there, what does Trump do? He announced he will not be wearing a mask. When governors and mayors were urging or requiring people to wear masks, Trump says it should be an individual choice creating open deviance in places that were being hard hit by the virus.

It should have been ridiculous easy for Trump to become the hero and bring the virus under control and avoid the economic impact we are seeing today. All he needed to do was establish the seriousness of the virus on day one, enact the Defense Production Act, and support the actions of his response team. Of course that was not going to happen. Trump could not resist occupying center stage and the only way he could do that was to create controversy which is his typical reaction.

Deaths are now 141,000 and the rate has risen to nearly a thousand a day. I guess we will never know how many lives and families have been destroyed by Trump's foolishness.

Well I'm calling you out on this one. Give me an example of Trump attacking somebody that didn't say anything about him, had no impact on his presidency or reputation, or attacked somebody he loved or worked with. Even if you could find one, it would be one in a million.

The WHO didn't declare a pandemic until mid March according to Live Science.com. Trump started action in late January. No, nothing drastic, but taking measures nevertheless. Need the day by day actions, just ask.

Trump did use the Defensive Protection Act. He got into a huge battle with 3-M, who were selling masks to China before us. As for the bidding war, he was unaware of that. When his administration found out about it, he put a stop to it. And when did the President ever say we didn't need more testing kits? I heard him say we have plenty, but at no time did he ever say we don't need to slow down or stop making them.

At a speech in Lima, Ohio, on Wednesday, President Trump went off script into a five minute, ad-libbed attack on the late Sen. John McCain, a celebrated Vietnam War veteran and a former prisoner of war. Lost amid the unusual verbal attack on a deceased war hero by a sitting president was an inaccurate claim about veterans' issues.

President Trump slammed McCain for failing to pass a bill to expand VA services — a bill which in fact was originally sponsored by Sen. McCain.

It's not the first time the president has picked a fight with John McCain. It was the first major fight, though, since John McCain died of brain cancer seven months ago. Trump called the dead senator ungrateful and claimed, falsely, to have approved McCain's funeral at the National Cathedral. Trump is so combative that he has to picks fights with a dead man.

Among False Claims, Trump Attacked McCain For Failing Veterans

President Trump's attack on the late Sen. John McCain included an inaccurate claim about McCain's role in reforming the VA. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., called Trump's remarks "deplorable."

www.npr.org

The 23 people, places and things Donald Trump has attacked on Twitter as president

The main targets that have drawn Trump's ire since he was sworn in on Jan. 20.

www.politico.com

In the WHO meeting of Jan 30, they declared a public health emergency. They certainly could not declare a pandemic with only 1 confirmed case out side of China (Thailand). In the meeting they said, " China quickly identified the virus and shared its sequence (Jan 5th), so that other countries could diagnose it quickly and protect themselves, which has resulted in the rapid development of diagnostic tools.

Further on Jan 30th, the committee said, "The Committee believes that it is still possible to interrupt virus spread, provided that countries put in place strong measures to detect disease early, isolate and treat cases, trace contacts, and promote social distancing measures commensurate with the risk."

China provided all countries including US the information they need to build test kits on Jan 5th. The WHO declared a public health emergency of Jan 30 and reiterated that all countries had the information needed to rapidly develop diagnostic tools to detect the virus. The WHO did exactly what they should have done in regard to the virus. The fault lies with the Trump administration who failed to use the data provided by China on Jan 5th to produce working test kits as dozens of other countries did.

Trump's attack on the WHO is an obvious attempt to shift the blame for his administration's failure. The question he will never answer is why did his administration fail so badly when dozens of other countries working with the same information provided by China and the WHO succeed. South Korea used the information provided by China to created 3 million test kits in 2 months. They reduced the number cases in March by 90%. Today South Korea's total number of deaths is 294, life is near normal and unemployment is 4.3%. This could have been the US if we had a president that was committed and was able to provide the leadership needed instead creating conflicts and dissent.

As I stated, Trump seldom if ever attacks somebody unless they messed with him first. McCain was the Republican working with the coupe to get Trump. He got a hold of the dossier to give to Comey which started a lot of the mess they created.

As for the test kits, we didn't need to make any because we already had them. The CDC had the only test kits the FDA approved of, so it's the only ones we could have used. Unfortunately, they were defective and had to start all over again once we needed them. Plus at the time you are indicating, nobody had any idea it would ever have gotten this bad. I know you want to blame Trump for everything including how high the tides are in the ocean, but you're only making yourself feel good. The rest of the country understands what really happened.

Blaming Trump? He's the fucking president. Everyone of those people in his administration work for him. Every agency head, every deputy and every cabinet member serves at the pleasure of the president. He sets domestic policy as well as foreign policy and when those polices fail, it is his responsibility, not China, not the WHO, not Obama, or anyone else he has tried to blame. Trump is not an outsider, he is the leader and that carries awesome power and responsibility.

And yes, the US did have to make test kits. A test has to be developed for every new virus and that is not possible until the genome is releases including the DNA sequencing which came in the 1st week of January. We probably had tests developed for the SAR virus which is similar and may have require just modification which should have made the job all the simpler.

Trump downplayed the seriousness of virus during first two critical months after China release the data needed for testing. The US kits did not work. The CDC was completely unprepared to deal with the first major breakout in Washington. FDA regulations prevented labs in the states from processing test kits. No one bothered to purchase the reagents needed to process the tests. When the CDC corrected the test kit problem, they didn't get ordered in quantity till the end of March. The president was telling the states that test kits had been shipped when the vendor had not even manufactured the kits. And when it came to light, the US stockpile of emergency supplies and equipment was near depletion, Trump blames Obama and tells the hospitals they need go find their own supplies and equipment. And the Trump response to all this, "Not My Responsibility. Well, we will see if the voters agree.

The President does not oversee what all of our 140 federal agencies are doing every minute of the day, nor educate himself on their expertise of each department, nor does he do their inventories to see what they have or don't have enough of. That's why we have those agencies, so they can concentrate on their work instead of the politicians doing it. The people in the CDC and FDA are the same people who were there under DumBama. HTF would Trump know those tests were not going to work if they didn't??

Watch the leftist cable news. They are making a huge deal because Trump and Fauci are at odds over mandating masks. I could just imagine what the same leftist media would do if Trump told the FDA they had to approve this, or the CDC can't do that, and they had to do things Trump's way. The media would be in their glory.

When people look out their window and see problems with their environment, they may place some of the blame on the President. However when they look out the window and see woe across the entire planet, they know their President isn't to blame.

The MSM has been doing 95% negative reporting on the President since his first day in the office. A lot of people don't pay attention to politics like we do. Some are at best headline readers. If Creepy Joe doesn't chicken out of the debates, tens of millions of Americans will be hearing the Presidents side of this entire virus situation for the first time, and yes, after what they hear, will express their feelings in November.

Your right the president does not supervise every agency throughout the days nor should he but he is still responsible for them. There are two ways a president handles this.

The president sets policy for everything his administration does. Presidential policy is created by what a president says and does. For example if in a presidential news conference or cabinet meeting Trump says we need more health screenings of everyone entering the country and he would probably direct someone to take the lead. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other departments would issue directives to various agencies asking them to submit recommendations for consideration and from those recommendations policies are set and regulations changes are posed and a summary it sent to the president. The president is kept informed but he's not engaged in day to day, overview.

When the president makes it clear that he thinks this virus is just the flu and downplays it, HHS, CDC, FDA, etc will change their priories based on what the president says.

Secondly, Events that the president recognizes as requiring urgent action, he will involve himself. If the president had seen responding to virus as being a very high priority item, he would have intervened. For example, Redfield, CDC director would getting calls from the president on the status testing to make sure things were going as scheduled. He would meet with the pandemic response team which it appears he did not do until sometime in March and determine critical points in their plan and would followup with those agencies. That did not happen. Put simply, Trump was concerned with a number things but the virus was just not one of them. His people dropped the ball because Trump did not push it because it he just did recognize it's importance.

 

[Redfish]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

"There was a libertarian streak among resistors," Ralph Nader told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

• A small but vocal minority of people in the US are protesting face-mask mandates.
• In the early 1980s, the public-safety battle was over seat belts. Most Americans didn't use them, and 65% opposed them being enforced by law.
• "There was a libertarian streak among resistors," car-safety pioneer Ralph Nader told Business Insider. "They took the stance that 'you're not going to tie the American people up in seat belts.'"
• More than 50 years after "Unsafe at Any Speed," Nader said, "We are a very hard society to change cognitively.""""

So let's take the politics out of this mask thing and get healthy again!
Protect yourself, protect your friends and take your tip from the scientists and docs!

both should be up to the individual. Mandating personal behavior never works, depriving people of individual freedom is unconstitutional.

and don't give me the BS about the "common good" that phrase was used by Hitler and Mao before the murdered millions and brainwashed millions more.

 

[Redfish]

I don't think Trump's words are anything by trying to ward off problems. When he said he likes or loves battles, it's sort of like when a peacock fans it's features to make it look larger than it is; to frighten it's enemies in order to stay out of conflict, not create it.

I've seen very few times Trump has ever attacked somebody that didn't start with him first. The only possible exception to that is if they attacked somebody he loves, respects, or works with. If he criticized an actor, a Governor, a gold star father, I guarantee if you look deep enough, they said or did something to him first.

That depends of what you call, "starting it first". If you look back at some of the Trump battle of words, you'll see they most often start with Trump attacking some group or person for some action by the group or person which elicits a respond which is exactly what he wants. It's no different than what goes on here and elsewhere on the internet, people using inflammatory and upsetting language to start a quarrel.

Trump has issued over 20,000 tweets since he entered office and most of those tweets created discord and division. Trump is a contrarian by nature. Whatever experts agree on, Trump will try to cast doubt on it. It doesn't matter what it might be from astronauts on the moon, Obama's birth certificate, or the number of people at his inauguration.

When the coronavirus came along and the WHO declared it a pandemic, Trump could not resist the urge to downplay it. So it became just the common flu and then a democrat hoax. When it was suggested in late February that travel from Europe be stopped because Cornonavirus was coming into the US from Europe, Trump just ignored it for 3 weeks. When it was suggested by his response team that he use the Defense Production Act to solve the shortages of equipment, supplies, and test kits, he said the states should buy what they needed so hospitals were bidding against each other for supplies that hardly existed. When his response team called for more testing Trump resisted and claimed we have enough testing. His own hand picked medical advisors stated that there is enough evidence to support the wearing a mask and the need is there, what does Trump do? He announced he will not be wearing a mask. When governors and mayors were urging or requiring people to wear masks, Trump says it should be an individual choice creating open deviance in places that were being hard hit by the virus.

It should have been ridiculous easy for Trump to become the hero and bring the virus under control and avoid the economic impact we are seeing today. All he needed to do was establish the seriousness of the virus on day one, enact the Defense Production Act, and support the actions of his response team. Of course that was not going to happen. Trump could not resist occupying center stage and the only way he could do that was to create controversy which is his typical reaction.

Deaths are now 141,000 and the rate has risen to nearly a thousand a day. I guess we will never know how many lives and families have been destroyed by Trump's foolishness.

Well I'm calling you out on this one. Give me an example of Trump attacking somebody that didn't say anything about him, had no impact on his presidency or reputation, or attacked somebody he loved or worked with. Even if you could find one, it would be one in a million.

The WHO didn't declare a pandemic until mid March according to Live Science.com. Trump started action in late January. No, nothing drastic, but taking measures nevertheless. Need the day by day actions, just ask.

Trump did use the Defensive Protection Act. He got into a huge battle with 3-M, who were selling masks to China before us. As for the bidding war, he was unaware of that. When his administration found out about it, he put a stop to it. And when did the President ever say we didn't need more testing kits? I heard him say we have plenty, but at no time did he ever say we don't need to slow down or stop making them.

At a speech in Lima, Ohio, on Wednesday, President Trump went off script into a five minute, ad-libbed attack on the late Sen. John McCain, a celebrated Vietnam War veteran and a former prisoner of war. Lost amid the unusual verbal attack on a deceased war hero by a sitting president was an inaccurate claim about veterans' issues.

President Trump slammed McCain for failing to pass a bill to expand VA services — a bill which in fact was originally sponsored by Sen. McCain.

It's not the first time the president has picked a fight with John McCain. It was the first major fight, though, since John McCain died of brain cancer seven months ago. Trump called the dead senator ungrateful and claimed, falsely, to have approved McCain's funeral at the National Cathedral. Trump is so combative that he has to picks fights with a dead man.

Among False Claims, Trump Attacked McCain For Failing Veterans

President Trump's attack on the late Sen. John McCain included an inaccurate claim about McCain's role in reforming the VA. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., called Trump's remarks "deplorable."

www.npr.org

The 23 people, places and things Donald Trump has attacked on Twitter as president

The main targets that have drawn Trump's ire since he was sworn in on Jan. 20.

www.politico.com

In the WHO meeting of Jan 30, they declared a public health emergency. They certainly could not declare a pandemic with only 1 confirmed case out side of China (Thailand). In the meeting they said, " China quickly identified the virus and shared its sequence (Jan 5th), so that other countries could diagnose it quickly and protect themselves, which has resulted in the rapid development of diagnostic tools.

Further on Jan 30th, the committee said, "The Committee believes that it is still possible to interrupt virus spread, provided that countries put in place strong measures to detect disease early, isolate and treat cases, trace contacts, and promote social distancing measures commensurate with the risk."

China provided all countries including US the information they need to build test kits on Jan 5th. The WHO declared a public health emergency of Jan 30 and reiterated that all countries had the information needed to rapidly develop diagnostic tools to detect the virus. The WHO did exactly what they should have done in regard to the virus. The fault lies with the Trump administration who failed to use the data provided by China on Jan 5th to produce working test kits as dozens of other countries did.

Trump's attack on the WHO is an obvious attempt to shift the blame for his administration's failure. The question he will never answer is why did his administration fail so badly when dozens of other countries working with the same information provided by China and the WHO succeed. South Korea used the information provided by China to created 3 million test kits in 2 months. They reduced the number cases in March by 90%. Today South Korea's total number of deaths is 294, life is near normal and unemployment is 4.3%. This could have been the US if we had a president that was committed and was able to provide the leadership needed instead creating conflicts and dissent.

As I stated, Trump seldom if ever attacks somebody unless they messed with him first. McCain was the Republican working with the coupe to get Trump. He got a hold of the dossier to give to Comey which started a lot of the mess they created.

As for the test kits, we didn't need to make any because we already had them. The CDC had the only test kits the FDA approved of, so it's the only ones we could have used. Unfortunately, they were defective and had to start all over again once we needed them. Plus at the time you are indicating, nobody had any idea it would ever have gotten this bad. I know you want to blame Trump for everything including how high the tides are in the ocean, but you're only making yourself feel good. The rest of the country understands what really happened.

Blaming Trump? He's the fucking president. Everyone of those people in his administration work for him. Every agency head, every deputy and every cabinet member serves at the pleasure of the president. He sets domestic policy as well as foreign policy and when those polices fail, it is his responsibility, not China, not the WHO, not Obama, or anyone else he has tried to blame. Trump is not an outsider, he is the leader and that carries awesome power and responsibility.

And yes, the US did have to make test kits. A test has to be developed for every new virus and that is not possible until the genome is releases including the DNA sequencing which came in the 1st week of January. We probably had tests developed for the SAR virus which is similar and may have require just modification which should have made the job all the simpler.

Trump downplayed the seriousness of virus during first two critical months after China release the data needed for testing. The US kits did not work. The CDC was completely unprepared to deal with the first major breakout in Washington. FDA regulations prevented labs in the states from processing test kits. No one bothered to purchase the reagents needed to process the tests. When the CDC corrected the test kit problem, they didn't get ordered in quantity till the end of March. The president was telling the states that test kits had been shipped when the vendor had not even manufactured the kits. And when it came to light, the US stockpile of emergency supplies and equipment was near depletion, Trump blames Obama and tells the hospitals they need go find their own supplies and equipment. And the Trump response to all this, "Not My Responsibility. Well, we will see if the voters agree.

The President does not oversee what all of our 140 federal agencies are doing every minute of the day, nor educate himself on their expertise of each department, nor does he do their inventories to see what they have or don't have enough of. That's why we have those agencies, so they can concentrate on their work instead of the politicians doing it. The people in the CDC and FDA are the same people who were there under DumBama. HTF would Trump know those tests were not going to work if they didn't??

Watch the leftist cable news. They are making a huge deal because Trump and Fauci are at odds over mandating masks. I could just imagine what the same leftist media would do if Trump told the FDA they had to approve this, or the CDC can't do that, and they had to do things Trump's way. The media would be in their glory.

When people look out their window and see problems with their environment, they may place some of the blame on the President. However when they look out the window and see woe across the entire planet, they know their President isn't to blame.

The MSM has been doing 95% negative reporting on the President since his first day in the office. A lot of people don't pay attention to politics like we do. Some are at best headline readers. If Creepy Joe doesn't chicken out of the debates, tens of millions of Americans will be hearing the Presidents side of this entire virus situation for the first time, and yes, after what they hear, will express their feelings in November.

Your right the president does not supervise every agency throughout the days nor should he but he is still responsible for them. There are two ways a president handles this.

The president sets policy for everything his administration does. Presidential policy is created by what a president says and does. For example if in a presidential news conference or cabinet meeting Trump says we need to increasing health screening of everyone entering the country and he would probably direct someone to take the lead. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other departments would issue directives to various agencies asking them to submit recommendations for consideration and from those recommendations policies are set and regulations changes are posed and a summary it sent to the president. The president is kept informed but he's not engaged in day to day, overview.

When the president makes it clear that he thinks this virus is just the flu and downplays it, HHS, CDC, FDA, etc will change their priories based on what president says.

Secondly, Events that the president recognizes as requiring urgent action, he will involve himself. If the president had seen responding to virus as being a very high priority item, he would have intervened. For example, Redfield, CDC director would get a call from president on the status testing to make sure things were going as scheduled. He would meet with the pandemic response team which it appears he did not do until sometime March and determine critical points in their plan and would followup with those agencies. That did not happen. Put simply, Trump was concerned with a number things but the virus was just not one of them. His people dropped the ball because Trump did not push it because it he just did recognize it's importance.

the so called experts were saying the exact same things at the exact same times. Trump was repeating what the "experts" said. they were wrong.

 

[Redfish]

I don't think Trump's words are anything by trying to ward off problems. When he said he likes or loves battles, it's sort of like when a peacock fans it's features to make it look larger than it is; to frighten it's enemies in order to stay out of conflict, not create it.

I've seen very few times Trump has ever attacked somebody that didn't start with him first. The only possible exception to that is if they attacked somebody he loves, respects, or works with. If he criticized an actor, a Governor, a gold star father, I guarantee if you look deep enough, they said or did something to him first.

That depends of what you call, "starting it first". If you look back at some of the Trump battle of words, you'll see they most often start with Trump attacking some group or person for some action by the group or person which elicits a respond which is exactly what he wants. It's no different than what goes on here and elsewhere on the internet, people using inflammatory and upsetting language to start a quarrel.

Trump has issued over 20,000 tweets since he entered office and most of those tweets created discord and division. Trump is a contrarian by nature. Whatever experts agree on, Trump will try to cast doubt on it. It doesn't matter what it might be from astronauts on the moon, Obama's birth certificate, or the number of people at his inauguration.

When the coronavirus came along and the WHO declared it a pandemic, Trump could not resist the urge to downplay it. So it became just the common flu and then a democrat hoax. When it was suggested in late February that travel from Europe be stopped because Cornonavirus was coming into the US from Europe, Trump just ignored it for 3 weeks. When it was suggested by his response team that he use the Defense Production Act to solve the shortages of equipment, supplies, and test kits, he said the states should buy what they needed so hospitals were bidding against each other for supplies that hardly existed. When his response team called for more testing Trump resisted and claimed we have enough testing. His own hand picked medical advisors stated that there is enough evidence to support the wearing a mask and the need is there, what does Trump do? He announced he will not be wearing a mask. When governors and mayors were urging or requiring people to wear masks, Trump says it should be an individual choice creating open deviance in places that were being hard hit by the virus.

It should have been ridiculous easy for Trump to become the hero and bring the virus under control and avoid the economic impact we are seeing today. All he needed to do was establish the seriousness of the virus on day one, enact the Defense Production Act, and support the actions of his response team. Of course that was not going to happen. Trump could not resist occupying center stage and the only way he could do that was to create controversy which is his typical reaction.

Deaths are now 141,000 and the rate has risen to nearly a thousand a day. I guess we will never know how many lives and families have been destroyed by Trump's foolishness.

Well I'm calling you out on this one. Give me an example of Trump attacking somebody that didn't say anything about him, had no impact on his presidency or reputation, or attacked somebody he loved or worked with. Even if you could find one, it would be one in a million.

The WHO didn't declare a pandemic until mid March according to Live Science.com. Trump started action in late January. No, nothing drastic, but taking measures nevertheless. Need the day by day actions, just ask.

Trump did use the Defensive Protection Act. He got into a huge battle with 3-M, who were selling masks to China before us. As for the bidding war, he was unaware of that. When his administration found out about it, he put a stop to it. And when did the President ever say we didn't need more testing kits? I heard him say we have plenty, but at no time did he ever say we don't need to slow down or stop making them.

At a speech in Lima, Ohio, on Wednesday, President Trump went off script into a five minute, ad-libbed attack on the late Sen. John McCain, a celebrated Vietnam War veteran and a former prisoner of war. Lost amid the unusual verbal attack on a deceased war hero by a sitting president was an inaccurate claim about veterans' issues.

President Trump slammed McCain for failing to pass a bill to expand VA services — a bill which in fact was originally sponsored by Sen. McCain.

It's not the first time the president has picked a fight with John McCain. It was the first major fight, though, since John McCain died of brain cancer seven months ago. Trump called the dead senator ungrateful and claimed, falsely, to have approved McCain's funeral at the National Cathedral. Trump is so combative that he has to picks fights with a dead man.

Among False Claims, Trump Attacked McCain For Failing Veterans

President Trump's attack on the late Sen. John McCain included an inaccurate claim about McCain's role in reforming the VA. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., called Trump's remarks "deplorable."

www.npr.org

The 23 people, places and things Donald Trump has attacked on Twitter as president

The main targets that have drawn Trump's ire since he was sworn in on Jan. 20.

www.politico.com

In the WHO meeting of Jan 30, they declared a public health emergency. They certainly could not declare a pandemic with only 1 confirmed case out side of China (Thailand). In the meeting they said, " China quickly identified the virus and shared its sequence (Jan 5th), so that other countries could diagnose it quickly and protect themselves, which has resulted in the rapid development of diagnostic tools.

Further on Jan 30th, the committee said, "The Committee believes that it is still possible to interrupt virus spread, provided that countries put in place strong measures to detect disease early, isolate and treat cases, trace contacts, and promote social distancing measures commensurate with the risk."

China provided all countries including US the information they need to build test kits on Jan 5th. The WHO declared a public health emergency of Jan 30 and reiterated that all countries had the information needed to rapidly develop diagnostic tools to detect the virus. The WHO did exactly what they should have done in regard to the virus. The fault lies with the Trump administration who failed to use the data provided by China on Jan 5th to produce working test kits as dozens of other countries did.

Trump's attack on the WHO is an obvious attempt to shift the blame for his administration's failure. The question he will never answer is why did his administration fail so badly when dozens of other countries working with the same information provided by China and the WHO succeed. South Korea used the information provided by China to created 3 million test kits in 2 months. They reduced the number cases in March by 90%. Today South Korea's total number of deaths is 294, life is near normal and unemployment is 4.3%. This could have been the US if we had a president that was committed and was able to provide the leadership needed instead creating conflicts and dissent.

McCain was a traitor and a rat. He deserves no respect dead or alive.

 

[Flopper]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

"There was a libertarian streak among resistors," Ralph Nader told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

• A small but vocal minority of people in the US are protesting face-mask mandates.
• In the early 1980s, the public-safety battle was over seat belts. Most Americans didn't use them, and 65% opposed them being enforced by law.
• "There was a libertarian streak among resistors," car-safety pioneer Ralph Nader told Business Insider. "They took the stance that 'you're not going to tie the American people up in seat belts.'"
• More than 50 years after "Unsafe at Any Speed," Nader said, "We are a very hard society to change cognitively.""""

So let's take the politics out of this mask thing and get healthy again!
Protect yourself, protect your friends and take your tip from the scientists and docs!

both should be up to the individual. Mandating personal behavior never works, depriving people of individual freedom is unconstitutional.

and don't give me the BS about the "common good" that phrase was used by Hitler and Mao before the murdered millions and brainwashed millions more.

If you don't like "common good", how about community consciousness.

 

[Flopper]

If you come into this store without a mask,
we will have to take your temperature.

P.S. We only have rectal thermometers
Choose Wisely.

 

[Redfish]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

"There was a libertarian streak among resistors," Ralph Nader told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

• A small but vocal minority of people in the US are protesting face-mask mandates.
• In the early 1980s, the public-safety battle was over seat belts. Most Americans didn't use them, and 65% opposed them being enforced by law.
• "There was a libertarian streak among resistors," car-safety pioneer Ralph Nader told Business Insider. "They took the stance that 'you're not going to tie the American people up in seat belts.'"
• More than 50 years after "Unsafe at Any Speed," Nader said, "We are a very hard society to change cognitively.""""

So let's take the politics out of this mask thing and get healthy again!
Protect yourself, protect your friends and take your tip from the scientists and docs!

both should be up to the individual. Mandating personal behavior never works, depriving people of individual freedom is unconstitutional.

and don't give me the BS about the "common good" that phrase was used by Hitler and Mao before the murdered millions and brainwashed millions more.

If you don't like "common good", how about community consciousness.

equally stupid. How about individual freedom and responsibility?

 

[Redfish]

If you come into this store without a mask,
we will have to take your temperature.

P.S. We only have rectal thermometers
Choose Wisely.

only applies to porn stores, are you a frequent visitor?

 

[Flopper]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

"There was a libertarian streak among resistors," Ralph Nader told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

• A small but vocal minority of people in the US are protesting face-mask mandates.
• In the early 1980s, the public-safety battle was over seat belts. Most Americans didn't use them, and 65% opposed them being enforced by law.
• "There was a libertarian streak among resistors," car-safety pioneer Ralph Nader told Business Insider. "They took the stance that 'you're not going to tie the American people up in seat belts.'"
• More than 50 years after "Unsafe at Any Speed," Nader said, "We are a very hard society to change cognitively.""""

So let's take the politics out of this mask thing and get healthy again!
Protect yourself, protect your friends and take your tip from the scientists and docs!

both should be up to the individual. Mandating personal behavior never works, depriving people of individual freedom is unconstitutional.

and don't give me the BS about the "common good" that phrase was used by Hitler and Mao before the murdered millions and brainwashed millions more.

If you don't like "common good", how about community consciousness.

equally stupid. How about individual freedom and responsibility?

Your freedom to not wear a mask should end within 6 feet of others. It should be your responsibility as a member of your community to do what you can to stop the spread of a diaereses in an epidemic. There should be no need for laws and enforcement. However, about 20% of the people in the US will refuse to wear masks because they just don't give a shit about others or they feel it's their right to say no. This is the kind of issue that gives strength to the argument that democracy is the enemy of the people.

In South Korea and Japan, where they have had less deaths do to the virus over the last 6 months than we've had in the US in a day, putting on a mask in an epidemic is as natural as putting on clothes before leaving home. People wear masks not because of any law but because it would be as unacceptable as going naked in public. You would not get entrances to stores, your boss would probably send you home and you would garner a lot of nasty looks and comments.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

"There was a libertarian streak among resistors," Ralph Nader told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

• A small but vocal minority of people in the US are protesting face-mask mandates.
• In the early 1980s, the public-safety battle was over seat belts. Most Americans didn't use them, and 65% opposed them being enforced by law.
• "There was a libertarian streak among resistors," car-safety pioneer Ralph Nader told Business Insider. "They took the stance that 'you're not going to tie the American people up in seat belts.'"
• More than 50 years after "Unsafe at Any Speed," Nader said, "We are a very hard society to change cognitively.""""

So let's take the politics out of this mask thing and get healthy again!
Protect yourself, protect your friends and take your tip from the scientists and docs!

both should be up to the individual. Mandating personal behavior never works, depriving people of individual freedom is unconstitutional.

and don't give me the BS about the "common good" that phrase was used by Hitler and Mao before the murdered millions and brainwashed millions more.

If you don't like "common good", how about community consciousness.

equally stupid. How about individual freedom and responsibility?

Your freedom to not wear a mask should end within 6 feet of others. It should be your responsibility as a member of your community to do what you can to stop the spread of a diaereses in an epidemic. There should be no need for laws and enforcement. However, about 20% of the people in the US will refuse to wear masks because they just don't give a shit about others or they feel it's their right to say no. This is the kind of issue that gives strength to the argument that democracy is the enemy of the people.

By the end of this week, our total amount of people who had this thing will be about 4 million. None of those people need a mask now since it's very unlikely they will ever get it again, yet alone spread it. Plus God knows how many had it that we never accounted for since our testing was so poor at the beginning, and doctors couldn't determine if Covid was the cause of reported illnesses.

I found out a friend of mine had it when she posted it on Facebook. I commented on her post. She told me she thought it was her annual sinus problems that she gets in summer. If not for the headaches, she would have never went to the doctor. I'm sure there are millions like my friend; symptoms so minor it's not worth seeking medical attention for. Whatever it is, they just ride it out until they feel better.

 

[Flopper]

I bet ANYTHING Trump was one of them who was against them, too, just like he is masks.

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

Before face masks, Americans went to war against seat belts

"There was a libertarian streak among resistors," Ralph Nader told Business Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

• A small but vocal minority of people in the US are protesting face-mask mandates.
• In the early 1980s, the public-safety battle was over seat belts. Most Americans didn't use them, and 65% opposed them being enforced by law.
• "There was a libertarian streak among resistors," car-safety pioneer Ralph Nader told Business Insider. "They took the stance that 'you're not going to tie the American people up in seat belts.'"
• More than 50 years after "Unsafe at Any Speed," Nader said, "We are a very hard society to change cognitively.""""

So let's take the politics out of this mask thing and get healthy again!
Protect yourself, protect your friends and take your tip from the scientists and docs!

both should be up to the individual. Mandating personal behavior never works, depriving people of individual freedom is unconstitutional.

and don't give me the BS about the "common good" that phrase was used by Hitler and Mao before the murdered millions and brainwashed millions more.

If you don't like "common good", how about community consciousness.

equally stupid. How about individual freedom and responsibility?

Your freedom to not wear a mask should end within 6 feet of others. It should be your responsibility as a member of your community to do what you can to stop the spread of a diaereses in an epidemic. There should be no need for laws and enforcement. However, about 20% of the people in the US will refuse to wear masks because they just don't give a shit about others or they feel it's their right to say no. This is the kind of issue that gives strength to the argument that democracy is the enemy of the people.

By the end of this week, our total amount of people who had this thing will be about 4 million. None of those people need a mask now since it's very unlikely they will ever get it again, yet alone spread it. Plus God knows how many had it that we never accounted for since our testing was so poor at the beginning, and doctors couldn't determine if Covid was the cause of reported illnesses.

I found out a friend of mine had it when she posted it on Facebook. I commented on her post. She told me she thought it was her annual sinus problems that she gets in summer. If not for the headaches, she would have never went to the doctor. I'm sure there are millions like my friend; symptoms so minor it's not worth seeking medical attention for. Whatever it is, they just ride it out until they feel better.

There is no scientific evidence that testing positive provides you with any immunity and if it does, that immunity may only last a few weeks. Since the population is about 330 million and 4 million have tested positive that leaves 326 million left. This does not support your claim that the 4 million nor any of the 326 million should not be wearing masks.

Whether you have symptoms or not, if you test positive for covid 19, you have the virus and you can transmit it to others regardless of whether you have symptoms or not. This is why we ask such people to quarantine. About half of the people that report no symptoms when they are tested later developed symptoms. In most cases those symptom are similar to the flu and a few days in bed and they are able to function normally. However, 20% of those that test positive, regardless of whether they have symptoms at that time or not, they require hospitalization.