Schools open!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashliana

* Citation required. Good luck!

---

None needed. We already know that minorities are at higher risk of catching the covid, it's mentioned daily in the MSM. Simple deduction would suggest that our southern border is a risk of spreading the covid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

"You don't understand that changing facts on the ground change recommendations from scientific authorities. Who knew?"

So you wouldn't shut down flights from a country of concern given to you by your medical expert?

---

Trump didn't follow the advice of medical experts, nor were all flights from "a country of concern" shut down ... thus the criticism of Trump's ineffective half-measure, tinted with racism for good measure. It's almost like words have meaning, and you should try reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

None needed. We already know that minorities are at higher risk of catching the covid, it's mentioned daily in the MSM. Simple deduction would suggest that our southern border is a risk of spreading the covid.

---

In other words, no, you couldn't cite your sources. And yes, they're required for contentious claims. Minorities aren't at higher risk of catching COVID because of a biological reason; it's that their communities are under served by medical professionals, and heavy-handed anti-immigration tactics used by the Trump administration actively hurt public health.

Better luck next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Standing with the experts instead of politicising the issue. Having the federal agencies help the States instead of politicising it. Following the mask wearing guidelines of politicising it. Giving a shit about the American people instead of your own political career. Kick the senate in the ass for being cheap bitches. Attempt to bring the public together unified instead of creating more division.

---

You do realize that the democrats did all these things you are complaining about right? They made it political to win the election. They blew this all out of proportion to win the election and it worked. They claimed this was a deadly disease when it kills a very small fraction of the people who contract it. They pushed for shut downs to affect the mentality of everyone, to make them unhappy with the current government of the time, to get enough of the people in the middle to swing in their favor.

I will agree that Trump did screw it up and could have done a better job of it though. You talk about his lack of leadership, but it isn't like any politicians have true leadership skills. All of them will do and say anything to get RE-elected. Trump is almost the ultimate proof of how bad our politics are but instead of learning from it, it looks like all sides are just doubling down on what makes them bad for the country and no one is willing to change.

I don't know how well it would work in practice but I think it would be interesting that instead of just voting for someone we could vote against them. So on the ballot you'd have something like

For Against

Joe:

Bob:

And if the total number of votes against someone was equal or greater than the number for them they'd not be elected even if they had more votes than the other guy. And if neither won there would be another election held. Most people vote one side over the other because they are more scared of the side they are not voting for even if they don't particularly like the side they are giving their vote to. I think giving the people the option of having neither get elected might push more politicians in the direction we all want them to go. Of course, term limits would help too but good luck on getting all of us to get off our collective ass to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeril

You do realize that the democrats did all these things you are complaining about right? They made it political to win the election. They blew this all out of proportion to win the election and it worked. They claimed this was a deadly disease when it kills a very small fraction of the people who contract it. They pushed for shut downs to affect the mentality of everyone, to make them unhappy with the current government of the time, to get enough of the people in the middle to swing in their favor.

I will agree that Trump did screw it up and could have done a better job of it though. You talk about his lack of leadership, but it isn't like any politicians have true leadership skills. All of them will do and say anything to get RE-elected. Trump is almost the ultimate proof of how bad our politics are but instead of learning from it, it looks like all sides are just doubling down on what makes them bad for the country and no one is willing to change.

I don't know how well it would work in practice but I think it would be interesting that instead of just voting for someone we could vote against them. So on the ballot you'd have something like

For Against

Joe:

Bob:

And if the total number of votes against someone was equal or greater than the number for them they'd not be elected even if they had more votes than the other guy. And if neither won there would be another election held. Most people vote one side over the other because they are more scared of the side they are not voting for even if they don't particularly like the side they are giving their vote to. I think giving the people the option of having neither get elected might push more politicians in the direction we all want them to go. Of course, term limits would help too but good luck on getting all of us to get off our collective ass to do it.

---

We’ve had a 7 day average of 3000 covid deaths a day. Yeah, the democrats blew covid out of proportion to win an election... you fucking clown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SHAFT

We’ve had a 7 day average of 3000 covid deaths a day. Yeah, the democrats blew covid out of proportion to win an election... you fucking clown.

---

Do you honestly believe 3000 out of 330, 000, 000 is a lot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeril

Do you honestly believe 3000 out of 330, 000, 000 is a lot?

---

3,000 a day, is 90,000ish a month, so yeah it’s a lot. Widen your perspective a little.
You wanna compare it to the flu that has killed between 12,000 and 61,000 annually since 2010?
So yeah, 3,000 is a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashliana

In other words, no, you couldn't cite your sources. And yes, they're required for contentious claims. Minorities aren't at higher risk of catching COVID because of a biological reason; it's that their communities are under served by medical professionals, and heavy-handed anti-immigration tactics used by the Trump administration actively hurt public health.

Better luck next time.

---

So you believe that those illegally crossing the border are coming from communities over served by medical professionals?

I thought these were poor people coming here to seek out a better life?

I wonder if the coyotes make sure the illegals are practicing covid-19 protocol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

So you believe that those illegally crossing the border are coming from communities over served by medical professionals?

I thought these were poor people coming here to seek out a better life?

I wonder if the coyotes make sure the illegals are practicing covid-19 protocol.

---

I don't know how you could misread what I said, so if you need me to post it again, I'm happy to do so.

No, these are just logical assumptions. You're argument was that, minorities are at higher risk because of income status. Thus, you must mean that the illegals crossing the border are not of low income status if they are not at higher risk of catching the covid.