Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
HEADRAT said:
Can you provide a source where it shows the Gov. asked for this to happen?
Click to expand...

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/boris-johnson-self-isolation-clap-for-nhs-a4405676.html

social distancing, is this too hard for you to grasp?

HEADRAT said:
But's he's the POTUS, he shouldn't be inciting anything at the time of a National Emergency, the timing of his tweets were a clear message, the implication was clear.
Click to expand...

He's not inciting anything, that has been explained to you as you interpretation of 2 words. He's showing support for their right to protest. And yes, I agree it's not the best thing to do in a time of emergency. And as much as the good intentions of clapping for the NHS, the way it was done in London was wrong also. what can't you condemn both actions?
 
Last edited:
Lord-Jaffa said:
Upto March the CDC said Covid-19 wasnt spreading in local communities, why would the narrative be any different from what their healthcare organisation was saying at the time?

How has the president wasted months? Why is he specifically responsible, you should be saying the CDC and WHO wasted months, but orange man bad right?
Click to expand...

He is in charge. The buck stops with the guy at the top.

Also, the CDC and the WHO were very clear on what a danger Covid-19 was, even during January and February.

Why did he ignore his own intelligence report? - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/int...isis-early-november-sources/story?id=70031273

I know its difficult to read just how stupid he was over this whole situation (if you support him/dont want to see him in a bad light), but those are actual quotes from the president of the United States.

and yes, the "orange man" is bad, objectively and undeniably so.
 
HEADRAT said:
Because they are not remotely comparable, one is Trump getting the boot in on his political rivals and incite devision , the other (while sometimes poorly carried out) is an act of social and national unity.
Click to expand...

Not true, they are comparable but in a different way. One is a peaceful protest and the other a peaceful endorsement.
 
plasmahal said:
Not true, they are comparable but in a different way. One is a peaceful protest and the other a peaceful endorsement.
Click to expand...


So if any of the States/Governors had been Republican but no, it’s political point scoring and an incitement for people to protest during a Pandemic. Hopefully none of those who took to the streets either catch or pass on COVID19. (I do agree that the clap for NHS has sometimes been poorly executed) Maybe the States are just erring on the side of caution, do they really need to be called out for it by the POTUS, maybe some gentle diplomatic word from the President, oh no not with this ****.

Sorry I just don’t agree, you of course are welcome to your opinion, I’m happy with mine. Is that because “orange man is bad”, no it’s because I have my opinion based on Trump previous form and I’ve come to a different conclusion to yours. I will continue to watch the developments with interest.
 
Last edited:
HEADRAT said:
So if any of the States/Governors had been Republican but no, it’s political point scoring and an incitement for people to protest during a Pandemic. Hopefully none of those who took to the streets either catch or pass on COVID19. (I do agree that the clap for NHS has sometimes been poorly executed) Maybe the States are just erring on the side of caution, do they really need to be called out for it by the POTUS, maybe some gentle diplomatic word from the President, oh no not with this ****.

Sorry I just don’t agree, you of course are welcome to your opinion, I’m happy with mine. Is that because “orange man is bad”, no it’s because I have my opinion based on Trump previous form and I’ve come to a different conclusion to yours. I will continue to watch the developments with interest.
Click to expand...

:cool:

I also agree that anything trump (and most politicians do) will always be or have political point scoring elements to it. For a lot of it though, i think it's more ego point scoring between trump and the MSM that constantly report negatively (rightly or wrongly).
 
plasmahal said:
Protests in California now.... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

https://www.reporter.am/california-protest-erupts-over-states-coronavirus-stay-at-home-rules/
Click to expand...


vm7nip1dzdt41.png
 
plasmahal said:
So, are you saying that some dumb-ass tweets are now the official line of the administration to cease a lock-down?
Click to expand...

The courts have already rules on this. Trump's tweets are government business. So what he puts in a tweet matters. He did this a couple of days after a protest so encouraging others to come out and protest. That is his official line whether you like it or not.

President Trump has been violating the Constitution by blocking people from following his Twitter account because they criticized or mocked him, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday. The ruling could have broader implications for how the First Amendment applies to the social-media era.

Because Mr. Trump uses Twitter to conduct government business, he cannot exclude some Americans from reading his posts — and engaging in conversations in the replies to them — because he does not like their views, a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, ruled unanimously.
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html
 
Hedge said:
How do you feel about Nancy Pelosi telling people to socialise in Chinatown? I just ask because Trump has had a dig at it, yet like you say, prior to March people said it wasn't spreading in local communities so she wasn't really so out of place right?.
Click to expand...
I personally think everyone has handled this situation poorly, Pelosi is an absolutely bitter moron who took the opportunity to virtue signal and probably cost people their lives in the process. But when the CDC was advising that the disease wasn't spreading among US communities, then that is obliviously going to be the advice that they follow at the time, however wrong it might have appeared with the benefit of hindsight. If you were in their positions, would you trash the CDC's statements publicly at that time with just a handful of cases to support your narrative?
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Did they? CDC was warning of person to person spread in the US on Jan 30th

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0130-coronavirus-spread.html
Click to expand...
Is that what I said? Re-read it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200229120328/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/summary.html

Situation in U.S.
Imported cases of COVID-19 in travelers have been detected in the U.S. Person-to-person spread of COVID-19 also has been reported among close contacts of returned travelers from Wuhan. On February 25, CDC confirmed COVID-19 in a person who reportedly did not have relevant travel history or exposure to another known patient with COVID-19 (unknown exposure). At this time, this virus is NOT currently spreading in the community in the United States.
 
Murphy said:
[..] I'd say we had more of it than we do currently, at least before the 08 crash people made some sort of attempt to work together, even if it was just paying lip-service to it.
Click to expand...

I agree we had more of it than we do now, but I don't think it was much more. Not enough to be significantly different.

On and the two-team conflict approach with winner takes all approach stems from the mother of all parliaments, now don't say the UK never gives the world anything. ;)
Click to expand...

The industrial revolution and vaccination come to mind as nicer examples. "Lots of wool" was what first came to mind, but that was sold rather than given and it was England rather than the UK. It's stuck in my head because it surprised me when I found out that for a long time the biggest export product of England was wool, to the extent that the wealth (and thus power) of England (and thus the UK) was built on wool.

But does the two-team conflict approach to politics really stem from the UK parliament? Leaving aside for the moment the fact that it arguably predates the UK in Britain and leaving that in the messy history of what constitutes the UK, I'd be willing to bet it happened before. In fact, I know it happened before. Ancient Rome again, towards the end of the republican period. They had a two-team conflict system (populares and optimates), albeit not as rigidly organised into formal political parties. Arguably earlier, since right from the beginning of the republic there were two political blocs stemming from the nobility and commons of the monarchical period. I'd be willing to bet it happened many times in many places.
 
Jono8 said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density

New York state has the 5th and 6th highest population densities in the USA. Second only to cities in New Jersey (which has also been hit quite badly)

When you take that in conjunction with the sheer amount of domestic and international travel that goes on in and around New York City...well you have your answer.
Click to expand...

I think population size is another factor. New York city has a population hundreds to thousands of times greater than the few places with a higher population density. It's a lot easier to mitigate the pandemic in half a square kilometre and 10,000 people than it is to do so in 800 square kilometres and 8 million people.
 
plasmahal said:
And the leftists/socialists hate this as they need you in a group so that they can then control you.
Click to expand...

Mostly, yes, at the moment. But not inherently. The idea of group identity isn't inherently tied to or absent from left, right, socialism, capitalism and other somewhat vague groupings of political ideas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom