|
|
Post by bsutrack on Nov 8, 2021 20:21:43 GMT -6
Probably annually. Joe got boosters out.
If Trump were there, he'd be saying "Don't worry, it'll all be over soon. Fake news" His vaccine couldn't work without his supporters using it. Poor sales job on his part. He could have been a hero. Beat the virus. Joe may have gotten the booster's out, but as I've pointed out before, they are for the same original variant of Covid-19. Can't we do it like the seasonal flu where each year a booster is given for what doctors think will be the prevalent flu variants for that season? I think this is a major failure of the current fight against Covid-19 and it's happening under Joe Biden's watch, not Trump's. Your speculation on what Trump may or may not be doing if he was president is is just that, speculation. I will say I don't think Joe Biden has been very aggressive in getting therapeutics out. Merck has one called molnupiravir which has been slowed in it's development by the US Health and Human Services Department, in particular by a guy named Rick Bright. Mr. Bright, a career official, has been hailed by Democratic Politicians as a "whistleblower" for his actions. In appears in spite of this, both moinupiravir and Pfizer's version (Paxlovid) are about to be released to the public. I suspect Trump would have cut the "red tape" and gotten these out months ago. But that's speculation isn't it? As for a "poor sales job", the salesperson we have right now is Joe Biden and his administration. He (they) are the ones who need to convince the public about what actions are needed. I don't know about you, but when I make a major decision it's not only about the facts and figures, but also if I trust the person making "the pitch". Has he or she been right about other things, their track record. Let's look at some of the stuff Biden and his administration has been "pitching". 1) The US withdrawal from Afghanistan was a major success, carefully planned and executed. No one was left behind that didn't want to stay behind. 2) The southern border is not open. There is no crisis. What is happening is just a seasonal thing that will subside once the weather gets worse. There's no problem. This is all normal. 3) Inflation is transitory. It's not that bad and will go away in spite of what you see each week at the grocery store. 4) The supply chain problem is actually a sign of the success of Biden's economic policies. This was actually pitched by the Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg on a Sunday morning talk show. So when you can't find that Christmas present this year because it's stuck on a container ship offshore Long Beach, CA, it's just a sign of Biden's success. 5) The $4 trillion (or whatever it's this week) Build Back Better program is totally paid for. It will not cost America a single cent and will actually lower inflation. 6) Illegals separated from their families by the Trump Administration when attempting to enter the country will be paid $450,000 per person, up to $1 million per family. When asked this by Fox Reporter Peter Doocy, Biden said this wasn't true and was a garbage report. Next day Joe was force to walk that back after he was told it was indeed true. So when the US public decides whether to follow Joe Biden's edicts or not, they base it on the portfolio of his works and it just doesn't build much credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 9, 2021 12:30:58 GMT -6
But those that died with Covid and pre-existing conditions were living with those pre-existing conditions. They died when Covid was introduced. See www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-not-all-covid19-victims-had-idUSKBN28A2QEbsutrack ignores the fact 25-40% of Americans have preexisting conditions and that many deaths without any other condition listed. On top of his ridiculous idea that the deaths don't really count. |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Nov 11, 2021 8:56:00 GMT -6
But those that died with Covid and pre-existing conditions were living with those pre-existing conditions. They died when Covid was introduced. See www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-not-all-covid19-victims-had-idUSKBN28A2QEbsutrack ignores the fact 25-40% of Americans have preexisting conditions and that many deaths without any other condition listed. On top of his ridiculous idea that the deaths don't really count. For 00, deaths only matter when they support his political agenda; otherwise life is cheap. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 11, 2021 9:45:20 GMT -6
For 00, deaths only matter when they support his political agenda; otherwise life is cheap. That is just BS. Where have you seen me say life is cheap? Shouldn't we all have a "political agenda" to protect lives and prevent lives from being lost needlessly? Protecting the public welfare is a proper role of government.
Go back in this thread and you will see I am advocate for public health and good science. I have lost loved ones and friends to Covid and do put the blame on politicians whose actions lead to unnecessary illness and deaths. I do believe putting good public health measures in place and enforcing them is a proper governmental function. It has been through most of our history. Almost always non-partisan.
That public health has stupidly become a hot button political matter seems to be your choice, or your politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Nov 11, 2021 12:49:17 GMT -6
For 00, deaths only matter when they support his political agenda; otherwise life is cheap. That is just BS. Where have you seen me say life is cheap? Shouldn't we all have a "political agenda" to protect lives and prevent lives from being lost needlessly? Protecting the public welfare is a proper role of government.
Well then, you should fully support the completion of a southern border wall. The completion of a border wall between the US and Mexico would protect public welfare in the following ways: 1) Limit the spread of Covid-19 transmitted by infected Illegals entering the country. We have debated how many cases of Covid-19 this actually causes in the US, but you would be a total moron to claim it doesn't happen. 2) Slow the flow of illegal drugs into the US and cut the number of people dying each year from dug overdoses. Worse, the current flood of Illegals at the southern border extremely limits the ability of what border patrol agents we have to fight the flow of illegal drugs into the US. 3) Block the entry of dangerous criminals that are currently being allowed into the county. Go back and re-read the links about that wonderful 24-year-old who pretended to be a teenager, allowed into the country, and then killed a father of four in Florida. Not to mention all the teenagers brought into the country via the southern border for the purposes of prostitution. Controlling our southern border with a completed border wall would lessen all the above. But you are in favor of an open border because it means a future crop of Democratic voters. The current population of voters isn't liberal enough to get through your liberal policies, so you want to dilute it with a bunch of new ones. This is the same reason the Biden Administration has an open southern border. So prove me wrong. State for the record Trump was correct in building a southern border wall. That Joe Biden should change course, complete the wall the stop the flood of Illegals into the country. Otherwise, I will conclude you indeed believe life for those Americans affected is cheap. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 11, 2021 15:23:00 GMT -6
This thread is about Covid.
The border has very little to do with public health. Immigrants aren't ending up in the Dakota's or Colorado or other hot spots. Almost universally the hotspots have been low vaccination rate.
This deflects and distracts from the overwhelmingly more urgent public health issue. THAT is politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Nov 13, 2021 14:40:43 GMT -6
Control of a nation's borders is an important ingredient of public health. To quote the CDC: "Quarantine and Border Health Services protects the public’s health through detection of and response to communicable diseases related to travel and imported pathogens and improves the health of globally mobile populations transitioning to U.S. communities". www.cdc.gov/ncezid/dgmq/focus-areas/quarantine.htmlAs for where Illegals are ending up, be it Dakota or Florida, they are going to wherever the Biden Administration is busing or flying them. Show me a manifest of where the illegals are being sent. If they aren't being sent to the Dakota's or Colorado, I'll agree with you. Speaking of agreement, your lack of an answer proves how you value life that isn't part of your political agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 13, 2021 20:47:17 GMT -6
Control of a nation's borders is an important ingredient of public health. To quote the CDC: "Quarantine and Border Health Services protects the public’s health through detection of and response to communicable diseases related to travel and imported pathogens and improves the health of globally mobile populations transitioning to U.S. communities". In terms of a border wall impacting the major health issue of Covid, it's a ridiculous argument to say it is a top priority. There is no evidence Covid is being spread by immigrants.
Compared to, say, vaccination, masking and mitigation. Perhaps offering free and easily available vaccination to all immigrants would be an alternative, and far less costly...
For you to lecture on public health is a joke when your answer has consistently been to downplay the relevant role of public health and advocate "natural immunity" and allowing the vulnerable to die while people "choose" to take personal risk without responsibility for spreading the disease.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 14, 2021 10:21:32 GMT -6
Experts warn U.S.
Truly disastrous in regions with low vaccination rate.
Experts conclude US border wall would not have helped...
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Nov 21, 2021 18:21:53 GMT -6
I figured I'd click over here and find some Rittenhouse arguing
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutony on Nov 21, 2021 18:46:54 GMT -6
There is nothing to argue. Anyone who followed the trial knows the jury got it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 21, 2021 19:17:57 GMT -6
There is nothing to argue. Anyone who followed the trial knows the jury got it right. The Wisconsin self defense rule made the prosecution case very hard.
I won't argue that, but there is a problem here.
I am not happy to see a decision that encourages teenagers with automatic weapons to show up to do "police" work without training. As it was he "joined" a group engaged in police activity then left his cohort to walk a beat on his own. NO police officer would have done what he did.
In this circumstance where the jury found him legally justified, he might well have shot completely innocent bystanders with an automatic weapon. Exactly why police do not use their weapon in many cases where bystanders are endangered. Exactly why they do not put themselves in vulnerable situations where this could happen.
It is even possible the flip side of this decision could have occurred. It could have easily gone the other way. If one of the rioters had encountered a "scared" Rittenhouse who admits he was panicked, could he not have been scared enough to have pointed a weapon at someone who simply beat him to the punch? Would they have been justified to shoot him in reasonable fear for their life? Neither side is completely right here. Both sides should have disengaged or avoided the conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Nov 22, 2021 8:25:13 GMT -6
There is nothing to argue. Anyone who followed the trial knows the jury got it right.
In this circumstance where the jury found him legally justified, he might well have shot completely innocent bystanders with an automatic weapon. Exactly why police do not use their weapon in many cases where bystanders are endangered. Exactly why they do not put themselves in vulnerable situations where this could happen. Uh, aren't cops paid to protect the public, and put themselves in vulnerable positions to do so? Also, Rittenhouse didn't have an "automatic weapon." If he had, he'd be in jail right now for possession of an assault rifle without a tax stamp. His was a Smith and Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle. Actually, I have that same rifle. You can argue all you want about what "could" have happened, but when you get down to it: 1 - He had as much right to be there as the rioters. 2 - He avoided shooting as long as he possibly could. 3 - He didn't hit any bystanders. 4 - He shot only in defense of his life, and didn't fire wildly. 5 - He is legally allowed to carry a rifle like the one he had, even at 17. Personally, I think he showed tremendous restraint. And remarkable accuracy, better than most cops. I'm not sure what the prosecutor was trying to do, but his closing arguments were comical and childish. He was awful over the course of the trial, so the defense didn't have to do much. And when you throw in the shenanigans by the prosecutor (giving a compressed video file to the defense instead of a direct copy, trying to introduce excluded evidence, etc.), a conviction was nearly impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Nov 22, 2021 8:38:01 GMT -6
You know what else could have happened. A particular political organization could have acted like adults and not spent an entire summer encouraging the ransacking, burning, pillaging, and looting of American cities.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Nov 22, 2021 9:01:26 GMT -6
In this circumstance where the jury found him legally justified, he might well have shot completely innocent bystanders with an automatic weapon. Exactly why police do not use their weapon in many cases where bystanders are endangered. Exactly why they do not put themselves in vulnerable situations where this could happen. Uh, aren't cops paid to protect the public, and put themselves in vulnerable positions to do so? Also, Rittenhouse didn't have an "automatic weapon.... 1 - He had as much right to be there as the rioters. 2 - He avoided shooting as long as he possibly could. 3 - He didn't hit any bystanders. 4 - He shot only in defense of his life, and didn't fire wildly. 5 - He is legally allowed to carry a rifle like the one he had, even at 17. Personally, I think he showed tremendous restraint. And remarkable accuracy, better than most cops. I'm not sure what the prosecutor was trying to do, but his closing arguments were comical and childish. He was awful over the course of the trial, so the defense didn't have to do much. And when you throw in the shenanigans by the prosecutor (giving a compressed video file to the defense instead of a direct copy, trying to introduce excluded evidence, etc.), a conviction was nearly impossible. Cops are paid, and are trained. Because of training they are unlikely to be the situation this shooter put himself, less likely to panic, and more likely to be able to avoid unnecessary violence.
This was not a job for an amateur whose presence was fairly likely to escalate conflict. The professional decision NOT to have police roaming the streets as he did was well founded in police doctrine on confronting protests and civil unrest like this.
Automatic weapon or semi-automatic, he had a weapon which is easy to fire multiple rounds in seconds, easy to fire accidentally in a panic multiple rounds, and powerful enough that should it MISS a target or go through to hit someone it was quite dangerous. He was untrained in its use for confronting civil disturbance. It's not a question of whether the victims were violating the law it is a question of what is the best response.
His misguided motive to "protect property" without training led him into danger that should have been avoided. That motive is a bit hard to separate him from other outside elements who were there creating a dangerous situation. He says "protect property," but he was also there to "show force" and had to know he might provoke a reaction. He did.
So:
1. If he was there with a "right" to get himself in trouble, as great as those others he shot (none were destroying property or threatening to do so) then it would be very good public policy that he exercise restraint in using force, but also use restraint not to create confrontation and violence.
2. He plainly did not avoid putting himself in danger. Which meant that he could have easily avoided shooting had he stayed with a group (unlikely to be "overwhelmed" by a skateboard) or had he simply avoided his ridiculous "patrol." Did he really think he was preventing any harm brandishing his weapon and strutting down the street toward a crowd? What a tool.
3. That he did not hit anyone else is hardly an endorsement of his fire control.
4. It is debatable how necessary his defense was or how wild. The jury did not have to reach either question, merely whether he believed he was in danger. His self characterized "panic" does not speak to careful use of force...Which I think the public who were there lawfully had some right to expect. They put themselves in some danger, but from their point of view was it reasonable to fear HIM. Another question not reached by the jury. Was it reasonable in THEIR fear to try to disarm him? Not reached as a question by the jury. BOTH sides here are to blame. We should avoid this.
5. The legal right to carry this weapon, or the extent of that right and the right to NOT exercise greater care is probably something to be changed. The pendulum has gone from excessive limitation on firearms to almost complete justification of reckless confrontation. That is wrong.
|
|
