Ed wrote:
If that's your only criteria does that mean that you'll be voting for Biden? He's also not Hillary.
At the time of the election, there were two possible options, one of which would be president. I didn’t particularly like either, so I voted for the lesser of two evils. If Hillary were somehow running against Bernie, and they were the only two options, I still would’ve voted for the lesser of two evils. In that case, it would’ve been Hillary.
Anybody who makes a career out of self-promotion with the ultimate goal of being in charge of everything is a narcissist. Humble people don't run for President.
I don’t agree. There are plenty of people who aren’t narcissistic, that ran for president.
It seems to me that what matters is behavior. The GOP, which had control of Congress for most of Obama's tenure, would have absolutely loved to nail him on corruption, or violating the emoluments clause, or sexual assault/misconduct, or anything else at all. To me the fact that they weren't even able to try is strong evidence that he didn't do those things. You might not have liked him or his policies, but there's no evidence that he was a corrupt, amoral criminal.
Amoral? What is your basis for morality?
The things that I've said about Trump has been fact checked. I'm not posting Facebook rumors or dishonest memes from anti-Trump blogs. I'm not posting the petty attacks on his appearance or the pictures of him under an umbrella while Melania stands in the rain. I'm sticking to things that are real, current, and extremely significant.
Significant to you. That’s fine. But again, you never brought up these kids of significant things here, when Obama was president. It never occurred to you to rail about Obama when he lied? Or, is a lying president not really an issue with you?
What would have happened if we hadn't started enforced social distancing? The number of confirmed infections is currently rising by 30,000 a day even with the majority of us trying to isolate ourselves. Hopefully that's the result of the long incubation period and we'll see a sharp fall-off soon, but then I've also been reading about people in South Korea and China who have been infected, treated, and released but are still testing positive. Whether or not they're still contagious is an open question.
As I work in a hospital, my perspective may be a little different than yours. But speaking with multiple nurses, and higher ups, including the infection control specialist, and with knowing what we know now:
1) this virus seems to be very contagious
2) the mortality rate seems to be extremely low
3) the more info we get, the more it seems like a large percentage of people who test positive, have no symptoms whatsoever.
Up until recently in my hospital, we didn’t have to wear masks, and we certainly didn’t practice social distancing, and out of well over 1500 employees, there hasn’t been a single employee who has tested positive for the virus as of now.
So, what would’ve happened? Probably more people would’ve been infected, including many without symptoms, and the economy wouldn’t be in the $hitter. But since we didn’t know what we know now, we should end these shut downs asap.
Unfortunately, we now have organized protests (that look just like Trump rallies) cropping up all over the place, so I guess we'll have the opportunity to find out what happens if a bunch of angry morons decide that self quarantining is fascism. My prediction is that some of those morons will contract the coronavirus while they're doofing around in the city, and then they'll bring it back to their wholesome, right-thinking, all-American communities, and then people there will die.
It’s not self quarantining, when governors and mayors close down businesses, and don’t allow people in certain public places.
