Trollminator wrote:
What else is trigged going to say? He has nothing...
Bingo. He certainly has nothing *positive* to adduce as a selling point for Donald Trump.
Sad. Truly.
Trollminator wrote:
What else is trigged going to say? He has nothing...
Bingo. He certainly has nothing *positive* to adduce as a selling point for Donald Trump.
Sad. Truly.
And you all watch Trump and say wow he is still out guy?why? He is as diminished mentally as any !! The country needs a guy like McCrystal The General of McRaven the Admiral running . Trump is a failure and the Democrats?? Geesh .
jesseriley wrote:
You’re lost in a delusion of 2016, trigged. Trump’s a one-trick pony. And a dirty trick at that.
He is hanging his hat on this dementia hoax. I'm not surprised he fell for it, but it's looking more and more like his delusion/hypnosis is chronic... there is no recourse for people like trigged, he's irretrievably lost.
Another 4.4 m jobs evaporated for a total of 26.5 m lost under trump. The way April is tracking we are hitting 20% for sure. Welcome to the second great depression. Trigged, what were you saying about trump's magic touch?
agip wrote:
Our idiot president. Magas, hold him accountable.
https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1253107943018508290?s=21
Sums his stupid followers up to a tee. They are not guided by principles or beliefs, they are spineless jellyfish who shift their stance based on the ramblings of a N.Y. conman.
brlt wrote:
And you all watch Trump and say wow he is still out guy?why? He is as diminished mentally as any !! The country needs a guy like McCrystal The General of McRaven the Admiral running . Trump is a failure and the Democrats?? Geesh .
No. We need experienced politicians. We need people who have run government and aren't half trying to burn it all down.
I'm a big fan of the military, but what we don't need is another person with no idea how government works.
Trollminator wrote:
Another 4.4 m jobs evaporated for a total of 26.5 m lost under trump.
It went down from 5.2m last week. It will be close to zero in several weeks. And then will start getting back all the jobs lost.
Trollminator wrote:
https://twitter.com/cbouzy/status/1253314996819447814?s=20
Do you believe that if Hillary Clinton were president, she would have been able to prevent this job loss?
Donald is a clown for everyone to see and is being used not followed. He's an expedient. The Republicans know they can get at least one more Supreme Court justice with another Trump term. Those who voted him in had legitimate concerns as citizens about out of control internationalism which the elites had arrogantly ignored, with the last straw being an entire generation at war abroad. The rich and big business is obvious. He also insures a floundering country to the rest of the world that was getting tired of US hegemony. For the nuts he's the Antichrist before the end of the world.
Huge numbers ?
jesseriley wrote:
You’re lost in a delusion of 2016, trigged. Trump’s a one-trick pony. And a dirty trick at that.
Yes. One-trick pony picking Trump to win in 2016. And dirty as you said. Rigged has proven himself to be super dumb. He was certain Democrats would not impeach Trump. He said they were too afraid. He could not have been more wrong.
He's been trying to catch up to Sally as the dumbest poster here, and he's almost there. Sally is the dumbest person I have eve encountered, and Rigged is about 4th. He's been steadily moving up the ladder though.
agip wrote:
change of direction.... .. .. wrote:
Upon further research :
the only place New York state death per capita projections rival are projections for Sweden... even Italy and Spain per capita death numbers are smaller... it's a head-scratcher for me. NYC is a very crowded place but that can't be the explanation...
I think part of the issue is that you are conflating NYC with an entire nation.
If you looked at, say, Bergamo in Italy or Madrid in Spain maybe you'd find a similar death per million count as NYC.
One big question is exactly what is happening in CA. Nate Silver, on twitter, has talked a bit about it. He is coming to believe CA data is very bad and not giving a clear up to the minute picture of what is happening there.
But it does seem that if people live in houses not apartments and don't take public transportation...the deaths per million will be lower.
Well.... if data is incorrect then of course one can't compare numbers/stats... but in the regard I am referring to that would mean places other than NY state are not counting the number of dead from covid 19 in their state correctly. They certainly could be off but that's a stretch.
Also, I am not conflating deaths in NYC with anywhere... I said state of NY.. the population of the state of NY is 2.5 times that of the state of Washington... projections indicate that deaths in the state of NY will be 30 times that of the deaths in WA... as I said, it's very odd that the only place that deaths per capita are anywhere close to those in the state of NY is Sweden...
I'm simply wondering what a logical explanation might be... and just not seeing it.
regarding CA, I live here so I have a good feel for what's happening... we are simply not testing anyone unless they are very ill... so of course numbers of those who have the disease are under counted but it's the death per capita of NY state vs everywhere else which is truly odd... the state of Washington supposedly was the first state to have a resident with covid 19 and they didn't implement stay at home orders until mid-March (very similar to the state of NY)... the deaths per capita number is the odd number to me... not the number of cases per capita...
anyway, I'm not going to solve this mystery so I suppose this post is pointless... like most of them on here... lol
CountChocula wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
https://twitter.com/cbouzy/status/1253314996819447814?s=20Do you believe that if Hillary Clinton were president, she would have been able to prevent this job loss?
Yes. She would have maintained the Pandemic Response Team in the National Security Council and kept up funding to the CDC, insuring that the federal government would have reacted more quickly to the spread of the virus. She would have listened to and accepted the opinions of the medical experts and would have projected to the country the seriousness of this virus. She would have more competently created and carried out a testing program such that the spread of the virus would have been limited.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. Trump didn't cause the virus, but his penny wise pound foolish policies and general arrogance/ignorance made the situation a lot worse than it would have been in the hands of someone who is smarter and more competent (i.e. Hillary).
CountChocula wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
https://twitter.com/cbouzy/status/1253314996819447814?s=20Do you believe that if Hillary Clinton were president, she would have been able to prevent this job loss?
There likely would have been huge job losses still, but she likely also would have taken the word from the WHO and the intelligence agencies and the CDC and Fauci and others and not tried to minimize it from the beginning, leading to a false sense of security for our citizens and greater infection and death.
That said, it doesn't really matter what would have happened with Hillary. How the country is doing at the time a President is in office is how the country as a whole views the President. Massive job losses. Huge numbers of dead people. Down stock market. People upset that they can't go back to work. On the whole, the country blames Trump for this. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand politics and is just so partisan they can't see straight.
johnny99 wrote:
CountChocula wrote:
Do you believe that if Hillary Clinton were president, she would have been able to prevent this job loss?
Yes. She would have maintained the Pandemic Response Team in the National Security Council and kept up funding to the CDC, insuring that the federal government would have reacted more quickly to the spread of the virus. She would have listened to and accepted the opinions of the medical experts and would have projected to the country the seriousness of this virus. She would have more competently created and carried out a testing program such that the spread of the virus would have been limited.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. Trump didn't cause the virus, but his penny wise pound foolish policies and general arrogance/ignorance made the situation a lot worse than it would have been in the hands of someone who is smarter and more competent (i.e. Hillary).
Do you think she would have encouraged states to order the closure of non-essential businesses, therefore causing the employers to lay off their employees?
I'm not even a Trump supporter, I just think it's a little delusional to hope that a different president would have been able to reduce deaths and also keep businesses open and life as usual. I'm not aware of any other country that has been able to do this.
Smorbun wrote:
CountChocula wrote:
Do you believe that if Hillary Clinton were president, she would have been able to prevent this job loss?
There likely would have been huge job losses still, but she likely also would have taken the word from the WHO and the intelligence agencies and the CDC and Fauci and others and not tried to minimize it from the beginning, leading to a false sense of security for our citizens and greater infection and death.
That said, it doesn't really matter what would have happened with Hillary. How the country is doing at the time a President is in office is how the country as a whole views the President. Massive job losses. Huge numbers of dead people. Down stock market. People upset that they can't go back to work. On the whole, the country blames Trump for this. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand politics and is just so partisan they can't see straight.
Didn't see your reply before I posted.
I agree with you, and I just don't think it's fair to explicitly pin job losses on something that Trump did or did not do. He is definitely on the hook for the overall consequences.
Jobs always get lost. This is what a safety net is for. Trump wouldn’t know, he’s gotten billions in corporate welfare; the little people deserve their fate in his small mind.
CountChocula wrote:
johnny99 wrote:
Yes. She would have maintained the Pandemic Response Team in the National Security Council and kept up funding to the CDC, insuring that the federal government would have reacted more quickly to the spread of the virus. She would have listened to and accepted the opinions of the medical experts and would have projected to the country the seriousness of this virus. She would have more competently created and carried out a testing program such that the spread of the virus would have been limited.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. Trump didn't cause the virus, but his penny wise pound foolish policies and general arrogance/ignorance made the situation a lot worse than it would have been in the hands of someone who is smarter and more competent (i.e. Hillary).
Do you think she would have encouraged states to order the closure of non-essential businesses, therefore causing the employers to lay off their employees?
I'm not even a Trump supporter, I just think it's a little delusional to hope that a different president would have been able to reduce deaths and also keep businesses open and life as usual. I'm not aware of any other country that has been able to do this.
I'm not suggesting that with Hillary, it would have been "life as usual" and businesses would have stayed open. There would have been deaths, and economic pain. But there would have been less. The peak of the pandemic would have been lower and the length of time during which draconian mitigation measures were needed would have been shorter.
johnny99 wrote:
CountChocula wrote:
Do you think she would have encouraged states to order the closure of non-essential businesses, therefore causing the employers to lay off their employees?
I'm not even a Trump supporter, I just think it's a little delusional to hope that a different president would have been able to reduce deaths and also keep businesses open and life as usual. I'm not aware of any other country that has been able to do this.
I'm not suggesting that with Hillary, it would have been "life as usual" and businesses would have stayed open. There would have been deaths, and economic pain. But there would have been less. The peak of the pandemic would have been lower and the length of time during which draconian mitigation measures were needed would have been shorter.
Agreed. I guess my gripe is more with the tweet and how it simplifies the issue. And personally I feel that it's not productive for the tweeter to get hung up on the past right now, but that's neither here nor there.