SectionC3

Not classy on your end. Not classy at all. I’ll say it again. Far, far more people die in the United States each year as a result of gun violence than as a result of abortion. We have a winner. Thank you.

Who said anything about guilt? That comment just got you placed on the Washed Up Psycho list. Wow. Fact: far, far more people die in the United States each year as a result of gun violence than as a result of abortion. You sound like a guy who is coming down with a case of Biden Derangement Syndrome.

Words of wisdom from the man with tiny baby hands.

The ironic thing is that the guess here is that reopening early is going to doom his reelection chances. It’s going to take some time to figure out how economic patterns have changed (e.g., who is willing to patronize a restaurant, or a movie theater, or a performance arts venue) and I don’t think we’ll see as rapid a recovery as some others might think. An earlier reopening allows more opportunity to show economic stagnation for which he will (and, in no small part, should) be held accountable. I think it’s more of an errant apostrophe. From the guy characterizing someone else as unintelligent.

What are “Vaccine’s?”

For what it’s worth I agree with you. We have to have a reasoned cost/benefit conversation, and we have to have it now. Eschewing the guidelines in exchange for a short-term fix doesn’t seem like a great idea to me in view of the significant long-term dangers that would accompany a premature reopening. Normally I would trust the experts to properly assess the health component of the issues, but with this administration I wonder whether any competent advice that such experts might give would be ignored by the person with “absolute authority” on the issue. *** And I’ll add: reopening will go much more smoothly if we all work together and follow a few simple rules about, among other things, wearing masks and protecting others from community spread. What the knuckleheads convinced that individual liberty demands that they don’t wear a mask don’t get is that their misguided stand has the potential to really screw things up for a lot of people for a long time if cases spike upon reopening. We should reopen as soon as possible, and we should reopen as safely as possible. And that involves a little bit of courtesy and sacrifice on everyone’s part.

I didn’t realize that you’re so concerned about social shaming. Very “snow-flakey” of you. I apologize for hurting your feelings. Sounds like you just made the hoax list, sir.

What about with respect to a walker? Or a person who stops on the trail? Or wind spray? By your logic, if I walk briskly through a grocery store, then I am exempt from the mask guidance. The simple point remains that the guidance reflects that if one is to be in close proximity to another person, then one should wear a mask.

Lots of gymnastics to cover for an overmatched wimp. I watched it too.

When you raise your kids in a house that prioritizes education and reason, they grow up advanced. Go figure.

Nah they just say anytime you’re in close proximity to others. General guidance, applicable irrespective of location. But by Chef Jim logic it’s impossible to be in close proximity to anyone in a park or on a trial. Makes. Perfect. Sense. Just imagine the effect on markets if Fauci’s concerns about the spread of virus upon premature reopening are realized. Or we could actually read the CDC website. Either one. The debate isn’t about location, it’s about proximity to others. When in proximity, the CDC suggests that masks be worn, irrespective of location. There is no such thing as “trail” or “park” immunity.

I would like to see “[a]ll the data” if you’re not too busy.

Moron is your word, not mine. The question of interpretation is not a close one here. The CDC suggests wearing a mask when in proximity to others. If you can't be bothered to do that, then you're being selfish. It is what it is.

It seems like you're easily offended. I think you belong on the Snowflake List.

Because Mueller couldn't say the president committed a crime. Given your deep understanding of such processes I'm sure you get that. It's not Mueller's job to say whether the president committed a crime. That's for a trier of fact. It is Mueller's job to present cases in which there is legally sufficient evidence of a crime to a grand jury. Mueller wouldn't even have the conversation with respect to collusion/conspiracy given his inability to marshal legally sufficient evidence of a crime with respect to that issue. He could have reached the same conclusion with respect to obstruction, but refused to do so based on the quantum of the proof. Instead he took the next step, saying that this might be a case appropriate for grand jury review ("if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment") but that it couldn't reach that point because of DOJ guidelines precluding the indictment of a sitting president. All of the Trump apologists want to delude themselves into thinking that there's "nothing" there, but a straight, clean, pristine, and universally respected career prosecutor concluded otherwise.

Why is she horrible?

What's so hard about providing a responsive answer to a reasonable question?

The fake winner is a fake tough guy. Couldn't handle the heat, so he left the kitchen. No, she didn't try to blame Trump for American deaths. She tried to make the point that leading the world in testing isn't good enough if the best testing is still deficient testing. He bungled the response, fell back on a trope, got caught, and slinked away. Total weak sauce move when all he had to do is stick to one of his lies about the adequacy of testing. I'd like to imagine that he would respond competently to the issue, but based on the pandemic response that appears to be a pipe dream.

No, the hiking trail isn't simple. What if it's a crowded hiking trail? That too can put you in a place to be proximate to others. You should call the CDC with respect to your complaint about the ambiguity of "proximate[]." That's the CDC's word; not mine. Sorry, but you ignore the CDC's guidance with respect to the use of masks. I'll quote it since you refuse to read it: "A cloth face covering should be worn whenever people are in a community setting, especially in situations where you may be near people. These settings include grocery stores and pharmacies. These face coverings are not a substitute for social distancing. Cloth face coverings are especially important to wear in public in areas of widespread COVID-19 illness." I don't need dinner or the shining of my shoes. It would suffice if you would simply be respectful of others. This is the post of mine with which you take issue: "That's nice, and it is your choice. It's also my choice to tell you that I think you're being selfish to the extent that you come into close proximity with another person on the trail or in your neighborhood. I have some ignorant people in my neighborhood; an adult member of one household had COVID-19 and was down and out for almost two months, and this person's spouse closely associated during that time period with others in the neighborhood. None of those congregants has worn a mask, and some of those people have come too close to my kids since then. They have quickly learned of my views on the matter." Apparently it's too much to ask to either avoid coming into "close proximity" with another person, or to wear a mask if "close proximity" can't be avoided. It is what it is.

Not that this comes as a surprise, but it appears that you may have misinterpreted CDC guidance on the mask issue. Masks should be worn, according to the CDC, in community settings. Those settings include situations in which you are "near" another person or persons: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-faq.html I think the CDC has this one covered. Proximity = an occasion to wear a mask. It doesn't make a difference whether the proximity occurs in a grocery store, in a pharmacy, or on a hiking trail.

I don't fear you. I do, however, expect you to be respectful of others when in public. Whether you agree with, or like, that position is your choice.

Two points. First, you've taken the sentence fragment completely out of context. Second, you have received your explanation. DOJ policy precluded Mueller from indicting a sitting president. Consistent with that policy, Mueller refused to say (that is, to conclude) that the President committed a crime. Mueller did have the latitude to say that the facts showed that the President did not commit a crime. As noted in the part of the sentence that you (intentionally) omitted, Mueller declined to conclude as much. It's surprising that you -- someone who normally is fairly level-headed -- would ascribe to such logic. What was the result of Part I of the Mueller report? Insufficient evidence with respect to collusion. Mueller said it in these words: "Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election." So why wouldn't Mueller say the same thing with respect to obstruction in Part II of the report? He easily could have said "the evidence was not sufficient to charge [Trump] with any crime related to obstruction of justice." But he didn't. And that, sir, when coupled with the conclusion to Part II, is a pretty big clue as to what special counsel really thought of the obstruction part of the investigation.

Or they (and you) could show a little decency. Either one.

No, Barr didn't exonerate the president. And no, Mueller didn't violate the terms of his appointment. In point of fact Mueller believed that he lacked legal authority to charge a sitting president, which is why the report left open the question whether a criminal action against Trump with respect to this conduct should be pursued once Trump leaves that office.

Fake logic, bro. In point of fact, your statement reflects that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're well out of your depth. Mueller indicated that, for reasons unrelated to his criminal liability, the president could not be charged at this juncture. Mueller specifically declined to say that, based on his review of the evidence, the president should not be charged. The president still may be held liable for such criminal conduct once DOJ policy permits his indictment.