The Next Pandemic: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19

[Reality Check]

20 minutes ago, Q-baby! said:

Tinfoil is on sale at Walmart. You don’t need to wear a mask! You’re welcome! 

https://youtu.be/cphkD-9NUe8

[Q-baby!]

Just now, Reality Check said:

https://youtu.be/cphkD-9NUe8

Keep em coming! This is fun! 

[Reality Check]

2 minutes ago, Q-baby! said:

Keep em coming! This is fun! 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I will preface this by saying i stopped watching or caring what went on those conferences a couple weeks ago.

 

I dont think either one of them were nasty, just tough.I especially don't care where someone was born. Watch the American Experince Great War on how dangerous that can be.

 

Reid asked the one stupid question to Fauci, but outside of that they wanted real answers on tough questions Trump did not want to answer..he wanted rallies, they wanted answers.

Respectfully, they didn’t want answers. They wanted sound bytes to fit the narrative they want to push on the public. 
 

Truth isn’t the same. The establishment media isn’t about truth, they’re about controlling the narrative *truth be damned*. 
 

That should be the number one take away from any objective media observer over the past several years. It’s been proven each and every time they try to “get Trump”. 

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Respectfully, they didn’t want answers. They wanted sound bytes to fit the narrative they want to push on the public. 
 

Truth isn’t the same. The establishment media isn’t about truth, they’re about controlling the narrative *truth be damned*. 
 

That should be the number one take away from any objective media observer over the past several years. It’s been proven each and every time they try to “get Trump”. 

the last one of these thongs i watched was the campaign video one. Reid absolutly asked the stupid question to Fauci if was being presuured to recant or clarify something, Trump put up his campaign video..and Reid correctly called him out saying "what did you do in February"...it was a completely blank time line  in the campaign ad.

 

I agree about looking for a soundbite to fit the narrative, and Trump was doing the same thing. It's why i stopped watching that very day, the whole spectacle , to me , was not a productive exercise for people trying to learn solid facts .

[GG]

50 minutes ago, Magox said:

Trying to get back on Topic -

 

I found this fascinating Twitter thread from a Doctor who crunched lots of numbers and studies on the transmissibility of the Virus.  I highly recommend you read it if you have an interest in how the Virus spreads.  @shoshin @GG @Deranged Rhino @plenzmd1 @Hapless Bills Fan  @Taro T @Doc Brown @Buffalo_Gal and a lot of others of you may be interested in this as well.  It gets in the weeds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To summarize my interpretation of this is that the way this virus passes on to others in most cases is through confined spaces.  Homes, shelters, elevators, transportation etc.    

 

Even though it's not said here, outdoor locations such as parks and Beaches are not places where the Virus thrives in regards to transmission.

 

And, that children are much less susceptible to passing along the Virus than adults.  Which again reinforces the idea that opening up schools probably makes a lot of sense.

 

 

 

Thx.  

 

This line is key - The risk is highest in enclosed environments; household, long-term care facilities and public transport.

 

These are primary drivers of the NYC metro outbreak.   I'm glad that NYC started putting out a lot more detail by zip code.  It shows that population density or poverty weren't as big a factor as household size in the heavily affected areas of the city.

[Buffalo_Gal]

10 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I will preface this by saying i stopped watching or caring what went on those conferences a couple weeks ago.

 

I dont think either one of them were nasty, just tough.I especially don't care where someone was born. Watch the American Experince Great War on how dangerous that can be.

 

Reid asked the one stupid question to Fauci, but outside of that they wanted real answers on tough questions Trump did not want to answer..he wanted rallies, they wanted answers.

Welp, as someone who watched all the pressers I can confidently say, you are wrong.   

Tough questions are one thing, disrespectful screaming over the President of the United States, is quite another. I have written before... it is  not the man, it is the office. And when you are disrespecting the office of the President of the United States, you are disrespecting the American people.

Their ties to China explain a lot of their questions. You can go through this thread for my notes during the pressers, and then the clips of the exchanges with these two "journalists" and the President.  These "journalists" are not seeking the truth or trying to further a discussion, they have an agenda, and they are pushing it.

 

[Q-baby!]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Welp, as someone who watched all the pressers I can confidently say, you are wrong.   

Tough questions are one thing, disrespectful screaming over the President of the United States, is quite another. I have written before... it is  not the man, it is the office. And when you are disrespecting the office of the President of the United States, you are disrespecting the American people.

Their ties to China explain a lot of their questions. You can go through this thread for my notes during the pressers, and then the clips of the exchanges with these two "journalists" and the President.  These "journalists" are not seeking the truth or trying to further a discussion, they have an agenda, and they are pushing it.

 

?  That’s some funny ***** right there! ?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

25 minutes ago, Magox said:

Trying to get back on Topic -

 

I found this fascinating Twitter thread from a Doctor who crunched lots of numbers and studies on the transmissibility of the Virus.  I highly recommend you read it if you have an interest in how the Virus spreads.  @shoshin @GG @Deranged Rhino @plenzmd1 @Hapless Bills Fan  @Taro T @Doc Brown @Buffalo_Gal and a lot of others of you may be interested in this as well.  It gets in the weeds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To summarize my interpretation of this is that the way this virus passes on to others in most cases is through confined spaces.  Homes, shelters, elevators, transportation etc.    

 

Even though it's not said here, outdoor locations such as parks and Beaches are not places where the Virus thrives in regards to transmission.

 

And, that children are much less susceptible to passing along the Virus than adults.  Which again reinforces the idea that opening up schools probably makes a lot of sense.

 

Currently, in the US, when the source of the viral transmission is listed, the majority of covid-19 cases say "unknown" or "under investigation" wrt transmission.

Yes, transmission is highest among family groups (people living in proximity) and at workplaces (people working in close proximity) BUT, and it's a huge but - how did the virus get into each family group or co-worker? 

Probably the state DOH that did the most initial contact tracing was Washington, and they found multiple cases that had no known contact with known cases - didn't work at the same place, didn't socialize, not in same family.

 

There are quite a number of clear case histories where people with casual contact in a relatively large space (eg 100 of 175 people at Biogen Idec meeting), no close contact within several feet, for 2.5 hrs (45 out of 60 people at Skagit Valley Chorale practice, no one symptomatically ill).  A CDC report on contact tracing in a Chinese restaurant where it is believed 2 families became ill by sitting at tables flanking a table with a presymptomatic person, with air movement by an A/C and a fan propegating droplets to a further distance.  It's linked in the covid-19 facts thread.

How much time is enough time to spread the disease?  Initially departments of health were saying close contact for several hours- like sitting right next to someone on a plane.

The CDC about-face to a recommendation of public mask-wearing is fundamentally the CDC saying "we have an increasing and substantial body of evidence that's not true".    And again, I'll say IMO it's not an accident that cultures with a strong tradition of public mask-wearing (Taiwan, S. Korea, Singapore) are doing the best job to contain this epidemic.

 

We believe my daughter had covid-19 3 weeks ago.  She became ill 5 days after a shopping trip to a lightly occupied store (4 other shoppers while she was there), which was her only outing in 2 weeks.  She wore gloves and sanitized her hands upon leaving the store, washed them after putting away groceries, but she did not wear a mask (despite having one and being told to wear it, Grrrr).  Fortunately, her illness was mild and short.  Today, 4 weeks later, she is getting an antibody test so I guess we'll find out.

It's not correct that "susceptibility to infection increases with age".  He may mean that "susceptibility to serious illness/death increase with age", but it's careless writing if so.
Here is some CDC data, graph from Business Insider:

 

We really don't understand the role of children in transmission at this point.  It's clear that they aren't nearly as susceptible to serious disease.  Probably the best data on children's role in transmission will come from Sweden, where schools have remained open, but I haven't yet seen that data.

Hope this helps.

 

 

59 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Bingo! Someone please tell Fauchi and Birx! 

 

In the name of the Lord of Toast, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS?

 

The young lady making these tweets is a credentialed infectious disease and virology physician in St Andrews, Scotland, but we really have no idea how much data she has access to or time to absorb and process. 

 

Why would you think she knows a thing that Fauchi and Birx need to be told? 

It continually puzzles me why people want to immediately take the word of some person on twitter of unknown depth of knowledge, over CDC experts and people whose job it is to be knee-deep in the data?

[IDBillzFan]

13 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

I find it hysterical that Tea Party Conservatives support him when he's the worst thing that ever happened to the deficit. 

 

Conservatives support Trump despite so little of his policies actually being conservative. It's so crazy. 

 

It amazes me how lazy some of you leftists are as original thinkers. Subsequently, you'll simply never understand how Trump became president.

 

Let me try to break this down a bit for you. You will naturally disagree because of you inability to think objectively, but let's try it anyway.

 

Genuine conservatives dislike Trump from a fiscal standpoint, but no matter how hard conservatives try, they will simply never get a true conservative in the WH, supported by a true conservative house and senate. This may surprise you, but you kind of need all three to enact the kind of fiscal restraint this country needs, and it's impossible to hit that trifecta.

 

Now I can hear the whining already, so let me cut you off. Having GOP control over the trifecta is NOT the same as having Conservative control. If I need to break that down for you, just stop reading.

 

This is why every 'conservative' president in modern memory has broken the bank.

 

So why support Trump? 

 

Conservatives are asked that question by people lacking intelligence because even a little intelligence will help you understand we'd rather have a non-conservative leader from the right than any batschittcrazy nutbag that comprises the left. Look at your bench. All angry, rich white entitled nutbags. And you end up with the phingerphucker as your nominee?

 

How does the party of #metoo nominate a phinger*****er liker Joe?

 

Answer that question and you'll understand why conservatives take a non-conservative like Trump.

 

Oh, and also...Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and the rest of the courts that Cocaine Mitch has been flipping. Hillary would turn this country into Leningrad in her first year. And who WOULDN'T want Trump over Hillary? Answer: America.

 

A little intellectual honesty goes a long way. Try it some time.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

First, African Americans make up a huge percentage of the DC population. Second, yes this particular virus is deadly to OLD people. That doesn’t mean that younger people don’t get the virus. It just isn’t that serious of a condition in younger people. Really nothing new to see here.

 

It's also a point that a lot of the comorbid risk conditions for covid-19: hypertension, especially uncontrolled; obesity; diabetes - tend to be diseases of poverty - excessive dependence on the cheapest foods, which tend to be high in carbohydrate and unhealthy fat - financially and geographically limited access to health care.

 

OK, Hap out, someone called my name so I stuck my head in to answer, but not sticking around here, sorry.

[The Poojer]

Just saw this video, posting it simply to show that there may be more out there and we need to listen to more than one side.  If there is any truth in this video, it's scary and disgusting.  I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle

 

 

[meazza]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

It's also a point that a lot of the comorbid risk conditions for covid-19: hypertension, especially uncontrolled; obesity; diabetes - tend to be diseases of poverty - excessive dependence on the cheapest foods, which tend to be high in carbohydrate and unhealthy fat - financially and geographically limited access to health care.

 

OK, Hap out, someone called my name so I stuck my head in to answer, but not sticking around here, sorry.

If you update your ignore list and add about 15 people, you could potentially have a pleasant experience here. 
 

 

[RochesterRob]

19 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

It amazes me how lazy some of you leftists are as original thinkers. Subsequently, you'll simply never understand how Trump became president.

 

Let me try to break this down a bit for you. You will naturally disagree because of you inability to think objectively, but let's try it anyway.

 

Genuine conservatives dislike Trump from a fiscal standpoint, but no matter how hard conservatives try, they will simply never get a true conservative in the WH, supported by a true conservative house and senate. This may surprise you, but you kind of need all three to enact the kind of fiscal restraint this country needs, and it's impossible to hit that trifecta.

 

Now I can hear the whining already, so let me cut you off. Having GOP control over the trifecta is NOT the same as having Conservative control. If I need to break that down for you, just stop reading.

 

This is why every 'conservative' president in modern memory has broken the bank.

 

So why support Trump? 

 

Conservatives are asked that question by people lacking intelligence because even a little intelligence will help you understand we'd rather have a non-conservative leader from the right than any batschittcrazy nutbag that comprises the left. Look at your bench. All angry, rich white entitled nutbags. And you end up with the phingerphucker as your nominee?

 

How does the party of #metoo nominate a phinger*****er liker Joe?

 

Answer that question and you'll understand why conservatives take a non-conservative like Trump.

 

Oh, and also...Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and the rest of the courts that Cocaine Mitch has been flipping. Hillary would turn this country into Leningrad in her first year. And who WOULDN'T want Trump over Hillary? Answer: America.

 

A little intellectual honesty goes a long way. Try it some time.

 

  A little anecdote.  As a kid growing up I recall conservatives at least on a local level disliking the Vietnam War because they did not see the gain coming that Presidents such as LBJ insisted on such as stemming communism.  That their tax dollars spent on the war were really buying nothing.  The Vietnam War could have been Eisenhower's to kick off but Ike could see it for what it was.  DeGaulle wanted to to re-establish French dominance in what was then called Indo-China and called on Eisenhower to help.  While Ike was sympathetic to the capitalist South he felt it was best for American interests to let the situation hit some sort of internal entropy.  

Edited May 5, 2020 by RochesterRob

[Magox]

22 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Currently, in the US, when the source of the viral transmission is listed, the majority of covid-19 cases say "unknown" or "under investigation" wrt transmission.

Yes, transmission is highest among family groups (people living in proximity) and at workplaces (people working in close proximity) BUT, and it's a huge but - how did the virus get into each family group or co-worker? 

Probably the state DOH that did the most initial contact tracing was Washington, and they found multiple cases that had no known contact with known cases - didn't work at the same place, didn't socialize, not in same family.

 

There are quite a number of clear case histories where people with casual contact in a relatively large space (eg 100 of 175 people at Biogen Idec meeting), no close contact within several feet, for 2.5 hrs (45 out of 60 people at Skagit Valley Chorale practice, no one symptomatically ill).  A CDC report on contact tracing in a Chinese restaurant where it is believed 2 families became ill by sitting at tables flanking a table with a presymptomatic person, with air movement by an A/C and a fan propegating droplets to a further distance.  It's linked in the covid-19 facts thread.

How much time is enough time to spread the disease?  Initially departments of health were saying close contact for several hours- like sitting right next to someone on a plane.

The CDC about-face to a recommendation of public mask-wearing is fundamentally the CDC saying "we have an increasing and substantial body of evidence that's not true".    And again, I'll say IMO it's not an accident that cultures with a strong tradition of public mask-wearing (Taiwan, S. Korea, Singapore) are doing the best job to contain this epidemic.

 

We believe my daughter had covid-19 3 weeks ago.  She became ill 5 days after a shopping trip to a lightly occupied store (4 other shoppers while she was there), which was her only outing in 2 weeks.  She wore gloves and sanitized her hands upon leaving the store, washed them after putting away groceries, but she did not wear a mask (despite having one and being told to wear it, Grrrr).  Fortunately, her illness was mild and short.  Today, 4 weeks later, she is getting an antibody test so I guess we'll find out.

It's not correct that "susceptibility to infection increases with age".  He may mean that "susceptibility to serious illness/death increase with age", but it's careless writing if so.
Here is some CDC data, graph from Business Insider:

 

We really don't understand the role of children in transmission at this point.  It's clear that they aren't nearly as susceptible to serious disease.  Probably the best data on children's role in transmission will come from Sweden, where schools have remained open, but I haven't yet seen that data.

Hope this helps.

 

 

 

In the name of the Lord of Toast, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS?

 

The young lady making these tweets is a credentialed infectious disease and virology physician in St Andrews, Scotland, but we really have no idea how much data she has access to or time to absorb and process. 

 

Why would you think she knows a thing that Fauchi and Birx need to be told? 

It continually puzzles me why people want to immediately take the word of some person on twitter of unknown depth of knowledge, over CDC experts and people whose job it is to be knee-deep in the data?

 

 

Because she didn't just make it up out of thin air.

 

All these sources are credible.  They are derived from studies/papers/opinions, including multiple from the CDC, medrxiv, The Lancet, Oxford academic, Jama internal medicine, The New England Journal of Medicine

 

Here are her sources:

 

http://html.rhhz.net/zhlxbx/028.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6909e1.htm?s_cid=mm6909e1_w

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30287-5/fulltext

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.11.20056010v1

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa450/5821281

more from the lancet  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30607-3/fulltext

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2765641?utm_campaign=articlePDF%26utm_medium%3darticlePDFlink%26utm_source%3darticlePDF%26utm_content%3djamainternmed.2020.2020

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa424/5819060

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.26.20044826v1

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099(20)30273-5

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e1.htm

https://t.co/51nHSrkEZq?amp=1

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2008457

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.15.20064980v1

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.25.20079103v1

 

 

Here is the background of this dubious figure from twitter

 

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/clinical-microbiology-and-infection/editorial-board/muge-cevik

 

 

Quote

 

Muge Cevik

Associate Editor, Clinical Microbiology and InfectionSt. Andrews, United Kingdom

Muge Cevik, MD, MSc, MRCP(UK) is a clinician-scientist working at the School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, under the Division of Infection and Global Health. She was awarded her MD degree with Honours from Ege University School of Medicine, Turkey. She then moved to the UK, where she obtained her MSc on HIV and STIs from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and University College London supported by a competitive postgraduate scholarship. Subsequently, she held clinical research posts within large research groups in London. She then completed her internal medicine training in the UK alongside attaining MRCP(UK). Dr Cevik is now specialising in infectious diseases and medical virology in Edinburgh. She is also a PhD candidate and holds a clinical academic post at the University of St Andrews working as a medical advisor for an international clinical trial on shortening drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment. She is an active member of British HIV Association (BHIVA) External Relations Subcommittee; Trainee Association of European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID); ERASMUS funded Infectious Diseases European and African Learning Programme and Chair of the UK-wide Trainee Association in HIV Medicine. Dr Cevik received project grants and youth awards in the field of HIV and implemented educational programmes in developing countries. Her research interests focus on HIV, tuberculosis, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted infections and tropical infections.

Alongside her academic work, Dr Cevik developed a strong interest in science communication. She is passionate about the value of integrating science communication into our efforts to disseminate research, which has the potential to enhance knowledge exchange among scientists and physicians, and the broader public. She has joined the CMI Editorial Board as an Associate Editor and Communication Editor with an aim to develop a social media strategy to engage with readers and contributors and open a channel for CMI readers to interact directly with the CMI Editorial Board. 

 

 

 

She sourced all her opinions from credible sources...Which one of her sources do you dispute? 

 

And I think her background makes her more than qualified to discuss this topic.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Magox

[Kemp]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

It appears you jumped in a bit late Warren, so let me refresh. My post, that you’re trying your best to kidnap, is that the news story has run its course. Don’t believe me? Go back five or ten pages here and you’ll read virtually NOTHING about Covid 19...and this is the pandemic thread!

 

The fact that many people want to  make it disappear quickly is probably a better explanation for its tapering down.

[SectionC3]

38 minutes ago, Q-baby! said:

?  That’s some funny ***** right there! ?

 

Yeah I saw that nonsense.  By that logic, I suppose that when Trump does something disrespectful or not befitting the office, he too disprespects the office.  Say what you will about George W. Bush and Barack Obama, but those two were and are classy guys who treated the office with the dignity it deserves.  For as much as Trump bags on the Clintons, he’s just as bad as Bill in terms of the respect he shows to the position. 

34 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Currently, in the US, when the source of the viral transmission is listed, the majority of covid-19 cases say "unknown" or "under investigation" wrt transmission.

Yes, transmission is highest among family groups (people living in proximity) and at workplaces (people working in close proximity) BUT, and it's a huge but - how did the virus get into each family group or co-worker? 

Probably the state DOH that did the most initial contact tracing was Washington, and they found multiple cases that had no known contact with known cases - didn't work at the same place, didn't socialize, not in same family.

 

There are quite a number of clear case histories where people with casual contact in a relatively large space (eg 100 of 175 people at Biogen Idec meeting), no close contact within several feet, for 2.5 hrs (45 out of 60 people at Skagit Valley Chorale practice, no one symptomatically ill).  A CDC report on contact tracing in a Chinese restaurant where it is believed 2 families became ill by sitting at tables flanking a table with a presymptomatic person, with air movement by an A/C and a fan propegating droplets to a further distance.  It's linked in the covid-19 facts thread.

How much time is enough time to spread the disease?  Initially departments of health were saying close contact for several hours- like sitting right next to someone on a plane.

The CDC about-face to a recommendation of public mask-wearing is fundamentally the CDC saying "we have an increasing and substantial body of evidence that's not true".    And again, I'll say IMO it's not an accident that cultures with a strong tradition of public mask-wearing (Taiwan, S. Korea, Singapore) are doing the best job to contain this epidemic.

 

We believe my daughter had covid-19 3 weeks ago.  She became ill 5 days after a shopping trip to a lightly occupied store (4 other shoppers while she was there), which was her only outing in 2 weeks.  She wore gloves and sanitized her hands upon leaving the store, washed them after putting away groceries, but she did not wear a mask (despite having one and being told to wear it, Grrrr).  Fortunately, her illness was mild and short.  Today, 4 weeks later, she is getting an antibody test so I guess we'll find out.

It's not correct that "susceptibility to infection increases with age".  He may mean that "susceptibility to serious illness/death increase with age", but it's careless writing if so.
Here is some CDC data, graph from Business Insider:

 

We really don't understand the role of children in transmission at this point.  It's clear that they aren't nearly as susceptible to serious disease.  Probably the best data on children's role in transmission will come from Sweden, where schools have remained open, but I haven't yet seen that data.

Hope this helps.

 

 

 

In the name of the Lord of Toast, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS?

 

The young lady making these tweets is a credentialed infectious disease and virology physician in St Andrews, Scotland, but we really have no idea how much data she has access to or time to absorb and process. 

 

Why would you think she knows a thing that Fauchi and Birx need to be told? 

It continually puzzles me why people want to immediately take the word of some person on twitter of unknown depth of knowledge, over CDC experts and people whose job it is to be knee-deep in the data?

 

Ladies and gentlemen, this post wins the Internet today.  Great job.  Thank you for your insight and reason.  This was extremely impressive and a job very, very well done. 

Edited May 5, 2020 by SectionC3

[meazza]

I risk literally having full pages of ignored users.

[SectionC3]

25 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

It amazes me how lazy some of you leftists are as original thinkers. Subsequently, you'll simply never understand how Trump became president.

 

Let me try to break this down a bit for you. You will naturally disagree because of you inability to think objectively, but let's try it anyway.

 

Genuine conservatives dislike Trump from a fiscal standpoint, but no matter how hard conservatives try, they will simply never get a true conservative in the WH, supported by a true conservative house and senate. This may surprise you, but you kind of need all three to enact the kind of fiscal restraint this country needs, and it's impossible to hit that trifecta.

 

Now I can hear the whining already, so let me cut you off. Having GOP control over the trifecta is NOT the same as having Conservative control. If I need to break that down for you, just stop reading.

 

This is why every 'conservative' president in modern memory has broken the bank.

 

So why support Trump? 

 

Conservatives are asked that question by people lacking intelligence because even a little intelligence will help you understand we'd rather have a non-conservative leader from the right than any batschittcrazy nutbag that comprises the left. Look at your bench. All angry, rich white entitled nutbags. And you end up with the phingerphucker as your nominee?

 

How does the party of #metoo nominate a phinger*****er liker Joe?

 

Answer that question and you'll understand why conservatives take a non-conservative like Trump.

 

Oh, and also...Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and the rest of the courts that Cocaine Mitch has been flipping. Hillary would turn this country into Leningrad in her first year. And who WOULDN'T want Trump over Hillary? Answer: America.

 

A little intellectual honesty goes a long way. Try it some time.

 

 

This is nice except for the fact that Hillary won the popular vote in 2016.  So the whole idea of “who WOULDN”T want Trump over Hillary” fails to account for the fact that HIllary earned about 2 million more votes (and 2% more of the popular vote). 

 

In your words, “[a] little intellectual honesty goes a long way.  Try it some time.”

[Kemp]

2 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

So, a statement that in no way claims he inherited bad coronavirus tests? That statement appears to be directed at the CDC policies on developing tests in general, for any potential pandemic. 

 

On the topic of the quote you just provided, I'd love to know the context of what red tape was cut, and why it existed in the first place. That would be journalism worth reading!

 

Point taken. In what I posted, Trump blames Obama for destroying testing which hindered Trump from dealing with coronavirus. This is demonstrably false.

 

I will do more research on the other fact in dispute. A thoughtful response by your team is like finding an oasis in the desert.