Actually Dave I posted a Twitter note from journalist Lara Logan yesterday afternoon about the tracing fiasco. It was not directed to you but was a general post of a topic I thought newsworthy. Given your self described devotion to providing factual data to members of the right-wing fever swamp who reside here, real or invented, if you review the replies you will see you specifically posted not once but four times defending the limitation. I am at a loss to understand how a general posting on a newsworthy subject can be perceived as baiting you. I generally avoid posting much political content. In contrast, you have a two-decade record of political postings that can be fairly characterized non-stop anti Republican diatribes. This board is populated, for the most part, by older conservatives and political science studies indicate that once people get locked into a political mindset, they usually stay locked in. It seems pretty obvious that while claiming now to be a victim, you derive some sort of psychological benefit of proselytizing to and baiting those not sharing your political beliefs. So spare me your ******** sob stories about being reeled in. You're here to troll.
"claiming now to be a victim,".... I'm definitely not getting where that comes from. Otherwise 4 times? Maybe one was a response in earnest and the other three were like this one..... a counter response? Call it 5 if you must. Not trolling Bobda just trying to have a debate on some issues and gain some understanding of why Trump is what he is and conservatives like what he does. Because it mystifies me.... like the Covid rallies and Corona conventions..... and their rabid acceptance of by the base.
New case update: Texas had a record jump of new cases of protestors testing positive yesterday at 4098 whereas Florida had it's own record numbers of protestors testing positive at over 2700. They must have stepped up their numbers of testing protestors in both states. Now I read this explanation from the Texas governor for the jump to over 4000.... "Texas Gov. Greg Abbott attributed the increase to an outbreak at an assisted living facility and delayed reporting." So in what must be the most populated largest assisted living facility in the world there was an increase in hundreds maybe a thousand positive cases. That's one hell of an assisted living facility.
Heard Trump this morning say Tulsa is doing fine... numbers are down.... Oklahoma numbers are down... etc. etc. Sometimes his lies are just unbelievable. Meanwhile in Tulsa health officials are freaking out about this upcoming Trump rally: 'I'm extremely concerned': Tulsa Health Department director doubles down on postponing Trump rally while addressing Tulsa school board "The first and most significant question ( asked of Tulsa Health Director Bruce Dart ) was from Suzanne Schreiber, who asked how President Donald Trump’s scheduled rally in Tulsa on Saturday could affect the district’s plans to reopen in August. Dart began his response by referencing the national criticism he has received this week after suggesting to postpone the massive event due to the likelihood of further spreading the deadly disease. But he also doubled down on that recommendation, saying it’s not safe to host the rally right now and that politics shouldn’t be the main variable driving these kind of decisions. “I’m extremely concerned,” Dart said. “... I think we have the responsibility to stand up when things are happening that I think are going to be dangerous for our community, which it will be. It hurts my heart to think about the aftermath of what’s going to happen.” Oklahoma has experienced a surge of new COVID-19 cases in recent weeks, with 225 reported on Monday alone. Tulsa County saw 89 cases. Both marked new highs in daily increases. What was that you were saying Donald?
'Oklahoma has experienced a surge of new COVID-19 cases in recent weeks, with 225 reported on Monday alone. Tulsa County saw 89 cases. Both marked new highs in daily increases.' Looks like you're doing a great job Bruce.
Yeah just in time for Trump to jam pack their arena with non-Covid believers who will not be wearing masks or worrying about social distance.
Because protestors choose to be personally irresponsible and join a large crowd possibly or probably spreading coronavirus that makes it acceptable for the supposed leader of the free world.... our president... to invite people to come and jam an arena and take those same chances or worse ( closer contact and indoors ). Mom.... he stole some candy so that makes alright for me to steal some candy. Trump is being childish, immature and completely irresponsible for such a high ranking political leader to orchestrate such a dangerous event for his own gratification. It's really out of this world crazy that anyone would defend his agenda against the risks.
Actually, I posted the photo to highlight the hypocrisy of the media’s blessings of the protests versus their predictions of dire death and doom consequences re Trump rallies. Blue state politicians in charge of states across the nation have endorsed and participated in the mass potents, both indoor and outdoor, but while you grudgingly, after being “baited” do find fault with the protestors, you are quiet as a thief re the those in power in government who did this but howl non stop about the transgressions of Trump and his “devotees”. We have seen beauticians arrested, clergy members arrested, playgrounds padlocked, and businesses fined for violating social distancing regulations. Yet, where are your condemnation of the politicians who took such punitive action in those situations but then endorsed and participated in the SJW demonstrations of the last 10 days And now “ Mr. I Don’t Engage In Insults But Stick to the Issues”, seemingly implies in the last paragraph of his note that I must be “out of this world crazy” to defend Trump’s actions and, in earlier paragraphs, seems to categorize my last two posts as falling into the childish “he did it so I should be able to do it” genre. To deter you from further engaging in this habitual pattern of inventing my political positions, I will try and sl..ow...ly re explain the point I am trying to make. I am not endorsing Trump’s actions. What I am saying is that if you feel restrictions are necessary, they should be applied and enforced in a neutral fashion. Similarly criticisms of violations should not be based on whether the politician is wearing a red or blue jersey but on the violation. If violations and criticisms become politicized, the result will be that a large portion of the public will rebel against the regulations since they are not grounded upon equal protection principles. It probably would not be necessary to have to re explain this if I was having a political dialogue with someone who was acting in good faith.
I don't feel restrictions are necessary in Trump's case. I think it's insanely irresponsible and devoid of care and concern for the health and safety of his followers and their friends and family back home. There's a difference between that and restrictions implemented on those who would be careless individually at a protest. I can't see why you don't see the difference Bobda. Normally you are a pretty rational guy. If Biden was inviting protestors to join him downtown at the square by the thousands to protest whatever now THAT would be similar to the egregious stunt Trump wants to pull at his rally. If a mayor did that.... which to my knowledge they have not INVITED protestors.... but if they did then THAT would NOT be similar because the mayor.... vs. the President of the United States? Which Covid party is more compelling to attend in that scenario?
I think it is totally irresponsible to hold a large rally indoors. But public health regulations are generally a matter of state law since the constitution views this as an exercise of police power whose jurisdiction is reserved to the states. These laws, in the Covid era, involve emergency declarations by the State governor or the head of municipal government. When you have a state or county executive create a law ( regulation) and thereafter punish individuals and businesses for violating the law but then take no action and indeed participate in conduct they previously enjoined for public safety reasons because the actions were done for a political cause they deem laudable, they violate the founding principle of democratic government—to enact and administer laws under equal protection of the law. The fact that they did not invite the action is really meaningless. They created the regulations re social distancing and crowd density. Their duty is to enforce the law they created in an equal and neutral manner rather than enforce in certain cases but condone and participate in other cases because of ideological preferences.
Ok so finally Bobda your rational mind is exhibited by your stance on a Trump rally indoors and the dangers of such. I don’t see however those instances of authority figures that you mentioned joining in on protests. Was that a thing cause I didn’t catch that story. I’m sure every mayor and police chief however were bending over backwards not to further inflame some of these crowds with heavy force especially when they had Trump breathing down their necks about using the military. I’m pretty sure that 110% of those City gov’t. types wished like hell those protests would just go away rather than condone or encourage them.
Of the top of my head, I can think of at least 5 governors who participated in mass, shoulder to shoulder protests even though each state still had social distancing and crowd density limitations. I can probably think of triple that number re mayors and members of the US Congress and Senate. The governors of Michigan, Cali, and Washington condemned prior outdoor demonstrations as creating intolerable health risks but endorsed and participated in the BLM protests. DeBlasio and Lightfoot of Chicago threatened and arrested participants in prior gatherings that exceeded state or city regulations but participated in BLM marches. The governor of Calif stopped prior protests and the state arrested people who violated stay at home orders but he participated in the BLM marches even though the marches were in violation of emergency regulations. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that when the government attempts to limit 1st Amendment rights, they cannot do so based on the political message advanced by the speaker. Yet, in the examples I just provided, you have distinct groups engaging in the same activity of public protest with the executive heads of government punishing one group but supporting and joining in the actions of another group solely because they supported the political message of the group they embraced. Again, the power to create emergency public health legislation is delegated, in large part, to state and local government. If the regulations created by state or local governments restrict first amendment rights such as free assembly, the state officials are constitutionally bound to enforce those regulations in a neutral manner and not engage in a selective enforcement where enforcement or non enforcement is dependent upon the political message of the demonstrators. Yet, here, not only was the enforcement predicated upon the political message advanced by one group but the state and city officials joined the proscribed activity. I can understand an official deciding not to enforce a regulation for fear that enforcement might lead to greater violence. But, blaming the bad orange man for state officials violating their constitutional duties by selectively enforcing the regulations they created and even participating in violative conduct reflects a complete atrophy of independent thought.
"But, blaming the bad orange man for state officials violating their constitutional duties by selectively enforcing the regulations they created and even participating in violative conduct reflects a complete atrophy of independent thought" Blaming Trump for what? For making governors try to keep the peace in their states? Governors and mayors probably did what they thought was the best way to hold down the violence and keep peace. My money would be on that as the prime motivation for any participatory gestures with the protestors. But I'm just guessing....
I interpreted your comment of “Trump breathing down their necks” as an exculpatory explanation for the Executives from different states engaging in selective enforcement of public health regulations and for state officials violating the regulations they created. As I stated, they created the laws and it is their responsibility to administer and enforce them in a neutral fashion. Already expressed my position re deferring enforcement to avoid greater violence. But, I don’t equate that with what happened in Seattle, Minneapolis, Madison, Atlanta and NYC which was abandoning the citizens of a city to the violence and whims of a mob.
If most everyone including Trump supporters can understand the hesitancy of college football to allow full attendance to football games this season and have University officials even raise the possibility that the pandemic could cancel the season then why is tomorrow's rally in Tulsa with a crowded roster of up to 100,000 attendees who won't be able to distance and who won't wear masks so seemingly accepted by his supporters? It just defies reasoning and sanity.
Florida today is reporting an all time high of 3800 new cases.... and that is proof of what happens when people ignore this virus.... and I have seen it myself in places I have been that they do ignore the precautions here in Florida. Politically you can't escape the fact that Republicans are more likely not wear masks and socially distance etc. etc. so that's what you're gonna get tomorrow in Tulsa: "The rally violates virtually every one of the guiding principles for gatherings issued by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, putting it in the "highest risk" category. It's large and it's indoors. Social distancing almost certainly will not be possible if the arena is filled to anything close to capacity. Attendees will likely be yelling and chanting (and expelling droplets farther and faster than if they were speaking quietly). There might be social pressure to not wear masks, as many Trump supporters have mocked the use of masks during the pandemic, and Trump told the Wall Street Journal that he thinks some people wear them to signal disapproval of him."
" Politically you can't escape the fact that Republicans are more likely not wear masks and socially distance etc. etc." Really? So those spring breakers who didn't give a damn were Republicans? The "protesters" who flooded the city streets were Republicans? All these Villagers I see wearing masks are Democrats? WTF?