Just curious.

Are seeking to control the spread of covid and protect vulnerable Americans from contracting the virus and seeking to promote the development of vaccines, therapeutics and other mitigation factors to effectively treat those who inevitably get it, mutually exclusive policies?

Is pursuing both approaches beyond contemporary America, or just beyond Trump's administration?

Just curious.

Are seeking to control the spread of covid and protect vulnerable Americans from contracting the virus and seeking to promote the development of vaccines, therapeutics and other mitigation factors to effectively treat those who inevitably get it, mutually exclusive policies?

Is pursuing both approaches beyond contemporary America, or just beyond Trump's administration?

"Will someone please step up and explain the rationale behind Pres Trump's support of these folk?

#6 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2020-10-17 10:41 PM | FLAG: "

For what it's worth, my view is that Trump has only one ideological principle; is this, ( whatever "this" might be ) in the best interest of Donald Trump?

As a consequence Trump will accept any ideological group into his tent with the only requirement for entry being that the group supports him and will vote for him. Whether they be dangerous, conspiracy or religious nut cases, or just plain old deplorables, if they support Trump, regardless of why, he's their man - until of course it is no longer in his interest, when he is abruptly not their man and never even knew them.

Here is a link for the unsupported claim that 25% of Trump rally attendees are either Dems or independents:

"I can't wait to see all of the Libs on here say the exact same thing I just said above.

#17 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2020-10-16 12:07 PM | REPLY | FLAG"

I can't speak for any other posters, but if I ever find myself saying the exact same things as you on DR, I will be the first poster to ever plonk himself.

" Wow. You are trying too hard to sound intelligent and cultured. You sound fake and stupid..

I dont give a rats ass what you do. Go ---- yourself.

#53 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-10-12 11:31 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

Was it the word " comprehensible" that triggered you? Maybe 5 syllables was too much to ask.

As for cultured, nothing says "cultured" more than the repeated use of old Germanic words; well done you.

Bed time in my time zone now - could be a good time for you to pull out another killer use of old Germanic.

"That's why you hate me..
And I'm good with that.

#45 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-10-12 09:42 PM |"

You seem a bit excited - it has impacted your ability to write comprehensible sentences.

I know you only through your postings on DR. I have no strong feelings about you one way or the other, so I certainly don't hate you; I might find you pathetic - I'll think on this and get back to you.

"Stop making things up...

#39 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-10-12 08:47 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

They are your words Boaz.

I would not be surprised if you did not fully comprehend the meaning of them, but I do not accept your explanation. You see absolutely nothing wrong with the tyranny of the minority as long they are your minority - you confirmed this to me in one of my first exchanges on DR and your post above is simply more of the same.

"You only show outright scorn for fellow citizens who might not align with your own politics.

#35 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2020-10-12 05:07 PM | REPLY | FLAG:" his warped idea of wh

Boaz does not simply show scorn for fellow citizens, he shows scorn for the ideals that the US is supposed to represent. I write this because he posted this the other day:

"Once Trump nominates this woman to the Supreme Court, you have have the Presidency back.
Trump has done what I wanted him to do. Well have the court to tell you liberals "no" for generations to come.

#45 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2020-10-09 06:58 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

He is absolutely fine with putting in place a mechanism which he hopes will render every US voter who does not share his view impotent to effect change through the ballot box "... for generations to come."

Just like the founding fathers intended.

#20 - I don't think there is an issue as to whether there was trespass on private property. The issue seems to me to be who owns that property.

In this case it seems to be a trust holding common property for the benefit of all residents. The McCloskey's do not own the property in the true ownership sense - it is not " their property " as you describe it and this being the case, they may or may not have the same rights of armed defense that extend to what is indisputably their property.

This extract from the same article you linked illustrates the point:

"According to analysis by St Louis Post-Dispatch investigative reporter Jeremy Kohler, video evidence does not show the protesters crossing onto the McCloskeys' property, remaining instead on the sidewalks and in the roadway."

This is a legal technicality I don't have the answer to - do you?

"Someone knocks on client's front door in the middle of the afternoon. Client is not expecting anyone at that time.
Client opens the door and points a gun at the person.

#8 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2020-10-07 02:50 PM | REPLY | FLAG"

I find it amazing that the comments about this incident focus on the legal technicalities and 2nd amendment issues, rather than the fact that some US citizens feel the need to answer the door with a gun in their hand.

I know of no other 1st world country where this would be accepted as a norm and it is a sorry indictment of the current state of American society that so many citizens live in fear and respond to that fear in such a way as to compound the problem.

As I sit here, a fly has mistaken Pence's head for a turd. The insect world has spoken>

"This might be insignificant but I don't like it that they have her face looking bigger than Pence. Same height as well.
#42 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2020-10-07 09:35 PM | REPLY | FLAG"

I suspect the reason her head looks bigger is because she has a brain, something Pence does not have to carry around.

#7 | POSTED BY PHINPHAN AT 2020-10-03 07:32 PM | REPLY | FLAG"

Now do this for elderly, obese men. Here's a start:

"For every 1,000 people in their mid-seventies or older who are infected, around 116 will die. These are the stark statistics obtained by some of the first detailed studies into the mortality risk for COVID-19."

Link:

As opposed to Clinton who once rode a scholar.

"Are you OK with everyone knowing without any doubt whatsoever that you don't care if your own party does anything wrong?

#11 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2020-09-25 12:21 PM | FLAG: "

The last 3+ years have amply demonstrated that your comment applies to the GOP above all others, although without doubt you cannot see this.

Here is an article listing 9 of Trump's recent statements seeking to either delegitimize the election or refusing to confirm that he will abide by the voters choice:

#34 - I saw your posts and I almost included a reference to them in my response, but I didn't because I was voicing my opinion only on the execution of it.

My understanding is that the officers involved in the shooting were not responsible for the possible illegal obtaining of the warrant, there is no indication that they knew the warrant was possibly illegally obtained and they acted on it in good faith.

If the warrant was illegally obtained as you suggest may be the case, then I would expect charges to be filed against those responsible. I think I read that the FBI is looking into this.

" If not, where do you think they deviated from reacting in a legal fashion?

#31 | POSTED BY KWRX25 AT 2020-09-24 04:18 PM | FLAG: "

In this case the officers were advised by superiors to knock and announce their presence in serving this specific search warrant. This was disclosed by the Attorney General in a press conference after the decision was made public.

If they failed to follow this instruction, there are serious implications. Did they enter legally under the warrant, as you suggest, or does failure to follow the instruction render subsequent actions illegal, particularly the use of deadly force? Does it allow Taylor's boyfriend to claim he was legally following Kentucky's stand your ground law?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but it seems to me the legality of the officers' actions hinge on whether they followed instructions to announce themselves. The police officers are hardly independent witnesses when it comes to testimony concerning whether or not they followed instructions, so the testimony of independent witnesses becomes vital.

If 1 witness corroborates their position on this key issue and 11 don't, isn't that enough doubt to suggest a case should be brought against them?

I have 1 caveat and that is that if failure to follow the instruction to announce themselves does not render the execution of the warrant illegal, then whether or not they followed instructions is moot.

" Have you read anything fact based on this case before voicing an opinion Foreigner?

#27 | POSTED BY KWRX25 AT 2020-09-24 02:12 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

I have, have you?

My reading indicates that there were 12 witnesses present and only 1 heard the police announce themselves. The other 11 did not corroborate the police account.

This article sets it out:

"Their shots were directly at the source of the threat.

#25 | POSTED BY KWRX25 AT 2020-09-24 12:49 PM | FLAG: "

Were they?

6 shots hit and killed Taylor, who was innocent as far as I can tell and in her own apartment. Why are these shots, which were fatally off target, deemed unworthy of prosecution and those off target and hitting other property are prosecuted?

And Kentucky has a stand your ground law, so the boyfriend would have been within his rights to use a firearm to protect himself and Taylor during a home invasion. This issue hinges on whether or not the police identified themselves - I would not bet on the police having followed correct identification procedure given that they don't seem to have got anything else right in this operation.

These police officers should face a jury of their peers. If they are manifestly innocent, let a jury say so and let everyone see the process of justice working.

#41 - My view is that Trump is incapable of showing any weakness, hence his public displays of nonchalance regarding re-election.

His private thoughts are a different matter and he must recognize that the pandemic is a serious threat and one which he cannot bully or cower into submission. You cannot threaten to primary a virus, or withdraw funding. And every death is a public reminder of his failure, both of leadership and priorities, since re-election is his only priority.

The virus has shown Trump to be absolutely out of his depth in the job of leading the US. It's not like withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, or introducing tariffs against China, or advocating a wall as a solution to immigration issues; any assessment of the success or failure of these is subjective and can be spun. 200,000 dead - not so easy.

His odd behavior, if it is indeed worse than before, is a consequence then of being out of control, of having no medically acceptable policy for dealing with the virus that would not involve a very public reversal of prior positions and realizing that the virus is not going away. If Europe is any guide, the US should be preparing for phase 2 and this cannot be good for Trump's re-election chances..

The most at risk are "elderly people with heart problems and other problems...That's it"

Apart from the obvious falseness of his statement, Trump's point is what? That this group doesn't count? That their lives being cut short is a blessing in disguise because they would not have enjoyed any additional years anyway? After you, President Trump!

There are around 50m citizens in the US at risk because they are over 65 and a further 40m at risk in lower age groups because they have 1 or more health issues. Over 90m US citizens at risk and Trump characterizes it " that's it."

I would have expected Trump to care for the elderly at least until they vote for him in November but he seems willing to abandon at risk groups to maintain the facade that he has this thing under control, this being a critical part of his re-election campaign.

"That's how intelligent people and countries operate.

#89 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2020-09-10 12:10 PM | REPLY | FLAG"

With respect, I see nothing in your post to suggest you are qualified to speak to this point.

"This is a failed headline. He wasn't mocked for visiting his son's grave. This is why the media and Democrats fail. Trump and his team do and say some pretty bad things yet his opponents fixate on nonsense and drown out legitimate criticisms. You people are your own worst political enemy.

#26 | POSTED BY ZETALEPH AT 2020-09-08 10:23 AM | REPLY | FLAG"

This is an odd post.

You recognise that the intent of the original tweet was not to mock visiting a grave, but rather to play on the GOP position that Biden is not quite with it mentally and avoids press contact.

Yet you appear to be incapable of recognising that in taking this line of attack, Brennan failed to realise that it would be almost universally mis-interpreted as an attack on family values and respect for a dead son. Brennan unintentionally played right into the Dems hands and yet you accuse them of being their " own worst political enemy."

As I said, an odd post.

Johnson is a liar. He has been fired by the Times London for fabricating quotes. He was fired from Conservative party senior positions for lying. Lying to ingratiate himself with Trump is all in a day's work for Boris.

In a rare moment of truth telling, Johnson said of Trump in 2015, that he was "betraying a quite stupefying ignorance that makes him frankly unfit to hold the office of president of the United States."