For the love of god or whoever … VOTE!

[Mikado463]

I meant more the previous election

LOL, not sure where I ever made you think I was ever a Trumpy fan and I mean ever ! As for 2016 I sure didn't vote him then either..........

 

[lovinthehd]

LOL, not sure where I ever made you think I was ever a Trumpy fan and I mean ever ! As for 2016 I sure didn't vote him then either..........

I'd seriously have to look back but yes you gave me the impression of supporting him....

 

[Dude#1279435]

Nice of Mitch to concede the election, but the aftertaste is had the judicial system not held up, there's no reason for me to believe Republicans would have done anything.

 

[Mikado463]

I'd seriously have to look back but yes you gave me the impression of supporting him....

lovin, what cracks me up is your buddy 'Trell' is in agreement with you and he's the very person that accused me of the same thing, to which I pointed out to him he had me mixed up with someone else, he responded back with an apology and now gives you an 'agree' on your post. The boy has more than one screw loose .......

 

[lovinthehd]

lovin, what cracks me up is your buddy 'Trell' is in agreement with you and he's the very person that accused me of the same thing, to which I pointed out to him he had me mixed up with someone else, he responded back with an apology and now gives you an 'agree' on your post. The boy has more than one screw loose .......

LOL I ain't getting in between you two lovebirds I'm still not so curious as to look back, tho....

 

[Trell]

LOL I ain't getting in between you two lovebirds I'm still not so curious as to look back, tho....

As I predicted some time ago here there will will be quite a few Trump sycophants that will transform to: I've always been a Never Trumper. Notice he did not refute your claim but brought me in as a deflection. I guess that some members of this forum is frantically deleting their posts.

 

[eljr]

LOL, not sure where I ever made you think I was ever a Trumpy fan and I mean ever ! As for 2016 I sure didn't vote him then either..........

I nearly voted for Trump in 16.

I was sure it was all just a show and that he would act as an adult after election.

I got spooked the last second when he released a list of judges he would appoint from...

 

[eljr]

Sure is sad how far Republicans have fallen under Trump.

Unimaginable 10 years ago.

But, we should have saw it coming with Sarah Palin.

 

[panteragstk]

I nearly voted for Trump in 16.

I was sure it was all just a show and that he would act as an adult after election.

I got spooked the last second when he released a list of judges he would appoint from...

I got spooked when I saw him in a debate with Ben Carson. Trump says "we all know from Facebook that vaccines cause autism" and Carson looked at him and said "you can't say stuff like that to people. It isn't true" and of course got ignored.

That was enough for me, but then more and more and more kept happening with him and now it's almost 2021.

 

[Alex2507]

I ain't getting in between you two lovebirds

Skin's skin

 

[Trell]

Skin's skin

You know all about that

 

[Dude#1279435]

I was trying to figure out why there isn't more relief from govt besides squabbling over what's in the bill and that "money doesn't grow on trees." I'm guessing for Mitch is he believes in bailing out corporations because if they don't then the people have no jobs left to come to. I'm not really sure though.

 

[panteragstk]

I was trying to figure out why there isn't more relief from govt besides squabbling over what's in the bill and that "money doesn't grow on trees." I'm guessing for Mitch is he believes in bailing out corporations because if they don't then the people have no jobs left to come to. I'm not really sure though.

That's the logic they use, but if you look at some of the "businesses" that got relief, it doesn't read that way.

It's not really that complex: give people money so they can spend it on the things they need. The companies that provide the things they need don't need to be bailed out because people are still buying their products. Not that complicated.

What is complicated is that they don't seem to care about smaller business or individuals at all. Money going to large companies that are really in trouble so they can pay their bills, sure, but why not for small businesses or individuals that may be out of work due to covid? Or that person's business can't operate due to covid? We just don't care about them? I do.

 

[Dude#1279435]

That's the logic they use, but if you look at some of the "businesses" that got relief, it doesn't read that way.

It's not really that complex: give people money so they can spend it on the things they need. The companies that provide the things they need don't need to be bailed out because people are still buying their products. Not that complicated.

What is complicated is that they don't seem to care about smaller business or individuals at all. Money going to large companies that are really in trouble so they can pay their bills, sure, but why not for small businesses or individuals that may be out of work due to covid? Or that person's business can't operate due to covid? We just don't care about them? I do.

I think we will quickly be seeing a great big revolt against the lockdown. Quarantine the vulnerable and move on. 110K restaurants permanently closed. You ain't livin' if you're dying without the basics. You can always make adjustments as you go, but the mistake made was closing everything down to begin with. We just can't save every life.
I'd like to know HOW my idea is dumb? I'd acknowledge being wrong if: gov't can restrict eviction notices, the food bank supplies are there, etc.

 

[Trell]

I think we will quickly be seeing a great big revolt against the lockdown. Quarantine the vulnerable and move on. 110K restaurants permanently closed. You ain't livin' if you're dying without the basics. You can always make adjustments as you go, but the mistake made was closing everything down to begin with. We just can't save every life.
I'd like to know HOW my idea is dumb? I'd acknowledge being wrong if: gov't can restrict eviction notices, the food bank supplies are there, etc.

My guess is that your suggestion of the type "Quarantine the vulnerable and move on" without a working vaccine along with no way to implement the quarantine is what awarded you the "Dumb" trophy statue. I will adjust to my old mother passing away because death is what awaits us all, but I'll never forgive myself if I infected her with a deadly disease that could be prevented.

 

[Old Onkyo]

My guess is that your suggestion of the type "Quarantine the vulnerable and move on" without a working vaccine along with no way to implement the quarantine is what awarded you the "Dumb" trophy statue. I will adjust to my old mother passing away because death is what awaits us all, but I'll never forgive myself if I infected her with a deadly disease that could be prevented.

Unfortunately, most Americans have a very high tolerance for other people’s pain.

 

[Trell]

Unfortunately, most Americans have a very high tolerance for other people’s pain.

Nah, I don't think so, or about the same as the rest of us.

 

[eljr]

I think we will quickly be seeing a great big revolt against the lockdown. Quarantine the vulnerable and move on. 110K restaurants permanently closed. You ain't livin' if you're dying without the basics. You can always make adjustments as you go, but the mistake made was closing everything down to begin with. We just can't save every life.
I'd like to know HOW my idea is dumb? I'd acknowledge being wrong if: gov't can restrict eviction notices, the food bank supplies are there, etc.

You do realize, we are not saving many lives at all with what we are doing which is little.

We lead the world in infections and death rates and there is only one reason for this. (and we all know what this is)

Your idea is dumb because it lead to way too much death. Deaths that don't need occur.

 

[NINaudio]

I'd like to know HOW my idea is dumb? I'd acknowledge being wrong if: gov't can restrict eviction notices, the food bank supplies are there, etc.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/03/heres-why-it-wont-work-just-isolate-elderly-vulnerable/

https://massivesci.com/articles/covid-coronavirus-quarantine-isolation-pandemic/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2020/07/03/a-pandemic-lockdown-just-for-older-people-no/?sh=7e1c6454457b

 

[Dude#1279435]

My guess is that your suggestion of the type "Quarantine the vulnerable and move on" without a working vaccine along with no way to implement the quarantine is what awarded you the "Dumb" trophy statue. I will adjust to my old mother passing away because death is what awaits us all, but I'll never forgive myself if I infected her with a deadly disease that could be prevented.

What I'm saying is saving lives coincides with the economy. My issue, especially with the first quarter, was that designating one type of business as essential while the non-essential ma & pop stores perish is a major problem. Maybe I have the advantage of hindsight, but was a sweeping lockdown the right move? Maybe their hours should've been regulated, or maybe my memory is foggy and we regulated ourselves during that time? Maybe half-occupancy in restaurants? Bars, stadiums? Yeah that's not realistic. But if people have to rely on food banks and McConnell and Pelosi for their next ticket than that doesn't sound good. Lockdown requires bailouts, so distributing gov't funds to food banks and creating some type of laws preventing eviction due to covid etc. But again, to save what has amounted to .1% of the population while millions fall into poverty.