In the minds of progressives, any disparity in any subject in any amount is 'structural racism'. Kind of catchy, I think someone should make a hit pop song out of that phrase.

Funny that lad denotes that as such, since maybe a year ago we had a discussion on the term 'racism'.

I (and others) noted that racism was an overt act or decision by one made specifically due to another's race or national origin.

lad, at that point, argued vociferously that 'racism' was an overt act or decision by one made specifically due to another's race or national origin, and done so specifically with the idea that the actor believed in the innate superiority of the actor's race, or made with the actor's idea that the subject race was inferior.

lad made that distinction to in his attempt to show conclusively that minorities in the United States could *never* embark in 'racism'.

Now, with the above idea, lad apparently believes that racism is any disparity of any sort, for any reason. Just wave your hands, add the term 'structural', and insto presto it removes all issue of intent and denotes that any disparate outcome is de facto racism of a sort.

The linguistic gymnastics are quite adept and hard at work here I can see.

(07-15-2020 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In the minds of progressives, any disparity in any subject in any amount is 'structural racism'. Kind of catchy, I think someone should make a hit pop song out of that phrase.

Funny that lad denotes that as such, since maybe a year ago we had a discussion on the term 'racism'.

I (and others) noted that racism was an overt act or decision by one made specifically due to another's race or national origin.

lad, at that point, argued vociferously that 'racism' was an overt act or decision by one made specifically due to another's race or national origin, and done so specifically with the idea that the actor believed in the innate superiority of the actor's race, or made with the actor's idea that the subject race was inferior.

lad made that distinction to show conclusively that minorities in the United States could *never* embark in 'racism'.

Now lad apparently believes with the above that racism is any disparity of any sort, for any reason. Just wave your hands, add the term 'structural', and insto presto it removes all issue of intent and denotes that any disparate outcome is de facto racism of a sort.

The linguistic gymnastics are quite adept and hard at work here I can see.

I guess Lad has not heard the black guy on another forum who refers to whites as "recessives".

I agree with the bolded definition. I would add the words "in whole or in part".

I think the attitude of who's better is irrelevant. I can see both parties having a degree of racist attitudes.

Quote:Surgeon General Jerome Adams says that "structural racism" has played a role in why communities of color have been particularly hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic.

In an interview with Business Insider on Friday, Adams reflected on federal data released last week that found Black seniors were nearly four times as likely as white seniors to be hospitalized because of the coronavirus pandemic and that Latino seniors were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized.

He said some of the outbreaks among communities of color could be attributed to what are known as "social determinants of health" — including that they were more likely to have lower incomes and live in households where grandparents, parents, and children all lived together. They were also more likely to have jobs where they couldn't work from home, making it more likely that they'd be exposed to the coronavirus.

"But there are also factors that we don't measure, and those include things like structural racism," Adams said. "We have to acknowledge that these things are occurring and that they are occurring to people in many cases because of the color of their skin."


Before the pandemic, it was already well known that Black and Latino people in the US were more likely to have health conditions such as diabetes and kidney disease. There's been renewed national attention to these health inequities as data shows these communities have been harder hit by the coronavirus.

My company spends almost 50% of our total outreach budget on reaching these communities to get them in for testing and screening... and they make up about 22% of our members.... so it's not for lack of effort or spending.

The issue to me is that people assume/imply that 'systemic racism' means that there are people who want to 'keep people of color down'... which of course is true of a small number of people... but it also comes (in a very large way) from the destruction of the nuclear family creating more multi-generational and multi-family housing situations based on criteria for assistance. The intentional concentration of people sharing specific attributes (like race) in order to create political power. The placement of services (like bus lines or social services) near these areas to help them, which only further concentrates them... and then of course the fact that less healthy places like McDonald's come in to offer 'cheap' food to these people, but

Industry, wealthier people and good schools, upscale restaurants and grocery stores don't appear because to do so would drive up property values and ultimately 'displace' these people... even if to better housing, they would lose their political power base.

No, this is not the only, and perhaps not even the primary driver of many of the issues.... I don't know and at this point it doesn't matter.... but these are all 100% within governmental control.... and we need to be honest about the issues.

If I lived in a crappy part of town with a bad school, poor food options, poor access to healthcare and criminals on the corners, I would move if I could. Rather than spending all of our time and money trying to combat criminals, why don't we spend that same money and time isolating them? Start off by moving anyone with a 'clean' record who wants to move. Don't concentrate them.... make it worthwhile for them. Those with a few questions on their record can apply and be reviewed... and again, moved to a better place. THEN you go in and tear down some of the unneeded dilapidated housing, and upgrade them... so that people with good records who refuse to leave and/or have too many questions about their ties to the crime in the neighborhood now have an improved area... and then make it incumbent on them to help police it... meanwhile, we concentrate the policing efforts on an ever tightening circle of problemed people or areas... and you vet people and either arrest them or clear them and move them out to a safer area.

That's what you'd do if 'power' weren't an issue.

(07-10-2020 10:34 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 03:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 10:52 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  "Record cases!!" is no longer the canary in the coal mine it once was, and at some point people might reasonably begin to wonder why some choose to keep flogging that statistic to the exclusion of others.

Except that new cases are a leading indicator for future increases in hospitalizations, ventilator usage, and deaths. You comment will look as stupid to you in 1-2 weeks as it looks to many of us today.

Unfortunately, illiniowl was wrong. In fairness, it took 2-3 weeks instead of 1-2 weeks as I predicted. Also in fairness, mortality rate is obviously down from where it was earlier in the outbreak since doctors are getting better at treating patients. Still, yesterday California, Florida, and Texas all reported their highest daily death tolls from Covid-19. And with cases continuing to rise in all 3 states (and many others), the death tolls will keep going up for at least 1-2 weeks after this spike in cases levels off. I think we'll be back to seeing 1000 deaths a day by the end of next week.

Just keeping my own predictions accountable. 977 deaths today and the country has not been over 1,000 since late May. Even if there are more than 1,000 tomorrow (Friday), the numbers will likely be below that threshold on Saturday and Sunday as some states don't report deaths over the weekend.

Relatedly, today was another record number of cases diagnosed in the USA with 71,000. That is about 1/3 the total number that Germany has had through the entire pandemic.

(07-15-2020 11:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:Surgeon General Jerome Adams says that "structural racism" has played a role in why communities of color have been particularly hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic.

In an interview with Business Insider on Friday, Adams reflected on federal data released last week that found Black seniors were nearly four times as likely as white seniors to be hospitalized because of the coronavirus pandemic and that Latino seniors were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized.

He said some of the outbreaks among communities of color could be attributed to what are known as "social determinants of health" — including that they were more likely to have lower incomes and live in households where grandparents, parents, and children all lived together. They were also more likely to have jobs where they couldn't work from home, making it more likely that they'd be exposed to the coronavirus.

"But there are also factors that we don't measure, and those include things like structural racism," Adams said. "We have to acknowledge that these things are occurring and that they are occurring to people in many cases because of the color of their skin."


Before the pandemic, it was already well known that Black and Latino people in the US were more likely to have health conditions such as diabetes and kidney disease. There's been renewed national attention to these health inequities as data shows these communities have been harder hit by the coronavirus.

My company spends almost 50% of our total outreach budget on reaching these communities to get them in for testing and screening... and they make up about 22% of our members.... so it's not for lack of effort or spending.

The issue to me is that people assume/imply that 'systemic racism' means that there are people who want to 'keep people of color down'... which of course is true of a small number of people... but it also comes (in a very large way) from the destruction of the nuclear family creating more multi-generational and multi-family housing situations based on criteria for assistance. The intentional concentration of people sharing specific attributes (like race) in order to create political power. The placement of services (like bus lines or social services) near these areas to help them, which only further concentrates them... and then of course the fact that less healthy places like McDonald's come in to offer 'cheap' food to these people, but

Industry, wealthier people and good schools, upscale restaurants and grocery stores don't appear because to do so would drive up property values and ultimately 'displace' these people... even if to better housing, they would lose their political power base.

No, this is not the only, and perhaps not even the primary driver of many of the issues.... I don't know and at this point it doesn't matter.... but these are all 100% within governmental control.... and we need to be honest about the issues.

If I lived in a crappy part of town with a bad school, poor food options, poor access to healthcare and criminals on the corners, I would move if I could. Rather than spending all of our time and money trying to combat criminals, why don't we spend that same money and time isolating them? Start off by moving anyone with a 'clean' record who wants to move. Don't concentrate them.... make it worthwhile for them. Those with a few questions on their record can apply and be reviewed... and again, moved to a better place. THEN you go in and tear down some of the unneeded dilapidated housing, and upgrade them... so that people with good records who refuse to leave and/or have too many questions about their ties to the crime in the neighborhood now have an improved area... and then make it incumbent on them to help police it... meanwhile, we concentrate the policing efforts on an ever tightening circle of problemed people or areas... and you vet people and either arrest them or clear them and move them out to a safer area.

That's what you'd do if 'power' weren't an issue.

Just with respect to COVID outcomes:

Germany and France don't have crappy neighborhoods, undocumented immigrants and poor people?

Of course they also don't have the benefit of Navarro and Trump.

(07-16-2020 09:26 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 11:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:Surgeon General Jerome Adams says that "structural racism" has played a role in why communities of color have been particularly hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic.

In an interview with Business Insider on Friday, Adams reflected on federal data released last week that found Black seniors were nearly four times as likely as white seniors to be hospitalized because of the coronavirus pandemic and that Latino seniors were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized.

He said some of the outbreaks among communities of color could be attributed to what are known as "social determinants of health" — including that they were more likely to have lower incomes and live in households where grandparents, parents, and children all lived together. They were also more likely to have jobs where they couldn't work from home, making it more likely that they'd be exposed to the coronavirus.

"But there are also factors that we don't measure, and those include things like structural racism," Adams said. "We have to acknowledge that these things are occurring and that they are occurring to people in many cases because of the color of their skin."


Before the pandemic, it was already well known that Black and Latino people in the US were more likely to have health conditions such as diabetes and kidney disease. There's been renewed national attention to these health inequities as data shows these communities have been harder hit by the coronavirus.

My company spends almost 50% of our total outreach budget on reaching these communities to get them in for testing and screening... and they make up about 22% of our members.... so it's not for lack of effort or spending.

The issue to me is that people assume/imply that 'systemic racism' means that there are people who want to 'keep people of color down'... which of course is true of a small number of people... but it also comes (in a very large way) from the destruction of the nuclear family creating more multi-generational and multi-family housing situations based on criteria for assistance. The intentional concentration of people sharing specific attributes (like race) in order to create political power. The placement of services (like bus lines or social services) near these areas to help them, which only further concentrates them... and then of course the fact that less healthy places like McDonald's come in to offer 'cheap' food to these people, but

Industry, wealthier people and good schools, upscale restaurants and grocery stores don't appear because to do so would drive up property values and ultimately 'displace' these people... even if to better housing, they would lose their political power base.

No, this is not the only, and perhaps not even the primary driver of many of the issues.... I don't know and at this point it doesn't matter.... but these are all 100% within governmental control.... and we need to be honest about the issues.

If I lived in a crappy part of town with a bad school, poor food options, poor access to healthcare and criminals on the corners, I would move if I could. Rather than spending all of our time and money trying to combat criminals, why don't we spend that same money and time isolating them? Start off by moving anyone with a 'clean' record who wants to move. Don't concentrate them.... make it worthwhile for them. Those with a few questions on their record can apply and be reviewed... and again, moved to a better place. THEN you go in and tear down some of the unneeded dilapidated housing, and upgrade them... so that people with good records who refuse to leave and/or have too many questions about their ties to the crime in the neighborhood now have an improved area... and then make it incumbent on them to help police it... meanwhile, we concentrate the policing efforts on an ever tightening circle of problemed people or areas... and you vet people and either arrest them or clear them and move them out to a safer area.

That's what you'd do if 'power' weren't an issue.

Just with respect to COVID outcomes:

Germany and France don't have crappy neighborhoods, undocumented immigrants and poor people?

Of course they also don't have the benefit of Navarro and Trump.

Thank you for very clearly demonstrating my point that scoring political points (even when making ridiculous comparisons) is more important to some than solving the problem. Nothing you mentioned really responds to what i said... and certainly doesn't substantively respond to it.


Maybe you can... this is an honest question.... Can you show me a political subdivision in France or Germany that was specifically drawn to provide representation to a minority group? I know very well that you can't show me a two party system in Germany. France is closer to two party, but even there they usually end up with coalitions.

I've been thinking about this a lot, unrelated to the specifics above...

WHY is the story that NY has 'gotten this under control' and 'southern states are having issues with re-opening'... when just a few weeks ago, the story was that NY'ers were moving 'in large numbers' to southern states, especially Florida

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2...65a6e355dc

In 2018, the New York metropolitan area was losing 100 people per day on average, most of it to Florida. Now it is closer to 270 per day.

(07-11-2020 03:58 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It seems to me that what is happening is that we have expanded testing to the point that we are now testing lots of people who are asymptomatic and therefore would not have been tested initially, and what we are finding is a lot of people who have been exposed but in whom the virus has little or no effect. Therefore the number of infected is rising but the rate of death is falling.
If we had simply focused on keeping the most vulnerable isolated, and requiring masks (and possibly social distancing), we could probably have kept the economy going at something pretty close to full speed, reduced the number of deaths, and avoided the huge economic penalty. The largest numbers of deaths are still in those places where idiotic governors had CV-19 patients moved to nursing homes and other facilities where the most vulnerable were congregated. But that's not what the "experts" were advocated, so we didn't do that. So much for the "experts."

I suspect the experts will be correct a lot more frequently than you or me and just because an expert is occasionally incorrect early in an outbreak doesn’t mean people should start ignoring them.
But what do I know, I’m not an expert!

One would expect that “experts” should be right more often than ordinary lay people. But the “experts” in this case have pretty well screwed the pooch. I think a large part of it is that these “experts” are pretty much all bureaucrats and have taken a bureaucratic approach rather than an emergency responders approach. The much ballyhooed “pandemic response roadmap” is a bureaucratic tour de force with little relevance to actual response. If you disagree, read it and get back to me if you still disagree. The “experts” opposed the China travel ban, which may have been the best move Trump made. Fauci I said early on it was no big deal. FDA and CDC did a bureaucratic scorpions’ dance over testing that put us on the back foot from the start. Then the models showed wildly hyperbolic projections. And we did great harm by shutting down the economy for a prolonged period as a result, when empirical evidence now suggests that an approach of isolating those at risk, wearing masks, and social distancing would likely have allowed the economy to continue while keeping the virus down. That’s what Japan did and their rate of infections is lower than our rate of deaths.

Geopolitical analyst George Friedman (formerly founder of STRATFOR) has a new book out where he describes a struggle in the USA between elite experts and common sense. He expects it to come to a head in this decade. This may well be step one in that process. I think we would have done better with less expertise and more common sense.

Do I think Trump handled it well? No, but I think a lot of his problem is that he relied too heavily on his “experts.”

Somebody else might be able to find it... but I found it once... and can try to find it again if I get time....

but the power to actually do things during a declared national pandemic lies very heavily with the CDC, not the White House. Of course the White House has influence and power over certain areas like international and interstate travel... but most of it lies with the CDC. The original laws said more like the Sec of Interior or something, but it's been handed to the CDC.

Maybe THAT is the reason for the poor response... the people responding aren't really in touch with how the country works?

A new 1-day high for deaths in Texas today - 166. I did a rough breakdown of the regions of the state by death.

South (Corpus Christi and south but a few counties like Bee or Live Oak might be considered more Central?) - 64
Houston area 21
Dallas/Fort Worth 21
Central 18
San Antonio 15 (could probably be added to central)
West Texas 11
Golden Triangle 5

I must have miscounted a few but I know the Waco area had 2 more and northeast Texas about 5.

(07-17-2020 08:36 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  A new 1-day high for deaths in Texas today - 166. I did a rough breakdown of the regions of the state by death.

South (Corpus Christi and south but a few counties like Bee or Live Oak might be considered more Central?) - 64
Houston area 21
Dallas/Fort Worth 21
Central 18
San Antonio 15 (could probably be added to central)
West Texas 11
Golden Triangle 5

I must have miscounted a few but I know the Waco area had 2 more and northeast Texas about 5.

Is Dallas/FtWorth just Dallas and Tarrant county r the entire 11 ccunty Metroplex?

Dallas 13, Tarrant 5, Denton 1, Wichita 1, Navarro 1 - you might classify DFW area as different counties and that's fine.

Roughly 6 percent of the state's population in south Texas (Hidalgo, Cameron, Nueces, Comal and DeWitt counties) accounted for almost 1/3 of the deaths (53 of the 162). The numbers will certainly fluctuate from day-to-day.

ETA - looks like Wichita and Navarro shouldn't count, but I missed 1 for Johnson County. So 20 for DFW, not 21. That's not a high for that region. The big news is and will continue to be South Texas.

(07-17-2020 09:05 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Dallas 13, Tarrant 5, Denton 1, Wichita 1, Navarro 1 - you might classify DFW area as different counties and that's fine.

Roughly 6 percent of the state's population in south Texas (Hidalgo, Cameron, Nueces, Comal and DeWitt counties) accounted for almost 1/3 of the deaths (53 of the 162). The numbers will certainly fluctuate from day-to-day.

ETA - looks like Wichita and Navarro shouldn't count, but I missed 1 for Johnson County. So 20 for DFW, not 21. That's not a high for that region. The big news is and will continue to be South Texas.

I think of the Metroplex as Dallas?tarrant plus the adjacent counties.

(07-17-2020 05:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Somebody else might be able to find it... but I found it once... and can try to find it again if I get time....

but the power to actually do things during a declared national pandemic lies very heavily with the CDC, not the White House. Of course the White House has influence and power over certain areas like international and interstate travel... but most of it lies with the CDC. The original laws said more like the Sec of Interior or something, but it's been handed to the CDC.

Maybe THAT is the reason for the poor response... the people responding aren't really in touch with how the country works?

NYTimes with an article that focuses on the White House role during the past few months, and the consequences of their decision making in how the federal government’s response has evolved.

They don’t talk about the recent decision by the WH to publicly trash the CDC’s school opening guidelines, but they do talk about how they similarly trashed the state reopening guidelines the WH put out for states to follow. In short, the WH was overly focused on the Washington State model (which required high social distancing compliance), not taking a leading role in coordinating response, testing, and support, and pushing for reopening the economy too quickly and without regard for the data.

It also touches on the general lack of leadership shown by Trump.

Quote: Mr. Adler had a simple plea for the White House.

“When we were trying to get people to wear masks, they would point to the president and say, well, not something that we need to do,” he said.

Mr. Suarez expressed similar frustrations with Mr. Trump’s dismissive approach to mask wearing. “People follow leaders,” he said, before rephrasing his remarks. “People follow the people who are supposed to be leaders.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/us/po...rship.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/18/health/te...index.html

85 babies under the age of 1 have tested positive for Covid in Nueces County (Corpus Christi area). 1 has died from it.

https://abc13.com/vincent-mandola-housto...s/6324723/

Vincent Mandola of the Mandola restaurant family has died of Covid. I'm not sure of his relation to Frankie, who died a few years back and who was a tremendous Rice supporter and alum.

(07-19-2020 07:48 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://abc13.com/vincent-mandola-housto...s/6324723/
Vincent Mandola of the Mandola restaurant family has died of Covid. I'm not sure of his relation to Frankie, who died a few years back and who was a tremendous Rice supporter and alum.

There was an Italian restaurant at Lake Conroe that had a dish called Veal Vincent, named for Vincent Mandola. It was basically veal piccata with artichokes. They got bought out just before COVID, and the new restaurant is just opening up. The new owners have said they would keep it, and I hope they do because it was my favorite.

(07-16-2020 06:24 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Relatedly, today was another record number of cases diagnosed in the USA with 71,000. That is about 1/3 the total number that Germany has had through the entire pandemic.

Just an aside to this.... Only a few weeks ago people were somewhat clamoring for 'community immunity' by spreading the disease through healthy populations. I realize there are still questions about this, but it's still mostly true. Hospitalizations (not random ICU rates, especially in that cases are frequently aggregated) and death rates are vastly more important than 'cases'. Swine had 60mm people infected and nobody cared.

(07-18-2020 01:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  NYTimes with an article that focuses on the White House role during the past few months, and the consequences of their decision making in how the federal government’s response has evolved.

They don’t talk about the recent decision by the WH to publicly trash the CDC’s school opening guidelines, but they do talk about how they similarly trashed the state reopening guidelines the WH put out for states to follow. In short, the WH was overly focused on the Washington State model (which required high social distancing compliance), not taking a leading role in coordinating response, testing, and support, and pushing for reopening the economy too quickly and without regard for the data.

It also touches on the general lack of leadership shown by Trump.

Quote: Mr. Adler had a simple plea for the White House.

“When we were trying to get people to wear masks, they would point to the president and say, well, not something that we need to do,” he said.

Mr. Suarez expressed similar frustrations with Mr. Trump’s dismissive approach to mask wearing. “People follow leaders,” he said, before rephrasing his remarks. “People follow the people who are supposed to be leaders.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/us/po...rship.html

Shocking that the Times has an opinion piece unflattering towards republicans and especially Trump.

I'm talking about laws and separations of powers and facts.... not what completely self-serving persons like 'Adler and Suarez' think 'leadership' looks like. Hint to Mr Adler, pay attention to all that is said and not merely the targeted quotes you get... and you'd be able to tell them.... (as he and his people have said)... If you and everyone around you (and that list is highly regulated and limited) are tested every week. and most people are kept 6 feet away from you by armed guards and you have a personal physician on call 24/7, then like Trump, you don't need to wear a mask. You may not agree that it's the best practice and quite frankly I agree.. but not for the reasons you think. I think its bad practice because it draws attention to how different his situation is... for thee, not for me... and that tends to turn off some voters. Calling it a failure of leadership (by people who wouldn't follow him to a climate change solution) is silly.

The idea that Democrats are looking to the White House for leadership now, or at any time during this administration is BEYOND laughable. I can't even believe you read that with a straight face.

(07-20-2020 09:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 06:24 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Relatedly, today was another record number of cases diagnosed in the USA with 71,000. That is about 1/3 the total number that Germany has had through the entire pandemic.

Just an aside to this.... Only a few weeks ago people were somewhat clamoring for 'community immunity' by spreading the disease through healthy populations. I realize there are still questions about this, but it's still mostly true. Hospitalizations (not random ICU rates, especially in that cases are frequently aggregated) and death rates are vastly more important than 'cases'. Swine had 60mm people infected and nobody cared.

(07-18-2020 01:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  NYTimes with an article that focuses on the White House role during the past few months, and the consequences of their decision making in how the federal government’s response has evolved.

They don’t talk about the recent decision by the WH to publicly trash the CDC’s school opening guidelines, but they do talk about how they similarly trashed the state reopening guidelines the WH put out for states to follow. In short, the WH was overly focused on the Washington State model (which required high social distancing compliance), not taking a leading role in coordinating response, testing, and support, and pushing for reopening the economy too quickly and without regard for the data.

It also touches on the general lack of leadership shown by Trump.

Quote: Mr. Adler had a simple plea for the White House.

“When we were trying to get people to wear masks, they would point to the president and say, well, not something that we need to do,” he said.

Mr. Suarez expressed similar frustrations with Mr. Trump’s dismissive approach to mask wearing. “People follow leaders,” he said, before rephrasing his remarks. “People follow the people who are supposed to be leaders.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/us/po...rship.html

Shocking that the Times has an opinion piece unflattering towards republicans and especially Trump.

I'm talking about laws and separations of powers and facts.... not what completely self-serving persons like 'Adler and Suarez' think 'leadership' looks like. Hint to Mr Adler, pay attention to all that is said and not merely the targeted quotes you get... and you'd be able to tell them.... (as he and his people have said)... If you and everyone around you (and that list is highly regulated and limited) are tested every week. and most people are kept 6 feet away from you by armed guards and you have a personal physician on call 24/7, then like Trump, you don't need to wear a mask. You may not agree that it's the best practice and quite frankly I agree.. but not for the reasons you think. I think its bad practice because it draws attention to how different his situation is... for thee, not for me... and that tends to turn off some voters. Calling it a failure of leadership (by people who wouldn't follow him to a climate change solution) is silly.

The idea that Democrats are looking to the White House for leadership now, or at any time during this administration is BEYOND laughable. I can't even believe you read that with a straight face.

Uh, do you know who Suarez is? He is the Republican mayor of Miami, so I'm not sure where he falls into the diatribe against Dems, and I have no clue what the climate change solution comment references.

But I read the last quote as the Republican mayor of Miami talking about leadership for average citizens - haven't you heard of leading by example? It is similar to the "for thee, not for me" comment you made.

(07-20-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Uh, do you know who Suarez is? He is the Republican mayor of Miami, so I'm not sure where he falls into the diatribe against Dems, and I have no clue what the climate change solution comment references.

But I read the last quote as the Republican mayor of Miami talking about leadership for average citizens - haven't you heard of leading by example? It is similar to the "for thee, not for me" comment you made.

Let me say it more clearly because you seem to choose the most ridiculous interpretation of my posts....

I don't look to Trump to tell me whether or not to wear a mask. I would find anyone who would, without also appreciating the differences between him and the rest of us to be mentally deficient. For the Times or anyone who remotely leans as hard to the left/anti-Trump as the Times does to imply that THEY are looking to Trump for leadership here is laughable.

I can (and did) find fault with Trump on this practice, but it's about a -3 on a 1-10 scale of issues that I look to the President for.