Trump vs Biden 2020, Day 64 of the Pennsylvania count (pt 5) Read OP

19-11-2020 03:01PM

eagle eye wrote: »

You are talking about other factors not part of covid-19. That doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense. In my example, who would be to blame in your opinion if someone died due to overcrowding? The organiser, the attendee, or both?

From what I gather, you would believe it would be both, whereas the people who have responded to you would say it's only the organiser. Would that be a fair assessment?

eagle eye · 19-11-2020 03:02PM

I'm growing tired of this stupid stuff.

Trump is a horrible human being and responsible for an awful lot of bad things that have happened and he certainly bears a partial responsibility for organising the rallies.
The lot of you though just want to put full responsibility for everything on him. It's an unnatural hate you have. I despise the man but I can step back and take a breath and see the wood from the trees.

If you cannot assign blame to people for risking their and others lives by attending an event with no masks or social distancing then I give up on you.

19-11-2020 03:03PM

normakelle wrote: »

thank god someone with a bit of commonsense

Haha!

19-11-2020 03:06PM

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm growing tired of this stupid stuff.

Trump is a horrible human being and responsible for an awful lot of bad things that have happened and he certainly beats a partial responsibility for organising the rallies.
The lot of you though just want to put full responsibility for everything on him. It's an unnatural hate you have. I despise the man but I can step back and take a breath and see the wood from the trees.

If you cannot assign blame to people for risking their and others lives by attending an event with no masks or social distancing then I give up on you.

I'll take that as a "the argument made by you and others is starting to make sense to me, but I don't want to admit it, so I'll instead whine rather than come up with a constructive reply" response.

eagle eye · 19-11-2020 03:08PM

Deleted User wrote:

I'll take as a "the argument made by you and others makes sense, but I don't want to admit it, so I'll instead whine" response.

Maybe I'll just ignore you from now on. Like this presumption you make is ridiculous.
Don't expect another response from me.

19-11-2020 03:10PM

normakelle wrote: »

He shouldn't get involved in any election. If you want to vote you don't need mark zuccherberg to help you

Appears that you do when trump and the republicans are doing their best to stop people from voting and possibly getting sick by doing so under their plan.

Doesn't take much to understand that.

19-11-2020 03:10PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Maybe I'll just ignore you from now on. Like this presumption you make is ridiculous.
Don't expect another response from me.

If the only responses you can come up with to my example is "but we're talking about Covid" and "I'll just ignore you instead of answering your questions", then you should probably start considering that you yourself believe that there is a flaw in your argument.

19-11-2020 03:17PM

normakelle wrote: »

Follow the money or is that too much trouble for you

You keep saying this but won't post any evidence supporting your claim for some reason.

robinph · 19-11-2020 03:18PM

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm growing tired of this stupid stuff.

Trump is a horrible human being and responsible for an awful lot of bad things that have happened and he certainly bears a partial responsibility for organising the rallies.
The lot of you though just want to put full responsibility for everything on him. It's an unnatural hate you have. I despise the man but I can step back and take a breath and see the wood from the trees.

If you cannot assign blame to people for risking their and others lives by attending an event with no masks or social distancing then I give up on you.

The head of your government tells you not to wear masks and don't believe anything in the media that disagrees with me.

You then choose not to wear a mask and choose to not believe the articles in the media telling you that you really should wear a mask.

Who is at fault there for people not wearing masks?

eagle eye · 19-11-2020 03:20PM

robinph wrote:

Who is at fault there for people not wearing masks?

The people themselves and the idiot telling them nit to wear a mask. Both.

19-11-2020 03:23PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Also it's not comparable to pubs. The owner of the pub takes full responsibility because we are dealing with an addiction.

Silly argument, you are claiming that anyone who goes to a pub has addiction issues.

Buck stops with trump.

eagle eye · 19-11-2020 03:28PM

DubInMeath wrote:

Silly argument, you are claiming that anyone who goes to a pub has addiction issues.
Buck stops with trump.

I'd say anybody going to a pub when they are not supposed to be open has a drink problem.

19-11-2020 03:30PM

eagle eye wrote: »

I'd say anybody going to a pub when they are not supposed to be open has a drink problem.

Can't go to a pub that's closed.

Padre_Pio · 19-11-2020 03:30PM

eagle eye wrote: »

If you cannot assign blame to people for risking their and others lives by attending an event with no masks or social distancing then I give up on you.

I agree that people should have more personal responsibility, but that's just not how the world works.

In the world of claimants and compensation, the onus is rarely on the individual.
If ANYONE tried to hold a public event in Ireland or any other country, they would rightly be attacked and blamed for putting the public at risk.

robinph · 19-11-2020 03:31PM

eagle eye wrote: »

The people themselves and the idiot telling them nit to wear a mask. Both.

And how much of the blame would you apportion to each?

If the government that you elected and trusted to run the country is telling you do do something, including not believe other sources of information and not to do your own research because the government knows best, then why are you absolving the government of the majority of the responsibility for the actions of their population?

The people have been told not to believe other sources of information other than Trump himself, why does he then get away with the responsibility when he's been giving out the wrong information?

eagle eye · 19-11-2020 03:44PM

robinph wrote:

And how much of the blame would you apportion to each?

I blame both pretty much equally.
Our government opened schools and pretty much said they are safe. I don't agree with them and my kids are currently being homeschooled and won't return until such time as there is definitive proof that they are safe.
I was intending to send them back before Christmas if this latest lockdown worked but we've plateaued and it seems obvious to me that the schools are a part of that.
If I had sent my kids back to school and one of them ended up with pims or long covid I'd never forgive myself. In other words I'd blame myself first and foremost.

robinph · 19-11-2020 03:52PM

eagle eye wrote: »

I blame both pretty much equally.
Our government opened schools and pretty much said they are safe. I don't agree with them and my kids are currently being homeschooled and won't return until such time as there is definitive proof that they are safe.
I was intending to send them back before Christmas if this latest lockdown worked but we've plateaued and it seems obvious to me that the schools are a part of that.
If I had sent my kids back to school and one of them ended up with pims or long covid I'd never forgive myself. In other words I'd blame myself first and foremost.

Except in the situation we are discussing you would have been told for 4 years that there is no other source of information than the governments official Twitter feed, and then this year that there is no Covid because it's all a conspiracy by the libs. What reason do you have for having gone to read up other information sources than the Twitter feed of the government? If you research other sources then you are a traitor to your country.

Doing your own research is not allowed in Trump world.

eagle eye · 19-11-2020 03:57PM

If you are stupid enough to believe that then what's the solution? Lock them up?

Everybody has a choice.

duploelabs · 19-11-2020 03:59PM

Trump administration courting the far right again https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/19/mike-pompeo-makes-provocative-visit-to-israeli-settlement?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

19-11-2020 04:01PM

eagle eye wrote: »

If you are stupid enough to believe that then what's the solution?

Elect a new leader.

eagle eye · 19-11-2020 04:07PM

duploelabs wrote: »

Trump administration courting the far right again https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/19/mike-pompeo-makes-provocative-visit-to-israeli-settlement?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Pardon my ignorance but are the Israeli government considered far right?

seamus · 19-11-2020 04:18PM

eagle eye wrote: »

I blame both pretty much equally.
Our government opened schools and pretty much said they are safe. I don't agree with them and my kids are currently being homeschooled and won't return until such time as there is definitive proof that they are safe.
I was intending to send them back before Christmas if this latest lockdown worked but we've plateaued and it seems obvious to me that the schools are a part of that.
If I had sent my kids back to school and one of them ended up with pims or long covid I'd never forgive myself. In other words I'd blame myself first and foremost.

Funnily enough, your rationale and an anti-masker's are similar. You're engaging in a form of confirmation bias, and I can prove it;

If the government closed all of the schools tomorrow and said the schools are unsafe, you would say, "I knew it, I always knew it, I was right".

What you wouldn't do, is ask for definite proof that the schools are unsafe. There could be no evidence at all. NPHET might even state that they disagree with the government, but the government could say they have "concerns" and that would be good enough for you. So when it comes to changing your position, you require "definitive" proof. When it comes to confirming your position, you require no proof at all. You have decided the schools are not safe, based on your own gut feeling, with no evidence at all.

That's confirmation bias. And that's exactly what Trump's anti-mask supporters did too. They wanted to believe that covid was a scam, that masks were unnecessary, that restrictions were unnecessary. We ALL did, we all wanted to deny this was happening.

Trump gave them that out. In a time when the importance of pushing back against our denials was never higher, Trump instead confirmed for his supporters that it was all a sham. That makes him to blame. Authority figures have a position of trust and confidence, and they have an obligation to use that position for the social good.

Likewise it would be tremendously wrong for Micháel Martin to come out and declare the schools unsafe when the evidence suggests otherwise, and he would be personally to blame for the damage that would be result to the education system. I wouldn't blame all the people pulling their kids out of school unnecessarily, I would blame Martin.

Curious_Case · 19-11-2020 04:21PM

I spend all day sitting in my room whilst listening to Alex Jones and David Icke.

Sometimes I put on a tinfoil hat and conduct scrying sessions by staring into my naval.

That aside, am I the first to think that Trump could well end up being tried for treason (compromising national security abroad) ???

eagle eye · 19-11-2020 04:25PM

seamus wrote: »

Funnily enough, your rationale and an anti-masker's are similar. You're engaging in a form of confirmation bias, and I can prove it;

If the government closed all of the schools tomorrow and said the schools are unsafe, you would say, "I knew it, I always knew it, I was right".

What you wouldn't do, is ask for definite proof that the schools are unsafe. There could be no evidence at all. NPHET might even state that they disagree with the government, but the government could say they have "concerns" and that would be good enough for you. So when it comes to changing your position, you require "definitive" proof. When it comes to confirming your position, you require no proof at all. You have decided the schools are not safe, based on your own gut feeling, with no evidence at all.

Lots of guff in here. You don't know me at all.

I would never claim I was right without definitive proof.

I would like to have definitive proof one way or the other as then my decision would be a simple one.

My position is solely based on maintaining the good health of my children. It's my job to protect them.

And my decisions are based off of math, not gut feeling.

So you couldn't be more wrong.

Overheal · 19-11-2020 04:45PM

The post-2008 Tea Party called and it wants it's grift back:

https://www.mediaite.com/news/newsmaxs-greg-kelly-calls-for-trump-supporters-to-form-new-maga-party-republicans-just-arent-cutting-it/

Newsmax host Greg Kelly called on conservatives to replace the Republican Party with a “MAGA Party.”

“We need a new party,” Kelly told viewers of his 7 p.m. show, Greg Kelly Reports, on Wednesday evening. “Democrats aren’t cutting it, and quite frankly, I don’t think the Republicans are cutting it. At least a lot of them are just mailing it in.”

Kelly said the new party should be endowed with the acronym for “Make America great again,” the campaign slogan popularized by President Donald Trump in 2016. “The ‘MAGA Party’ — a party about ideas, the Constitution, opportunity, liberty,” Kelly said. “Term limits, the Second Amendment, and canceling … the deep state and the federal bureaucracy.”

“There are some good people, but let’s face it,” he added. “It is big and bloated, and all kinds of waste could be cut away. I think it’s something that deserves serious, serious consideration in this country.”

Watch above via Newsmax.

Eric Cartman · 19-11-2020 04:47PM

duploelabs wrote: »

Trump administration courting the far right again https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/19/mike-pompeo-makes-provocative-visit-to-israeli-settlement?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

the far right are notoriously fans of Israel...

at this point I think the definition of far right has just grown to 'everyone a European left/ centre left person doesn't like'

Tony EH · 19-11-2020 04:51PM

Overheal wrote: »

The post-2008 Tea Party called and it wants it's grift back:

https://www.mediaite.com/news/newsmaxs-greg-kelly-calls-for-trump-supporters-to-form-new-maga-party-republicans-just-arent-cutting-it/

Newsmax host Greg Kelly called on conservatives to replace the Republican Party with a “MAGA Party.”

“We need a new party,” Kelly told viewers of his 7 p.m. show, Greg Kelly Reports, on Wednesday evening. “Democrats aren’t cutting it, and quite frankly, I don’t think the Republicans are cutting it. At least a lot of them are just mailing it in.”

Kelly said the new party should be endowed with the acronym for “Make America great again,” the campaign slogan popularized by President Donald Trump in 2016. “The ‘MAGA Party’ — a party about ideas, the Constitution, opportunity, liberty,” Kelly said. “Term limits, the Second Amendment, and canceling … the deep state and the federal bureaucracy.”

“There are some good people, but let’s face it,” he added. “It is big and bloated, and all kinds of waste could be cut away. I think it’s something that deserves serious, serious consideration in this country.”

Watch above via Newsmax.

A party based entirely on a slogan.

That's all you need to know about that nonsense.

ollkiller · 19-11-2020 04:54PM

Tony EH wrote: »

A party based entirely on a slogan.

That's all you need to know about that nonsense.

I for one hope their new party comes to fruition. Will split the republican vote leading to numerous presidential wins for the Democrats.

The Raging Bile Duct · 19-11-2020 04:54PM

Tony EH wrote: »

A party based entirely on a slogan.

That's all you need to know about that nonsense.

Let them at it, it would completely hobble the conservative vote in the States.

eagle eye · 19-11-2020 05:02PM

ollkiller wrote:

I for one hope their new party comes to fruition. Will split the republican vote leading to numerous presidential wins for the Democrats.

If you get one new party another will follow. I'd suspect that you'll see a split in the Democrats between socialists, centrists and right wing. That's been coming for a while and I see it happening if a new party gets any standing.

Trump vs Biden 2020, Day 64 of the Pennsylvania count (pt 5) Read OP

Comments