Jump to content

Trump to announce 'guidelines' on reopening U.S. economy Thursday


Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, candide said:

So according to you, some people are cautious about re-opening the economy because they are anti-Trump.. Let me guess, in other countries, people and governments that are reluctant to reopen the economy are also anti-trumpers? Or could it be that there are obvious reasons to be cautious, whatever the political context?

I'm American. I'll not pass judgment on why other countries do things. And obviously there are reasons other than hatred of Trump to be cautious. That's precisely the point. Thank you for the opportunity to add emphasis to is.

Posted
Just now, Crazy Alex said:

I'm American. I'll not pass judgment on why other countries do things. And obviously there are reasons other than hatred of Trump to be cautious. That's precisely the point. Thank you for the opportunity to add emphasis to is.

This admission just negated your <deleted> notion.

Posted
3 minutes ago, J Town said:

That's the biggest load of rubbish ever. No Dem wants the economy "devastated." 

Wow, you got me really thinking about this. Your brilliant analysis has gotten me to change my mind. I am now certain that all Democrats want a strong economy going in to the election in November. Thank you for helping me see the light.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Why just Americans? Wouldn't you want all nations to learn lessons from a crisis like this?

Good point but the loudest point made it those successful were early on active. I don't need to call out trumps BS as I know its well known.

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

I can't believe you just pointed that at another poster. WOW.

You direct the HATE label to Democrats daily and I am not even one (Independent)  but don't let me spoil your attacks with truths. I call out trump for his actions and somehow you try to imply differently

Edited by earlinclaifornia
spelling
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Well yeah, obviously many if not most red states are doing much better than the cluster of blue states hardest hits. As such, they can get back to business quicker. Pretty simple logic, yes?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-sen-john-kennedy-says-we-gotta-reopen-country-and-coronavirus-is-gonna-spread-faster-when-we-do

 

oops this is a RED State willing to devastate thier own 

  • Haha 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

trumps losing it

 

Coronavirus: ‘Liberate’ states protesting against lockdown, says Trump https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52330531

 

There is no low he will not stoop to. 

Unbelievable for a normal president but totally predictable for this one. You will never lose any money predicting he will continue to do and say even more outrageous things.

 

Time for him to zip it!

 

Not that he will, but we can hope.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/17/trumps-bark-is-always-worse-than-his-bite/

 

Quote

Trump doesn’t do much other than create chaos

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

We have a President who said that if you do get infected, you should go to work and spread the infection to your coworkers and customers as long as your symptoms are mild, and we have an administration that won’t allow scientists and doctors to publicly state the truth about the risks and the spread of the disease. 

 

None of this is true. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 3
Posted
17 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

We have a President who said that if you do get infected, you should go to work and spread the infection to your coworkers and customers as long as your symptoms are mild

Debunked nonsense:

 

"Sen. Bernie Sanders wrongly claimed President Donald Trump said if people have symptoms of the new coronavirus infection, “doesn’t matter, go to work.” That’s not what the president said."

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/sanders-twists-trumps-words-on-coronavirus-work/

  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 2
Posted (edited)

This just in - South Dakota, a state openly defying putting in place a stay-at-home order, had a  205% spike in Covid-19 cases last week while those states with stay-at-home are showing a slowing or decrease in cases. It's really not rocket science.

Going out = spreading death.

 

 

 

Edited by J Town
formatting
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 minute ago, J Town said:

It's really not rocket science. Going out = spreading death.

 

Since you have all the answers - what do you recommend people do? 

 

It is impossible for millions and millions of people to not "go out". Staying home for them means bankruptcy and starvation. 

 

Your solution? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, J Town said:

This just in - South Dakota, a state openly defying putting in place a stay-at-home order, had a  205% spike in Covid-19 cases last week while those states with stay-at-home are showing a slowing or decrease in cases. It's really not rocket science.

Going out = spreading death.

 

 

 

The latest New York Times information shows a clear downtrend in infections.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/montana-coronavirus-cases.html

 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, J Town said:

There is more than enough money throughout the world to have a global stay-at-home for at least a few months.

 

Bold assertion. Completely untrue, but bold nonetheless. That aside, a vaccine still won't be available in a "few months" so now you've fully crashed the global economy. 

 

4 minutes ago, J Town said:

The alternative is you stand a good chance, shown by clear numbers, of dying.

 

Statistical chance of dying is very low, you can isolate high risk people and the risk goes exponentially downward. 

 

6 minutes ago, J Town said:

YOU go ahead and go out if you wish, but know you are not only putting yourself at risk, you put everyone you come in contact with at risk as well. 

 

Im fine, I haven't left my compound in 5 weeks other than when absolutely necessary and I can sustain this for a few years no problem. Im lucky. Millions and millions in the USA are not so lucky, and billions globally can't even go a week without income. 

 

You've solved nothing. 

  • Haha 1
Posted

A meat packing company in South Dakota stayed open, it's now the largest "hot spot" in the world. The New York City Police Force is down 20% due to this virus because, even though they wore masks and practiced social distancing as much as their job would allow, they still contracted it. When you listen to that state propaganda TV station, they spout garbage about how this virus is nothing compared to flu, cancer deaths, auto deaths, deaths from falling into a pool, etc. They are all soldiers of a cancerous blight on the world - those billionaires who put money over lives. Sorry, it's so simple and evident if you turn away from that one source emitting such nonsense.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, J Town said:

They are all soldiers of a cancerous blight on the world - those billionaires who put money over lives. Sorry, it's so simple and evident if you turn away from that one source emitting such nonsense.

 

Yeah your answer to the global pandemic is to just "stay home" even though people can not just "stay home" or they will die of starvation. 

 

The practical answer is to isolate the high risk and learn to live alongside the virus as best as can be done and keep going. 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, J Town said:

There is more than enough money throughout the world to have a global stay-at-home for at least a few months. The alternative is you stand a good chance, shown by clear numbers, of dying. YOU go ahead and go out if you wish, but know you are not only putting yourself at risk, you put everyone you come in contact with at risk as well. 

 

21 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Bold assertion. Completely untrue, but bold nonetheless. That aside, a vaccine still won't be available in a "few months" so now you've fully crashed the global economy. 

JTown's statement is reasonable.  There IS enough money it's just that it is not distributed equally to everyone.  Every month there is a ton of money spent on non-essential goods.  If all those funds were converted to spending on essential goods and services there would be plenty for all.  But that would entail everyone caring for ALL their neighbors with no caveats and a temporary substantial reduction in standard of living.

Edited by gamb00ler
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...