But the opposite is just as true - anyone not wanting to rake Trump over the coals and roast his head on a spit is seen as a blind cult worshiper.
2 Likes
I seem to recall Hilary being point person on some issue as first lady. Michelle Obama “fixed” school lunches, and is now being considered a legit VP candidate (at least here, in that thread) based entirely on her experience as first lady. Family having an active role in isnt exactly unusual.
Ahahaha. Now I can see why you like Trump. Although Sarah appeared competent in comparison.
(Who would ever conceive saying Palin appeared competent??? The world we live in…)
5 Likes
Lets itemize those :
- build a wall
- appoint judges
- cut regulations
- placing American interests first
- anti-globalism
- isolationist
- supports US energy sector
- supports US energy independence
- climate change denier
- gun rights
- oppose Obamacare
- oppose illegal immigration
- lower taxes
Most of those are supported by anyone in the GOP… 2, 3,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 are all right out of the playbook. Bush JR. should tick all those boxes.
For the most part then Trump is really just like any Republican plus isolationism and xenophobia.
so… foreigners
3 Likes
Having the 1st lady do some sort of project or work goes back a long ways and is not exlusive to Democrats. Nancy Reagan had the ‘Just Say No’ to drugs campaign. As you say thats not unusual and is actully more tradition kinda.
NO democrats put their daughter in a Sr. WH job.
NO democrats gave their son in law a white house Sr title job and pretended they had any ability to solve the Middle East conflict
Or am I forgetting when that happened ever in our history? Pretty sure its not in my lifetime.
7 Likes
Of course it did:
1862: Progressive income taxes, i.e. high-income earners subsidize low-income earners
1870: Free elementary education
1935: Social Security
1938: Farm subsidies
1965: Medicare
All are elements of socialism.
7 Likes
Ok, formally maybe. But she’s a “senior advisor”, and unpaid at that. Formalized may be unusual, but surely you agree that Hilary likely had an informal yet similar advisor role with President Clinton.
To just say “put his daughter in a senoir WH job” is trying hard to imply like she is Chief of Staff or part of his cabinet, filling a significant role that’d otherwise be filled by someone with more qualifications. She’s not, her role is supplimental.
Back on the coronavirus subject, I give NYT credit for their reporting here.
WHO’s report on China’s global disinformation campaign regarding their responsibility and subsequent lies about the virus… was successfully censored by China’s global disinformation campaign!
2 Likes
So she didn’t create 10 million jobs?
Yes her role is a “supplimental” role. Ivanka’s role is not typical though. What other president gave his daughter ANY kind of job or title??
Jared is being put into jobs that don’t seem trivial.
Putting your Son in Law into jobs hes’ not qualified for is totally unprecedented in the White House and the height of cronyism & nepotism
5 Likes
I don’t give a rats ass if any of them are or aren’t paid a cent
They could pay her $1M a year and I really wouldn’t care vs 1 cent
The money for the salaries is trivial in relation to the damage they can do with their incompetence and the amount they can get for themselves in favoritism and power or simply writing a book after or lobbying consulting jobs, etc.
This is true for Republican or Democrat in my mind.
But in this case I’d support giving Ivanka & Jared a stipend of $5M a year to sit down and shut up.
3 Likes
Don’t give them any ideas! And yes it certainly would make a huge difference if they were paid (that’s taxpayer money!). Thankfully government salaries are public and pretty much fixed, so they could never be that high.
But the idea is to pay reasonable amounts to government officials. That way they aren’t “working for free” working for bribes, corruption, and enrichment instead.
You don’t want them all “working for free”, because that eliminates normal people from ever being able to accept the job.
1 Like
Why is it called “Covid-19”? Shouldn’t it be called “Covid-20”?
Because the disease was discovered in 2019.
Just in case anyone was wondering, I don’t come to this discussion group to read political arguments or to find out the time of the next news conference and be warned that it might not start on time. But maybe I’m an outlier.
5 Likes
Wow, this is actually insane.
I thought it was a complete joke opening… (as is indicated with the “fake news alert”)
but it’s actually based on fact… whether the person is otherwise qualified or not, it’s just funny.
Sometimes it’s like he’s having a press conference with himself.
but
“The work is preliminary and it is not yet known if the virus remains viable on pollution particles and in sufficient quantity to cause disease.”
If air pollution was a factor then wouldn’t we’d see higher infection rates in China and India.
Our air pollution levels aren’t even close to theirs. No competition at all.
1 Like
Thats a different factor.
If you live in an area with high pollution you may have worse lung health to begin with. This could then cause higher vulnerability to covid19. I’m more willing to believe this is possible. But still the one article claims a +15% death reate increase from just 1 point of PM2.5. Nope. If that was true we’d see 2-3x death rates in China and India vs USA.
Better theory than virus riding around in the air on pollution particles… But still unverified theory at this point. I’m doubtful…
1 Like
This is what people get frustrated with. How the virus may spread and teh effect on death rates from being infected are two dots that do not connect, yet one is given as an answer to a question about the other.
Death rate isn’t going to care how fast you shut down.
Wuhan should have 4x the death rate as any US city just based on their pollution level if that 15%+ factor is true…
1 Like