The Partisan Divide on Issues

[pbrower2a]

(08-14-2020, 10:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-14-2020, 07:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-13-2020, 02:00 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Maybe one month of a lock-down would have been adequate. 

Oh, it most likely won't kill you? Would you ride with a drunk driver? Would you use street drugs? Would you drive a car at a speed over 100 mph on the open road? Would you take the risk of a rattlesnake bite? If you are going to take inordinate risk, then it had better be for some cause undeniably good such as combat on behalf of your country. 

People on welfare are obliged to seek work and take work available in many places even if the work is odious and a poor fit for the person. 

You are a fool. You think you represent the common man, but you loyally serve people who believe that no human suffering can be in excess so long as it serves those elites. Furthermore you cannot recognize that people as American as you are are fully American.

Maybe??? Maybe not??? Maybe a month or two or three or maybe even a year or maybe even two or three years to be completely safe??? Well, we are going to see the negative results of months of Democratic maybe's and absolutely not with the exception of our own or those politically associated with us.

A month is a little quick.  Two is a little high.

First you have to go with the metrics, you have to go with the test results.  When you are preventing tests as Trump did to minimize the bad results, you are sort of stuck.

But most nations did test and did isolate and thus did flatten the curve.  Trump didn't.  I might be curious as to how long the various successful countries did stay shut down.  The question as to how long you have to shut down on average is likely answerable by now.

The problem was with the happy talk.  A significant number of people refused to shut down as the political leader they were committed to discouraged it.  If you do not shut down completely and all states at once, the shutdown has to last longer to achieve results.  That is why the lack of a nation wide strategy hurts.

Two or three months of economic hardship would be a suitable cost for saving, so far, 170 thousand deaths. Just under 406,000 Americans died of war-related causes in World War II, and that was over three years. Americans underwent great hardships to prevent an Axis victory, something that many European and Asian countries got to experience a taste of. We had a near-shutdown in Michigan and we got some stability. There was no place to go except to drive-up windows, gas stations, and basically food stores.  It was a lonely, boring, frustrating time. To fiond entertainment one had to rely upon oneself. But just think of how awful life is in a ventilator. 

Nobody can find any noble purpose in 170 thousand deaths. We are not overthrowing the yoke of a despotic King. We are not emancipating slaves. We are not making the world safe for democracy or thwarting genocide. 

We needed some flexibility on the time, which would have been easier if we had some genuine leadership at the apex of power instead of... but to go further I repeat myself.  

We are in a Crisis, and this epidemic is a Crisis because it will shake the assumptions that people have gotten if they are even elementary-level children.