Trump rally falls short
President Donald Trump's attempt to revive his re-election campaign sputtered badly Saturday night as he traveled to Tulsa for his first mass rally in months and found a far smaller crowd than his aides had promised him, then delivered a disjointed speech that did not reckon with the multiple crises facing the nation or scandals battering him in Washington.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump rally falls short
NewspaperJune 21, 2020 | Daily Gazette, The (Schenectady, NY)
TULSA, Okla. -- President Donald Trump's attempt to revive his re-election campaign sputtered badly Saturday night as he traveled to Tulsa for his first mass rally in months and found a far smaller crowd than his aides had promised him, then delivered a disjointed speech that did not reckon with the multiple crises facing the nation or scandals battering him in Washington.
Visiting a 2016 electoral stronghold, Trump had hoped to declare a "great American comeback" before a jam-packed arena like he repeatedly had during his first presidential campaign. Instead, the event only raised questions about his drawing power and political skills at a time when his poll numbers are falling and allies are worried about his electoral prospects for a second term.
While the president's campaign had claimed that more than 1 million people had sought tickets to attend the rally, the 19,000-seat BOK Center was still half empty by the time Trump landed in Tulsa. A second, outdoor venue where Trump was set to declare a "great American comeback" was so sparsely attended that he and Vice President Mike Pence both canceled appearances there.
Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, falsely blamed the small numbers on "radical protesters" and the news media who he said frightened away supporters. But there were few protests in the area, a strong security presence and no one blocking entrances.
The disappointing turnout came as Trump already found himself under siege about his sudden firing of the U.S. attorney in Manhattan and his losing legal battle over the release of a memoir full of damaging revelations by John Bolton, his former national security adviser. And in Tulsa, Trump faced criticism for ignoring pleas from officials about health risks to rallygoers and restarting his "Make America Great Again!" rallies in a city where a white mob massacred hundreds of Black residents 99 years ago.
In rambling, grievance-filled remarks, Trump made no reference to George Floyd, whose death at the hands of a white police officer in Minneapolis sparked global demands for racial justice. Instead, he railed about "left-wing radicals" who he falsely claimed were rioting in cities across the country.
"The unhinged left-wing mob is trying to vandalize our history, desecrate our monuments, our beautiful monuments, tear down our statues and punish, cancel and persecute anyone who does not conform to their demands for absolute and total control," Trump said. He was referring in part to attempts to remove Confederate monuments, efforts that have support in both parties.
The president once again shrugged off the threat from the coronavirus, at one point calling it the "Chinese virus" and the "Kung Flu." He bragged that he had done "a phenomenal job" fighting the pandemic but admitted that increased testing for the virus revealed more cases of infection that he felt made the country look bad.
"So I said to my people, 'slow the testing down,'" he said.
Many of the thousands of Trump supporters at the rally did not wear masks or stand 6 feet apart -- health precautions that Trump himself has ignored. The campaign conducted temperature checks and handed out masks, yet health experts remained concerned that the event could be a dangerous incubator for the virus, spreading through the building's recirculated air.
It was unclear whether fears about the virus kept Trump supporters away despite the president's repeated efforts to dismiss the need for social distancing and other precautions.
A few hours before the event, the campaign disclosed that six Trump campaign staff members who had been working on the rally had tested positive for the coronavirus during a routine screening. Two members of the Secret Service in Tulsa also tested positive for the virus, according to people familiar with the matter. Trump, who was made aware of the sick campaign aides before departing for the rally, was incensed that the news was made public, according to two people familiar with his reaction.
While rallies are Trump's favorite events, election-year politics have changed since his last one, on March 2. The coronavirus has largely shut down the campaign trail, and more recently the national political conversation has been dominated by a fierce debate over police violence against Black Americans after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Floyd's death has sparked global protests against systemic racism and demands for police reform.
But the altered political landscape has had little effect on the president, whom advisers describe as feeling like a caged animal during the national lockdown that forced him to abandon most travel. They say he is determined to recapture the excitement of his pre-virus campaign rallies, but this one seemed unlikely to offer much relief to Trump.
The campaign had chosen to return first to Oklahoma, which the president won by 36 points in 2016, because they assumed he would be wildly popular there. Aides to Trump spent the week boasting about enormous interest from people in the rally, and Trump bragged Saturday as he left for Oklahoma that "the crowds are unbelievable" -- a fiction that could raise questions about whether Trump rallies still have political potency.
Speaking at the rally before the president took the stage, Pence urged the crowd to bring the enthusiasm that helped sweep Trump into office in 2016. "Get ready. Buckle up," he said. "It's on. We've got a little more than four months to win four more years for President Donald Trump in the White House. So get ready to bring it."
During the first half of Trump's speech, he delivered a 15-minute explanation of images that showed him ambling slowly down a ramp after delivering the commencement address at the West Point military academy. He blamed his slow walk on "leather soles" on his shoes and said he was trying not to fall on his behind.
Many people in Tulsa, worried about the record numbers of coronavirus cases in Oklahoma in recent days, did not welcome the rally. On Saturday afternoon, local Black leaders held a news conference in the city's historic Greenwood neighborhood, where the 1921 massacre took place, pleading with the city's mayor, G.T. Bynum, a Trump ally, to cancel the rally.
In the streets around the BOK Center, the president's supporters -- some of whom had lined up for days in the hopes of ensuring a seat in the stadium -- gathered not far from Black Lives Matter protesters and people in town for the Juneteenth celebration. Many wore red MAGA hats while others wore caps with patriotic emblems or colors. Some waved red, white and blue banners with the Trump 2020 logo, the American flag, or the "Don't Tread on Me" flag. Some wore them like capes. Almost none wore masks.
"If it is God's will that I get coronavirus that is the will of the Almighty. I will not live in fear," said Robert Montanelli, a resident of Broken Arrow, a Tulsa suburb.
The president and his advisers hope the return to campaign trail will help deflect attention from a daily stream of crises engulfing the White House. On Saturday, a federal judge refused to block the release of Bolton's book, although he said the former national security aide might be personally liable for revealing classified information.
Trump's rally took place amid a spike of coronavirus cases in Oklahoma recently. The state reported its highest number of cases in a single day on Thursday, with more than 450 people testing positive for the virus, more than twice the average number of positive cases during the last several months.
Still, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Friday that Trump's rally could move forward in its usual, boisterous manner, turning back a lawsuit by local business owners and others in Tulsa who had demanded that the president's campaign adhere to social distancing rules or cancel the rally altogether.
By late morning in Tulsa on Saturday, a steadily growing line of rallygoers had assembled. Some had traveled significant distances, but many other attendees were Tulsa locals or came from nearby states, like Kansas and Missouri, or elsewhere in deep-red Oklahoma. The crowd was overwhelmingly white, and in more than a dozen interviews, most people ranged in age from their 40s to their 60s, although a sizable number of attendees also brought their children.
Tags
Who is online
108 visitors
For the record.
The next rally will get better. Is it true that hundreds of protestors blocked the entrance? It looks like Hiden Biden will have to come out of his basement and take off his mask if he wants to keep up.
Pathetic.
Is it true that hundreds of protestors blocked the entrance?
There's no evidence of that, none.
WRONG AGAIN:
"TULSA, Okla. (AP) — President Donald Trump’s supporters faced off with protesters shouting “Black Lives Matter” Saturday in Tulsa as the president took the stage for his first campaign rally in months amid public health concerns about the coronavirus and fears that the event could lead to violence in the wake of killings of Black people by police.
Hundreds of demonstrators flooded the city’s downtown streets and blocked traffic at times, but police reported just a handful of arrests. Many of the marchers chanted, and some occasionally got into shouting matches with Trump supporters, who outnumbered them and yelled, “All lives matter.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/21/turnout-at-trumps-tulsa-rally-was-just-under-6200a-fraction-of-the-venues-19200-capacity/?fbclid=IwAR3EJnOfux_-EhN3qVMk6Zy4cYq6slyhpZHItpTkVF06mrb3w5fAmUjZkd4#6da503921fed
Try again.
I don't have to. The violent protesters showed up, as promised. Blocking the entrance is akin to blocking traffic!
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Oh, we are down to that are we?
Some people like it.
You mean they like avoiding facts? I kind of sensed that.
Vic, your own block quote states that the protesters were there when Trump took the stage.
There is LIVE video of Trump supporters entering the venue. NO ONE was blocked from entering. Police were on hand and had cordoned off access to the entrance. There was also a huge area set up for the 'overflow' crowd which was EMPTY and they started tearing that stage down even before Trump took the stage inside because Trump CANCELED his 'appearance' there.
Just admit that Trump's kick off rally was a bust and move on.
He can't. It's compulsive.
"Was you there, Charlie?" If the doors were blocked, how did the 6200 who attended get in?
Stop embarrassing yourself.
If I was, you'd know what I'd be doing!
[deleted]
[removed]
Vic, that's a lie. Police set up a perimeter so protesters could not block access.
They blocked traffic - A FACT
It's pathetic.
That's not what you said, and THAT'S A FACT! You were trying to support the claim that they blocked the entrances.
1.1.5 Vic Eldred
1.1.2 Vic Eldred
And it was to be expected. Many were concerned about being infected, while other feared bringing their families in contact with the ever violent protesters who made good on their vow to try and confront people who were trying to attend the rally, despite the unhindered Tulsa PD.
I guess we can conclude that Trump supporters were more cautious than the protesters!
I thought Trump supporters were supposed to be badasses. Now you're telling us they fled from a handful of protesters?
The media told us they were careless & ignorant. Some on here even wished they would become infected. It appears they were the more sober among us.
Now you're telling us that fled from a handful of protesters?
Why wouldn't anyone? How many have died or been injured via those "peaceful" protests?
The deplorables will excuse anything and everything. [Deleted]
You mean the [deleted?]
Yes, obviously, low numbers were expected. That's why high numbers were predicted by his campaign manager, and there was an overflow stage for a separate speech nobody expected would need to occur.
I think we can distinguish what many believed would happen due to the virus fears combined with the protester concerns from what a campaign manager was trying to gauge based upon initial interest. No matter how many wanted to go, it seems more rational thought prevailed. Does that sound reasonable?
Democrats are literally bragging online how they reserved blocks of tickets to ensure a small crowd.
It's a just another political dirty trick.
You mean like when they used to brag about voting for Trump in the primaries because they were sure he could never win the general election? I know somebody who did that. They do think they are so smart. That's what happens when colleges become diploma mills.
I expect it will backfire again!
Not especially. Parscale was tweeting earlier this week about how in-demand tickets were. Nothing had changed radically from then until last night - everyone who requested a ticket knew about the virus and the potential for protesters. In fact, it was generally Trump supporters protesting armed to the teeth at "liberate Michigan" and similar rallies, wasn't it? What happened to their bravado?
It doesn't really sound reasonable. It sounds more like rationalization.
Nah, quite a few were Republicans, or their kids. Steve Schmidt seemed pretty proud of his daughter.
a few were Republicans, or their kids. Steve Schmidt seemed pretty proud of his daughter.
Call them "republicans" (Steve Schmidt is not a Republican) or whatever else you want, it doesn't change what they did.
Of course.
I didn't think that had much to do with Trump. I thought that was about getting back to work. Maybe this doesn't affect you, but millions are suffering. Since you claim it was generally Trump supporters who wanted Michigan opened up, maybe you could provide some solid evidence? I don't want to see photos that may contain hats etc, I want some evidence that the widely condemned Michigan protests were about Trump.
It doesn't really sound reasonable.
My question was more aimed at our readers than it was toward you.
It sounds more like rationalization.
Rationalization actually means attempting to explain behavior via logical reasons. Thus it would be both - A reasonable rationalization.
First of all, anyone can make that claim. In fact, if I was a conspiracy nut, (I am not), I could claim that republicans are pretending to be democrats to stir the loyal into action.
And if it is true, it's stupid. It will make their own complacent. No worries, look at how poor the turn out was at the rallies.
Maybe, it's just that he had a bad turn out because you had to sign away your health rights. Not everyone who supports Trump is a moron that is willing to risk their health to support their candidate.
A very good point. The quality of the discussion does matter. Daily we get over 2,000 readers, and they are checking out the discussions. Everyone should be making their best case.
I guess technically true. He left what the party has become. Good for him.
What did they do, really? Reduce the number of potential chances to spread coronavirus?
Humiliate Trump? Like his own behavior doesn't do that quite nicely?
Frankly, if the shoe were on the other foot, I imagine he would be ecstatic, as humiliation or attempts at such are his primary currency. A little humble pie won't hurt him.
Of course it affected me, Vic. My office was closed for 2 months, but the bills kept on rolling in. Why would you think it didn't affect me? But I realized that it was bigger than me, and waited until reopening was both legal and safer, and didn't show up at any government buildings armed and yelling in the faces of law enforcement.
Also, I never said the "liberate" rallies were about Trump. I said most participating were Trump supporters. And they were. That's why Trump pandered to them. That, and he knew that "his" economy is a primary reason for his support, and it was tanking, so he needed to reopen.
You offer a truncated definition. From what I assume is your source:
Because you seemed to have trouble identifying/empathizing with the Michigan protests.
But I realized that it was bigger than me, and waited until reopening was both legal and safer, and didn't show up at any government buildings armed and yelling in the faces of law enforcement.
Not everyone can take it in stride. Many are permanently out of work with hungry children to feed.
Also, I never said the "liberate" rallies were about Trump.
GOOD! So we can clearly dispense with that notion right now!
You offer a truncated definition. From what I assume is your source:
No, I stopped using the Merriam-Webster dictionary the day they announced that they would change the definition of racism. The words you placed in bold print work both ways - IE they could be very appropriate! It would still be a rationalization and in my case a logical one. We are living in a year when 1918 has met 1968, if you know what I mean. There is a lot to fear for decent folk.
What did guns and yelling in the faces of law enforcement officers accomplish, other than to cause us to doubt their rationality and "back the blue" stance?
That's where government (yes, both sides) needed to get their shit together and put together a relief plan that actually helped people, and quickly.
Perhaps you should have dispensed with it before demanding that I support something I didn't claim.
Your definition certainly appeared to be a truncated version of the first one that also showed up on my Google search, which is the first I posted, and is not from Merriam Webster.
He was a long time republican that doesn't like what the party has become.
I love his twitter tag line.
And is that the same standard you apply to the current violent riots?
That's where government (yes, both sides) needed to get their shit together and put together a relief plan that actually helped people, and quickly.
Get their shit together? Dr Fauci wanted a shutdown of two weeks so that hospitals wouldn't be overwhelmed. The 2 weeks gradually became 2 months and 30 million jobs were lost. That is the origins of this problem. The federal government can't be printing money all the time. Our grandkids will want to live too! Right now each state is moving at their own pace in re-opening. Schools in most of the country are still closed until God knows when. What are those parents going through? There is so much fear & anxiety stoked by the media that things won't be anywhere near normal until there is a vaccine. I don't care how low the death rate goes, it will not be fairly reported by the media. There isn't much that can be done until the political equation on all of this is over. That will be in 4 months or so.
Perhaps you should have dispensed with it before demanding that I support something I didn't claim.
Perhaps you shouldn't have dragged Trump into it. What happened in Michigan is not surprising to anyone who has empathy for people.
Your definition certainly appeared to be a truncated version of the first one that also showed up on my Google search, which is the first I posted, and is not from Merriam Webster.
Perhaps you should take what I say at face value rather than googling everything. Ask around these parts - Trying to contradict me never ends well
Vic, where in my comment history have I advocated for violence by either side? I don't. I support peaceful protest. Frankly, right now, I think protests are dangerous, considering the pandemic.
And yes, get their shit together. Once we didn't get a lid on the virus in the beginning, and we didn't, a two-week shutdown was not going to work. Hell, the country that did the best was New Zealand, which eliminated the virus, and their shutdown took 49 days to achieve that, and was stricter than ours. At the point that it became obvious that 2 weeks was going to be insufficient, Congress, the executive branch, and all state governments should have started pulling together to help citizens get through a longer shutdown. Instead, they fought over who would get funds, and how much, and made the application process for aid to businesses both fluid and clunky (to my personal knowledge).
I'm well aware of what parents are going through. I have a teenage son. My employee has elementary school kids.
I didn't. He inserted himself via Twitter.
Ah, yes. I'm sure the almost-verbatim wording, minus a crucial phrase, was coincidental.
You haven't advocated violence and there is not violence being committed by two sides. These are not even competing "sides." One was a small peaceful demonstration against a mayor who imposed draconian measures on her state. The other was a hugely national, at many times violent, protest against what is being portrayed as "systemic racism.
Frankly, right now, I think protests are dangerous, considering the pandemic.
Agreed.
Once we didn't get a lid on the virus in the beginning, and we didn't, a two-week shutdown was not going to work.
Yup, it was here way before we knew anything. Which leads me to suspect it originated before most of the world knew. We were woefully unprepared and worst of all a few state governors sent infected patients right into nursing homes and some into general hospital wards. In hindsight, which is always 20/20, we could have simply quarantine the sick & elderly and sent everyone else about their business with proper protection and distancing.
I'm well aware of what parents are going through.
I'm glad to hear it.
I didn't. He inserted himself via Twitter.
He is always in your posts and clearly always part of the equation.
I'm sure the almost-verbatim wording, minus a crucial phrase, was coincidental.
That crucial phrase, as you call it, isn't so crucial. It means whether appropriate or not. You seem to have excluded the appropriate side of that coin.
No, I haven't advocated violence, so why did you ask me about it? BTW, I know you don't want to believe it, but much of the violence you'd like to attribute to the left is false-flag violence being perpetrated by right-wing agitators. They have been caught on video.
What does that look like, exactly? The elderly people I know still need to eat. They still need to buy medications. They can't quarantine, because they have the same basic necessities as others, and probably visit pharmacies and doctor's offices more than the young and healthy. If they're in nursing homes, they're cared for by younger, hopefully healthy people - how do we keep those caregivers from taking it to work with them?
Well, it's an article about Trump, so you know...
Of course it is. It changes the meaning and connotation of the word. I understand you'd like to believe it's positive, but it's not, Vic.
Cautious? If they were cautious they would have been wearing masks. And did I not see pictures and video clips of some of the Trump supporters WEARING GUNS?
You know that Trump's campaign manager said that 800,000 registered for tickets right Sean? They DO NOT limit the numbers of registrations. They get in by standing in line and THAT is why Trump always has a 'overflow' area with big screens for his sycophants to watch the rally from outside. He didn't need it this time.
'Oh look, 800,000 confirmed tickets. They love me...'
'Oh look, they're waiting in line two days before the rally. They love me...'
Oh and BTW Sean, if what you claim is true, that would mean that 793,000 people registered for tickets just to screw Trump. That tell you anything?
Try and think this through..
When they are told a million people have confirmed attendance, how many people who wanted to attend decided not to fight those numbers for one of 19,000 seats?
Is it really that hard to understand? The people who did it, did it for a reason.
If they actually BELIEVED that a million people had CONFIRMED attendance for a stadium that seats 19,000, then I understand why they're Trump supporters.
That would be hilarious.
They would be supporting Trump by trying to not support him.
That is really, really funny.
Well, at least his supporters:
Well gee Sean, then maybe Trump should STFU about confirmed attendance instead of bragging ad nauseum about it.
The FACT is, before the event, TeamTrump boasts about overflow crowds for EVERY one of his prior rallies and that hasn't stop thousands of his sycophants from showing up to listen to Trump's speech while standing outside the venue.
Trump's March 2, 2020 was no exception:
After Trump rally falls flat, TikTok teens take a victory lap for fake reservation campaign
So what 1st? The campaign insisted that they vetted the reservations by comparing them with voting roles. Since TikTok Teens can't vote their reservations should easily be eliminated. They said that their final estimate was about 300,000 and that is what led them to install the overflow stage outside of the venue. Oh and again, the campaign does NOT limit the number of reservations and Trump sycophants have never failed to go to rallies merely because of fact that Trump gives out tickets for rallies that far surpass the capacity of the venue.
In short, all the excuses are pablum.
Why don't you post this as a seed instead of boring all of us with this tripe?
I don’t think things look very promising for Trumps reelection if he doesn’t send the Army to defeat the terrorist BLM thugs and liberate the good people. He’s all talk and no action. Billions wasted on defense and the people have no choice other than taking up arms themselves to defend their communities. The people in Afghanistan are getting more bang for our tax dollar than we are.
You are kidding, right?
and
with
How many of our 328+ million citizens hold the position that precautions are not necessary because God is deciding who will get COVID-19 anyway?
It's a question I'm a bit afraid to have answered.
Now that is a scary thought. Here is an idea. God helps those who help themselves.
It's just not worth the gamble. No matter how excited you are about politics, it's not worth it. If you get this wretched virus, are you really going to look back and say to yourself, "Thank God I went to that rally! I might be deathly ill now, but it was totally worth it!"
Rut roh, Scooby Doo. So much for blaming Trump for a spike in COVID cases.
Did the protesters get around to pulling down the Golden Driller?
Nah, this could still lead to an outbreak. There were very few masks, and despite the obvious availability of many empty seats, people chose to sit in close proximity to each other.
And the mass of humanity populating all the violent protests we have witnessed for the better part of a month? Could that lead to a spike?
Ah, I see. It's the danger of the great indoors. So why all the mandates for people to stay in their homes? Being indoors is a risk.
Apparently the safest place to be is gathered around a roaring fire in the great outdoors.
Of course it could lead to a spike. I never said it couldn't.
Good grief, Nerm. It's not the indoors. It's being in close proximity to people with whom one has not been isolating, and whose infection status is unknown, with no protective measures such as masks.
If this is the state of science education in this country, no wonder our infection numbers are so awful.
Ohhhhhhhh yes! They were fighting "racism" don't you know! That crusade that every dishonest media hack gets so giddy about! The very thing that democrats use to stir up racial animosity to get themselves elected!
You found him again - the infamous "elephant in the room!"
That science is so yesterday. The newest improved science is about virus load. The virus dissipates rapidly in the great outdoors. The great indoors is where the virus accumulates rather than dissipates.
Which science is supposed to be taught? Yesterday's science? Last week's science? Last month's science?
Science has become a meme. Of course science is correct because there is science that supports any argument on any occasion.
Do try to keep up.
BTW, we can all await news of major outbreaks of legionaries with breathless anticipation. With so many water systems, cooling systems, and commercial air conditioning systems shut down, it's a matter of when and not if.
So, you're saying that all these people, indoors, sitting near one another, with nobody aware of their neighbor's viral status, could lead to an outbreak?
I concur.
You seem to be disagreeing with yourself.
The protests were not political.
Are some politicians going to try to take advantage? Of course. That is what they do.
Both ways.
None of it started as any political means nor political backing.
The science fits the political expediency of the moment. Yesterday pool parties will cause an outbreak. Today indoor rallies will cause an outbreak. Today outdoor protests won't cause an outbreak. Tomorrow outdoor rallies will cause an outbreak. And video rallies carries the risk of exposure to a different type of virus.
To disagree with myself, I only need to cite the science.
Science says the coronavirus is going to spread no matter what the public does. The stated purpose of social distancing, according to science, is to slow the spread of the virus and avoid overwhelming the medical infrastructure. Social distancing will not protect individuals; that's the science. The only scientifically proven means of protecting individuals is social isolation.
Are you talking about all the protests?
Yes
When people begin pulling down statues of Ulysses S. Grant to protest a legacy of slavery then we don't need to be worried about science education.
I'm surprised the Golden Driller is still standing. I figured Black Gold would trigger somebody.
Charles Darwin is in charge. I wonder when statues of Darwin will be next? According to Darwin we all descend from monkeys, after all.
Now you touched on it. Grant wasn't a slaveholder or a racist, so why was his statue taken down?
The answer is they simply hate the country and it's founding. They are telling us. All we need do is listen.
I wonder when statues of Darwin will be next?
It's the Constitution that will be next. After all, all these evil people wrote it, then it can't be any good!
Are you serious? If not, I do not understand the joke.
Of course, I'm not being serious.
The claim before Trump's rally was that large crowds at an indoor event would cause a COVID outbreak. Mayor Bynum even declared a civil emergency. Now that we know the crowd was half the capacity of the venue, partisans have moved on and left science behind. So much for fears of an COVID outbreak. And I'm sure some science can be found to explain away the hair-on-fire partisan fear mongering.
The point is that partisans are using science for political purposes. And there is science to support any partisan claim at any time. Science is too multifaceted to make the veracity of any partisan claim trustworthy.
The scientific-based recommendations have consistently called for social distancing (inside and outside), masks, clean hands and avoid touching one's ears, eyes, nose and mouth.
Yes, of course the more closed in an area the more likely contaminated air may reach you. So, obviously, walking around outside with all that air space to diffuse the virus is safer than an indoor space. Similarly, it is safer being in a park than an office building and safer being in an office building then in a mass-transit conveyance.
I suspect the CDC, et. al. holds that some level of common sense exists in the public. The CDC likely assumes people use at least a tiny bit of their cognitive abilities and not wait for the CDC to literally enumerate every specific rule of life to cover every possible condition. Something ridiculous like:
Instead they would prefer to inform people that the best way to avoid infection is to stay as isolated as possible from other human beings. The key rules offered are:
Partisans have been doing that for as long as I remember. Partisans use anything and everything (especially lying) because to them, the end justifies the means. Partisans will cherry-pick, redefine terms, etc. to adjust the semantics to their narrative.
Since you also dislike partisan tactics, why did you write your comment to read as though you were applying partisan 'logic'?
The stated purpose of social distancing was to slow spread of the virus and avoid overwhelming the medical infrastructure. The expert opinion was that shutting down the economy would only slow the spread of the virus; not protect individuals.
There have been claims that had social distancing measures been imposed sooner, fewer people would have died. But that isn't what the science indicated initially. Social distancing would only slow the spread of infection, not stop spread of infection. What the initial science indicated was that the same number of people may have died over a longer period.
Isolation isn't social distancing. Breaking isolation, even with social distancing, provides the opportunity for infection. The risk of infection is the same with every public interaction. No matter how many times a coin is tossed, the outcome of each toss has the same probability. Tossing the coin fewer times won't change the probability.
Yes. Social distancing puts people at a distance where normal breathing and talking will not project (airborne) the virus from one to another.
Of course, social distancing does not prevent all means of infection. Coughing and sneezing project the virus substantially further than 6 feet, surface contact also spreads the virus. Social distancing is one of several measures. Nobody has every claimed that social distancing prevents all infection.
True. Who claimed that it was??
Again you state the obvious when there has been no claim to the contrary.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. People huddling together in an enclosed space without precautions are substantially more at risk than individuals engaging in social distancing, masks, clean hands, etc.
Irrational and emotional reaction and mob mentality.
Sweeping generalization.
Or are you hearing what you want to hear?
Quite possibly.
The latest science is that virus load (a type of virus concentration in the air) is the risk factor; not distance. The latest science is that there is a threshold exposure to the virus. The protests in Minneapolis have been on-going for more than two weeks which is past the incubation period. Minneapolis has set up additional testing centers for those who participated in protests. Minneapolis has not observed an increase in positive test results above background.
The old science was to maintain distance. The new science is to avoid spaces where the virus load can build up in the air.
The latest science suggests that social distancing may not be accomplishing much. The protests have been an experiment in the wild. So far, it appears that people crowded together during the protests are not experiencing a higher infection rate than background.
Of course you're not sure. The science is unsure. The purpose of the precautions is to slow spread of the virus, not prevent spread of the virus.
My point is that the risks are the same every time someone is in a shared public space. Masks do not protect the eyes. And if virus load is a larger contributor, as the latest science suggests, then a threshold exposure through the eyes is just as likely as by inhalation.
Every time someone leaves isolation their risk of infection is the same. Remaining in isolation more often reduces the possibility of infection but does not change the probability.
Social distance is still the number 1 precaution in every venue; this is because distance inhibits airborne particles from reaching you.
The 'new' science (as you call it) is also the 'old' science; it has always been known that open air allows dissipation of the (any) virus and that closed areas do not. This is not a new discovery.
Don't play games. I wrote that I was not sure what you were trying to express. I was not talking about the science (but you knew that).
Science is, arguably, always unsure to some degree. That is the nature of objective analysis — one never presumes omniscience (well, at least not in science).
The precautions exist to impose barriers which protect people from becoming infected. When fewer are infected, the spread of the virus is reduced.
Masks are not to protect the wearer (except in a minor sense) but rather to protect others. So masks do indeed protect the eyes ... of all those around an infected person.
(see above)
That is ridiculous. If I leave isolation and go to a bar where people are dancing, yelling, drinking, etc., my risk is much higher than if I leave isolation and go to a grocery store which encourages social distancing, wearing of masks, constantly sanitizing surfaces, etc.
That was known in April, and the one does not contradict the other.
“This country, though we would like to think otherwise was founded on racism, has persisted through racism and is racist today.”...Beto O'Rourke
"The United States was founded on "racist" principles".....Bernie Sanders
'The New York Times has begun its so-called 1619 Project, marking the 400th anniversary of the importation of slaves from Africa.'
nypost.com/2019/08/19/the-lefts-vile-smear-of-americas-founding/
It's not a generalization - This is now a mainstream sentiment in the Democratic Party.
Merely their opinions.
You cheered when the 'cause' was to protest for reopening businesses in Michigan. Hell, you even changed your moniker for a minute there.
Which of those statements is inaccurate Vic?
Seriously, any thinking person who has read the Constitution can recognize the fact that the wording it rife with racism. 3/5ths comes to mind but isn't the only example.
And there it is!
Thank you.
When have they ever been right? They hate America and are finally admitting it!
This compromise isn't what you are making it out to be. It was a good thing that helped limit the spread of slavery, new states would have allowed slavery as a power grab at the federal level if every slave was counted, the 3/5ths gave slaves some representation without completely being eliminated from being counted at all.
They wanted to see the big failure. Everybody was talking about the tiny crowds plus some just like to watch unfolding disasters. Even the people at the rally looked bored.
Your ceaseless futile defense of the indefensible is really rather humorous to watch. One could almost say it's adorable, watching someone fighting facts and truth with smoke and mirrors, fantasy, fiction and not so artful attempts at distraction.
The irony. Did you read the story about viewership and streaming on FOX venues??
Yes and it was a hilarious attempt to salvage anything from the debacle that was the Tulsa rally. It was a spirited try but can only garner pity from anyone with more than half a brain.
There WHAT is Vic.
BTW, do you have an answer to my question?
Wow!
The 3/5ths 'compromise' had NOTHING to do with limiting slavery bc. It was about giving slave holding states outsized representation in the House of Representatives and EC.
The Northern states wanted only free people counted, the Southern states wanted the enslaved population to be fully counted but unrepresented. Slaves had NO representation, their owners did.
Yes my family watched it on Fox and another station.
We miss all of the sports particularly the races at the Texas Motor Speedway.
We watched the rally for the same reasons.
Flops, huge egos, crashes and empty seats.........
It isn't hard to argue at all. The founders were liberal progressives, for their time. They were flawed men like anyone else and were products of their time. I have no doubt that many of our founders would be in the streets protesting if they were alive today. George Washington freed his slaves and TJ loved his so much he had several children with them.
You are dumb Private Pile, but do you expect me to believe that you cannot understand what Dulay just said?
The 3/5ths compromise did not limit the power of the slave states in any way shape or form. It ONLY gave them more influence than they would have otherwise had. Because while only white folks counted as people, it counted each slave as 3/5ths of a white person meaning that if a white slave owner had 5 slaves he counted as 4 (1 white man and 5 slaves (and because I know you are too stupid to get the math, each slave counts as .6 of a person so 5 slaves=3 people)) people when it came to determining the number of reps the state gets in the House.
That only benefits slave holding states there is no downside dip shit.
Are you fucking high? It didn't give them ANY representation, it gave their owners MORE representation. How many reps in congress did slaves have? How many reps did slave owners have? And do you really think the reps of the slave owners were in Washington advocating on behalf of the plight of the slaves?
Do we know it was rape? And in his initial draft of the Declaration Jefferson tore slavery a new one, but the southerners wouldn't go for it. Be careful of the trap of presintism...
And goddamn, don't be THAT liberal.
Oh jesus fucking christ, the History Channel? Lemme guess, GW's slaves weren't actually slaves but alien prisoners forced to work in pawn shops?
As much as you
Oh, so you are THAT liberal. Well then we are done. I am on your side but I want nothing to do with you, you are insufferable.
Yep!
Ok, so which would you prefer, the slaves to not be counted at all, which many in the free states wanted (the dilemma being that you would be agreeing with the slave states that the slaves are just property not people), or you count them all giving the slave states huge amount of power in the federal gov't and new states being admitted to the union would look at slavery as a way of gaining power in the federal gov't?
You're right I shouldn't have used the word "representation" instead "acknowledgement of being human".
Don't forget the "Indians not taxed".
Nope. The 3/5ths compromise gave southern states 3 representatives that they would not have had were the enslaved not counted.
Yes, we know unequivocally that it was rape. An enslaved person does not have the ability to deny consent. Jefferson raped Hemings in France when she was a minor.
They hate America and are finally admitting it!
Who hates America Vic Progressives? Liberals? Me?
Vic, you are so funny. We all love America and the ideals that it stands for. We are all also human, and haven't yet fully realized those ideals for everyone.
Puppy Power!
Not if you support illegal looting/protesting or trashing/confiscation of public and private property. The racist component of these protests is a smoke screen. A smoke screen for the people who hate all of what America stands for and who are clearly trying to trash it.
That shit plays in some big cities. It doesn't in most of America. Where Americans love all of what America stand for. Not just a few progressive, liberal narratives.
So let me get this straight.... All these protests about police using excessive force on people of color is a smoke screen, or that you think people protesting for holding the police accountable is racist.
Help me with what you are trying to convey.
Be glad to but you're going to have to help me to help you .....
If you can show me where my post said anything about "ALL" protests i'd be happy to answer your question but since it doesn't say "all" protests your question is irrelevant and invalid. That said my post is very clear and concise so i'm really not sure where your comprehension problems are.
So help me to help you. Where's the problem? I do want to help you "get this straight" i really do.
BINGO!
Liberals?
Old fashioned Liberals? They actually did believe in the Constitution.
Me?
I would never say that about a veteran, especially a Navy vet! Nor do I like for this to become personal.
I guess some just have a strange way of showing it!
Your'e acquired some comedic skills as well!
You perfectly describe the average Trump voter. They didn't elect him to fix government, they elected him to burn it all down because they claim to despise the "establishment" that left them all behind. And you're right, they have no love at all for this country.
The face of Martin Luther King Jr is projected onto the pedestal of Robert E. Lee Statue while the face of Donald Trump is projected onto the back end of General Lees horse in Richmond, Virginia
Nah. Not really. That might be what you think, but that does not make it true for the people who are protesting.
They see an America, I see an America, which has not lived up to its own self stated goals. They and I don't hate America, we love it, we just wonder why America can't work towards a more perfect union without a bunch of people getting so pissed off they start rioting to get some of the justice that should be theirs already! If we as a society want to ensure domestic tranquility, then we all need to start realizing the general welfare means all people, not just people who have already secured their blessings of liberty.
We aren't trying to trash America, we are trying to lift the knee off of America's neck.
Isn't that what the ignorant spokesman for BLM said to Martha MacCallum last night?
A righteous pursuit indeed.
But why aren't more protestors trying to stop the people looting, rioting and causing illegal property damage?
They must not be quite that righteous eh?
Lets start with that statement. Please tell me, or post examples of what the racist component of these protests are.... what is that smoke screen?
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Be very happy to help you out again Navy.
The very valid "peaceful" protests, related to the racism/abuse perpetrated by shitbirds like Chauvin, are clearly being subverted by much less righteous groups like anarchists, antifa and just plain hot heads. Surely you have notice that the last few weeks.
I seriously doubt that you really NEED examples or that your request is REALLY serious.
Yet you didn't answer his question. Why not?
A TDS ridden response. Biden dreams about having a crowd that reduced size under perfect conditions. Which clearly these times are not ..... but .... bad on Trump .... the delusions continue .....
Maybe because it is not about a crowd of supporters. Not about showmanship. Not about trying to diminish so called competition.
Maybe it is just about having someone than can bring people together and not be divisive.
Maybe just maybe it is about decency, or just a little bit more.
Open thine eyes young padawan.
Some things are clear.
Who is divisive and who can be here.
Maybe but probably not.
If Biden could raise that type of supportive crowd he would. In a heartbeat.
Any politician would when running for such a high office but because it's Trump, some try to manufacture something untoward about it.
Like i said, the reaction is clearly TDS related. This is just more empirical evidence of that.
Total projection as usual.
Trump is the one who jerks off over people praising him. And that is all this was supposed to be, a jerk off session for him. Personally I think rallies like this are pretty damn gay and a complete waste of time and money, but I guess some people think they serve an actual purpose.
So you think they are a good thing?
Nope.
Opinions do vary.
How about we replace the word "gay" and use "extremely idiotic" instead?
All the shit talking is pretty damn funny, and you know this is all he has been whining about for the last 2 days.
The only "shit talking" going on here is coming from you.
SOSDD considering ....
I'm beginning to think that the only way Trump can get himself reelected is to unify the country by starting a war. That's about the only thing remaining and final step in his attempted deflection from his incompetent management by demonizing China. Maybe he should choose invading a country he knows he can beat, like Greenland. Didn't he want to own it anyway?
[removed, Buzz is not the topic]