Trump says no to a second closure

[Isilwen]

For some who are still collecting their regular source of income, who work from home, or collect benefits, they're probably okay with it.

I am still collecting my regular source of income as I am an EMT and will not be voting for him in November. My girlfriend is working from home and not voting for him in November. I think it goes well beyond the ability to work at this point.

 

[rambot]

and if he wins? Remember if Biden is on the other side there are people who will not vote for him based on concerns that he literally cannot medically be president.

Anyone who thinks that about Biden and NOT Trump has no business claiming to be informed.

 

[expos4ever]

I think you sort of answered your own question.......

I agree with all of your post. But there is nothing in what you posted that challenges the admittedly insulting implication of my post: that voting for Donald Trump in 2016 can, at best, only be explained by a lack of judgment. And to vote for him in 2020 would reflect even more poorly on the voter.

 

[Johan_1988]

I don’t think we’ll see more broad shutdowns. But maybe localized prohibitions of large gatherings. Possibly closing schools, but that depends upon whether we can get a clearer picture of the role of children in spreading the virus. Unfortunately, church services are kind of worst case.

Yeah I agree. I also think we won't be seeing any more lock downs, but only maybe as a last resort. On the church issue some of us long a lot for gatherings like myself and would consider Americans very blessed to have that opportunity given to them. I hope and pray it works our for y'all so my county can follow suit.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Trump has said that if there is a second wave we will not close down. Thoughts?

He can't. But if he wants a good idea what the country will do he should check with Governor Cuomo, who he's been following all along.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I agree with all of your post. But there is nothing in what you posted that challenges the admittedly insulting implication of my post: that voting for Donald Trump in 2016 can, at best, only be explained by a lack of judgment. And to vote for him in 2020 would reflect even more poorly on the voter.

Here's the issue (and for full disclosure, I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, and won't be doing so in 2020)...

It's that the far left in the US moves the goal posts of what constitutes a "responsible voter"
(you're fortunate to be in Canada where things are more civil -- I have family up there who live near Kingston, ON...even though they're technically a 3-party household, they all get a long much better than in the Democrat vs. Republican family arguments I see from my other side of the family here on the states side)

It starts with "You can't vote for republicans, because if you do, you're supporting bigotry, sexism, and homophobia"

So when people reply with "Okay, then I'll support one of the 'other' parties and encourage others to do the same", then that's not good enough, and is met with the criticism that you're "taking votes away from the more responsible of the two parties"

So when people, then, say "Okay, then I'll just stay home as I don't like either of the major candidates"...then that's met with a different kind of criticism about "not caring", and "not doing your part to get 'the bad guy' out of office".

So you widdle it down, and basically their expectation is that the onus should be on everyone else to abandon any preferences or principles they might have, and lend support to their pursuit of getting their party elected.

So even if someone doesn't actively vote for Trump, they're still broad-brushed right along side the people who do, because many democrats set up this expectation that in order to be a "rational voter", you have to vote for their candidate even if you don't like them.

...and as noted in my previous post, many of those folks who get that brush are democrats themselves (the 7 million Obama voters and 1 million Bernie voters who ended up backing Trump out of spite toward their own party...I assume it was spite). I don't think it was a lack of judgment, per say. I think it was a deliberate message they were sending to the leadership of their own party.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I am still collecting my regular source of income as I am an EMT and will not be voting for him in November. My girlfriend is working from home and not voting for him in November. I think it goes well beyond the ability to work at this point.

That's exactly what I was saying...if you're still collecting your regular source of income, that aspect isn't likely to factor for you and many in that circumstance would be okay with another shutdown.

I said that it's the people who were impacted financially by the shut down who aren't going to be keen on a candidate who's suggesting a second one as that memory of not being able to pay their bills for 3 months is likely still going to be fresh in their minds in November.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I don't get this whole "it isn't forcing people to do anything" line. I mean, if people aren't anxious to go out and spread the disease why all the complaining about reopening. Seems a bit disingenuous to march on state capitols with guns to get states to reopen and then fall back on the "well, but no one has to go out and get people sick so I can get a haircut". I mean, if those groups were really in favor of people being responsible perhaps they could focus on things like making masks for people who don't have them or delivering food to vulnerable community members.

But this whole "people don't have to" defense seems like a cop out to get people to ignore when things get worse because they got their way. I'm not buying it.

How can you not buy that people do not have to do more than the basics? Just because restaurants, salons ECT are open does not mean that you have to go ( unless you are an employee and even then most employment is at will. My choice to go out or not does not affect your choice. The people protesting are not drawing people out of their houses at gunpoint they are saying "open up" if a particular person does not feel comfortable going out he or she does not have to go out. What is so hard to buy about that? If a business requires or does not allow a mask if you do not feel comfortable going in somewhere without a mask you do not have to go into businesses that do not allow them. Same thing if you do not want to wear a mask and a business requires it do not do business with them. People who want to open up ( in many cases are not saying go back to normal and even if they do that des not mean they believe people should HAVE to go out to those places. For example, in GA day camps are permitted to operate under strict rules. I go to a day camp for people 4+ with special needs. ( I have a moderate case of cerebral palsy) I am choosing to go and my mom is choosing to allow it. I know another woman who due to the extra risks because of her additional health problems who has chosen NOT to go at all this season. The people who are protesting to open up support both decisions whether than forcing the camp not to provide the service they have been for 30+ years to the community of north GA.

 

[hedrick]

My choice to go out or not does not affect your choice.

What you do affects others around you. If you get the virus, so do others. They can't tell that you have it. They can't tell whether you've stayed at home or gone out and done all kinds of things.

We can't demand a risk free world. That's why states are opening up, well before they're eliminated the virus. But some of them, at least, are being a bit careful about how they do it.

If it comes back, some kinds of restrictions will come back. But states are ramping up testing and contact tracing so that they can deal with new infections with more targeted approaches the second time.

 

[dogs4thewin]

What you do affects others around you. If you get the virus, so do others. They can't tell that you have it. They can't tell whether you've stayed at home or gone out and done all kinds of things.

We can't demand a risk free world. That's why states are opening up, well before they're eliminated the virus. But some of them, at least, are being a bit careful about how they do it.

If it comes back, some kinds of restrictions will come back. But states are ramping up testing and contact tracing so that they can deal with new infections with more targeted approaches the second time.

If I go out the only people that could get the virus from me are the people I live with or choose to with consent visit. The only other way you would get the virus from me is if you too were out. Which people are not making you do.

 

[Pommer]

If I go out the only people that could get the virus from me are the people I live with or choose to with consent visit. The only other way you would get the virus from me is if you too were out. Which people are not making you do.

And the only people who get the Coronavirus from the people you’ve infected, are the people that they live with or “consent visit”, because it can be spread without knowledge of just whom and whom are not are infected!

 

[dogs4thewin]

And the only people who get the Coronavirus from the people you’ve infected, are the people that they live with or “consent visit”, because it can be spread without knowledge of just whom and whom are not are infected!

but if you do not go out then you cannot get infected without someone else. In other words, if you do not go out you also have the right to not allow visitors which in turn means the only people from whom you could get it are people you live with if those people also do not go out ( or only go out for basic needs with PPE and come right back then THEY are very unlikely to get inflected. The people most at risk of being infected are the people who choose to go out the most.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

My choice to go out or not does not affect your choice.

Yep, it's exactly like how my choice to have a drink or a few drinks while I'm driving does not affect your choice. My constitutional rights, my freedom, are being restricted. I have the right to do whatever I want. If you are afraid and want to not drink or not drive then that's your choice. If you are afraid to walk on the sidewalk then you don't have to, nobody is saying you have to. That's YOUR choice.

 

[NotreDame]

What Trump can do is cut federal aid to states that close down. I know for example here in GA we were one of the first to open. Kemp took a LOT of heat, but at the end of the day with strict rules in place he left it up to Georgians to decide what THEY felt comfortable with. He also ordered those at high risk to stay sheltered in place until June 12th Though really short of requiring people to carry an ID AND medical records around that cannot really be enforced,

What Trump can do is cut federal aid to states that close down.

There is legally a limit to this option. First, Congress must grant statutory authority to do so and second, when they do they typically enumerate under what criteria, generally, it may be done.

 

[Arcangl86]

There is legally a limit to this option. First, Congress must grant statutory authority to do so and second, when they do they typically enumerate under what criteria, generally, it may be done.

Adding on to that, the criteria has to be directly related to the purpose of the funds. The amount of funding being withheld also can not be coercive, though it's not clear what that actually means.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

What happens if for some reason there is not a second wave?

The first covid-19 waved hasn't ended. People are still in danger with COVID-19 . I believe COVID-19 isn't being reported as much in republican states or republican areas. So they can force the economy to stay open. I just wish we had someone in the White house , that knew what he was doing. But we don't.

 

[Allandavid]

or did he seal his win. I have a feeling he is going to win. Biden is not fit ( mentally to be president and as you pointed out in another thread third parties are not really viable on the federal level. Moreover, even if he DOES lose in November guess what he is president for another two months and change.

Ummm....you’re a Trump fan and you’re claiming that his opponent is mentally unfit...??

 

[Allandavid]

Do people need a reason? I am not saying it will or it will not be, but until we actually have a second wave we cannot say for CERTAIN there will be a second wave. What people are basing the second wave off of is what happened 100 years ago and just because it happened then does not be default mean it will happen now,

No.

They’re basing it on what just happened over the last few months.

And that a vaccine is a way off...

And that another winter arrives at the end of the year...

 

[KCfromNC]

My choice to go out or not does not affect your choice.

This would be true if it weren't for the fact that there's a deadly communicable disease spreading through the country. So yeah, one person's choices there definitely impact others.

For example, let's say that someone goes and gets a haircut from someone who knowingly chose to go to work even though they have the disease. I mean, that would never happen but let's pretend for a bit.

Now that person infects 100 other people, and those people spread it to their families.

So that one person's choice affected 50+ people. Some of who are statistically likely to need hospital care. Now that one person's choice also puts first responders and medical professionals and their families at unneeded risk.

All because some people couldn't live without getting a haircut, regardless of what it meant for others in their community.

 

[KCfromNC]

but if you do not go out then you cannot get infected without someone else.

Yep. Now you're starting to see why closing non-essential businesses is a good idea. As we've seen, many aren't responsible enough to do this on their own. So it is the job of government to jump in and help.