LogFAQs > #946484547

Zeus posted...

The regions hit hardest first in the initial outbreak were places that neither listened to nor respected the president.

And?

Trump thinks cheeseburgers are great - I haven't seen a dearth of cheeseburger purchases in blue states as a result.

Democrats in blue states aren't stupid and, unlike many of their red state counterparts, actually trust in the science behind the pandemic. Regardless of what Trump said, if someone like Dr. Fauci had told them to mask up and social distance, they would have listened. We know this is true because Democratic senators were pushing Trump to declare a health emergency and were asking Alex Azar whether more coronavirus support was needed in mid-January, long before Trump showed any sign of giving a shit about what was going on.

Zeus posted...

You mean conservative bastions like New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut? Connecticut has absurdly draconian measures yet it's very spiraling out of control.

Worst states in terms of cases per 100k population is, in order, North Dakota, South Dakota, Mississippi, Louisiana, Iowa, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Nebraska, Idaho, Utah, South Carolina, and Georgia - nearly all ruby-red states.

Those "hot spots" you mentioned? Connecticut is the 12th lowest. New Jersey and New York are directly in the middle of the pack at 25th and 26th respectively. Massachusetts is 33rd.

Zeus posted...

The spread of COVID within the US is largely the result of those major cities failing to control things on their side and it spreading outward.

Largely because they had zero support from the federal government until things got so bad that the stock market melted down, which is one of the few things Trump actually seems to care about.

Zeus posted...

Governors have a greater ability to issue that kind of thing than a president and, if a governor was challenging a president's order concerning their state, often the president's order is overturned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Zeus posted...

You're using an alt-news op-ED (why? Because you couldn't find a legitimate source!)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/propublica/

Also, that's a report, not an op-ed. Learn the difference.

Zeus posted...

and then it notes that the move was bi-partisan ("Lawmakers in both parties raised the specter of shortchanging future disaster response even as they voted to approve the cuts.")

They voted for them because that was the only way a budget was getting passed.

Do you seriously not understand how budget negotiations work? Were you not paying attention last decade when the Tea Party routinely threatened to force the US into a default over their infantile, asinine views on the budget?

Zeus posted...

And prior to using PPE during his term, Obama hadn't ever made that a priority even when he had a SUPER-MAJORITY as opposed to an easily filibustered or obstructed simple majority that Trump briefly had.

The stockpile wasn't depleted when he had a super-majority, bright-eyes; the biggest event that depleted the stockpile was the swine flu pandemic, which lasted until August 2010, mere months before the Tea Party Republicans seized control of the House. The Ebola epidemic in 2014 further hit the PPE supply and by that point the Republicans had full control of congress.

Additionally, Trump had his "brief" majority for the same amount of time that Obama had his.

And none of the Democrats ever objected to replenishing the PPE stockpile. If the Republicans wanted it, they could have passed it at any point during the last 3.5 years and they probably would have gotten most of the Democrats to vote in favour of it as well.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!