I haven't made any kind of comment like that Lyman. I'm simply asking, is it true that Trump has been saying that testing should be decreased?
He, at one time, said he would prefer to use the limited testing available in a more statistically valid manner rather than deplete the available test lists on widespread testing.
I'm pretty sure that I've seen him say it a few times on the news. I just read this on Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stepha...-covid-19-testing-slowed-or-not/#30c501e96022 At President Trump’s Tulsa rally on June 20th, he said of Covid-19 testing in the US, “Here’s the bad part — when you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find more people, you’re going to find more cases. So I said to my people, slow the testing down, please.” He also added, “We got another one over here,” regarding a 10-year-old with “the sniffles,” that “will recover in fifteen minutes.” “That’s a case, that’s a case!” Trump exclaimed. On June 21st, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McAnany was asked to verify if Trump had ordered testing to be slowed down. She responded, “No, he has not directed that. Any suggestion that testing has been curtailed is not rooted in fact.” She added, “The president was trying to expose what the media often times does, they ignore the fact that the US has more cases because we have more testing.” She added, “It’s a fact the media readily ignores.” When asked to clarify that the comment Trump made about slowing down testing wasn’t true, McEnany responded, “It was a comment that he made in jest, a comment he made in passing, specifically with regard to the media coverage...when you test more people, you find more cases.” Then when asked if it was appropriate for Trump to joke about Covid-19 when 120,000 people in the US have died from it, McEnany responded, “He was not joking about coronavirus, I just said he was joking about the media and their failure to understand that when you test more, you find more cases.” The press is used often as a scapegoat by Trump and his staff, and is referred to in Trump’s tweets as “Fake News [sic],” “the Lamestream Media [sic],” and the “enemy of the people.” However, blaming the press doesn’t erase the differing stories of Trump and McEnany. It is especially concerning given the gravity of the Covid-19 pandemic. Did Trump order the slowing of Covid-19 testing? On June 22nd, A reporter asked Trump to verify that he ordered his staff to slow down testing. He replied, “If it did slow down, frankly, I think we’re way ahead of ourselves, if you want to know the truth. We’ve done too good a job.” He added, “The reason we have more cases [is] because we do more testing than any other country by far.” It is unclear how one can do “too good a job” of testing during a pandemic. Notice that Trump didn’t deny telling staff to slow down testing. He could have answered with a simple, “No, I didn’t,” if that truly was the case. However, not only did he fairly clearly admit by omission to slowing testing down, he also gave what he thought was justification for slowing testing. When asked again on June 23rd if he was joking about intentionally showing down Covid-19 testing, Trump said, “I don’t kid, let me just tell you, let me make it clear. We have got the greatest testing program anywhere in the world, we test better than anybody in the world, our tests are the best in the world and we have the most of them.” He added, “Because of all the cases that we find, we have a very low mortality rate. Just about the best in the world.” In reality, the U.S. has the 7th worst Covid-19 death rate per 100,000 people, and as of June 23, it has one of the lowest testing rates for Covid-19 in the world. There are currently over 120,000 Covid-19 deaths and 2.5 million infections in the U.S. During congressional testimony on June 23rd, Anthony Fauci MD was asked about Trump’s comments saying he was not joking about slowing tests down. Fauci responded, “I as a member of the task force, and my colleagues on the task force, to my knowledge, I know for sure...none of us had ever been told to slow down the testing, that is just a fact. In fact, we will be doing more testing...not only testing to specifically identify people...but also much more survelliance.” He concluded, “So it’s the opposite. We will be doing more testing, not less.” Robert Redfield MD, the director of the Center of Disease Control also confirmed that testing will be increasing. Trump tweeted afterwards,”We did a great job on CoronaVirus [sic]...Yet the Fake News [sic] refuses to acknowledge this in a positive way. But they do give Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is with us in all ways, a very high 72% Approval Rating [sic]...why doesn’t the Lamestream Media [sic] treat us as they should? Answer: Because they are Fake News [sic]!” It appears from Fauci’s testimony that he is most certainly not on “with” the president. It is common for a narcissist to tell stories about having more power or more people following his or her “orders” than what happens in reality. Trump appears to either have played to the crowd about a life-threatening pandemic, ordered a slowing of testing and was dismissed, or he lied about ordering a slowing of testing. The other option, that everyone else is lying, doesn’t seem as plausible.
Goes back to my earlier question. If these protests accomplish something, will it have been worth the price of thousands, potentially hundred of thousands more lives? It's a question the media and the left are far too cowardly to answer, let alone ask. I would say that's one reason. But also the lifting of the lockdowns + protests are probably the major reasons.
He does. But he also doesn't get to dictate or control the testing each state does on their own. Lyman is right, the number of tests being given has dramatically increased in recent weeks. But rate of positive tests is also increasing, which suggests that the lockdowns and protests are causing an increase in cases.
Here's numbers showing how much testing has increased per day over the last month. https://covidtracking.com/data/us-daily
I remember hearing about that on the news and it makes sense since a lot of states were pushing for more testing.
2020 sure has been a rough year. I just read this from the Huffpost news: House Passes Police Reform Bill But without action in the Senate, it's unlikely to become law anytime soon. By Matt Fuller, HuffPost US WASHINGTON ― Exactly one month after George Floyd was killed in police custody, House lawmakers returned to the Capitol on Thursday to pass a sweeping police reform bill in Floyd’s name. The bill ― the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 ― passed largely along party lines, 236-181, with all Democrats and three Republicans voting yes, and 180 Republicans and independent Justin Amash of Michigan voting no. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that the House was honoring Floyd’s life “and the lives of all those killed by police brutality, and pledging: Never again.” Pelosi said the legislation would fundamentally transform the culture of policing to address systemic racism, curb police brutality and bring accountability to police departments. “It will save lives,” she said. But, as Republicans repeatedly reminded Democrats on Thursday, the bill is highly unlikely to become law. The measure is a collection of a number of policing proposals composed by the Congressional Black Caucus and written in conjunction with Black Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). The bill would ban chokeholds for federal police and the use of “no-knock” warrants — which enable law enforcement to enter a property without notifying the owner ― in federal drug cases, and would make federal money for state and local governments contingent on establishing similar policies. The legislation would also establish a national registry of police misconduct. It would end the practice of qualified immunity, which prevents citizens from suing individual officers in civil courts. And it would forbid money going to police departments that have not implemented policies to eliminate racial profiling. Republicans take issue with some of those changes, and many have made it clear they absolutely won’t go along with ideas like ending qualified immunity. Republicans have their own bill ― written in the Senate by Black Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina ― that differs in a number of ways from the House bill. Scott’s bill would ban chokeholds meant for “incapacitation” but would allow them when federal guidelines authorize deadly force, such as when someone is holding a gun. The House bill would simply ban chokeholds and classify them as a civil rights violation. Scott’s bill would require all law enforcement agencies to report their use of “no-knock” warrants to the attorney general. The House bill would outright end “no-knock” warrants. And Scott’s bill wouldn’t address qualified immunity at all. “That bill has about as much teeth as a newborn baby,” Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), a former chairman of the CBC, said on the House floor Thursday in reference to the Senate measure. “There is a difference of policing in this country, and we’re just asking to fix it,” Richmond added. That [Senate] bill has about as much teeth as a newborn baby.Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) On Thursday, a number of Black representatives referenced having “the talk” with their children — instructing them to do whatever the police say and to prioritize their safety at the expense of their rights. “I had to have the talk with my two sons. And I knew what to say, word for word, because my father had the same talk with me decades ago,” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said. “And nothing has changed.” Instead of addressing these issues, Republicans focused on procedural and political complaints with the policing bill. They argued that, if Democrats were serious about producing a measure that could pass the GOP-controlled Senate and get President Donald Trump’s signature, they would have allowed amendments to the House bill and wouldn’t have blocked the Senate from taking up Scott’s bill in that chamber on Wednesday. Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas said there was a lot of agreement in the bill, and when he first read the legislation, he was “pleasantly surprised.” “If we voted on this section by section, I believe there are sections where there would be an overwhelming bipartisan majority for some necessary and crucial reforms,” Crenshaw said. “There’s other parts where, if we just worked together and made some changes, we’d likely get to yes on a lot of these.” But, Crenshaw said, while the bill doesn’t defund the police, it would lead to less policing. Other Republicans were more direct in their criticism. Many said reforms like ending qualified immunity would lead to a rash of police resignations, and many just made general comments about how all lives matter. “White lives matter. Hispanic lives matter. Asian lives matter. Native American lives matter. Quite frankly, all lives matter. Police officers’ lives matter, too,” Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) said. Those sorts of arguments didn’t warrant much of a rebuttal from Democrats, but Democratic leaders did address arguments about process, countering that Republicans were the ones uninterested in a bill becoming law. Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) detailed how Democrats had offered the bill 18 days ago, asked Republicans if they would support the legislation if they adopted their amendments, and asked to see the amendments Republicans planned to offer before the Judiciary Committee markup so that they could potentially work with them on specific language to address their concerns. But Republicans wouldn’t share the text, and the Trump administration has yet to reach out to try and work with Democrats. “If there were a serious and good faith effort to enact legislation, the White House would seek to work with both sides of the aisle, and both sides of the Capitol. That has not happened thus far,” Nadler said. The bill will now wait for Senate action, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has made it clear he won’t take up the House bill. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) suggested the Senate pass its bill and that the two chambers go to a conference committee to work out their differences. He said that the House bill’s lead author, Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Karen Bass (D-Calif.), had told him she was more interested in a bill that could become law than a political messaging device. As it stands now, however, Senate Democrats say Scott’s bill is unworkable and that their concerns can’t be addressed by amendments. With Republicans and Democrats unwilling to bend either way, it’s likely that no police reforms will pass in the remaining six months of this Congress.
Trump Administration Files Supreme Court Brief To End Obamacare Amid COVID-19 Crisis The late-night move, taken as coronavirus cases reach record levels, threatens the health insurance of millions of Americans. By Mary Papenfuss, HuffPost US The Trump administration filed a brief Thursday night calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Care Act — which allows millions of Americans to get health insurance coverage — just as the nation smashed a record for new COVID-19 cases in a single day. Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in a brief that because Congress in 2017 invalidated the law’s individual coverage mandate — by dropping a tax penalty for those without health insurance — the “entire ACA thus must fall.” The court is scheduled to hear arguments later this year, but a decision might not come until 2021. The move threatens health care coverage for more than 20 million Americans. Democrats were appalled. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) slammed the action to “rip away” health care protections in the “dead of night” and in the “middle of a pandemic.” Pelosi Statement on Trump Brief Asking Supreme Court to Strike Down Affordable Care Act Amid... President Trump and the Republicans’ campaign to rip away the protections and benefits of the Affordable Care Act in the middle of the coronavirus crisis is an act of unfathomable cruelty. “If President Trump gets his way, 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions will lose the ACA’s lifesaving protections and 23 million Americans will lose their health coverage entirely,” Pelosi said in a statement. “There is no legal justification and no moral excuse for the Trump Administration’s disastrous efforts to take away Americans’ health care.” Thousands of more Americans have turned to the ACA for health care coverage after losing their jobs amid the pandemic — and COVID-19 cases are surging. Across the nation, 38,115 new infections were reported by state health departments Wednesday. The previous single-day record of 34,203 was set on April 25. The Trump administration brief was filed in support of a challenge to the ACA by a coalition of Republican governors. Trump renewed his pledge last month to jettison Obamacare even amid the COVID-19 crisis and despite warnings from aides about angering voters. As new COVID-19 cases were breaking records and the American death toll was ticking toward 125,000, Trump boasted in a tweet Thursday night about how well the U.S. was doing. trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump Coronavirus deaths are way down. Mortality rate is one of the lowest in the World. Our Economy is roaring back and will NOT be shut down. “Embers” or flare ups will be put out, as necessary!
This article highlights exactly why Congress is a complete failure top to bottom. And why we need the type of reform that BWW highlighted earlier. Tim Scott, a black republican, first proposes a police reform bill. Dems (Pelosi) refuse to even allow it to be debated in the house. Dems propose a bill, force it through along party lines, but it has no chance of passing in the republican majority senate. So basically no hope of passing some sort of federally mandated police reform.
That's the sense of what I got out of the article too. Can you imagine the years it would take before both sides would ever agree on something like this? It's like all they do is defend their agendas no matter the impact it may have on people. An impact that is possibly good or bad.
Hypocrites will be hypocrites. I know what your stance is. You've made it very clear. What's unclear is why you've said multiple times you don't want to discuss it but here we are discussing it. That confuses me. Your stance is you respect the right to peacefully protest unless that peaceful takes place during a song. I hold the lives of human beings, human decency, equal rights for all, fair treatment for all, due process for all, and downright common sense well ahead of songs and flags. Because I'm fucking silly like that. The misguided sense of nationalism that so many people have in this country that is built upon myths, legends, lies, and revisions has always bothered me and always will until the day I die. We can turn a cheek when we see someone we don't know being abused but act offended because of a flag. Sorry but fuck it flag. Sorry to tell you it doesn't actually represent what you think it does. This country is no longer the land that the "great" forefathers envisioned. Or maybe it is. Because they enjoyed racism too. And wealth inequality. So perhaps this is exactly what they hand in mind. I know what they didn't have in mind though.... They didn't have in mind that a significant part of the population would believe that, somehow, this country is god's favorite country on the planet. That our president was chosen by jesus and the sky father protects the USA before he does anyone else. I don't think they had it in their minds that fundamental Christians would have such a hold on things a couple hundred years after they were gone. And while they were pro militia types that understood personal freedoms....I doubt these folks would cling to gun manufacturers that are okay with kids dying from bullets. This country is fucked. And it's fucked because too many people are okay with walking around with their heads up their own asses so long as you don't do or say something that offends all they hold dear. Kill a kid, cool. Cops beats a black man, fine. Poverty persisting in inner cities and rural countrysides, no big deal. Education lacking for so many, who the fuck cares? Oh wait....you went to your knee during a song? I'M FUCKING OUTRAGED. You wrote a song called Fuck the Police? Well you definitely should die. You dare to think that schools in black neighborhoods should receive the same funding and treatment as schools in white neighborhoods? Where do you get off? Rage in this country is directed in all the wrong directions. And yes....liberals are fucking retarded. As a whole they are annoying, ridiculous, entitled cunts that far too often take their "progressive" bullshit way too far. But the general idea behind the agenda is simply making a better life for everyone. And a majority of liberals still follow that with common sense and stay closer to the center of the political spectrum. The louder assholes just make it hard for them. I could rant on this for another 30 paragraphs but I'll end it here because I got far away from my original point and anything resembling a reply to you. Because most of that wasn't directed at you it just came out as I typed. But also....fuck your flag and your anthem. When we start treating everyone the same in this country....I'll reconsider.
Those were not his fucking words. But nice try. Love the part when he says call it the chinese virus and the crowd goes crazy. This is the same President that once said there were only 15 cases and they'd soon be down to 0. And also had a key adviser to him say, live on the air, that China failed because this is covid 19 which means they had 18 other chances to solve this. Fuck off.
A year ago I would have agreed with this. But sadly many of my liberal "friends" would no longer even welcome a conversation with a moderate (me), given that, in their minds, the moderate's position obviously supports racism and fascism. Defund/abolish police initiatives are also close to becoming realities in some cities. Conservatives went off the deep end in 2015-16 with their full embrace of Trump. Liberals have followed them off the deep end in the last year or two.
I think there are a lot of moderates that actually closely resemble what a true liberal looks like even though they might not call themselves one. The divide between the two sides is deep and wide and it's ugly. Families that don't talk and crap. It's truly disgusting. From both sides.
