COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

Spoken like a true devotee. Get ready for a roller coaster ride.

---

My point is that the world happens and presidents face situations both of their own making and those that they can’t stop from happening and are only given the choice of dealing with it and how.

Trump got stuck with COVID and that was unavoidable. But the way he chose to handle it was squarely in his control. His decision to downplay it and act like it wasn’t a big deal was a decision. It’s one that cost him the election. There are countless other situations like this that EVERY president faces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

My point is that the world happens and presidents face situations both of their own making and those that they can’t stop from happening and are only given the choice of dealing with it and how.

Trump got stuck with COVID and that was unavoidable. But the way he chose to handle it was squarely in his control. His decision to downplay it and act like it wasn’t a big deal was a decision. It’s one that cost him the election. There are countless other situations like this that EVERY president faces.

---

I think Trump lost for much the same reason as he won. Massive media coverage of his wall to wall idiocy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nyyfan555

The attempt at logic is so pathetic.

"Challenge the data not the source"

He then gives an example of a kid telling us 2+2=4. Well, let's go along with that simple analogy. This time let's say its similar to the story of the boy who cried wolf. Let's say that kid says 2+2=5 and all the other kids in his class say its 4. Eventually you're going to stop trusting what that kid has to say.

In order to be taken seriously as a credible source, you have to earn that reputation. The more conspiracy theory **** you publish, the more people question you as a source. So yes, we will question the source.

---

Except it's not about the source it's about the data. Can any of your lefties use valid debate tactics? Any of you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brett05

Except it's not about the source it's about the data. Can any of your lefties use valid debate tactics? Any of you?

---

Not if you keep calling us lefties. What's next calling me by a racial slur when asking me a question and still expecting a civil response?

Do you think this conservation is a joke to diss leftists?

I use trumpsters to identify a certain group within the republican party who are more devoted to Trump than our laws. If you can come up with a better term for them, let me know. And it isn't republicans, at least not the ones I grew up knowing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brett05

Except it's not about the source it's about the data. Can any of your lefties use valid debate tactics? Any of you?

---

Maybe you won’t respond to this — but here’s a direct question: don’t you think it is hypocritical of you to be calling out others for invalid debate tactics when you yourself publicize quite openly that you actively ignore some people who simply disagree with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brett05

Except it's not about the source it's about the data. Can any of your lefties use valid debate tactics? Any of you?

---

The data didn't just materialize out of thin air. Some person or organization provided that data (or they analyzed existing data). That person/organization's credibility is very much an important factor.

It's evident how easily the GQP has been duped. If you just look at numbers and go "well this looks accurate" then you're going to easily fall for misinformation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brett05

Except it's not about the source it's about the data. Can any of your lefties use valid debate tactics? Any of you?

---

What's ironic about this is if you've ever actually done a debate competition you'd know there are absolutely prohibited sources.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fb6809vW...g&name=900x900

Whoops. He had to delete it. :laugh2:

I would imagine he had to delete it because it's a gross generalization that spreads the false narrative about Covid. We're still learning about it and how it affects the body, even those with pre-existing conditions. To simplify it in a 280 character tweet is dangerous and irresponsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nyyfan555

I would imagine he had to delete it because it's a gross generalization that spreads the false narrative about Covid. We're still learning about it and how it affects the body, even those with pre-existing conditions. To simplify it in a 280 character tweet is dangerous and irresponsible.

---

That's crazy. If someone misinterprets what someone says they should be silenced? Do you really not understand how rare actual freedom of speech is? And how you should not want to give up any of it as we'll never get it back.

Read some of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr's writing on the subject of free speech. The "Fire in a crowded theater" is about imminent physical injury ... literally the source of the phrase "clear and present danger". A tweet has a long way to go to get close to the level that it needs to be deleted.

Go ahead and reply to the tweet adding what you feel is missing from the tweet or refuting the conclusions he or others might draw from it.

Nobody should want anybody censoring speech based on government pressure or requirements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fingerbang

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fb6809vW...g&name=900x900

Whoops. He had to delete it. :laugh2:

---

Covid deaths have plummeted, but there are still tons of people testing positive. If dying of anything but having Covid when you did made it a Covid death, we’d still be seeing thousands of Covid deaths per day.

You tried to use this lie a year ago and you were wrong then too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

That's crazy. If someone misinterprets what someone says they should be silenced? Do you really not understand how rare actual freedom of speech is? And how you should not want to give up any of it as we'll never get it back.

Read some of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr's writing on the subject of free speech. The "Fire in a crowded theater" is about imminent physical injury ... literally the source of the phrase "clear and present danger". A tweet has a long way to go to get close to the level that it needs to be deleted.

Go ahead and reply to the tweet adding what you feel is missing from the tweet or refuting the conclusions he or others might draw from it.

Nobody should want anybody censoring speech based on government pressure or requirements.

---

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the freedom of speech debate. The government doesn't have a right to censor people's free speech. However, private companies can make whatever rules they want (small government yay!). In this case, whether it was his employer or Twitter themselves, they felt it was necessary as a public health matter to delete the tweet. This is not a violation of free speech and nor was my post any attempt to advocate against free speech.

Another key component of this debate is that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. You can say whatever you want, but there are consequences. Sometimes we have cry babies complain about being removed from Twitter and other times we have people being jailed for their words (https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/11213...-4-years-in-pr).

So, we need to be careful about how we discuss constitutional rights. Because interpretation of those rights can lead to undesired outcomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nyyfan555

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the freedom of speech debate. The government doesn't have a right to censor people's free speech. However, private companies can make whatever rules they want (small government yay!). In this case, whether it was his employer or Twitter themselves, they felt it was necessary as a public health matter to delete the tweet. This is not a violation of free speech and nor was my post any attempt to advocate against free speech.

Another key component of this debate is that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. You can say whatever you want, but there are consequences. Sometimes we have cry babies complain about being removed from Twitter and other times we have people being jailed for their words (https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/11213...-4-years-in-pr).

So, we need to be careful about how we discuss constitutional rights. Because interpretation of those rights can lead to undesired outcomes.

---

I think people need to understand that most that support the vaccine understand its side effects. Its not like people go into this debate saying that COVID vaccines are universally safe. They're not. The CDC didn't help its cause by withholding certain data about the vaccine earlier this year either. That said, there is plenty of other data out there that suggests the vaccines work in terms of limiting more severe disease whether it has to do with a smaller viral load, a shorter length of infection, etc.

This idea that people should be able to spread around whatever information they want to without numerous studies to back their narratives is extremely dangerous. It doesn't belong on platforms that have billions of users.

And some of these spreading this nonsense are influential people in politics and society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Covid deaths have plummeted, but there are still tons of people testing positive. If dying of anything but having Covid when you did made it a Covid death, we’d still be seeing thousands of Covid deaths per day.

You tried to use this lie a year ago and you were wrong then too.

---

Hey, that tweets from the chief medical officer of USC medical center, not me. Of course he had to delete it, lol.