-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other option would be inept in a totally different way. Predictable is one word I would use to describe what we would have seen from Clinton.
There's no argument from me that she would have been a good president. I'm not a fan.
It would have been Death and emails...
The saddest thing - in 4yrs they haven't found a competent fresh face to run for President.
Bi-partisan politics is the dumbest thing ever. It really is.
I've said it in previous threads. How refreshing would it be to see a debate and have one person look across and say 'you're right. that's a great idea. If I get in, I'll adopt that policy because it's the best option for all'
Follow me on twitter: @doylelb4
It's true.
Thousands in the US would die regardless of who is Pres. Obama's a much better option than Clinton.
Give him a 3rd term.. what percentage decrease in cases/deaths does that amount to? 10% - 20% - 40%
If you take the high end... US still has 2500 deceased vs. 4066 (latest update today)
If we bot back 40 years... I actually believe the best President would only be able to make a 20-25% decrease in cases across the country. I say only, when this is over, that 'only' could be 5 000 - 50 000 lives
Follow me on twitter: @doylelb4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump was taking this more seriously, and earlier, than the Democrats were.
He imposed travel restrictions into the US long before Nancy Pelosi was doing stuff like this, for example:
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...atown/2240247/
And long before Bill De Blasio was saying stuff like this: "If you're not sick, you should be going about your life."
https://ny.eater.com/2020/3/11/21175...-safe-dine-out
The gotcha stuff, using a pandemic to play politics, is so boring and the left just will not stop with it.
Everybody has some "blood on their hands" including President Trump. Including his doctors. Everybody.
To quote a very wise man who Pm'd me recently: Enough already.
They just sacked Wimbledon, if anyone cares.
10 Team, Points Only, Cash League
25 Man Roster (no position), top 20 point getters count at end of month
Keep 20/25 at seasons end, Cut 5 to FA for redrafting
Goalie points W=2pt L=-1pt SHO=2pt
Stamkos, Tavares, Eichel, Mercer, JRobertson, RThomas, Kucherov, Nugent-Hopkins, Tuch, KConnor, Necas, Point, Konecny, SJarvis, Cozenz, Morrissey, Bouchard, Josi, Novak, Tolvanen, Peterka, Brink
G- Vasilevskiy, Sorokin, Oettinger
"Cleavage is like the sun. You can look, but dont stare.. Unless you're wearing sunglasses."
I do not think the current results of Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine on treating Covid-19 are substantial enough to call them a potential game changer and have people start hoarding them and overdosing on them, no.
Which is a different statement than the one you're desperately trying to twist my words in to.
" On March 29, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration formally approved the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for use against COVID-19. While no clinical trials have been done, the federal agency cited the actions of other countries that adopted the drugs as a coronavirus treatment."
"Hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malaria drug, slows the growth of the new coronavirus in some patients and azithromycin, the antibiotic sometimes referred to as a Z-pack, increases the immune response and fights off secondary infections. Hospitals around the world report anecdotal evidence that the treatment shows benefits..."
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronav...w4y-story.html
It's being used in hospitals "around the world" - that's substantial enough for me to be hopeful that it's a game changer.
It has already saved lives.
Benefit > cost