Help me understand Republican women in their 30s and 40s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, single women are overwhelmingly democrats and married women are 50/50ish. It's odd that none of this discussion has centered on why married women may have voting preferences that align with male voting patterns, except the bizarre and misogynistic conclusion that women are brainless and will do as their husbands instruct.

Married women tend to have more in common with men because marriage causes them to be a unit and their interests are united. A married woman has no interest in males being discriminated against, etc.

It is interesting. I think it's because many married women have children, and so they're more plugged into community issues - public safety, schools, cost of groceries etc. And Democrats tend to be on the wrong side of everyday quality of life issues - particularly schools and crime.

This.

When I was single, I didn’t care nearly enough about schools, inflation, cost of living, immigration, or any other political issue for them to affect my voting. I didn’t even understand what school choice was, beyond knowing it was bad primarily because that’s what everyone in my Crown Heights circle thought and I didn’t care enough to look too hard into it. Naturally, I voted D.

Then I had an autistic child in a terrible school district with classrooms overcrowded due to a mass influx of undocumented immigrants, where every kid with any disability that needed accommodation was herded into one classroom and basically babysat. Popular wisdom in my area was that “privileged” parents like me should make do with public schools cuz like privates are bad and leaving meant I was racist. While I was trying to figure out what to do, the pandemic hit, and schools shut down, leaving me to educate a multiply disabled child basically by myself (good luck virtually educating kids like mine) and Dems kept schools closed long after the harms were documented. I got outta NY so fast to a southern state were life was still allowed to go on and where I had my pick of schools regardless of where I lived. Suddenly, school choice made sense. Educational policy and immigration became very real issues to me, and I could have slapped all my former Brooklynite friends who thought keeping schools closed indefinitely was totally fine.

Inflation hit us very hard because we needed every dollar for my son’s therapies and then later for serious health problems I developed. All the monied Democrats I knew telling me that inflation is a non-issue made me want to kill someone.

Life comes at you fast when you have children, a mortgage, and a whole life beyond pie in the sky foolishness to consider. I’m done with Democrats. Never ever thought I’d say that 10 years ago as a single woman.

Your story will to be too complex and nuanced for the Democrats on this thread who desperately believe Hilary Clinton has magical powers, but thank you for sharing.

You are both nuts. You GOP nutters are the ones obsessed with Hillary Clinton all these years later. And you think the GOP will help with schools? Are you high? Have you paid no attention to what THEY have been doing to public education in this country for the past several decades. And they TALK about immigration all the time, but they never actually do anything? Nope. Why would they? It's just a tool they use to whip you people into a froth and get you to vote GOP. Fear-mongering and empty promises.

Answer after answer from GOP women = we hate immigrants and we are still traumatized by the pandemic to the point that we can't even remember what actually happened. [b]Do you wake in the night screaming "shutdowns!!!" It's 2024. There is no pandemic now. No one is threatening shut downs. Good Lord, you people need therapy and cult deprogramming.[/b]

Insinuating you, as supporters of the GOP, understand nuance is...hysterical.

Many of us and our kids are still dealing with the educational impact of shutdowns, you low IQed, mouth breathing lower life form! Our problems are just so trivial and hilarious, aren’t they? You need to go play in traffic.

Dp- man I read these posts and I think, “ I guess I’ll just take my next huge tax cut and let the aholes struggle. You don’t want to help yourself, we can’t help you. Carry on!”

DP...which tax cut are you referring to? I'm a small business owner and Trump's "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" increased my effective tax rate. So for the last six years I've been subsidizing the big corporations that actually got their taxes lowered. So "I'll just take my next huge tax cut and let the aholes struggle" is what the uber-wealthy are saying about people like me as they pull the lever for Trump.

Yes. This is exactly what I’m saying. My taxes ( I’m very wealthy now thanks to Trump) went down. They will go down again if he is re elected. I will get richer with Trump in office.
Small business owners like yourself aren’t part of the club. Neither are the 9-5 working joes.
But I can’t care about the average American more than they do. If posters wanna whine about how bad the pandemic was for them, well I can’t help them. Republican ladies wanna chance a pregnancy in an anti choice state? Got for it! They will probably be fine…. Unless they aren’t. 10-20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage ( and that’s not including early unidentified miscarriages). Roll the dice!
You mad about immigration? Well go on and vote for the party that screams about the border emergency 24:7 BUT never passes legislation to adddress it. Like ever.
Sounds like ( uncontrolled immigration) is really negatively impacting your schools and neighborhoods. I wouldn’t know about that, because my child doesn’t go to public school and my city has zoning that doesn’t allow for dense housing. I would say that republicans will give you money for your child to choose an excellent private school, but let’s be real… even if they handed parents 20k to make a elite school attainable, the top independent schools will just raise their tuition 25k.
Sadly fascism will hurt us all, but I’m betting I still do better than most. Shrug.
Vote accordingly.

It’s nice of you to confirm how Democrats really feel about working class and middle class people.

I mean we all know the truth, but I do appreciate you just coming out and saying it.

No Sweetie. Just MAGAts. Ya’ll are dumb.

Oh, no, sweetie. You don’t get to pretend that now. You despise working and middle class people. It drips out of your posts.

Do keep posting. You are basically a walking advertisement for the Republicans.

Great. Make me richer. Go for it! And I just can’t hear all about the great plans they have for educating your special Ed kid!

Please, please keep posting!!!! You are doing God’s work here for the Republicans.

What is “god’s work”? Sending them to hell?

Helping them win! You are a better pro-Republican poster than the actual Republicans. It’s fantastic.

Who exactly do you think bases their vote on anonymous comments on a mommy website?

I’m sure you don’t contain your absolute hatred of working- and middle-class people whenever you encounter them. You go through the world creating Republicans because of the derision with which you treat working- and middle-class people. Thank you for your service! 🫡

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to convince any right wing republicans of anything, so I am just waiting for them to fool around and find out. Not sure they are going to like what's coming for them too, if a republican actually gets elected this time.

Candidly, as a Democrat I was assured that the entire country would fail if Trump became president and that objectively did not happen.

We did have a pandemic. And nationwide race riots. I dunno about you, but I didn't enjoy all that.

Tell us how Trump caused a global pandemic that originated from China.

Cause? No. Made exponentially worse because of his completely inept response? Hell yes.

Funny how none of the blindly partisan Democrats in this thread have been willing to say with any specifics how Hilary Clinton was going to stop the spread of the virus in China, India, or the rest of the world.

I am still looking forward to learning about those plans! 👍 It’s amazing how Hilary apparently had the ability to stop a global pandemic. Can’t wait to hear how!

Leadership
Expertise
Coordination
Delegation
Decisiveness
Management
Oversight
Logistics
Communication

In other words, the exact opposite of what Trump spent his time on in 2020.

Specifics. How specifically was Hilary going to stop the spread of Covid in countries outside the US and stop a global pandemic? That’s the claim you Democrats are making. I want the exact plan that would have halted the spread of the virus. You say it exists. So share it.

NP: Given that the GOP doesn't even have a platform, you may want to start fixing up your own house first before you start pointing fingers.

Democrats in this thread have said that Hilary would have stopped the Covid-19 pandemic globally. They are the ones who made that claim. Are you now backing down from that claim?

Who said that?

Here is one example but there are also others:

Hilary would have used America’s power in international organizations to coordinate a speedy response. Hilary would have managed it the way previous presidents (Bush and SARS, Obama and MERS) did previous air borne viruses and it probably could’ve been managed and we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic and all of its losses and consequences.

I mean I think it’s kind of amazing Hilary inspires magical thinking like this to this day.

Pp here. I should have written ANY PRESIDENT OTHER THAN TRUMP. My point was both republican and democratic presidents would have handled Covid as had been done with previous pandemic coronaviruses. But using Hilary was hugely triggering. Hilary or any of the other 2016 republican nominees would have done better.

Do you believe or not believe that under any president other than Trump we “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic and all of its losses and consequences”? Because that’s what you wrote. Under any other president, you claimed we would not have had a global pandemic. In other word, you believe any other American president would have stopped a global pandemic.

That’s a remarkable claim, and in my view betrays significant magical thinking and a deep lack of scientific understanding of Covid-19 versus SARS/MERS, as well as a lack of understanding of infectious disease control in countries like India.

That’s what you wrote, in any event. Are you now backing down from that claim?

No. I’m not. Consider the following counter factual:
The evidence of a novel, highly infectious respiratory disease comes to the attention of an NSC staffed with competent, experienced people in November/December 2019. Using the experience of how the U.S. managed previous such epidemics, appropriate protocols are introduced for hospitals to isolate suspicious cases, travel restrictions and so forth. At the same time, through international fora and diplomacy, we work with China to stop the flow of travel from China and alert the rest of the global community. China restricts domestic and international travel and doesn’t send millions of people around the globe during the Chinese new year.

The mortality rate for COVID is lower than SARS or MERS. But COVID has a longer latency period.

Instead of pretending it wasn’t a thing, early action (by a republican or democratic president) would have gotten the world ahead of the curve in a meaningful way. Of course it’s difficult to prove a counter factual, but that doesn’t make it magical thinking. It’s fairly rational to conclude that having avoided a global shutdown through the management of two other highly dangerous and infectious respiratory diseases, we could have done it again.

Do you understand how many extremely knowledgeable infectious disease specialists have spent time dissecting how different SARS and MERS were, and how the SARS/MERS approach would not have worked (and did not work) for Covid? Do you have any understanding at all about how much deep work has been done internationally unpacking those differences?

You are speaking about things you clearly do not understand at all. You sound both shockingly illiterate concerning the science and a bizarre magical thinker concerning the politics. Honestly I’m finding your posts remarkable in their blind partisan faith, but you are way over your skis here on the scientific aspects in particular.

Then please share these studies.

Am gonna check you on “blind partisan faith” as any other republican president would have been more competent than Trump.

But please share your expertise and explain why the Covid pandemic could not have been better managed.

You said “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic.” Not “it could have been better managed.” You flat-out claimed the Covid-19 global pandemic would not have happened if any other President had been in charge. Are you backing away from your earlier claim?

Re Trump: I despise Trump. What I am challenging here is the cult-like magical thinking from Democrats in this thread, including you. It is both bizarre and utterly ungrounded in reality to believe that any other President could have stopped a global pandemic.

Regarding studies and public health research proposals concerning the public health management differences between COVID-19 and SARS/MERS, they are too numerous to list here because you need to include all the global work (which you would know if you had literally any scientific knowledge in this area).

However, as you are obviously new to all of this, I will give you a starting point. This is a simply-written analysis that goes through some of the basics of how the viruses are the same versus different. This is from 2021 and some of it is now known to be out of date. However, for a beginner, it’s a reasonable place to start.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8064890/

That’s not a public health management article, but it is a decent basic overview of the characteristics of the viruses.

From a public health management point of view, the basic summary of the issue is this: one of the most challenging aspects of Covid-19 was that it spread most often early in the disease lifecycle, when people were either pre-symptomatic or lightly symptomatic. This is as opposed to SARS which was maximally infectious during the second week of illness. Additionally, SARS was significantly more fatal. What that meant was that from a public health perspective, containment of SARS was significantly easier: people were most infectious when they were very sick, people infected died both more frequently and more quickly (meaning fewer chances to spread the virus). This has literally nothing to do with whatever magical thinking you have about Hilary Clinton or whatever, it’s essentially viral spread characteristics, and there are significant differences between SARS and Covid in that respect.

I’m an independent and used to be a Republican. I’m not particularly a Hilary fan but she seems to trigger you. It’s clear you believe that early action by the United States would have had no effect. I read your link which says as I did that the spread was primarily through commercial travel, exacerbated by China’s increased connectivity with the world and especially by the travel of millions at the Chinese new year. Notwithstanding the differences in transmission, it seems likely that the pandemic as we experienced it would not have happened with competent leadership. You may well know a lot about public health and the characteristics of these coronaviruses, but I think you underestimate how powerful the United States is and its ability to use global fora effectively and swiftly with good information. People in China knew something was afoot in the late fall of 2019 and it’s too bad that we didn’t have enough competent people including epidemiologists paying attention. And yes a global pandemic on the scale we experienced could have been avoided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to convince any right wing republicans of anything, so I am just waiting for them to fool around and find out. Not sure they are going to like what's coming for them too, if a republican actually gets elected this time.

Candidly, as a Democrat I was assured that the entire country would fail if Trump became president and that objectively did not happen.

We did have a pandemic. And nationwide race riots. I dunno about you, but I didn't enjoy all that.

Tell us how Trump caused a global pandemic that originated from China.

Cause? No. Made exponentially worse because of his completely inept response? Hell yes.

Funny how none of the blindly partisan Democrats in this thread have been willing to say with any specifics how Hilary Clinton was going to stop the spread of the virus in China, India, or the rest of the world.

I am still looking forward to learning about those plans! 👍 It’s amazing how Hilary apparently had the ability to stop a global pandemic. Can’t wait to hear how!

Leadership
Expertise
Coordination
Delegation
Decisiveness
Management
Oversight
Logistics
Communication

In other words, the exact opposite of what Trump spent his time on in 2020.

Specifics. How specifically was Hilary going to stop the spread of Covid in countries outside the US and stop a global pandemic? That’s the claim you Democrats are making. I want the exact plan that would have halted the spread of the virus. You say it exists. So share it.

NP: Given that the GOP doesn't even have a platform, you may want to start fixing up your own house first before you start pointing fingers.

Democrats in this thread have said that Hilary would have stopped the Covid-19 pandemic globally. They are the ones who made that claim. Are you now backing down from that claim?

Who said that?

Here is one example but there are also others:

Hilary would have used America’s power in international organizations to coordinate a speedy response. Hilary would have managed it the way previous presidents (Bush and SARS, Obama and MERS) did previous air borne viruses and it probably could’ve been managed and we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic and all of its losses and consequences.

I mean I think it’s kind of amazing Hilary inspires magical thinking like this to this day.

Pp here. I should have written ANY PRESIDENT OTHER THAN TRUMP. My point was both republican and democratic presidents would have handled Covid as had been done with previous pandemic coronaviruses. But using Hilary was hugely triggering. Hilary or any of the other 2016 republican nominees would have done better.

Do you believe or not believe that under any president other than Trump we “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic and all of its losses and consequences”? Because that’s what you wrote. Under any other president, you claimed we would not have had a global pandemic. In other word, you believe any other American president would have stopped a global pandemic.

That’s a remarkable claim, and in my view betrays significant magical thinking and a deep lack of scientific understanding of Covid-19 versus SARS/MERS, as well as a lack of understanding of infectious disease control in countries like India.

That’s what you wrote, in any event. Are you now backing down from that claim?

No. I’m not. Consider the following counter factual:
The evidence of a novel, highly infectious respiratory disease comes to the attention of an NSC staffed with competent, experienced people in November/December 2019. Using the experience of how the U.S. managed previous such epidemics, appropriate protocols are introduced for hospitals to isolate suspicious cases, travel restrictions and so forth. At the same time, through international fora and diplomacy, we work with China to stop the flow of travel from China and alert the rest of the global community. China restricts domestic and international travel and doesn’t send millions of people around the globe during the Chinese new year.

The mortality rate for COVID is lower than SARS or MERS. But COVID has a longer latency period.

Instead of pretending it wasn’t a thing, early action (by a republican or democratic president) would have gotten the world ahead of the curve in a meaningful way. Of course it’s difficult to prove a counter factual, but that doesn’t make it magical thinking. It’s fairly rational to conclude that having avoided a global shutdown through the management of two other highly dangerous and infectious respiratory diseases, we could have done it again.

Do you understand how many extremely knowledgeable infectious disease specialists have spent time dissecting how different SARS and MERS were, and how the SARS/MERS approach would not have worked (and did not work) for Covid? Do you have any understanding at all about how much deep work has been done internationally unpacking those differences?

You are speaking about things you clearly do not understand at all. You sound both shockingly illiterate concerning the science and a bizarre magical thinker concerning the politics. Honestly I’m finding your posts remarkable in their blind partisan faith, but you are way over your skis here on the scientific aspects in particular.

Then please share these studies.

Am gonna check you on “blind partisan faith” as any other republican president would have been more competent than Trump.

But please share your expertise and explain why the Covid pandemic could not have been better managed.

You said “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic.” Not “it could have been better managed.” You flat-out claimed the Covid-19 global pandemic would not have happened if any other President had been in charge. Are you backing away from your earlier claim?

Re Trump: I despise Trump. What I am challenging here is the cult-like magical thinking from Democrats in this thread, including you. It is both bizarre and utterly ungrounded in reality to believe that any other President could have stopped a global pandemic.

Regarding studies and public health research proposals concerning the public health management differences between COVID-19 and SARS/MERS, they are too numerous to list here because you need to include all the global work (which you would know if you had literally any scientific knowledge in this area).

However, as you are obviously new to all of this, I will give you a starting point. This is a simply-written analysis that goes through some of the basics of how the viruses are the same versus different. This is from 2021 and some of it is now known to be out of date. However, for a beginner, it’s a reasonable place to start.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8064890/

That’s not a public health management article, but it is a decent basic overview of the characteristics of the viruses.

From a public health management point of view, the basic summary of the issue is this: one of the most challenging aspects of Covid-19 was that it spread most often early in the disease lifecycle, when people were either pre-symptomatic or lightly symptomatic. This is as opposed to SARS which was maximally infectious during the second week of illness. Additionally, SARS was significantly more fatal. What that meant was that from a public health perspective, containment of SARS was significantly easier: people were most infectious when they were very sick, people infected died both more frequently and more quickly (meaning fewer chances to spread the virus). This has literally nothing to do with whatever magical thinking you have about Hilary Clinton or whatever, it’s essentially viral spread characteristics, and there are significant differences between SARS and Covid in that respect.

I’m an independent and used to be a Republican. I’m not particularly a Hilary fan but she seems to trigger you. It’s clear you believe that early action by the United States would have had no effect. I read your link which says as I did that the spread was primarily through commercial travel, exacerbated by China’s increased connectivity with the world and especially by the travel of millions at the Chinese new year. Notwithstanding the differences in transmission, it seems likely that the pandemic as we experienced it would not have happened with competent leadership. You may well know a lot about public health and the characteristics of these coronaviruses, but I think you underestimate how powerful the United States is and its ability to use global fora effectively and swiftly with good information. People in China knew something was afoot in the late fall of 2019 and it’s too bad that we didn’t have enough competent people including epidemiologists paying attention. And yes a global pandemic on the scale we experienced could have been avoided.

I don’t care about Hilary except as far as Democrats are untethered to reality concerning her. For context, I am a Democrat who was warning here and elsewhere that she was going to lose in summer 2016 and was roundly told that I was obviously wrong. Yes, I am angry, because we got Trump due to people like you and your magical thinking about Hilary. (And although I’m still a registered Democrat, I am so incredibly frustrated with the party that I do not know how I will vote next November, except I can’t vote for Trump.)

As for the rest, it appears you are blatantly changing your position. You said “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic.” Not “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic as we experienced it.” To be crystal clear, you stated earlier that if we had had literally any other President, we would not have had a global pandemic. Not that the experience would have been different, but that the global pandemic wouldn’t have happened at all.

Are you now changing your mind on that position? This is a straightforward question. Yes or no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to convince any right wing republicans of anything, so I am just waiting for them to fool around and find out. Not sure they are going to like what's coming for them too, if a republican actually gets elected this time.

Candidly, as a Democrat I was assured that the entire country would fail if Trump became president and that objectively did not happen.

We did have a pandemic. And nationwide race riots. I dunno about you, but I didn't enjoy all that.

Tell us how Trump caused a global pandemic that originated from China.

Cause? No. Made exponentially worse because of his completely inept response? Hell yes.

Funny how none of the blindly partisan Democrats in this thread have been willing to say with any specifics how Hilary Clinton was going to stop the spread of the virus in China, India, or the rest of the world.

I am still looking forward to learning about those plans! 👍 It’s amazing how Hilary apparently had the ability to stop a global pandemic. Can’t wait to hear how!

Leadership
Expertise
Coordination
Delegation
Decisiveness
Management
Oversight
Logistics
Communication

In other words, the exact opposite of what Trump spent his time on in 2020.

Specifics. How specifically was Hilary going to stop the spread of Covid in countries outside the US and stop a global pandemic? That’s the claim you Democrats are making. I want the exact plan that would have halted the spread of the virus. You say it exists. So share it.

NP: Given that the GOP doesn't even have a platform, you may want to start fixing up your own house first before you start pointing fingers.

Democrats in this thread have said that Hilary would have stopped the Covid-19 pandemic globally. They are the ones who made that claim. Are you now backing down from that claim?

Who said that?

Here is one example but there are also others:

Hilary would have used America’s power in international organizations to coordinate a speedy response. Hilary would have managed it the way previous presidents (Bush and SARS, Obama and MERS) did previous air borne viruses and it probably could’ve been managed and we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic and all of its losses and consequences.

I mean I think it’s kind of amazing Hilary inspires magical thinking like this to this day.

Pp here. I should have written ANY PRESIDENT OTHER THAN TRUMP. My point was both republican and democratic presidents would have handled Covid as had been done with previous pandemic coronaviruses. But using Hilary was hugely triggering. Hilary or any of the other 2016 republican nominees would have done better.

Do you believe or not believe that under any president other than Trump we “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic and all of its losses and consequences”? Because that’s what you wrote. Under any other president, you claimed we would not have had a global pandemic. In other word, you believe any other American president would have stopped a global pandemic.

That’s a remarkable claim, and in my view betrays significant magical thinking and a deep lack of scientific understanding of Covid-19 versus SARS/MERS, as well as a lack of understanding of infectious disease control in countries like India.

That’s what you wrote, in any event. Are you now backing down from that claim?

No. I’m not. Consider the following counter factual:
The evidence of a novel, highly infectious respiratory disease comes to the attention of an NSC staffed with competent, experienced people in November/December 2019. Using the experience of how the U.S. managed previous such epidemics, appropriate protocols are introduced for hospitals to isolate suspicious cases, travel restrictions and so forth. At the same time, through international fora and diplomacy, we work with China to stop the flow of travel from China and alert the rest of the global community. China restricts domestic and international travel and doesn’t send millions of people around the globe during the Chinese new year.

The mortality rate for COVID is lower than SARS or MERS. But COVID has a longer latency period.

Instead of pretending it wasn’t a thing, early action (by a republican or democratic president) would have gotten the world ahead of the curve in a meaningful way. Of course it’s difficult to prove a counter factual, but that doesn’t make it magical thinking. It’s fairly rational to conclude that having avoided a global shutdown through the management of two other highly dangerous and infectious respiratory diseases, we could have done it again.

Do you understand how many extremely knowledgeable infectious disease specialists have spent time dissecting how different SARS and MERS were, and how the SARS/MERS approach would not have worked (and did not work) for Covid? Do you have any understanding at all about how much deep work has been done internationally unpacking those differences?

You are speaking about things you clearly do not understand at all. You sound both shockingly illiterate concerning the science and a bizarre magical thinker concerning the politics. Honestly I’m finding your posts remarkable in their blind partisan faith, but you are way over your skis here on the scientific aspects in particular.

Then please share these studies.

Am gonna check you on “blind partisan faith” as any other republican president would have been more competent than Trump.

But please share your expertise and explain why the Covid pandemic could not have been better managed.

You said “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic.” Not “it could have been better managed.” You flat-out claimed the Covid-19 global pandemic would not have happened if any other President had been in charge. Are you backing away from your earlier claim?

Re Trump: I despise Trump. What I am challenging here is the cult-like magical thinking from Democrats in this thread, including you. It is both bizarre and utterly ungrounded in reality to believe that any other President could have stopped a global pandemic.

Regarding studies and public health research proposals concerning the public health management differences between COVID-19 and SARS/MERS, they are too numerous to list here because you need to include all the global work (which you would know if you had literally any scientific knowledge in this area).

However, as you are obviously new to all of this, I will give you a starting point. This is a simply-written analysis that goes through some of the basics of how the viruses are the same versus different. This is from 2021 and some of it is now known to be out of date. However, for a beginner, it’s a reasonable place to start.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8064890/

That’s not a public health management article, but it is a decent basic overview of the characteristics of the viruses.

From a public health management point of view, the basic summary of the issue is this: one of the most challenging aspects of Covid-19 was that it spread most often early in the disease lifecycle, when people were either pre-symptomatic or lightly symptomatic. This is as opposed to SARS which was maximally infectious during the second week of illness. Additionally, SARS was significantly more fatal. What that meant was that from a public health perspective, containment of SARS was significantly easier: people were most infectious when they were very sick, people infected died both more frequently and more quickly (meaning fewer chances to spread the virus). This has literally nothing to do with whatever magical thinking you have about Hilary Clinton or whatever, it’s essentially viral spread characteristics, and there are significant differences between SARS and Covid in that respect.

I’m an independent and used to be a Republican. I’m not particularly a Hilary fan but she seems to trigger you. It’s clear you believe that early action by the United States would have had no effect. I read your link which says as I did that the spread was primarily through commercial travel, exacerbated by China’s increased connectivity with the world and especially by the travel of millions at the Chinese new year. Notwithstanding the differences in transmission, it seems likely that the pandemic as we experienced it would not have happened with competent leadership. You may well know a lot about public health and the characteristics of these coronaviruses, but I think you underestimate how powerful the United States is and its ability to use global fora effectively and swiftly with good information. People in China knew something was afoot in the late fall of 2019 and it’s too bad that we didn’t have enough competent people including epidemiologists paying attention. And yes a global pandemic on the scale we experienced could have been avoided.

I don’t care about Hilary except as far as Democrats are untethered to reality concerning her. For context, I am a Democrat who was warning here and elsewhere that she was going to lose in summer 2016 and was roundly told that I was obviously wrong. Yes, I am angry, because we got Trump due to people like you and your magical thinking about Hilary. (And although I’m still a registered Democrat, I am so incredibly frustrated with the party that I do not know how I will vote next November, except I can’t vote for Trump.)

As for the rest, it appears you are blatantly changing your position. You said “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic.” Not “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic as we experienced it.” To be crystal clear, you stated earlier that if we had had literally any other President, we would not have had a global pandemic. Not that the experience would have been different, but that the global pandemic wouldn’t have happened at all.

Are you now changing your mind on that position? This is a straightforward question. Yes or no?

You’re being needlessly aggressive and you have a bee in your bonnet about Hilary. She really wasn’t the point; she just happened to be the candidate running against Trump. Had it been Bernie, I would’ve said he would have prevented it.

But look. In the course of this interchange, I have changed my mind in some respects. Upon reflection, SARS and MERS were global pandemics. But well-managed pandemics. Covid could have been similar. I take your emphasis about the early transmission and the challenges that poses, but even so, with better management and earlier action, the effects and destruction would have been minimal and people would remember it about as well as they remember the other two.

I hold Trump singularly responsible for the Covid pandemic and the deaths he caused and consequent destruction to our economy and body politic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to convince any right wing republicans of anything, so I am just waiting for them to fool around and find out. Not sure they are going to like what's coming for them too, if a republican actually gets elected this time.

Candidly, as a Democrat I was assured that the entire country would fail if Trump became president and that objectively did not happen.

We did have a pandemic. And nationwide race riots. I dunno about you, but I didn't enjoy all that.

Tell us how Trump caused a global pandemic that originated from China.

Cause? No. Made exponentially worse because of his completely inept response? Hell yes.

Funny how none of the blindly partisan Democrats in this thread have been willing to say with any specifics how Hilary Clinton was going to stop the spread of the virus in China, India, or the rest of the world.

I am still looking forward to learning about those plans! 👍 It’s amazing how Hilary apparently had the ability to stop a global pandemic. Can’t wait to hear how!

Leadership
Expertise
Coordination
Delegation
Decisiveness
Management
Oversight
Logistics
Communication

In other words, the exact opposite of what Trump spent his time on in 2020.

Specifics. How specifically was Hilary going to stop the spread of Covid in countries outside the US and stop a global pandemic? That’s the claim you Democrats are making. I want the exact plan that would have halted the spread of the virus. You say it exists. So share it.

NP: Given that the GOP doesn't even have a platform, you may want to start fixing up your own house first before you start pointing fingers.

Democrats in this thread have said that Hilary would have stopped the Covid-19 pandemic globally. They are the ones who made that claim. Are you now backing down from that claim?

Who said that?

Here is one example but there are also others:

Hilary would have used America’s power in international organizations to coordinate a speedy response. Hilary would have managed it the way previous presidents (Bush and SARS, Obama and MERS) did previous air borne viruses and it probably could’ve been managed and we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic and all of its losses and consequences.

I mean I think it’s kind of amazing Hilary inspires magical thinking like this to this day.

Pp here. I should have written ANY PRESIDENT OTHER THAN TRUMP. My point was both republican and democratic presidents would have handled Covid as had been done with previous pandemic coronaviruses. But using Hilary was hugely triggering. Hilary or any of the other 2016 republican nominees would have done better.

Do you believe or not believe that under any president other than Trump we “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic and all of its losses and consequences”? Because that’s what you wrote. Under any other president, you claimed we would not have had a global pandemic. In other word, you believe any other American president would have stopped a global pandemic.

That’s a remarkable claim, and in my view betrays significant magical thinking and a deep lack of scientific understanding of Covid-19 versus SARS/MERS, as well as a lack of understanding of infectious disease control in countries like India.

That’s what you wrote, in any event. Are you now backing down from that claim?

No. I’m not. Consider the following counter factual:
The evidence of a novel, highly infectious respiratory disease comes to the attention of an NSC staffed with competent, experienced people in November/December 2019. Using the experience of how the U.S. managed previous such epidemics, appropriate protocols are introduced for hospitals to isolate suspicious cases, travel restrictions and so forth. At the same time, through international fora and diplomacy, we work with China to stop the flow of travel from China and alert the rest of the global community. China restricts domestic and international travel and doesn’t send millions of people around the globe during the Chinese new year.

The mortality rate for COVID is lower than SARS or MERS. But COVID has a longer latency period.

Instead of pretending it wasn’t a thing, early action (by a republican or democratic president) would have gotten the world ahead of the curve in a meaningful way. Of course it’s difficult to prove a counter factual, but that doesn’t make it magical thinking. It’s fairly rational to conclude that having avoided a global shutdown through the management of two other highly dangerous and infectious respiratory diseases, we could have done it again.

Do you understand how many extremely knowledgeable infectious disease specialists have spent time dissecting how different SARS and MERS were, and how the SARS/MERS approach would not have worked (and did not work) for Covid? Do you have any understanding at all about how much deep work has been done internationally unpacking those differences?

You are speaking about things you clearly do not understand at all. You sound both shockingly illiterate concerning the science and a bizarre magical thinker concerning the politics. Honestly I’m finding your posts remarkable in their blind partisan faith, but you are way over your skis here on the scientific aspects in particular.

Then please share these studies.

Am gonna check you on “blind partisan faith” as any other republican president would have been more competent than Trump.

But please share your expertise and explain why the Covid pandemic could not have been better managed.

You said “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic.” Not “it could have been better managed.” You flat-out claimed the Covid-19 global pandemic would not have happened if any other President had been in charge. Are you backing away from your earlier claim?

Re Trump: I despise Trump. What I am challenging here is the cult-like magical thinking from Democrats in this thread, including you. It is both bizarre and utterly ungrounded in reality to believe that any other President could have stopped a global pandemic.

Regarding studies and public health research proposals concerning the public health management differences between COVID-19 and SARS/MERS, they are too numerous to list here because you need to include all the global work (which you would know if you had literally any scientific knowledge in this area).

However, as you are obviously new to all of this, I will give you a starting point. This is a simply-written analysis that goes through some of the basics of how the viruses are the same versus different. This is from 2021 and some of it is now known to be out of date. However, for a beginner, it’s a reasonable place to start.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8064890/

That’s not a public health management article, but it is a decent basic overview of the characteristics of the viruses.

From a public health management point of view, the basic summary of the issue is this: one of the most challenging aspects of Covid-19 was that it spread most often early in the disease lifecycle, when people were either pre-symptomatic or lightly symptomatic. This is as opposed to SARS which was maximally infectious during the second week of illness. Additionally, SARS was significantly more fatal. What that meant was that from a public health perspective, containment of SARS was significantly easier: people were most infectious when they were very sick, people infected died both more frequently and more quickly (meaning fewer chances to spread the virus). This has literally nothing to do with whatever magical thinking you have about Hilary Clinton or whatever, it’s essentially viral spread characteristics, and there are significant differences between SARS and Covid in that respect.

I’m an independent and used to be a Republican. I’m not particularly a Hilary fan but she seems to trigger you. It’s clear you believe that early action by the United States would have had no effect. I read your link which says as I did that the spread was primarily through commercial travel, exacerbated by China’s increased connectivity with the world and especially by the travel of millions at the Chinese new year. Notwithstanding the differences in transmission, it seems likely that the pandemic as we experienced it would not have happened with competent leadership. You may well know a lot about public health and the characteristics of these coronaviruses, but I think you underestimate how powerful the United States is and its ability to use global fora effectively and swiftly with good information. People in China knew something was afoot in the late fall of 2019 and it’s too bad that we didn’t have enough competent people including epidemiologists paying attention. And yes a global pandemic on the scale we experienced could have been avoided.

I don’t care about Hilary except as far as Democrats are untethered to reality concerning her. For context, I am a Democrat who was warning here and elsewhere that she was going to lose in summer 2016 and was roundly told that I was obviously wrong. Yes, I am angry, because we got Trump due to people like you and your magical thinking about Hilary. (And although I’m still a registered Democrat, I am so incredibly frustrated with the party that I do not know how I will vote next November, except I can’t vote for Trump.)

As for the rest, it appears you are blatantly changing your position. You said “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic.” Not “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic as we experienced it.” To be crystal clear, you stated earlier that if we had had literally any other President, we would not have had a global pandemic. Not that the experience would have been different, but that the global pandemic wouldn’t have happened at all.

Are you now changing your mind on that position? This is a straightforward question. Yes or no?

You’re being needlessly aggressive and you have a bee in your bonnet about Hilary. She really wasn’t the point; she just happened to be the candidate running against Trump. Had it been Bernie, I would’ve said he would have prevented it.

But look. In the course of this interchange, I have changed my mind in some respects. Upon reflection, SARS and MERS were global pandemics. But well-managed pandemics. Covid could have been similar. I take your emphasis about the early transmission and the challenges that poses, but even so, with better management and earlier action, the effects and destruction would have been minimal and people would remember it about as well as they remember the other two.

I hold Trump singularly responsible for the Covid pandemic and the deaths he caused and consequent destruction to our economy and body politic.

That’s directly contrary to what most infectious disease public health experts think, particularly the idea that the effects could have been “minimal,” but okay. I’m sure you know better.

Do you truly think public health is so easy? It’s just shocking to me.

[Anonymous]

There is nothing to understand OP.
Republican women are stupid. Zero brain cells.

Given what Laura Loomer said yesterday, MTG says daily, Gosar's words, Mike Johnson's lies, Mike Lee's lies, Scott Perry's crimes, one doesn't even have to look to Trump's crap to know Republican women are stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to convince any right wing republicans of anything, so I am just waiting for them to fool around and find out. Not sure they are going to like what's coming for them too, if a republican actually gets elected this time.

Candidly, as a Democrat I was assured that the entire country would fail if Trump became president and that objectively did not happen.

We did have a pandemic. And nationwide race riots. I dunno about you, but I didn't enjoy all that.

Tell us how Trump caused a global pandemic that originated from China.

Cause? No. Made exponentially worse because of his completely inept response? Hell yes.

Funny how none of the blindly partisan Democrats in this thread have been willing to say with any specifics how Hilary Clinton was going to stop the spread of the virus in China, India, or the rest of the world.

I am still looking forward to learning about those plans! 👍 It’s amazing how Hilary apparently had the ability to stop a global pandemic. Can’t wait to hear how!

Leadership
Expertise
Coordination
Delegation
Decisiveness
Management
Oversight
Logistics
Communication

In other words, the exact opposite of what Trump spent his time on in 2020.

Specifics. How specifically was Hilary going to stop the spread of Covid in countries outside the US and stop a global pandemic? That’s the claim you Democrats are making. I want the exact plan that would have halted the spread of the virus. You say it exists. So share it.

NP: Given that the GOP doesn't even have a platform, you may want to start fixing up your own house first before you start pointing fingers.

Democrats in this thread have said that Hilary would have stopped the Covid-19 pandemic globally. They are the ones who made that claim. Are you now backing down from that claim?

Who said that?

Here is one example but there are also others:

Hilary would have used America’s power in international organizations to coordinate a speedy response. Hilary would have managed it the way previous presidents (Bush and SARS, Obama and MERS) did previous air borne viruses and it probably could’ve been managed and we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic and all of its losses and consequences.

I mean I think it’s kind of amazing Hilary inspires magical thinking like this to this day.

Pp here. I should have written ANY PRESIDENT OTHER THAN TRUMP. My point was both republican and democratic presidents would have handled Covid as had been done with previous pandemic coronaviruses. But using Hilary was hugely triggering. Hilary or any of the other 2016 republican nominees would have done better.

Do you believe or not believe that under any president other than Trump we “we wouldn’t have had a global pandemic and all of its losses and consequences”? Because that’s what you wrote. Under any other president, you claimed we would not have had a global pandemic. In other word, you believe any other American president would have stopped a global pandemic.

That’s a remarkable claim, and in my view betrays significant magical thinking and a deep lack of scientific understanding of Covid-19 versus SARS/MERS, as well as a lack of understanding of infectious disease control in countries like India.

That’s what you wrote, in any event. Are you now backing down from that claim?

No. I’m not. Consider the following counter factual:
The evidence of a novel, highly infectious respiratory disease comes to the attention of an NSC staffed with competent, experienced people in November/December 2019. Using the experience of how the U.S. managed previous such epidemics, appropriate protocols are introduced for hospitals to isolate suspicious cases, travel restrictions and so forth. At the same time, through international fora and diplomacy, we work with China to stop the flow of travel from China and alert the rest of the global community. China restricts domestic and international travel and doesn’t send millions of people around the globe during the Chinese new year.

The mortality rate for COVID is lower than SARS or MERS. But COVID has a longer latency period.

Instead of pretending it wasn’t a thing, early action (by a republican or democratic president) would have gotten the world ahead of the curve in a meaningful way. Of course it’s difficult to prove a counter factual, but that doesn’t make it magical thinking. It’s fairly rational to conclude that having avoided a global shutdown through the management of two other highly dangerous and infectious respiratory diseases, we could have done it again.

Do you understand how many extremely knowledgeable infectious disease specialists have spent time dissecting how different SARS and MERS were, and how the SARS/MERS approach would not have worked (and did not work) for Covid? Do you have any understanding at all about how much deep work has been done internationally unpacking those differences?

You are speaking about things you clearly do not understand at all. You sound both shockingly illiterate concerning the science and a bizarre magical thinker concerning the politics. Honestly I’m finding your posts remarkable in their blind partisan faith, but you are way over your skis here on the scientific aspects in particular.

Then please share these studies.

Am gonna check you on “blind partisan faith” as any other republican president would have been more competent than Trump.

But please share your expertise and explain why the Covid pandemic could not have been better managed.

The cat is out of the bag. Do you think any other GOP president can tame the rabid MAGA now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who the hell cares who passed the IDEA? Have any of you dealt with NJ, where districts play up the foolish distinction between “medical autism” (no IEP) and “educational autism” (maybe IEP) and district-employed psychologists and therapists fight tooth and nail to make sure as few kids as possible qualify for IEPs? Have you dealt with NYC, where entire districts have no placements available for kids with even high functioning, autism, much less other disabilities, and parents have to find money for lawyers to sue the district for private placement? Have any of you dealt with IEP meetings, where you have to fight for every accommodation over the course of a week of full day meetings, only for the teacher not to be provided the IEP or for the not to be implemented at all in the classroom?

The IDEA is a freaking joke and Democrats threatening that Republicans will gut it are just morons. What are we going to end up with - a system in which everything your child gets depends on the whim of the school district? That’s already the reality on the ground!

+1

Democrats claiming they are the party of education is some amazing gaslighting and those of us with disabled kids know it.

You are an idiot if you think Republicans would do anything for a disbabled child. WTH is wrong with you? Their voting records are public moron.

Screw off the only ones screwing education are the bible thumpers banning books, screaming and dumbing down education. Why are all red states last in education? Why do vouchers have no where for any disabled or learning issue kid placements???

You are stupid.

Do you have a learning disability? I’m pretty sure multiple people in just the last few pages have laid out how BOTH parties suck on education — as in NEITHER party cares. Yet you keep frothing on some “DONT YOU DARE SAY REPUBLICANS ARE BETTER” mindfreak as if you’re hearing voices.

NO because voting records are public moron.

And they dam well prove fulls stop Republicans do not support disabled children hell children at all. Or Vets or Police or Military.

Not hard use the magic box they vote NO!

Ok, so you do have a learning disability. My condolences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing to understand OP.
Republican women are stupid. Zero brain cells.

Given what Laura Loomer said yesterday, MTG says daily, Gosar's words, Mike Johnson's lies, Mike Lee's lies, Scott Perry's crimes, one doesn't even have to look to Trump's crap to know Republican women are stupid.

I mean in this thread, at least, it isn’t the Republican women demonstrating zero brain cells, and sadly I say that as a Democrat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing to understand OP.
Republican women are stupid. Zero brain cells.

Given what Laura Loomer said yesterday, MTG says daily, Gosar's words, Mike Johnson's lies, Mike Lee's lies, Scott Perry's crimes, one doesn't even have to look to Trump's crap to know Republican women are stupid.

I think it’s more willfully ignorant/delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is this “woman” concept you speak of?

It is not entirely clear. Seems to boil down to being a uterus-haver, or person with a front hole.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cancer-charity-faces-backlash-for-advising-medical-professionals-to-use-terms-bonus-hole-or-front-hole-for-vaginas-to-accommodate-non-binary-or-trans-men/ar-AA1dG0yd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is this “woman” concept you speak of?

It is not entirely clear. Seems to boil down to being a uterus-haver, or person with a front hole.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cancer-charity-faces-backlash-for-advising-medical-professionals-to-use-terms-bonus-hole-or-front-hole-for-vaginas-to-accommodate-non-binary-or-trans-men/ar-AA1dG0yd

You’re really mad at your ex wife, aren’t you?

[Anonymous]

I think transgender is the red herring that many women need to trample women’s rights. There was a WaPo article years ago about a transgender military couple and the hurdles they faced. Well, that really is the hurdles the transgender women faced. Her unit made her wear a men’s dress uniform and that’s were so many instances of blatant sexism. Meanwhile her transgender husband had no issues. His team treated him well, like he was one of them.

That’s the crazy thing. A transgender adult has a unique window into misogyny that cis-women do not. You have to wonder about that too: transgender women are talking on less pay (including athletes), fewer equal rights, and yet they must do it because to not do so is worse. That’s something worth considering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think transgender is the red herring that many women need to trample women’s rights. There was a WaPo article years ago about a transgender military couple and the hurdles they faced. Well, that really is the hurdles the transgender women faced. Her unit made her wear a men’s dress uniform and that’s were so many instances of blatant sexism. Meanwhile her transgender husband had no issues. His team treated him well, like he was one of them.

That’s the crazy thing. A transgender adult has a unique window into misogyny that cis-women do not. You have to wonder about that too: transgender women are talking on less pay (including athletes), fewer equal rights, and yet they must do it because to not do so is worse. That’s something worth considering.

So, if a white man decides to tan his skin and surgically alter himself to look like a black man, then we should believe his claim that he’s black in his soul because he’s trading his white privilege for less? If he decides to colonize a black woman’s identity, then he should be doubly admired and trusted because he’s trading his white and male privilege, right?

Such is the half-baked foolishness that passes as sense among trans activists. We should be flattered and admire men colonizing women’s identities because women are so low that no man would want to be one except his mind is sincerely warped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is this “woman” concept you speak of?

It is not entirely clear. Seems to boil down to being a uterus-haver, or person with a front hole.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cancer-charity-faces-backlash-for-advising-medical-professionals-to-use-terms-bonus-hole-or-front-hole-for-vaginas-to-accommodate-non-binary-or-trans-men/ar-AA1dG0yd

You’re really mad at your ex wife, aren’t you?

Typical male liberal, assuming that a woman who objects to being described with objectifying language that the male liberal prefers must secretly be a man. After all, male liberals don’t believe women can have independent thought.

If there is one thing I’m still shocked by from the last five to ten years, it’s the unmasking of the male liberals. They are no better than MAGA.