• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Stanford Study: 18 Trump rallies have led to 30,000 COVID-19 cases, 700 deaths

CaughtInThe said:
I keep asking this but how can any religious person in our country vote for Donald Trump?
Click to expand...
Here you go. And I've had a couple of Catholic cultist types use it and swear by it. Other religious people supported it.

Romans 13:1-14 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Click to expand...

Of course, they likely manufactured justification invalidating Obama's authority. That's ok, I'll see if they agree when Biden is POTUS.
 
Stanford University study? bad assumptions in, bad results out! The only assumption they used is how can they get Trump.

This is just meaningless accept to the hacks at Stanford.


In a statement to The Hill, the Trump campaign deputy national press secretary Courtney Parella said that, "Americans have the right to gather under the First Amendment to hear from the President of the United States."

'We take strong precautions for our campaign events, requiring every attendee to have their temperature checked, providing masks, they’re instructed to wear, and ensuring access to plenty of hand sanitizer," Parella said. "We also have signs at our events instructing attendees to wear their masks.”


 
Trump Rallies Are Often Followed by Increases in Local COVID-19 Cases - Center for American Progress
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You are comparing protests, which are organic and organized by hundreds if not thousands of people on social media, to a campaign rally, organized by a single campaign. What do you think would have happened in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder, had the government attempted to forcibly stop all the protests?
Click to expand...
Forcibly stopping protest is one thing, but these were not just protest. People were being beaten, property was being destroyed and even law enforcement was being targeted for death in some cases. Yet these same people apparatnly couldn't make a separate distinction between the two events. One being a peaceful protest and the other one being an all out riot. They were apparently supposed to be allowed for no other reason then because of the ideology that they aligned with.

Yet these same people decided to come out and chastise those protesting the lockdown, which also included the normal media pendants as well. Who actively said that these people going out to protest were and I quote "killing grandma" with their actions. As well as claiming that they were terrorizing a capital building in the process.

So I'm still choosing to compare the two, yes. Seeing as these same people stating that one group was at fault, for doing something similar to the other. Despite the lack of violence and damage in Trump's rallies.
 
Oborosen said:
Forcibly stopping protest is one thing, but these were not just protest. People were being beaten, property was being destroyed and even law enforcement was being targeted for death in some cases. Yet these same people apparatnly couldn't make a separate distinction between the two events. One being a peaceful protest and the other one being an all out riot. They were apparently supposed to be allowed for no other reason then because of the ideology that they aligned with.

Yet these same people decided to come out and chastise those protesting the lockdown, which also included the normal media pendants as well. Who actively said that these people going out to protest were and I quote "killing grandma" with their actions. As well as claiming that they were terrorizing a capital building in the process.

So I'm still choosing to compare the two, yes. Seeing as these same people stating that one group was at fault, for doing something similar to the other. Despite the lack of violence and damage in Trump's rallies.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those protesting moms sure were violent.
 
upsideguy said:
Protesting during a pandemic is not a great idea, but an understandable one. Taking to the streets is something you often have to do to bring light to social injustice..... and, calling out social injustice is something worthy of risking one's life. No one had control over the timing of events that led up to the protests. Moreover, f you look at the protests, most wore masks and practiced social distancing, they were younger and it was summer. They maximized protections in the circumstance.

In stark contrast, the Trump campaign rallies are not necessary. Moreover, Its ridiculous to risk your life over a political movement that lacks a coherent philosophy, but really is nothing more than glorifying the leader. The rallies are not conducted in a manner than encourages maximum safety for the participants, which often include people that are higher risk for the virus. People are encouraged to stand together in the cold and NOT wear masks.

It is once again a failed "whataboutism"..... which we know that a whataboutism is only used in argument when you can not deny the mainpoint: Trump rallies are not a good idea AND the notion that he is not putting people at mortal risk in conducting them is ignorant. The two things described are not comparable either in righteousness NOR the interest of the participants in the health of the guy standing next to them.
Click to expand...
You know, it's rather funny that one of the only words I've seen repeated by you is "whataboutism" and It's only an issue when it's not you doing it... go figure.
Then again, that doesn't make my statement a false one. Because even after the issue of these protest and riots being solved they still continued and were allowed by the media, or their democrat allies. So your assumption as to my viability is more than just a little lacking at this point.

You can claim that such protest were for fighting injustice, yet you don't seem to actually acknowledge "what" that injustice is?
Because when Floyd died, the nation rallied together and we knew that something had to be done and people still protested/rioted. Which continued even after his own family came out and asked fro it to stop. These people did not all wear mask to protect themselves from Covid. They did so to hide their identities, so that they could do as they pleased with impunity and they did not all practice social distancing. Even going so far as to murder people that were just there protecting private property.. But did they have a protest called in their honor and against the injustice of their murder? No, no they did not.

Trump's people aren't actively killing anyone who's defending their stores and they aren't setting fires to cares, or entire buildings. They also aren't being allowed to tear through a city and ruin it, simply because their ideology matches with the person in charge.

There is a stark contrast here and it's not in what you think it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom