Again - Source?Originally Posted by Invisible Man
And please don't link a 200 page document without providing page numbers.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
I did provide page numbers, and I told you how to find other parts by searching the string SLTT.
And the first source I gave you was a short article.
You're not interested in learning about this.
A few minutes ago you weren't even aware that Trump advised governors to lock down. You didn't know that your questions had already been asked and answered 100 times on this website (because you were never interested in seeing the truth before, any more than you are now). Then after you became aware of it, it was all about whether he held a gun to their heads and ordered it. Now you're not aware that he gave them funding and support for the express purpose of implementing the lockdowns he advised them to do, and you aren't interested in seeing the proof.
You have a dogma that you simply insist on believing. It doesn't matter what proof to the contrary you're given. You aren't going to look at it when it's provided to you, and you'll just keep making the same assertions, and demanding the same proof that you wouldn't look at before and you still won't look at.
Invisible Man is back to peddling the lie that the lockdowns were Trump's.
This is demonstrably untrue in light of the fact the state of South Dakota never locked down at all. It was always at the discretion of the governor and is why my hatred for Arizona's governor's tepid handling of the issue still runs strong.
I saw that post just now actually and was reading the pages you referred to. My comment about not providing page numbers was referring to your 1st link (an article, but the primary source material was the 200 page document you later linked to specifically).
I have read the pages you referred to and searched for SLTT and your point is still clear as mud.
You're posting like 10 posts a minute so it should be fairly understandable that I didn't see your post with page numbers until just now.
In general I don't pay attention to things that don't affect me.A few minutes ago you weren't even aware that Trump advised governors to lock down.
Well, I guess then, $#@! you, and the high horse you rode on.You didn't know that your questions had already been asked and answered 100 times on this website (because you were never interested in seeing the truth before, any more than you are now). Then after you became aware of it, it was all about whether he held a gun to their heads and ordered it. Now you're not aware that he gave them funding and support for the express purpose of implementing the lockdowns he advised them to do, and you aren't interested in seeing the proof.
You have a dogma that you simply insist on believing. It doesn't matter what proof to the contrary you're given. You aren't going to look at it when it's provided to you, and you'll just keep making the same assertions, and demanding the same proof that you wouldn't look at before and you still won't look at.
Last edited by TheTexan; 02-10-2021 at 11:32 AM.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
Is this a common thing? Maybe I do just ignore Invisible Man's posts.
I certainly will be, going forward.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
I don't deny any of that.
Governors did have the ability to defy Trump. Kudos to those who did.
But to those governors who followed Trump's guidance, he gave them support that they needed to be able to do it, for the express purpose of enabling those lockdowns, and without which the lockdowns would not have been possible.
I can't conceive of a mindset that would not consider the president who did that accountable for the role he played in it.
Yes, it is. Discourse with him is for the audience and nothing else.
Consider an analogy of the federal war on drugs.
A big part of how the federal government imposes its drug bans happens at the state and local levels, through programs the federal government has that give funding and support to state and local law enforcement agencies that enforce drug prohibition.
Now imagine if that federal support for locally enforced drug prohibition were the result of a decision made strictly within the executive branch (which may or may not be the case--it doesn't matter here since this is just an analogy). Would the president whose administration did that really be free from all blame just because he didn't force those state and local governments to take the financial and other support he gave them for the purpose of enforcing drug prohibition, and some state and local governments opted not to participate (thus forgoing the funding and support that was only given to those who used it the way the president wanted)?
Defying or complying with him was not possible as the outcome had nothing to do with him either way, and viewing it that way demonstrates a grievously poor understanding of the issue. Trump could advise, but the action had nothing to do with him. Governors are solely responsible for the lockdowns or lack thereof.
The action had a great deal to do with Trump.
Without his support, the lockdowns would have been totally impossible. He was like the gang leader who provided the car and the guns to his henchmen who robbed a bank after giving them the idea and the plan to execute. Just because he wasn't the one in the bank holding the gun to the teller and demanding the money doesn't mean that he was not accountable for the role he played in it.
https://www.pgpf.org/understanding-t...state-by-state
Per capita covid spending is pretty consistent generally across all the states. Regardless of lockdowns in that state. Between 4,000-8,000 per capita.
North Dakota, a state that didn't lockdown at all, received some of the highest per-capita covid relief payments.
Your claim that states received funding in exchange for lockdowns, does not seem to be based on reality.
Not sure why I even bother, however.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
An absolute lie. They were absolutely possible without his guidance on the matter. The lockdowns or lack thereof are the sole domain of the governors involved.
I know this feeling well.
The states were acting off the advice of Trump's COVID task force which had Dr. Fauci on it. Trump could have replaced Fauci. The perfect time to do it would have been when Fauci flip/flopped on masks. Or he could have used the revelation of Fauci funding coronavirus gain of function research as a reason to remove Fauci from the taskforce. Dr. Birx should have been removed as well. Trump should have found someone scientifically credible that wasn't pushing lockdowns to be the face of his administration on health matters and shut the hell up himself with his ridiculous statements about disinfectant (yeah I read it in context) etc. Even better, Trump could and should have shut down all the borders back in January when, according to what he told Bob Woodward, he knew this was going to be very bad but didn't want to start a "panic." The only thing Trump was consistent on was pushing the "warp speed" vaccine.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Trump was abysmal in his handling of SARS-Coronavirus-2. He does not get a pass from me for anything involving what you mentioned. As far as I am concerned, he would have been better served doing nothing about it. Ideally, he would have been more proactive in choosing better experts to guide policy.
It does not change the fact that any blame or praise for the lockdowns solely belongs to the governors.
I wouldn't say, "solely". Perhaps, "primarily" is a better word. But your point still stands. Trump had the opportunity to stop all this nonsense. Instead of doing that, he either encouraged it or passively allowed it to happen. This is what happens when someone is not operating from any set of principles.
In any case, this probably belongs in one of the other threads since it has little to do with the circus going on now.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
He gave a whole lot more than just guidance. He gave them the tools, the funding, and the very plan itself which they followed. See the document I linked earlier for ample proof of that.
It's not a lie.
Consider this one point, and this is just a small piece of the federal government's role:
It was the federal government that defined essential versus non-essential businesses. Every essential business was able to stay open through every lockdown in every state simply by pointing to federal guidance that came from the Trump administration defining them as essential. I made use of a federal document in my own work to keep working through the most stringent lockdowns in the states I was working in. The Trump administration could have used a much broader definition of essential business, resulting in many more businesses staying open. They instead used a very restrictive one.
And like I said, that was just one tiny cog in the lockdown machine. But even a piece that small had great leverage over everything else.
Then consider much bigger pieces of it. Consider the economic bailout itself, which Trump championed and signed, and the expansions of unemployment and similar measures that it included. The lockdowns would have been economically totally impossible without that. No governor would have stood a chance at imposing the lockdowns they did without that federal funding safety net in place to bail them out for it.
Then consider the individual state emergency declarations, which provided the legal pretense for the individual governors' lockdown orders. All 50 states had them. And in each and every case, they required the signature of the POTUS. And in all 50 cases, Trump signed those orders.
And we shouldn't just set aside the travel restrictions that Trump unilaterally did mandate on his own by executive order, and just say, "those didn't affect me personally," like The Texan did. Those travel restrictions were unprecedentedly draconian, and they paved the way for all the other lockdowns. It may be true that governors locking down businesses in the US would still have been technically possible without those restrictions, but it would not have been feasible or made any sense.
Trump himself knows all this and openly brags to this day that he shut the country down, and claims that he saved 2 million lives by doing it. I'm not blaming him for anything that he himself doesn't take credit for.
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CaptUSA again."
Trump did a lot more than just not stop it. He actively positively enabled it, and oversaw the administration that originated the plan that the governors followed (or rather, originated this particular version of a plan that was first crafted during the GWB administration). But other than that, I agree with the way you put it.
Last edited by Invisible Man; 02-10-2021 at 01:50 PM.
South Dakota makes it a lie.
Super duper draconian
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
Only if you misinterpret everything I said to make it seem like I claimed that Trump forced states to lock down such that none could defy him.
But I have been pretty clear this entire time that that wasn't what I claimed.
Pay attention to the bolded word in your quote. The issue never had anything to do with compliance or defiance, because Trump had no authority over the lockdowns. Every single one of the 50 states had full discretion to do as they pleased without fear of penalty. Absent a penalty, any notion of compliance or defiance is without merit.
One penalty was to forgo federal aid that Trump provided to those who complied with his lockdown (again see the document I provided earlier for examples). Granted, this isn't much of a penalty for a governor who doesn't support the lockdowns even in principle in the first place. But as we saw, almost all governors supported them and needed that federal support to implement them.
Another penalty is from the president's bully pulpit. When the governor of Georgia defied Trump by lifting the lockdowns sooner than Trump wanted him to, Trump personally publicly castigated him for it. You may object to calling that "defiance," but Trump himself sure saw it that way. The political pressure that Republican politicians in red states were under to be able to cast themselves as allies of Trump was powerful. Trump should not be let off the hook for using that leverage to influence governors to extend lockdowns.
When it comes to the ways the federal government employs state and local agencies to enforce its edicts, it's never just a matter of either "mandating" them to do it, or leaving it entirely up to them. The federal government has all sorts of convoluted ways of enticing and manipulating state and local government activity aside from simple mandates put on them. In that respect the Trump lockdowns were not exceptional. The tools they used were quire normal tools the feds use to enact things at state and local levels all the time. But in the case of the Trump lockdowns, it was the scope, impact, and swiftness of them that made them exceptional.
Last edited by Invisible Man; 02-10-2021 at 02:13 PM.
Be specific. I have yet to see any evidence to that effect.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
You saw it. You just said it was clear as mud.
I can present the evidence. But I can't give you the ability to understand it.
South Dakota did not have a "Trump lockdown". Your entire premise remains demonstrably false. Every state had a lockdown (or lack thereof) unique to the priorities of their governor.
If those 2 pages in that document are your "evidence" then you have no evidence. The pages you referenced had zero relevance to the question.
The facts of the situation, give no credibility at all to your claim. Funding was distributed relatively equally across states per capita, regardless of lockdown. North Dakota had zero lockdowns, and they got some of the highest per capita funding.
https://www.pgpf.org/understanding-t...state-by-state
Last edited by TheTexan; 02-10-2021 at 02:24 PM.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
That was good for South Dakota. Kudos to their governor for her refusal to implement the Trump lockdown in her state.
But the ones that did were by no means implementing something that was unique to their state. They all imposed cookie cutter restrictions on their states in the span of a few days, not by some amazing coincidence, but because they were acting in a nationwide coordinated effort under the leadership of the Trump administration, and using support that the Trump administration provided for them to do that.
I don't understand the insistence of some to let that administration off the hook for the role it played in something that never would have been possible without it.
Really no need to argue with our resident sophist. Alan Dershowitz wrote an entire book on the legal justification to black bag people and torture them. He buried his fallacies and lies deep under a facade of legal credibility.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
There was no Trump lockdown. If there was a Trump lockdown, then it would have blanketed the entire country.
What the administration did do, was provide some political cover and funding for the states that chose lockdowns. What the administration did not do is lock down any of the states.I don't understand the insistence of some to let that administration off the hook for the role it played in something that never would have been possible without it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us