Coreece

White House science office takes credit for 'ending' pandemic as infections mount The White House’s science policy office on Tuesday ranked “ending the Covid-19 pandemic” atop the list of President Donald Trump’s top first-term accomplishments, even as the country registers record amounts of infections and hospitals fill up again. The list, included in a press release from the Office of Science and Technology Policy credits the administration for taking “decisive actions to engage scientists and health professionals in academia, industry, and government to understand, treat, and defeat the disease.” Where specifically does it say "ending the covid-19 pandemic" and suggest that it has ended? You say that it was in there, but now it has been removed. Where is the original? Even the first link in your google search in post #10 specifically says that "The 62-page document attached to the email did not say the administration “ended” the pandemic." What specifically do take exception with?

I don't know what searches you tried because it was widely reported. Subsequently the WH reported that it was a mistake to have stated that. They may have amended that report to remove that statement. But obviously somebody included and/or approved it in the original report. What document said "ending the covid-19 pandemic," and where did it suggest that it has ended?

That's different. That's white people fighting for their beliefs, over significant and important differences in their religions. In the past you've seemed to agree that "The Troubles" wasn't a religious conflict. What are the "significant and important differences in their religion" that you now believe they were fighting about?

John brought this up in another thread. I looked at the OSTP report and didn't see where it said "ending the COVID-19 pandemic," nor anything suggesting that it has ended. However, it did talk about the "tools to tackle today’s challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic" and that it represents "a generational challenge that can only be addressed through a whole-of-society approach" https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Trump-Administration-ST-Highlights-2017-2020.pdf

My speed reading saw that as "chapels in Walmart." Convenient given a lot Christians do their shopping on Sunday after church. Maybe we could just tithe and take whatever we need, like a subscription service. . .

He made it pretty clear it was a quick and dirty. Wendy P. He doesn't care, this is just what he does. I'm used to it.

Hi Coreece, 'So voters in those states might have reasonably shrugged and stayed home on Election Day.' 'The data suggest this may be happening.' So much for your links. It's still a 1-up on your anecdote. It may or may not be causal, but it's not unreasonable to think there may be a relationship there. The point is that there are 100+ million eligible voters that simply don't vote whether registered or not. With a popular vote they would all equally be up for grabs to whichever side wants/needs them the most and without concentrating all their effort/resources in battleground states.

Hi Coreece, I really doubt this. When I voted last week, I voted for a POTUS + US senator, a US Congresswoman, a state Sec of State, a state Treasurer, a local mayor, a couple of city council critters, four ballot measures, and a lot more that I do not remember. If there was only a vote for POTUS on the ballot, you might be right. I have never voted when only a vote for POTUS was the only thing on the ballot. Lots of reasons to be voting, voting for POTUS is only one of many. Jerry Baumchen Maybe it wouldn't affect voter turnout - hard to say. I don't have any anecdotes to offer, but I did a quick selectively biased google search and found an NPR link that might help: https://www.npr.org/2016/11/26/503170280/charts-is-the-electoral-college-dragging-down-voter-turnout-in-your-state "because of the United States' peculiar electoral college system, in which the winner takes all the electoral votes in all but two states, all the California Trump votes and West Virginia Clinton votes didn't really matter much. So voters in those states might have reasonably shrugged and stayed home on Election Day. The data suggest this may be happening. Of 15 states that NPR labeled as battlegrounds or leaning states in its final battleground map, 12 had turnout rates above the national rate — 58.4 percent of the voting-eligible population. . ." "research shows that people tend to turn out when they have had contact about voting, whether it's via mail or phone or in person. . ."

To be clear tho, that's just a thought that popped in my head - not sure if it's wishful thinking or not. I haven't read any thing supporting that idea nor anything suggesting that would be the case. But it's nice to think about a system that might actually help unite the country by focusing on issues that appeal to voters as broadly as possible, especially as wedge issues weather away.

I'm not strongly against either. I like the EC simply because it's hasn't been one-sided. I like the popular vote for the reasons listed above, along with the possibility that it might discourage an appeal to radicalism on both sides.

Why do you think it would change how people vote? It would change how many people vote. If suddenly one felt that their vote would actually count they'd likely be more inclined to vote, especially if candidates were actively seeking and asking for their votes in states that they would've typically avoided under the EC. The question I'm asking is which way do these new potential voters lean? Let's say that there are a million people in the mountains of Cali that never vote but identify with conservative ideology. A popular vote would then incentivize republicans to mine them out. In addition to that, let's say millions more conservatives came out of the woodwork (similar to white supremacists when Obama was president) and dominated the elections for the next 50 years? Would you still be ok with it? Would the dems still be ok with it's "fairness" and graciously accept defeat - maybe chalk it up as just another "unintended consequence?"

Doesn't matter either way, I'd still think the popular vote is better. Fine, but if Clinton didn't win the popular vote I doubt we'd even be talking about this right now. If the dems think it's better, it's only because they think it'll be easier to win - it's "fairness" is only a selling point. Given that we're so sharply divided, an initial concern would be the possibility of one side being in bitter submission to the other for decades, maybe even longer. At least now it goes back n' forth. On the other hand, I can see how a popular vote would not only encourage a better turnout, but also encourage candidates to appeal to a broader base. A popular vote would make it worth while to grind out votes in every state if needed, rather than just a few select regions.

What would that one way to find out be? I don't see any way to have a perfect vote count I think my wording may've been a bit unclear. I wasn't referring to an accurate vote count, just an accurate estimate of conservative vs progressives/liberals. A popular vote would obviously change the dynamics of the election, so I just think it would be a bit misguided to use 2016 as a reliable indicator of what it would look like were the EC eliminated.

Is that why you’ve won the popular vote twice in the last 30 years? Wouldn't you want an accurate count before pushing a popular vote? If every vote counts, then it should encourage more voting among those that previously felt it didn't really matter. Would the number of new democrat voters offset the number of new republican voters? I guess there's only one way to find out. . .

After it's all said and done, you may have to re-gerrymander around all the pissed off liberals living in red states, lol.

Who specifically are you referring to? Seriously, I'd like to know what you were talking about, or if you were just making things up again.

No, the 800% match would cover the cost to keep asking you for more money, so now 100% of your donation will go directly toward the cause! Looks like the dems can only find a 2x match - Soros must've maxed out.

Doesn't look like they have any 800% match deals. Too bad for you.

Who specifically are you referring to?

It looks like the links are referrals from the Republican Task Force to donate on WinRed.com which is a for-profit fundraising platform endorsed by the RNC, but the site does say that it's not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Weird stuff. No surprise there's apparently some controversy about all of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinRed

Phil, we already discussed this: https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/264972-ocasio-cortez--i'm-a-big-girl-now!/?do=findComment&comment=4855965

No, but I received this the other day. Not sure if it's officially affiliated with the Trump campaign or if it's one of those scams they were talking about. I removed the links for your safety! Lol, so this week I'm the best Trump supporter and as a reward I get to donate! I better hurry - apparently Trump is anxiously awaiting the transfer of funds. . . Even if this was legit, where would the 800% match come from? They also list options: Contribute $250 = $2250 Contribute $100 = $900 Contribute $50 = $450 If legit, seems like it could be some trick to make it look like the campaign has more contributions than they really do. This is listed at the bottom of the email: Contributions to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee are not deductible for federal income tax purposes. Paid for by Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee authorized by and composed of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee. Trump Make America Great Again Committee, 725 Fifth Ave New York, NY 10022 Sent to Republican Task Force subscribers. PO Box 271265 Superior, CO 80027

Is there some sort of bromance going on that i wasn't told about? Ya, they're fighting over me.

Can you meet in the middle at "conspiracies?" Final offer.

Do you really consider evolution to be an "unproven theory"? I didn't know that about you. Theories include observations and proven facts, but they're still subject to further observation/facts and can be significantly modified over time.