TriGirl

I have two people working for me who are on the conservative side of the spectrum. One at least is willing to do what the head of the mission is requiring WRT to mask wearing in shared spaces, though he does like to complain about his glasses fogging up. He'll also have conversations and listen to other arguments. His mind might not be changed, but he is smart enough to know when to stop the argument. The other is one of those who loves to spew the binary points of view -- like mask wearing does nothing to stem the spread, schools should be open because kids are at such a low risk, and Ron DeSantis is a brilliant leader (I'm a Florida resident, so he thinks that's some common ground). He brought up talking points today like, "the science just doesn't support [this or that recommendation]," or, even better, comparing the impact in Florida to what happened in New York (calls Cuomo an idiot but DeSantis is the smart one). Interestingly, though he will put up "statistics" to back his statements (apples-to-footballs comparisons), anything I try to offer even to put those stats into a more comparable context is quickly and definitively dismissed. This is the type of person who would have followed guidance from POTUS had the whole "let's wear face coverings and prove those dems WRONG!" message been promulgated. As it stands, there is no changing this guy's mind. Though frustrating as hell, I have better things to do with my day than to try to convince this guy of anything he doesn't already believe. This is the demographic that is hurting the efforts to slow the spread. Unfortunately, it's going to take another 20 or so years of bringing certain subjects back into schools (basic hygiene, disease prevention, critical thinking skills, understanding reporting [digging for the source and understanding how information is interpreted]). And while there were serious problems with the way schools used to teach/grade "citizenship," I'm not opposed to trying to work some of that back into public school attitudes. We've gotten way too far away from "good of many" and seem to focus almost exclusively on "good of one."

I was lucky -- my first one was for $100k at age 29. That particular company offered increases at the same rate of $50k at a time as long as I took them when offered every 3 years. Once I hit $250k, I stopped taking them. I was 49 when I took the "paid up" option to lock in that $96k permanent benefit.

Actually, I want to start with a host (network, facility, moderator) who enforces the rules. Trump infamously threw tantrums if he didn't get a center lectern in the early primaries, then talked over the opponents' responses. He did the same thing (talked over Clinton's responses, went well over time, didn't yield, invaded her personal space) during the presidential debates. The media focused on it because it fell under the "oddity" characteristic of "nature of news," but then let it go on. If the guest you invited to your event (debate) doesn't follow the rules after repeated requests to do so, then you turn off the damn mic and give your other guest(s) the courtesy of their own allotted time to respond. That's actually the one possible upside to doing the debates virtually. Only un-mute the candidate who officially has the floor. If they go a little over (as is inevitable), that gets a warning like usual. Once they have used up the grace period, shut them off. They'll adjust pretty quickly when it happens.

Sorry, my policies were all Whole Life, not Term. I thought I did pretty well with the premiums, though they were higher than Term policies I've heard of. On the other hand, they didn't charge me extra for extreme sports (but they did as a 'smoker' because I admitted to enjoying a cigar every year for the Marine Corps birthday) The nice thing about my WL policies was that, because they are long-term, they built up equity. I recently converted all four policies into a "reduced, paid up" status -- meaning I never have to pay the premiums again, and the combined payout to my beneficiaries is worth $96k based on what I contributed over the years already. The combined value of the four policies while I was paying premiums was $250,000, with premiums of about $260-ish/month (as I recall -- it was part of a lump sum I paid to my combined retirement account that went to pay mutual fund contributions as well as insurance premiums). In case you want to check them out, the company is Liberty National. YMMV.

At this point it might be better to do one thread for all of his geography gaffes. Just last week it was Yo Semite. If you don't know how Yosemite is spelled, and you see this for the first time, okay -- I can see the potential for the mispronunciation. I didn't know how to pronounce it at first, either -- but I was 12 years old and figured it out in about 30 seconds. This is supposed to be the leader of a superpower, and he can't read.

This is language that comes out when a married man is suspected of inappropriate behavior with another person who is not his wife. And the article noted that the "theme" of the party was "Trailer Park." So if you go with the theme, their attire might make sense (not appropriate, good sense, but at least along the same lines) -- to include the (tasteless) expression of their idea of the stereotype. Also, if he was going for the stereotype, and accepted that his beverage was "supposed" to be rum & Coke, couldn't he come up with a better excuse than black water? Is cola forbidden to Liberty U students? If so, then it possibly could pass for grape juice, if he wanted something plausible. But these are the excuses/explanations you'd expect to hear from someone a) being caught doing something they know is against what they preach, and b) isn't accustomed to having to explain himself because no one in his circle dares even confront him about his hypocrisy.

I didn't quite expect this from NYP -- except for the misleading sensationalist headline. This former producer is not talking about HOW events are covered (or editorialized). She's talking about WHICH stories are covered (and how often). While I do agree -- and have for a couple decades -- that "commercial" broadcast news spends too much time on the same story regardless of the programming, and should spread the attention to explore a variety of issues that should be important to their audience, what is cited in this article is much different than what goes on at Fox (since you brought it up). At Fox, except for a couple of straight-on news programs, the majority of the content is editorial and opinion, not news (though many viewers take all of it as "news," or at least based on factual premise). Except for the headline, I was pleasantly surprised by the coverage of this topic by NYP.

The Washington Sentinels. It was already used in "The Replacements."

Yep -- this was the article I was thinking of when I read Ron's posts about a planned Antifa event in his area. There are more of these kinds of incendiary posts elsewhere ("antifa" is not an organized group -- it's just an idea). The intent was to make these right-wing nutters look like the gullible simpletons they are by them believing the posts and showing up to counter whatever they think is going to happen. The real problem is that though those folks did show up to do just that, they aren't made to feel silly for falling for the hoax. The false postings/rally cries are still cited as if the plans for the event were real. It only adds fuel to that fire if the trolls continue this behavior, because it gives the nutters more "evidence" that these rallies are real.

In the comments section of the article linked earlier, a reader suggested "Gold Star Base." Honors those who died and those who lost.

Because they're made of rubber, and the germs bounce back into the lungs?

"But ... but... this is AMERICA! It's a FREE COUNTRY! You can't tell me I have to wear a mask in your (privately owned) business!!" [facepalm] Yeah, it may be much more widely accepted to be told you have to wear a mask in order to patronize any particular private business, than to have state-wide mandates for everyone/everywhere. Then again....

And if you want a good scary movie, check out "Jesus Camp." Although we've been seeing the scary bits in the US for the past four years. Spoiler alert: the parts that scared me most were the ignorant ones calling into radio shows (and we've seen that attitude on full display since the current administration)

I like that both sides seem to have gotten the main concessions they wanted, and cut out most of the special interest the opponents objected to. Well done, legislators.

He tested positive for the coronavirus, he did not develop COVID. He hasn't exhibited any symptoms of the disease. Therefore, he likely will not need to "recover." (and to the other posters: he isn't suffering) That also goes to show that someone may never develop symptoms, but still spread the virus to those who could suffer. And if the disease doesn't manifest, how does the person know whom they may have exposed? They probably wouldn't even know where they picked it up (for certain). Therefore, yeah, all this isolation is a very good idea, and should have been encouraged much earlier.

Trump shouldn't RECEIVE any bailout funds. His properties are not cut from the list to receive them (last I read)

All the pundits are saying Stacey Abrams, but I also like Klobuchar or Harris. Klobuchar has a better chance right now, as she stepped aside at the right time and immediately endorsed Biden.

I won’t reply to a particular post, as there are too many on the topic of masks. I thought for sure someone would point out before now that masks don’t do anything to keep the wearer from being exposed to outside pathogens. They keep germs confined to the system of someone already infected, to keep that person from infecting others. I would consider them prudent for someone who had been exposed, while they are in quarantine waiting to learn whether they contracted the virus, but these people walking around airports and other public places in the US wearing masks are just hurting the industry that really needs them. Another sad observation from this week: just try to find disinfectant wipes for sale. The shelves are cleared out of the wipes. However, plenty of disinfecting cleanser is still filling the shelves. Are people really that ill educated? (That’s rhetorical. Unfortunately I know they actually are). The sales associates at Home Depot were walking around openly criticizing the rush on wipes.

No one knew how complicated healthcare is.

Wouldn't that lead to the possibility of successful 3rd party candidacies? You can't be taking a chance on that, now can you? Yep. And I'd be good with that. No one can hijack a party on their own, and bills would actually get negotiated and considered if any presenter had to get a coalition. And with my idea, the parties wouldn't be able to vote you out if you supported an issue here or there that might contradict the basic platform. Just if you had proven yourself to be a RINO/DINO and consistently took the opposite opinion on the majority of issues.

I recall saying something similar in 2016, but more generally toward both parties. The parties should set a standard for who they will allow to put the letter behind their name. If you want to throw your hat in the ring for a certain nomination, the party should stand up and decide whether you qualify in the first place. Some examples: registered with the party for X number of years (1? 3?). Have some of the basics from the party's standard platform in your own goals (R = smaller government, lower taxes; D = social safety net, civil liberties). If an incumbent has a demonstrated record trend of voting for policies solidly contrary to the standard policies, the party should have the right to refuse the candidate to spend party money on a re-election. All of the party's decisions on exclusion would have to be made public in a standardized way to justify the decisions, and be open for registered voters to overturn them with a significant share of the members. Still have the primary process where the registered voters get to choose the party's nominee, but the party gets to have more say in who gets into the race in the first place. This definitely would have stopped Trump from sucking up all the oxygen in the Republican contest, leaving the more staid party elders to get someone qualified on the ballot. It would also address the Sanders and Bloomberg conundrums.

I'd like to insert another perspective: DNC candidates got into the race, IMHO, way WAY too early. Those really early ones started getting a lot of attention, so the field was swarmed with all those who felt they needed to throw their hats in, regardless of having their "exploratory" stages complete. Because of the massive field, news channels started hosting debates in some kind of attempt to get everyone's positions out there, to compare one against the other, and possibly make some kind of sense of it all (not that that was their driving reason for hosting debates, but it made the reporting much easier). So, they started by hosting multiple iterations of debates with randomly selected portions (read: everyone qualified). As time went on, hosts (whether the host of the debate, or the DNC) had to come up with qualification metrics so that a single event could be held, with a manageable number of participants. However, the filing deadline had not been reached. With the circus that has resulted from so many early entries, sometimes we forget that Iowa and NH *just* had their events. And the field has been culled. So, for someone who chose to enter the race before the deadlines, and in an appropriate amount of time before the Iowa caucus, why should he be penalized for not jumping into the fray a year (plus) too early? Okay -- now that the caucus/primary season has started (especially with today being Super Tuesday), I could see requiring someone to meet a polling or "primary minimum" showing going forward, but for Bloomberg, the fundraising and polling cut-offs were arbitrary carry-overs from the initial trim-down of the extreme field of declared candidates.

But he did get more of the empty judge positions filled (with unqualified judges, but still...)

It's called leading by example, and respecting the office. He does neither.

Awesome story! Thanks for sharing.