Texas Governor Greg Abbott Ends Statewide Mask Mandate, Opens State 100%

I'll just point out the fact-- for which I'll probably take another cheap-shot zinger, as in the preceding post-- that you are mixing up government and politician, even if one were to concede the inconsistency you allege (which, of course, is debatable and has been strongly-contested). The California government's OFFICIAL state recommendations are a much different animal than the statements of any given politician, or group of politicians, for that matter.

I am sorry to continue bringing this up, since I appreciate your finally opening up enough to tell me this, but your statements suggest that your using of these terms interchangeably, might be due to your lack of first-hand experience with the American political system. I am not dismissing the possibility that you know exactly the difference, & are only presenting a disingenuous argument, but I prefer, at least initially, to give you the benefit of your claim to ignorance.

 

I thought only Dem gov's shut down their states.

 

Nope. Shutdowns are far from a left or right thing.

 

When did I mention government and politician? I'm saying that exemptions were made for BLM protests. Simple.

 

What exemptions are you referring to? And what entity other than the, "government," has an ability to give, "exemptions?" Are you talking about police departments, mayoral offices, governors, who?

Here is where this section of our conversation began, with your reproducing for me, some literature put out by the state of California.

So that was about government. Now here comes the shift to politicians.

Because it was so often a charge, by both posters & politicians on the right, that Democratic politicians, specifically, "approved," of BLM protests (& even of any property destruction, looting, or violence that was associated with it), I assumed that you were reiterating that position. Was I mistaken? If so, what, specific inconsistency are you referring to?

(So there, you specifically cite, "government," despite your next post's asking, "When did I mention government...")

Inconsistency in being against the spread of the virus but, "for," the protests? The "government," I don't think you could legitimately say, was for protests. Nevertheless, it is a tenet of our system, so all would be expected to at least give lip service to the idea of supporting, every American's right to protest. There is no inconsistency there. It is only in the assertion that politicians, specifically Democrats, supported the BLM cause, which is true, so that they supposedly were hypocritical, vis a vis other types of gatherings. This is a charge against politicians of a particular party, not against the government, at large. You follow?

 

Here's an example:
https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1281354252422651904

I don't see it that way. Government IS politicians, isn't it? Take my above example - that's the USELESS pile of garbage, New York Mayor, who is a politician, but is the head of New York City's government.

I asked, "when did I mention government AND politician?" I said "government" but not politician.

Yes.

Do you mean ALL governments in the country?

Funny how the media was pro-BLM protests but anti-lockdown protests.

 

"Pull out all the stops," is an American expression that means to go all-out, full bore, etc. You were making the case that closing roads would take millions of deaths, in a single state, before that would happen because it would be, "perhaps," more unimaginable than what we experienced this past year. So I said that it would have taken nowhere near that many deaths for even the most stubborn governors to go all in, with regard to Covid restrictions. So, that means, IF the unprecedented lockdown regulations of the past year ARE, in any way comparable to your road analogy-- & I'm only explaining this because I had missed seeing this post of yours-- then it would have taken nowhere near the number of deaths you are stipulating, in order to close down/ restrict access to roads.*
But IF, instead, your estimate of the deaths necessary to take remedial action towards the roads was right (and I couldn't give a crap, either way, at this point), THEN that would mean the two were nothing at all alike (i.e., are NOT analogous).
*But if they ARE (analogous) there is no reason, then, to SUBSTITUTE roads for the ACTUAL restrictions of the, "lockdowns." In other words, either way, there's no reason to talk about this hypothetical, fantasy-scenario, other than to avoid talking about the real life situation.

(So stop mentioning roads).

 

You are switching, once more, before I even have time to follow your link & read whatever is there, talking about supposed government exemptions for BLM protests-- which, again, providing me a link does not mean that you can't also summarize, or preview, or mention something about what is at the other end of that link-- you are now lobbing your accusational grenades at the MEDIA. How 'bout you pick a target & we stick with it till we reach some sort of cadence, even if we only conclude by agreeing to disagree on it?

And you are repeating your convoluting of certain politicians & the government-- this is not a dictatorship, Chris, it is easy to find two politicians in the same federal government, state government, city government, in the same legislative body, & so on, saying & advocating for totally opposite things. So all their opinions cannot be called the government's opinion, mostly only those which have the force of law behind them, or at least supporting them. In a similar vein, you cannot tell me that there was NO MEDIA that was anti-BLM protests or supportive of those protesting lockdowns.

 

Texas has one of the lowest percentages for those having received the vaccine, it will be interesting to watch the infection rate.
But more importantly the death rate as the most vulnerable are protected. Other countries will watch this higher risk strategy with interest.

 

Lowest percentages of what?

 

I mentioned it in my above post:

"Take my above example - that's the USELESS pile of garbage, New York Mayor, who is a politician, but is the head of New York City's government."

Sure, so I'm referring to any politician who agreed to give an exemption to BLM protests. In the case of New York, that is any city politician in the New York government who agreed to it. Of course, it may have not even gone to a vote - perhaps DeBlassio just decided it.

Alright, so call it the consensus opinion.

No conservative media outlet was against the peaceful BLM protests. Conservatives very much believe in the right to peaceably assemble and protest. Of course, they disagreed with the premise of the protests, but not the protests themselves. Any negativity towards them was simply about how according to the COVID rules at the time, mass gatherings were banned, but BLM protests were allowed to go ahead.
By the way, "peaceful" doesn't mean just non-violent - there's nothing peaceful about blocking a road without a permit. And yes, there was media in support of those protesting lockdowns, but do you seriously think that it included CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post or the New York Times, or ANY non-conservative outlet? So then, what does this mean? It means that conservative outlets supported BOTH protests, and liberal outlets only support one!

 

My mention of roads was simply to point out that governments make trade offs all of the time. They consider some death of the road acceptable in order to keep the road system open. And now states like Texas and Florida consider some death from COVID acceptable in order to allow the non-vulnerable majority to live their lives. Deal with it.

 

I HAVE BEEN.

 

ALL STATES treat the probability of some Covid death, not so much as, "acceptable," as unavoidable, in their keeping essential workers on the job. Did you overlook that, Chris? But that does not mean that I need to accept, as in, not call out & fault, any governor who decides he's got a hot hand & so wants to roll the dice with potential deaths that ARE avoidable.

Are you able to understand that crucial difference? It's about MINIMIZING deaths-- which we do attempt to do, on our roadways.

 

Minimising COVID death by people making sensible choices. Do you suppose that some people may have died due to their own stupidity?

 

You're shifting the subject again.

 

Oh well. You can deal with that too. If you had an answer, you would have given it already. You always do after all.

 

No doubt many caught Covid due to their own, let's call it ill-advised behavior. That is neither here nor there to my point, about the government's proper duty to minimize unnecessary, excess deaths; and if you had an answer for that, you would have given it. Instead you are running from the question by changing the focus.

 

Those having received the vaccine. Its about 20% first dose. 10% both doses.

 

To be fair, the majority of shutdowns that were mandated in Texas were the result of democrats exercising their tyranny on the people of TX. Hence why the TX AG, for example, had to take the democratic mayor of Austin to court to comply with the State of TX law. This is how democrats have so negatively effected the folks of TX, and why, likely, they won't last.

 

Florida and Texas HAVE minimised unnecessary, excess deaths. You just think that it should continue until heard immunity has been reached.

 

I figured as much.
But many here on PF always seem to think the left shut down the economy.
Even though most of the entire Earth shut down.

 

You a Texan?

 

I live in TX now.

 

Trump isn't responsible for the vaccines.

https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/3/covid-19-vaccine-tracker​