(10-09-2020, 06:38 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2020, 03:04 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]OH bull [BLEEP].
He was a patient at Walter Reed because of his position, not because of his condition. Do you honestly think he made the choice to go there?
While in the hospital much of the MSM was breathlessly awaiting news that he was on a ventilator and that his condition was "dire". It didn't happen. I saw a montage where they were saying that he is "clinically obese" which is false. He is in his 70's and over weight, but by no means "obese", yet that's what the liberal MSM kept calling it.
From the little that has been released, he was not given anything more than anyone else would have gotten. He didn't get some "secret, special experimental miracle" drug.
When he arrived home (The White House) he was not "gasping for breath".
His message was right on target. We should not live in fear by shutting down the economy or not going about our daily lives. Guess what? Next year it's not only going to be "flu and cold season" it's also going to include COVID. It's not going away and it's not an immediate death sentence to get it.
I got news for you, he's obese. Ask a doctor.
Look at the closeup of Trump after he climbed those stairs and removed his mask. He was clearly having trouble breathing.
He was given an experimental antibody medication only given to 10 other patients. Look it up.
I did not say he did not have a choice, I'm saying he told Americans that he beat it, others can beat it. He beat it (maybe) because he had access to care others may dream about. $100,000 worth of care provided by the taxpayers for a man who brags about avoiding taxes. It's an insult to everyone who got "dominated" and died.
I've seen the effects of COVID on a healthy 32 year old woman. Contracted it in April, stayed seriously ill for nearly a month and is just now able to resume her daily exercise routine. Do you think a business could stay open if several employees were similarly affected?
As for "what little we've been told", why is that. Why won't he tell us when he first tested positive, and how often he's tested negative? We know he lied about being tested daily. Why did he needlessly expose so many?
Tell me this - would you go to a Trump rally without a mask and crowded together with others?
So now Trump is purposely trying to kill Americans? Good lord man is your hate so great that you actually believe this deification?
(10-09-2020, 06:38 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think a business could stay open if several employees were similarly affected?
I couldn't tell you that, but I can say that they absolutely couldn't stay open if the alternative is to force them to keep their doors closed indefinitely.
(10-09-2020, 10:22 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2020, 10:16 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ]Can we consider it a terrorist act if someone knowingly has coronavirus spread it to other people?
There are laws in some states that charge for willful or knowledgeable transmission of HIV, but those are narrow laws and wouldn't apply. So, no, not really. Can you imagine what the civil trials would look like in a few years?
Just my opinion that at this point anybody who has paid attention to this virus, and know how its transmitted should be held responsible if they knowingly infected other people.
(10-09-2020, 12:25 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2020, 07:26 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said, I don't know how to solve the problem It needs to be addressed in some way. Our news agencies are businesses and we are consumers. This business model is creating the worst possible outcome for unity in this country.
We only need to enforce slander and libel laws more effectively.
(10-09-2020, 10:16 AM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ]Can we consider it a terrorist act if someone knowingly has coronavirus spread it to other people?
There are already laws that cover someone intentionally trying to spread certain infectious diseases.
If you lower to that standard, then everyone with covid could be charged since any act could be an attempt to "spread it". Kiss your wife? Terroristic act. Go to the park? Terroristic act. Want McDonald's? Terroristic act.
Also, good luck proving they actually gave it to someone and that someone else isn't responsible.
So do you think there are some people who are not intentionally spreading the coronavirus knowing they wont be punished?
I think it could be the exact opposite, if person A suspect person B infected them intentionally, all the police would do is ask for medical paperwork tp determine if or when person B became infected.
(10-09-2020, 10:49 PM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2020, 12:25 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]We only need to enforce slander and libel laws more effectively.
There are already laws that cover someone intentionally trying to spread certain infectious diseases.
If you lower to that standard, then everyone with covid could be charged since any act could be an attempt to "spread it". Kiss your wife? Terroristic act. Go to the park? Terroristic act. Want McDonald's? Terroristic act.
Also, good luck proving they actually gave it to someone and that someone else isn't responsible.
So do you think there are some people who are not intentionally spreading the coronavirus knowing they wont be punished?
I think it could be the exact opposite, if person A suspect person B infected them intentionally, all the police would do is ask for medical paperwork tp determine if or when person B became infected.
That only works if A has not been around
anyone else that could possibly infect them. Like, a desert island scenario. If the info put out is to be believed anyone can have it and anyone can catch it and not even know it. Testing only gives a result, there is no DNA sequencing going on that can determine a specific person infected someone else.
(10-09-2020, 10:49 PM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2020, 12:25 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]We only need to enforce slander and libel laws more effectively.
There are already laws that cover someone intentionally trying to spread certain infectious diseases.
If you lower to that standard, then everyone with covid could be charged since any act could be an attempt to "spread it". Kiss your wife? Terroristic act. Go to the park? Terroristic act. Want McDonald's? Terroristic act.
Also, good luck proving they actually gave it to someone and that someone else isn't responsible.
So do you think there are some people who are not intentionally spreading the coronavirus knowing they wont be punished?
I think it could be the exact opposite, if person A suspect person B infected them intentionally, all the police would do is ask for medical paperwork tp determine if or when person B became infected.
Oh, I’m sure there are some but probably nothing significant.
You’d need more than just suspicion. You’d need a court order to look at that paperwork. If someone is intentionally infecting people, they’re not handing over anything willingly. Americus is right in that the police would need to prove that Person B was only around Person A or there will be no conviction.
I doubt a judge would even issue a warrant irrefutable proof.
But again, the police can already charge them for reckless conduct if they think they can convince a jury. That law is more subjective than a clear-cut (per se) law about spreading covid would be.
(10-10-2020, 11:22 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2020, 10:49 PM)Jamies_fried_chicken Wrote: [ -> ]So do you think there are some people who are not intentionally spreading the coronavirus knowing they wont be punished?
I think it could be the exact opposite, if person A suspect person B infected them intentionally, all the police would do is ask for medical paperwork tp determine if or when person B became infected.
Oh, I’m sure there are some but probably nothing significant.
You’d need more than just suspicion. You’d need a court order to look at that paperwork. If someone is intentionally infecting people, they’re not handing over anything willingly. Americus is right in that the police would need to prove that Person B was only around Person A or there will be no conviction.
I doubt a judge would even issue a warrant irrefutable proof.
But again, the police can already charge them for reckless conduct if they think they can convince a jury. That law is more subjective than a clear-cut (per se) law about spreading covid would be.
There's no way to prove the accused was contagious at a specific time in the past. It's an unwinnable case.