The bit that's arbitrary is how important people don't have to abide by health and safety guidelines, but the rest of us do.
The second presidential debate isn't quite a full fortnight after Trump tested positive for covid, assuming when it was announced to the public coincided with the private knowledge. It's not arbitrary to protect other people from infection.
What is your concern about the debate being held via Zoom? Is there any way it could be worse than the first one? Are you worried that the candidates' magnetic personalities aren't going to come across?
Or are you worried that Trump's behaviour can be controlled if he doesn't abide by the rules?
You call instituting safety measures in the middle of a pandemic when people from the White House are testing positive left, right and centre, arbitrary?
And maybe the consultation process should bypass the people who are acting recklessly, endangering others and can't debate without interrupting and talking over each other.
It seems like the grown ups are having to intervene, only it's like step-parents being left in charge and they can't actually confront, or discipline the children.
I imagine a lot of people who work in the White House, like the ordinary people who clean the toilets after the important people, won't be allowed to keep themselves safe without risking their livelihoods.
I haven't developed an apathy towards Biden, Iotooa.
I have never deemed him an appropriate presidential candidate for a number of reasons, and have been very vocal about that.
The only reason that Biden is worth voting for is on a tactical basis to avoid another four years of Trump who is clearly and overtly dangerous. It's not because Biden would be a worthy president.
If Biden had had any sense, he would have patiently waited everytime Trump interrupted him, he wouldn't have interrupted Trump and he wouldn't have resorted to name calling.
That would have shown Trump for the inappropriate presidential candidate that he is, whilst not demonstrating that he's almost as inappropriate.
It's such a simple technique. A presidential candidate who doesn't know how to conduct himself and doesn't know the impact of conducting himself appropriately shouldn't be entrusted with the complexities of leading a nation of any size, never mind one the size of the US.
A hot mess and an excruciating embarrassment, indeed.
Like you ignored my very clear comment about the drones assassinations a few days ago when you were trying to project Trump as Mother Theresa incarnate?
I'll try and read your post again, but y'know, paragraphs. They are not easy to read, so I do frequently bypass your comments.
I imagine some of mine aren't easy to read for many people, but I don't think that one about the drones was one of them. Most of it was a quote from the Reprieve website.
I understand more of the technicalities now, but it was basically as I thought: if the prosecutor motions to have a case dismissed after a guilty plea there has to be a reason. If the reason is not examined, especially if the prosecution badly doesn't want it examined, there could be some kind of corruption that is missed.
What I hadn't realised is that Bill Barr is ultimately responsible for the prosecution and request for dismissal. The inappropriate use of the writ of mandamus was also informative in terms of the extent to which potential examination is being avoided.
So to be transparent, what kind of judges are non-Obama judges?
I'm really hoping they're not Trump judges because that would leave them looking like they were in cahoots with an attempt at bare-faced corruption.
I have a cloth one made out of cotton jersey (thick t-shirt material), but I've gone back to the disposable, blue medical-looking ones.
At first I thought it was more comfortable, but my glasses still fog up, I still have condensation dripping off my nose and because it's a flexible cloth every time I inhale, or try to speak I shrink wrap my face.
I read a review and the cotton jersey ones aren't the best at keeping your germs to yourself, either.
I don't think I'm obliged to wear one as yet, but I do if I go on the bus, or into shops. It's only for a brief time and I take it off the moment I'm outside and away from other people.
If I had to wear one for prolonged periods, I'd be trying out other types.
Any hostage situation would be within the remit of of a specialist hostage team, whether the hostage taker was a substance misuser, or not. So yes, 'wait a minute while we activate the specialist hostage team' is the usual protocol.
Hostage situations are not within the remit of patrol officers whether the hostage taker is sober, or not.
Specialist hostage teams are a part of law enforcement because hostage taking is a criminal act which prioritises the needs of the hostage(s) over the needs of the hostage taker.
A hostage team will consist of a number of people in different roles including those who are trained in psycho-social issues.
Not all substance misuse issues involve the need for law enforcement, or end up in hostage situations. Specialist workers in this area are always going to focus on damage limitation because substance misuse is damaging to individuals and the people around them. It's not fair to expect police officers to deal with unlimited damage without any training in this area. It's not cost effective, either.
It's counter-productive to come out with this sort of ignorant, misleading, sensationalist guff, rather than apply adult reasoning to these situations.
The social function of various employments is so often ignored, whether it's posties, catering staff, hairdressers, medical staff, shop assistants, whatever.
Very often poorly paid and under-valued work, it's a positive outcome of the pandemic that we're more appreciative of services which are essential in more than one way.
online now!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,976)
RE: The Infant-in-chief rejects virtual debate
I guess that will always be a mystery to you.