Soooo, 25 out of 26 states with Rep governors are playing HS football and I believe well less than half with Dem governors are not. Coincidence? I guess it could be.
Which is pretty much precisely one of the reasons many have been saying spring football is a galactically stupid idea; the time of year when flu viruses and other viruses are gaining the most steam.
Right, no one would be playing football anywhere, instead of this half and half because everyone would be following the recommendations of experts.
Then you must support full fans and full tailgating, right? Same exact logic: all that matters is they’re willing to take the risk that they get infected at the events. Easy peasy
Problem is that Trump in desperation is going to give emergency approval to a vaccine or multiple, before the election. Mark it down
Nearly a guarantee that he will. But no one with a brain will line up for that one.
See, now this post I agree with pretty much entirely. If people, the players, coaches, athletic departments, fans (if they have fans) want to take the risk and are willing to do what they should, what is the issue? Very well put, I agree with this
I’m asking you. If you think it is (and of course it is), then you can’t hold the opposite opinion (as you’ve said you do) for players/coaches/staff. The same logic applies exactly in both cases.
What do you mean who cares? That wasn’t the context of my discussion with the other poster. Try reading that context, before piping in.
The recommendation of experts? What experts? This is where Biden was an absolute colossal fool the other day when he said he would shut things down again if that's what they scientists said. Hey Joe, When you're wearing the Big Boy pants, when you're the boss, when you're in charge, you don't just get to punt and abdicate your decision making to experts. It's not their decision to make; When you're in charge, you take the input from the "experts"/scientists, you take the input from economists, from the business world, you take input from a number of different realms and areas of knowledge and you evaluate all of that information in order for YOU to make the decision. IF it were up to scientists, it would be required to be a scientist to be Prez. That answer told us all that Joe is pretty much what we all know him to be and what he's proven to be for the last half century in politics; an ineffective cowardly career politician.
The hypothetical was "The goal posts will move at least until November" and then references to political lines dividing the responses taken to the pandemic, which lead to 2 conclusions on what you are insinuating:The recommendation of experts? What experts? This is where Biden was an absolute colossal fool the other day when he said he would shut things down again if that's what they scientists said. Hey Joe, When you're wearing the Big Boy pants, when you're the boss, when you're in charge, you don't just get to punt and abdicate your decision making to experts. It's not their decision to make; When you're in charge, you take the input from the "experts"/scientists, you take the input from economists, from the business world, you take input from a number of different realms and areas of knowledge and you evaluate all of that information in order for YOU to make the decision. IF it were up to scientists, it would be required to be a scientist to be Prez. That answer told us all that Joe is pretty much what we all know him to be and what he's proven to be for the last half century in politics; an ineffective cowardly career politician.
At the risk of getting into a pissing contest here, with all due respect, you kind of missed the mark with your wager. Aside from the fact that your proposed wager had nothing to do with the hypothetical that I threw out there, the metrics or parameters of your wager are wildly arbitrary and subjective; "if COVID suddenly goes away"? Who gets to decide what that entails? Even the condition regarding release of a vaccine isn't entirely set in stone; there could be a vaccine next week but perhaps it meets the review and acceptance of some but not others (FDA, et al). If you're hell bent on a wager, PM me and I'm sure we can come up with agreeable terms that would suffice. It can't be that hard. That sounds like fun, or at least a nice distraction from the board.
Besides you left no provision for the possibility, albeit I'm sure REMOTE, that the incumbent wins again. I know, I know, it's unthinkable, right?!
Good f**king grief.The recommendation of experts? What experts? This is where Biden was an absolute colossal fool the other day when he said he would shut things down again if that's what they scientists said. Hey Joe, When you're wearing the Big Boy pants, when you're the boss, when you're in charge, you don't just get to punt and abdicate your decision making to experts. It's not their decision to make; When you're in charge, you take the input from the "experts"/scientists, you take the input from economists, from the business world, you take input from a number of different realms and areas of knowledge and you evaluate all of that information in order for YOU to make the decision. IF it were up to scientists, it would be required to be a scientist to be Prez. That answer told us all that Joe is pretty much what we all know him to be and what he's proven to be for the last half century in politics; an ineffective cowardly career politician.
At the risk of getting into a pissing contest here, with all due respect, you kind of missed the mark with your wager. Aside from the fact that your proposed wager had nothing to do with the hypothetical that I threw out there, the metrics or parameters of your wager are wildly arbitrary and subjective; "if COVID suddenly goes away"? Who gets to decide what that entails? Even the condition regarding release of a vaccine isn't entirely set in stone; there could be a vaccine next week but perhaps it meets the review and acceptance of some but not others (FDA, et al). If you're hell bent on a wager, PM me and I'm sure we can come up with agreeable terms that would suffice. It can't be that hard. That sounds like fun, or at least a nice distraction from the board.
Besides you left no provision for the possibility, albeit I'm sure REMOTE, that the incumbent wins again. I know, I know, it's unthinkable, right?!
I thought Paxton's best work was in "Weird Science", no?
If you paid any attention to the death march DNC, then watched the Positivity and upbeat tone of the RNC, it’s not unthinkable at all, it’s likely. America won’t be duped by the news propaganda, as they seek to change reality every day. I’m starting to think Bernie had a better shot, he stood for something, vs just hate and negativity. Even Obama, Michele, Bill, Hillary, dark-angry-negative, negative, negative, negative, all 4. Policy, after policy, after policy is a win for the RNC . . . Vs what, standing for hating current president?The recommendation of experts? What experts? This is where Biden was an absolute colossal fool the other day when he said he would shut things down again if that's what they scientists said. Hey Joe, When you're wearing the Big Boy pants, when you're the boss, when you're in charge, you don't just get to punt and abdicate your decision making to experts. It's not their decision to make; When you're in charge, you take the input from the "experts"/scientists, you take the input from economists, from the business world, you take input from a number of different realms and areas of knowledge and you evaluate all of that information in order for YOU to make the decision. IF it were up to scientists, it would be required to be a scientist to be Prez. That answer told us all that Joe is pretty much what we all know him to be and what he's proven to be for the last half century in politics; an ineffective cowardly career politician.
At the risk of getting into a pissing contest here, with all due respect, you kind of missed the mark with your wager. Aside from the fact that your proposed wager had nothing to do with the hypothetical that I threw out there, the metrics or parameters of your wager are wildly arbitrary and subjective; "if COVID suddenly goes away"? Who gets to decide what that entails? Even the condition regarding release of a vaccine isn't entirely set in stone; there could be a vaccine next week but perhaps it meets the review and acceptance of some but not others (FDA, et al). If you're hell bent on a wager, PM me and I'm sure we can come up with agreeable terms that would suffice. It can't be that hard. That sounds like fun, or at least a nice distraction from the board.
Besides you left no provision for the possibility, albeit I'm sure REMOTE, that the incumbent wins again. I know, I know, it's unthinkable, right?!
No, it's not the DNA of all of America.