I would, because I believe it is the only way to be 'fair' and understand that everyone is someone's child.

“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory.

The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control.

The world is rudderless.”
― Alan Moore

In concept, they can overlap. Your girlfriend might be a prostitute. And a prostitute can be someone's girlfriend. I think the difference is one is 'strictly' a business transaction of money for service, with no emotional commitments, promises, or expectations. The other is based in a commitment of certain emotions, promises, and expectations.

I feel at home comfort care is a reasonable option if nothing else will help, and at the patient's approval.

a crisis to me means lack of information and/or resources to contain something fatal and contagious

I know there is not adequate health resources, because a contingency for these types of numbers was most likely never even considered.

Only one person can be treated at a time. I feel resources should be used in the order of those patients admittance, to be totally fair.


I think the only thing that can be done is to contain the numbers as best we can until such time that it is understood enough to be treated and fatality rate decreased.

The people who have the expertise in disease and illness maybe?

This is how we learn and grown, from experience, but also critique and feedback. I consider compliments the positive feedback, and criticism the negative feedback. We are not growing if we are only open to compliments, we will not grow if all we get is criticism. There needs to be a healthy balance between them. There also needs to be an understanding, in general, of where helpful critique ends and belittling and bullying words begin.


Do you agree?

Those who show up to be treated, and can be helped, should be helped. Some are not going to be able to be saved, and they should have resources to be made as comfortable as possible like hospices for others in their last days. But those who have a fighting chance at recovery, which is most right now, should be treated.

Because of my age, I will admit to prejudice on this. I am more likely to be drawn to someone in my age range and prefer someone who has shared their life with a child by this point in their lives. I am a single parent and being able to connect on the parenting experience is a mandate for me.

Part of the reason may also be people quarantined. There is no 'one reason' to pinpoint.

I think he has at least as much 'understanding' as the current POTUS, who mostly understands REAL estate.

Cuomo's resume is not shabby.

Cuomo worked two years as a New York assistant district attorney and briefly for the law firm of Blutrich, Falcone & Miller. He became active in the policy areas of homelessness and state housing policy during the 1980s and 1990s. He later created Housing Enterprise for the Less Privileged (HELP), a nonprofit organization focusing on homeless initiatives. Cuomo was appointed chairman of the New York City Homeless Commission during the administration of New York City Mayor David Dinkins from 1990 to 1993.

Prior to ascending to the state's top post, Cuomo spent time at the federal level, serving as assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997 and as secretary of HUD from 1997 to 2001 under President Bill Clinton. Returning to the state level, Cuomo served as New York attorney general from 2006 to 2010.[1]

Prior to being elected governor of New York, he was the state's attorney general from 2007 to 2010.

all added up, that is three years city level experience, 8 years fed level experience, and 4 years state level experience, not including the past 7 years as a state governor.

Given a choice of POTUS who only knows politics, or working within the constitutional framework of government and one who knows NOTHING about it, only working as a civilian BOSS with very little accountability or framework, my preference would be the former.

One of the most reasonable realistic 'lists' I've seen... bravo

That would be nice, but it is too late in the game. I can def see it in 2024, if he has any interest and has continued to be a strong leader.

I think it is more a matter of educated listening. There is dire need for people to be educated in comprehension and determining facts and data from opinions. Decades ago, the culture changes made it so that 'just the facts' approach did not bring in the views and ratings that sensational news did, and we started seeing reporters and news shows add in more casual talk and opinions.

When you allow the human element in, or allow reporters to also comment and describe things, you invite bias regardless of the side. If our education kicked out more people with the logic to tell what is fact from what is opinion, 'bias' would not be an issue.

Today's market is not that of 50 years ago. Then, we had more than 100 million less people in the USA. Then, you could get decent jobs without college, and more of the market was trade competitive, than tech competitive, and the level of 'outsourcing' was nowhere near as high
.

Oh, I think data is objective.


As far as unemployment, on the first day he was in office was 4.8. Four years later, it was 3.6, a decline of 1.4 in four years. Under Obama, it was 7.6 the first day, peaked at 10.2 by the beginning of his first budget (fiscal year) in October of 2009. From 10.9 to 4.8, that is a drop of 6.1 in 86 months. Comparing that to Trumps first FY, when it stood at 4.1 percent, to 3.6 it was in January, that is only one half of a percent in 27 months. Trump did nothing too extraordinary in that area.

https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/#FN5


This chart clearly shows Trump has not done anything unusual in the economy either.


I think Trumps' truthful hyperbole has many of his followers repeating his praises of being something spectacular, when considering what was already happening when he took the reigns, he is not.

And listening to the words from his own mouth, taking into account all the lawsuits and bankruptcies, he is also a con man and a bully and a perv.

I would say, yes, in places where identity is more about ethnicity or nationality than race. Prejudice exists everywhere, but it not always 'race' based. Racism is a race based prejudice. Because of the founding of the USA being somewhat constructed around racism, it is ingrained into the fabric of our system.

he is the mirror of Trump, with the senile and crazy part, but he has spent a good deal of time in public service which makes me think he may give half a crap compared to Trump's not even giving one.

I don't believe it is that simple. Nationalist? No evidence of it in his lifetime, five deferments and no civil or public service. Globalist? A more accurate description since his wealth is from all over the Globe. Christian? I am a Christian, and he does NOT carry himself in a way that is particularly or specifically "Christian". Not being a politician is not a plus. He has admitted openly that he makes stuff up and just says stuff, and I have heard him speak, so wondering what he means still applies to him too.

I think people who like Trump like him because whatever he espouses mirrors their own values and priorities, just like when people choose any other politicians. I also think that the rate of inclusion of other groups into a mainstream that was more exclusive in previous years makes people feel threatened about their status in this country, and he makes them feel assured that he is gonna protect their status above others instead of being open to the inclusiveness that has been happening.