If coronavirus restrictions end prematurely, 'President Trump will have blood on his hands,' public health expert says
Remember when he was told to not look directly into the eclipse?
Here’s to hoping he is just as personally incautious about pandemics.
Canada is looking f’ing sexy nowadays.
P.S. if I was in my 20’s or 30’s I’d get the hell out’a the USA, STAT!
Your lips to Dog’s ears!
Dr. Keith Martin, who heads the Consortium of Universities for Global Health
Notice that the failing New York Times neglects to report that Dr. Martin’s uncle didn’t even attend M.I.T.!
Right… like massively botching the coronavirus response and making a runaway pandemic inevitable doesn’t yet qualify Traitor Trump as a goddamn murderer.
For some reason this comes to mind…
This factoid is extremely misleading, for a few reasons.
A) A single day of war counts for the whole year Consider WWII. According to the metric used by this claim, it lasted five years (1941-1945). But war was declared in December 1941, and V-J Day was in August 45. So, in fact, there were less than four years of war there.
B) It defines everything as a war. The list this claim is based off of seems to think that everything with the name “war” in it is actually a war. So there are years where “the Texas-Indian Wars” (a series of skirmishes between Texan settlers and natives, often not involving the military) is the only war listed. Oddly, 1844 is one of these years, which was before Texas was annexed to the US. (This was December 29, 1845, so, according to point A, the first 362 days of the year would count as part of the US being at war).
C) Seriously, everything is a war to this guy. There are 14 years where “The Banana Wars” is the only war listed. While the military was involved, calling this a war is a stretch. Also, the “Anti-Piracy Wars” was just the navy protecting trade routes from literal pirates. The entire stretch from 1819-1824 only lists the Anti-Piracy Wars and/or the Yellowstone Expedition as wars. (Because the Yellowstone Expedition was intended to build a military fort, therefore it’s a war).
Hopefully they are just as considerate of others as Rand Paul. (They are checking temperatures, but apparently that’s mainly medical security theater.)
If he wipes that blood out of his eyes, he’ll definitely get it on his hands, and also coronavirus.
I’ve heard Canada is going to build a wall and make USA pay for it.
my gosh $6 Trillion dollars, how are republicans going to tax cut their way out of that for the next decade
While you’re not wrong, and the link above does overstate it, you’re not really accepting the point that the standard operating procedure for the entire history of your country has been to murder people, often to enable some powerful people to make more money.
Those Banana Wars you dismiss lasted for almost the entire first half of the 20th century, and are an example of private interests using the US military for their own gain.
You should read Smedley Butler’s book “War is a Racket”.
I completely accept that. I’m not trying to defend the US’s actions in the Banana Wars or any of the multitude of Indian Wars. The list is still click-baity hyperbole that uses definitions that no historian (or even average reader) would use to make a point in a way that depends on the reader being unaware of this idiosyncratic usage. Basically, you’d go away from the link with a worse understanding of US history if you took the claims at face value. US military policy towards Latin America, our one-time territorial possessions, and the native inhabitants has been atrocious. Simply calling them wars, especially when they weren’t, deprioritizes all the non-military (esp. economic and legal) exploitation.
I don’t think calling those wars other names makes much difference to the millions of Latin Americans murdered and enslaved by the US military for cheap bananas (or cocaine or whatever).
I agree. But calling them wars in this context is reductive to the point of being misleading. The question here isn’t what historians or the general public should call the Banana Wars, but rather that this particular list is presenting it to readers in a way that is misleading. This has been my only point. That, as historical claims, this list is very inaccurate.
That is not entirely representational.
We were fucking highly effective at being slavers, too.
Fair enough, but I think that every time a country sends it’s military to kill all the bison, or move a whole nation 1,000 miles away from their homes, or prevent a country electing the leaders they want, it ought to be called a war.
But maybe the list should be titled “For almost it’s entire history the United States has been murdering people for profit”.
“For almost it’s entire history the United States has been murdering people for profit”.
Not to worry, he will wipe them off on someone else. Maybe “the Chinese” ?