How did Biden not win Ohio? (Columbus, Cleveland: movers, moving to, design)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by TXStrat

This is just abject bull. The economy under Trump was better that is has been in decades, lowest unemployment for all sectors, highest production, and jobs returning to the US through renegotiated treaties. It wasn't until Covid that the economy soured. The downturn was a direct result of draconian lockdowns in Democrat lead states. I am not a Trump fan, nor a Trump voter, but you cannot dismiss facts. Dem states locked down to tank the economy to influence an election. Period.

Attacking the Dems, praising Trump, denying science and reality... but sure, you're not a Trump supporter.

But just to give you a chance, can you point to any specific policy by Trump that is directly responsible for the state of the economy that you give him credit for? And by this, I don't need shallow, vague answers like "brought back manufacturing", but actual policy and studied results by non-partisan sources. If you can do this, you would be the first in history of any Trump defender to do so.

If it helps- and to stick to the topic of the thread- you can limit your answers to how such policies impacted Ohio specifically.

[TXStrat]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Attacking the Dems, praising Trump, denying science and reality... but sure, you're not a Trump supporter.

But just to give you a chance, can you point to any specific policy by Trump that is directly responsible for the state of the economy that you give him credit for? And by this, I don't need shallow, vague answers like "brought back manufacturing", but actual policy and studied results by non-partisan sources. If you can do this, you would be the first in history of any Trump defender to do so.

If it helps- and to stick to the topic of the thread- you can limit your answers to how such policies impacted Ohio specifically.

First, please show me where I denied science, or reality? Not willing to trade in ad hominem. It is factual that the Covid related, state and local lock down mandates killed the economy. That's not denial of science. That's economic basics. Not to say that the lockdowns weren't necessary, but denying the correlation between lockdowns and economic impacts directly related to them is denial. Wasn't attacking anyone, but anyone with a set of eyes could see where the lockdowns were most strict.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by TXStrat

First, please show me where I denied science, or reality? Not willing to trade in ad hominem. It is factual that the Covid related, state and local lock down mandates killed the economy. That's not denial of science. That's economic basics. Not to say that the lockdowns weren't necessary, but denying the correlation between lockdowns and economic impacts directly related to them is denial. Wasn't attacking anyone, but anyone with a set of eyes could see where the lockdowns were most strict.

Because no one rants about "draconian lockdowns in Democratic states" (it wasn't just in Democratic states, btw, but don't let that fact deter you from your talking points) taking science seriously when it comes to the virus. First of all, it was a new virus that humanity had never seen before. No one knew exactly how it spread, how contagious it was, how deadly it was, etc., so precautions early on were the most severe.
In March of this year, the CDC released an update of how many people were estimated to have been infected by age group. Only 23% of those 65+ had been infected, so the most vulnerable group to the virus by far ended up having one of the lowest infection rates. This can be directly attributable to the early restrictions in place. Those measures saved potentially hundreds of thousands of lives. We still lost 20x more people in less time than the normal flu kills in a season, so I'm grateful there were enough people following the restrictions and wearing masks so that the death toll wasn't even higher. Still, actual "lockdowns" never truly took place. No one was ever banned from leaving their homes entirely like what happened in some other nations. You could still go to the grocery store, you could still order out from restaurants, etc. Many people continued to work. In any case, your argument against the lockdowns suggest you didn't and don't take Covid seriously, which I would definitely describe as denying science.

Yes, the lockdowns hurt the economy temporarily, but being a good Republican, I'm sure you would've much rather have sacrificed a lot more people instead. I for one will never forget all the good Christian conservatives going on tv telling us we should be happy to sacrifice our loved ones for the stock market. Furthermore, the economic impact would not have been as great had Republicans just agreed to do more stimulus for the duration of the pandemic, but they couldn't have given less of a crap about that.

BTW, history tells us that the economy would've suffered regardless of any measures. During the 1957 and 1968 flu epidemics, the economy declined temporarily also despite zero restrictions being put in place. Economic data from 1918 is harder to come by, but evidence suggest it also faced economic hardships because of the Spanish Flu. The reason for this is because a lot of people naturally go out less and are more cautious during those times. They go out to restaurants less, they shop less, they stay home more. There is actually evidence that people began to stay home more in 2020 even before any "lockdowns" went into effect. One of the ways to measure this is through traffic patterns.

So to try to put all this blame on Democrats is just partisan nonsense. If anything, had there been an effective leader in office with consistent, fact-based messaging, maybe things would not have spun so far out of control from the beginning. I guess we'll never know. Trump was president for all 4 years of his term. He doesn't just get to take credit when times are good. He owns all of it.

And you never gave me any policies.

[TXStrat]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Because no one rants about "draconian lockdowns in Democratic states" (it wasn't just in Democratic states, btw, but don't let that fact deter you from your talking points) taking science seriously when it comes to the virus. First of all, it was a new virus that humanity had never seen before. No one knew exactly how it spread, how contagious it was, how deadly it was, etc., so precautions early on were the most severe.
In March of this year, the CDC released an update of how many people were estimated to have been infected by age group. Only 23% of those 65+ had been infected, so the most vulnerable group to the virus by far ended up having one of the lowest infection rates. This can be directly attributable to the early restrictions in place. Those measures saved potentially hundreds of thousands of lives. We still lost 20x more people in less time than the normal flu kills in a season, so I'm grateful there were enough people following the restrictions and wearing masks so that the death toll wasn't even higher. Still, actual "lockdowns" never truly took place. No one was ever banned from leaving their homes entirely like what happened in some other nations. You could still go to the grocery store, you could still order out from restaurants, etc. Many people continued to work. In any case, your argument against the lockdowns suggest you didn't and don't take Covid seriously, which I would definitely describe as denying science.

Yes, the lockdowns hurt the economy temporarily, but being a good Republican, I'm sure you would've much rather have sacrificed a lot more people instead. I for one will never forget all the good Christian conservatives going on tv telling us we should be happy to sacrifice our loved ones for the stock market. Furthermore, the economic impact would not have been as great had Republicans just agreed to do more stimulus for the duration of the pandemic, but they couldn't have given less of a crap about that.

BTW, history tells us that the economy would've suffered regardless of any measures. During the 1957 and 1968 flu epidemics, the economy declined temporarily also despite zero restrictions being put in place. Economic data from 1918 is harder to come by, but evidence suggest it also faced economic hardships because of the Spanish Flu. The reason for this is because a lot of people naturally go out less and are more cautious during those times. They go out to restaurants less, they shop less, they stay home more. There is actually evidence that people began to stay home more in 2020 even before any "lockdowns" went into effect. One of the ways to measure this is through traffic patterns.

So to try to put all this blame on Democrats is just partisan nonsense. If anything, had there been an effective leader in office with consistent, fact-based messaging, maybe things would not have spun so far out of control from the beginning. I guess we'll never know. Trump was president for all 4 years of his term. He doesn't just get to take credit when times are good. He owns all of it.

And you never gave me any policies.

Just more assumptions, bad faith arguments, and ad hominem.

To be crystal clear, so that even you may grasp the context:

1. Lockdowns were necessary until we understood how the virus spread. More Liberal areas are now ignoring the CDC guidelines on protection measures, which is precisely denial of science. Closing beaches, hiking trails, playgrounds, keeping schools closed down, etc. Don't take my word for it, check The Atlantic, a long time stalwart of the American right... The Liberals Who Can't Quit Lockdown
The point on lockdowns being that yes, they were required, for a period of time. They were extended beyond that period in more Liberal areas with the express purpose of keeping the economy in tatters to influence an election.

2. Can't state it more clearly, I didn't vote for Trump, despite your attempts at clairvoyance, that simple wasn't the case.

When you have something of substance, and not just bad faith arguments, and ad hominem, let me know.

[SusVelo]

Originally Posted by TXStrat

Just more assumptions, bad faith arguments, and ad hominem.

To be crystal clear, so that even you may grasp the context:

1. Lockdowns were necessary until we understood how the virus spread. More Liberal areas are now ignoring the CDC guidelines on protection measures, which is precisely denial of science. Closing beaches, hiking trails, playgrounds, keeping schools closed down, etc. Don't take my word for it, check The Atlantic, a long time stalwart of the American right... The Liberals Who Can't Quit Lockdown
The point on lockdowns being that yes, they were required, for a period of time. They were extended beyond that period in more Liberal areas with the express purpose of keeping the economy in tatters to influence an election.

2. Can't state it more clearly, I didn't vote for Trump, despite your attempts at clairvoyance, that simple wasn't the case.

When you have something of substance, and not just bad faith arguments, and ad hominem, let me know.

1. So by your logic, you must now believe that the Dem states are trying to tank the Biden economy? lol.

[Kerby W-R]

How did Biden not win Ohio?
I would have to insult most of rural Ohio in order to answer this question accurately.

[wanderer34]

Simple. He cheated in GA, WI, MI, and PA!

[skeddy]

Originally Posted by SusVelo

1. So by your logic, you must now believe that the Dem states are trying to tank the Biden economy? lol.

the economy is getting sicker by the day for many people, smart to keep their options open, Biden could croak any day.

[Huasho]

How did Biden not win Ohio?

Who cares ? ? He took the Country and that's all it matters to me !!! and of course his Followers, Ohio can go to . . . . . for all we care.

[SusVelo]

Originally Posted by skeddy

the economy is getting sicker by the day for many people, smart to keep their options open, Biden could croak any day.

That is the worst response I’ve ever read.