Pelosi: Trump disregard for COVID-19 guidelines was 'a brazen invitation for this to happen'

Pelosi: Trump disregard for COVID-19 guidelines was 'a brazen invitation for this to happen'

HUFFPOST.

MARINA FANG.

Researchers at Cornell University published a study on Thursday concluding that the president has been “the largest driver” of COVID-19 misinformation, as he routinely disseminates false claims, conspiracy theories and “miracle cures” with no scientific basis.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said President Donald Trump’s frequent flouting and dismissal of COVID-19 health guidelines “was sort of a brazen invitation for something like this to happen,” after the president announced early Friday that he tested positive for the virus.

“This is tragic. It’s very sad. But it also is something that, again, going into crowds unmasked and all the rest was sort of a brazen invitation for something like this to happen,” she said on MSNBC Friday.

Pelosi said she prayed for Trump and his family, and hoped that, for those who continue to doubt the gravity of the pandemic and dismiss the advice of public health experts, the president’s COVID-19 diagnosis “will be a transition to a saner approach to what this virus is all about.”

“Maybe now that people who see the president of the United States — with all the protection that he has — and the first lady still having this exposure, it might be, as you say, a learning experience. But more than learning, it has to be something that is acted upon,” she said. 

Trump has repeatedly downplayed the pandemic, even as more than 200,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. He rarely wears masks in public, mocks those who do, and has held multiple crowded campaign events where most of the attendees did not wear masks.

On Friday, Pelosi, who is second in the presidential line of succession — and like many top lawmakers, in the age range considered especially high risk for serious complications from the virus — said she had received a COVID-19 test that morning and was waiting for the results.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION- Diversity and Inclusion resources for philosophy departments.

 

Dear DAVID,   Each year since 2015, the APA has distributed a packet of resources and posters to each philosophy department in the US and Canada. This year, because many institutions are operating online rather than in person, we are distributing these diversity and inclusion resources virtually. This set of resources, which includes color posters and a variety of other informational fliers, is generously funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.   This year the packet includes a new “Quick Guide to Undergraduate Diversity Institutes in Philosophy,” which summarizes application and program information for summer undergraduate diversity institutes in philosophy. This and other resources aim to help departments support undergraduate students from underrepresented groups interested in studying philosophy, including people of color, LGBTQ+ people, women, people with disabilities, first generation college students, and people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. We encourage departments to share the following posters and resources with faculty and students: “Quick Guide to Undergraduate Diversity Institutes in Philosophy” flier Five 8.5x11 “Who Studies Philosophy?” posters: Tamara Keith John Lewis Kwame Ture Rashida Jones Chris Hardwick “5 Ways to Be More Inclusive” flier “APA Travel Assistance” flier “Diversity in Philosophy Bibliography” If you have any questions about or suggestions for future mailings, or if you would like to receive the posters when a physical copy is available, please contact APA Program Assistant Lucy Pawliczek at lucypawliczek@apaonline.org.   For more resources, please visit the APA’s Resources on Diversity and Inclusiveness page. For more information about diversity institutes, please visit the APA’s Diversity Institute Resources page.   All the best,   Amy Ferrer Executive Director

The American Philosophical Association University of Delaware 31 Amstel Avenue, Newark, DE 19716

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION- APA report on the state of the profession now available.

 

Dear DAVID,   The APA’s new report on academic philosophy, State of the Profession 1967–2017 and Beyond: Institutions and Faculty, is now available. The report was prepared by Debra Nails and John Davenport of the APA data task force.   The report synthesizes data from the Philosophy Documentation Center (PDC) and the APA to create a more comprehensive picture of the profession of academic philosophy. It provides more detail on the state of the profession than has previously been available, including more specific information on gender, institutional types and affiliations, and regional differences among philosophy programs.   Our hope is that the report will provide philosophy departments and institutions a clearer and more comprehensive long-term view of the makeup of philosophy programs in America, which may in turn provide insight upon which to base departmental and institutional decision-making.   Download the State of the Profession report.   I hope you will find the State of the Profession report to be a helpful resource and encourage you to share and discuss it with your colleagues and administrators.   All the best,   Amy Ferrer Executive Director

The American Philosophical Association University of Delaware 31 Amstel Avenue, Newark, DE 19716   Click here to change your subscription settings. To unsubscribe, click here.

HOW HAVE WE COME TO THIS? THE INCOMPETENCE, IRRATIONALITY, CRIMINALITY, AND BETRAYAL THAT HAS LEAD THE U.S. TO EDGE OF THE ABYSS. PART 1.

Since the Democrats are continuing their efforts to make things as easy as possible for TRUMP to add another Mediocre Legal Mind to the Supreme Court, furthering the FASCIST AGENDA THAT IS THE REAL GOAL OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, it is time to lay out the INCOMPETENCE, IRRATIONALITY, CRIMINALITY, AND BETRAYAL THAT HAS LEAD THE U.S. TO EDGE OF THE ABYSS.

#1- WHY DID THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BLOCK PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT MERRICK GARLAND?

The simple answer is to block a Well-Respected, Deserving, and Highly Regarded Legal Mind who would not blindly obey their Fascist Ideology. However, it was more than just that;

A TEST:
IT WAS TO SEE HOW MUCH, AND WHAT TYPE OF OPPOSITION REPUBLICANS WOULD FACE IF THEY DECIDED THAT REGAINING POWER AND KEEPING IT, COULD BE ACHIEVED THROUGH UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS. WITH A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMING UP, JUST HOW FAR COULD THEY PUSH THE DEMOCRATS (ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE SENATE), INTO GIVING UP POLITICAL GROUND WITHOUT A FIGHT.

Again, here is the Text from SECTION 2 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

That's it. There are no Qualifications, What-Ifs, Different Scenarios etc; TO DO CONSTITUTIONALLY WHAT MCCONNELL DID WOULD REQUIRE AMENDING THE DOCUMENT. THERE ARE NO PRECEDENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TO DO WHAT HE DID. NONE. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE WHERE A PRESIDENTIAL SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WAS DENIED A HEARING AND VOTE BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE.

I can understand why REPUBLICANS didn't object, (HONOR AND DUTY IS NOT PART OF BEING A REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS), BUT FOR SENATE DEMOCRATS TO ACCEPT THIS IS INEXCUSABLE. EVEN IF THEY ACCEPTED MCCONNELL'S EXPLANATION THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE THE CHOICE, A LAWSUIT TAKEN INTO COURT WOULD HAVE SET LIMITS AND GUIDELINES. LIKE THE FOLLOWING:

"THAT IN FUTURE ELECTIONS, SHOULD A VACANCY OPEN UP, THE COURT REQUIRES THAT THE SAME STANDARDS AND PRECEDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SET IN THIS CASE MUST BE FOLLOWED." 

THIS TYPE OF RULING WOULD PREVENT CONTINUOUS PERSONAL PREJUDICES, PARTY POLITICS, AND CRIMINAL INTENT FROM TURNING THE PROCESS INTO A 3 RING CIRCUS.
LIKE MCCONNELL AND TRUMP ARE DOING NOW.

HOW LUDICROUS IS THIS? IF WE, AGAIN, ACCEPT MCCONNELLS EXPLANATION THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE THE CHOICE, THEN GIVING JUDGE GARLAND THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME. WITH A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY VOTING NOT TO APPROVE PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE, (WHICH THEY CAN DO CONSTITUTIONALLY), THEY COULD HAVE FORCED A DELAY UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION. 

THIS WAS THE REAL TEST, AND SENATE DEMOCRATS FAILED MISERABLY. 

TO BE CONTINUED...