Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since Dems are science-driven, they should be able to provide scientific study's proving that Hillary Clinton would have saved more lives than the 3,170,000 (as of 8-24-20) lives Trump has saved, or that she would have had less Covid-19 fatalities than Trump's 170,000.
If they cannot produce any specific scientific studies, then their claims are 100% anecdotal!
In fact, the Dems have no idea what Hillary would have done differently. It's 100% speculation.
For all they know, Trump saved MORE lives than Hillary would have, or Hillary would have caused more Covid-19 fatalities.
There are no Covid-19 related scientific studies mentioning Trump and Clinton by name whatsoever.
There are no double-blind, or peer-reviewed studies on that specific topic at all.
Remember when Dems posted endlessly that Hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness was all anecdotal?
So too then, is their claim that Trump's Covid-19 results were any worse than Hillary's Clinton's would have been.
They have NO scientific studies that address that specific claim, so their claims are totally anecdotal, heresay, speculation, & scientifically unproven.
If Libs are going to apply scientific studies to attempt to prove global warming, & the ineffectiveness of HCQ, then they must also apply specific scientific studies to the Trump accusations, or they must be refuted outright as being anecdotal.
I don't understand why Trump supporters continue to talk about Hydroxychloroquine when on June 15th Trump's own FDA, and all countries have withdrew approval for using it. It doesn't work and been proven not to work even Doctor Oz who talked about it endlessly online stopped talking about it. He claimed he even paid for his own study later when all the studies came back showed no improvement he just stopped talking about it he didn't even read the results of the study. Later I saw him on another show where he gave a very sheepish response to his prior enthusiasm to the drug. Someone made some big bucks on that fraud. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pres...hloroquine-and
The Democrats and media claimed Donald Trump's C-19 response wasnt as good as what they could have achieved. Dems are the ones using an alternate reality for the purposes of political attack....Dems initiated the "make believe" analogy, notme.
I am simply maginfying the absurdity of such a hypothetical analysis...your post proves I have made my point. Thanks for playing
Any competent leader, Republican or Democrat, could and would be doing better than the current president; one doesn’t need to create an “absurd.....hypothetical analysis” as you have done, but simply compare the US’s response to the rest of the first world. Which is to say our country’s response has been a near-total-failure in comparison.
This whole post is classic pigeon vs. human chess style, to be fair we chose to sit down and play with the pigeon, he made it abundantly clear he was a pigeon.
What if. What if. What if. If Clinton was president would we still have a pandemic office with the real "all the best people." My guess is yes.
Riddle of the day, why did Azar visit Taiwan? To get to the other side? Well to get to the other side of this pandemic and see what a scientific stellar pandemic response office looks like vs the botched Covid response we have here with no pandemic response office?
Since Dems are science-driven, they should be able to provide scientific study's proving that Hillary Clinton would have saved more lives than the 3,170,000 (as of 8-24-20) lives Trump has saved, or that she would have had less Covid-19 fatalities than Trump's 170,000.
If they cannot produce any specific scientific studies, then their claims are 100% anecdotal!
In fact, the Dems have no idea what Hillary would have done differently. It's 100% speculation.
For all they know, Trump saved MORE lives than Hillary would have, or Hillary would have caused more Covid-19 fatalities.
There are no Covid-19 related scientific studies mentioning Trump and Clinton by name whatsoever.
There are no double-blind, or peer-reviewed studies on that specific topic at all.
Remember when Dems posted endlessly that Hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness was all anecdotal?
So too then, is their claim that Trump's Covid-19 results were any worse than Hillary's Clinton's would have been.
They have NO scientific studies that address that specific claim, so their claims are totally anecdotal, heresay, speculation, & scientifically unproven.
If Libs are going to apply scientific studies to attempt to prove global warming, & the ineffectiveness of HCQ, then they must also apply specific scientific studies to the Trump accusations, or they must be refuted outright as being anecdotal.
You should realize that all the "If" scenarios are speculation that cannot be proven. Like when Trump speculates what will happen IF Biden is elected. Speculation that cannot be proven.
Look at democrat run states if you want to know what the covid death rates would look like country wide.
Sadly, Democrat-run states can't control the Republican citizen mouth breathers who refused to wear masks and spread this around.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
