Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!
21326 messages in 978 discussions
Latest 7/15/20 by $1,661.87 in cats (ROCKETMAN_S)
2863 messages in 220 discussions
5638 messages in 299 discussions
6617 messages in 435 discussions
2969 messages in 237 discussions
6214 messages in 142 discussions
1088 messages in 532 discussions
966 messages in 94 discussions
3578 messages in 216 discussions
2895 messages in 126 discussions
7088 messages in 593 discussions
1822 messages in 96 discussions
8204 messages in 415 discussions
12794 messages in 638 discussions
793 messages in 21 discussions
I am not trying to insult you, it’s an observation. Many times when you mention a major Republican figure you call them names that come out of anger or derision when most people use them. It’s happening so often, I made the assumption there was emotion behind it. If not anger, then what? I don’t mind being corrected. It is still very negative, whether anger or not.
It’s impossible to speak clearly with a mask on. Did you hear Joe Biden? I’m not going to say anything rude about him, but his speech was muffled and sometimes incoherent. If Trump does that, they will mock him and say that proves he should not be president. He can’t win no matter what he does, so he will probably do whatever he wants to do. If he decides to wear a mask, he will.
I’ve tried very hard to talk about both sides without bias, but when I say anything that isn’t negative about the right it doesn’t go over well. Politics is a land mine even during good times. I don’t mean to offend anyone, but I do examine posts from my perspective. What would I be thinking if I had made a post? How does my reply look to others? I can do a better job of maintaining neutrality. At the same time, I’ve noticed a pattern among posts about right side politicians. Almost all are negative and many call them names or add biased adjectives. I would rather discuss all sides in the same way. If I would not call one side names, then I would not do the same to the other side. I actually find faults on both sides, but I try to balance one side by posting information about the other side. Apparently that is not acceptable.
And that's a great reason for holding meetings virtually but has little to do with walking around an airport, thru a building, strolling to Marine 1. Situations where speaking is not required but you are surrounded by other people also walking.
I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at?
You said wearing a mask made talking difficult. It does and that is why meetings should be socially distanced or virtual. But when one is simply walking, where one might greet someone in passing (or not) the "difficult to talk" is not applicable and a mask should be worn. I spent hours in the hospital and at dr appointments and was able to talk and understand the dr and nurses. A speech setting adds the complications of a microphone and there is no question in my mind that makes understanding difficult.
So: when giving a speech Social distance, no mask. When walking around, wear a mask. When in one on one meetings wear a mask.
That's a good question. I don't have the answer.