Trump Thread

[ReluctantSamurai]

Woah, Deja vu all over again. And again. And again. And again.

Whatever.....we shall see come November

[Crandar]

Dunno about that, Reluctant Samurai. Remember how the polls showed Macron defeating Le Pen and the Dems winning the mid-terms? And then, we all saw what happened... I'm telling ya, the progressive establishment that dominates statistics has been skewing polls to the detriment of conservatives since the October Revolution.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Polls are to be taken with a grain of salt, of course. But polls being dominated by the 'progressive establishment'? Dunno about that....

[Crandar]

I was being sarcastic. Macron annihilated Le Pen, while the polls had actually underestimated his popularity.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...rump-ever-was/

[Greyblades]

Whatever.....we shall see come November

Rather my point; 5 whole months to maintain the current state? I dont think we've seen much of anything stay static for 5 whole months in the last 4 years.

It will turn, then it will turn again and again and again until november. It's futile to make a prediction based off a present state this far out. That people keep acting like it will every time they spot a dip does nothing but provide even more levity to this meme:

[Hooahguy]

2020 isn't 2016.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I was being sarcastic.

Missed that

It will turn, then it will turn again and again and again until november

That it will. And Fearless Leader will find more and more ways to look like a complete idiot, and piss off even more people. The death toll from COVID-19 in the US will be in excess of 150,000 by November; barring another stim package from Congress, all the perks for the unemployed will be gone; this country will be 4-6 weeks into a second wave of SARS-2 combined with the onset of the annual flu; the economy will still be in the shit-hole (and for many months to come) as the permanent closures of businesses that were shuttered during the first wave of the pandemic takes hold; there already are long lines at free food distribution sites, will be even worse 6 months from now as rent/mortgage amnesty expires and more people get evicted from their homes.....etc, etc, etc.

Guess who gets put in the cross-hairs for that? Yep....the incumbent whose watch this all happened under

[Montmorency]

2020 isn't 2016.

Reactionaries are ideologically-suspicious of the judicious study of objective reality. Evidence, confidence, uncertainty, are all unwholesome leavenings of virile levity.

You or I might ask questions like "How am I to understand the political and electoral environment of America now and in the coming election?' Other minds are agitated by 'lul MAGA Trump own SJWs kek'.

[Montmorency]

Tangentially, I've come across a good label that captures both the paleoconservative and broad alt-right mindsets: the Niezschean concept of misarchy. Though the term is a little misleadingly-reductive by composition, a misarchist is essentially a socially-conservative statist libertarian. The concept goes a long way to helping explain the pipeline of so-called libertarians to overt fascism, as well as the fact that a plurality, if not outright majority, of American self-identified conservatives combine hatred and mistrust of "the government" with demands for state repression and regulation of 'undesirables.'

The central claim of this article is that a crucial ideological factor explaining support for the Tea Party is what Friedrich Nietzsche called “misarchism” in reference to the political philosophy of Herbert Spencer. As we explain in detail below, distinct from both libertarianism and social conservatism, misarchism refers to an aversion to government combined with support for the state and traditional morality. Consistent with the expectation of a misarchist dimension in American attitudes, factor analysis on nine variables from the 2012 American National Election Time‐Series Study (ANES) reveals that attitudes toward state power are positively intercorrelated with attitudes toward traditional morality. Though neither are strongly intercorrelated with attitudes toward government, the factor underlying support for the state and traditional morality (which we call “moral statism”) is strongly and negatively correlated with the factor underlying support for government. These results are consistent with the Nietzschean diagnosis of misarchism as an ideological structure that combines support for the state and moral traditionalism on a dimension that is distinct from, and opposed to, attitudes toward government. Consistent with the argument that misarchism is a crucial ideological driver of support for the Tea Party, regression analyses reveal that the interaction of moral statism with governmentalism (our operationalization of misarchism) has, of all the independent variables considered, one of the strongest and most robust partial correlations with support for the Tea Party. Our findings have important implications for our understanding of right‐wing ideology in the United States and they help to resolve the puzzle of the Tea Party's still poorly understood and contradictory ideological components.

See also Harvard Law radTrad Vermeule and his recent op-ed in the Atlantic passionately endorsing the principle of Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer.


Various Never-Trump pundits, such as Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot, concede that every Republican standing in November needs to be voted out for the sake of the country. That's probably the reliable differentiator of a genuine center-right personality from the mouth-honor Just-the-Tip Trumpers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Various Never-Trump pundits, such as Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot, concede that every Republican standing in November needs to be voted out for the sake of the country. That's probably the reliable differentiator of a genuine center-right personality from the mouth-honor Just-the-Tip Trumpers.

Sadly correct. My former party must be crushed electorally so that the current Asshat-in-chief can be voted out and those who supported this quasi-demagogue wishes-to-be-an-autocrat loon can be removed from office for their demonstrated tendency towards poor leadership. Political leadership can and does sometimes require you to oppose your own on principle even if you are ousted for so doing. If you cannot stand up and pay the price when it matters, then you are not leading. Adios.

[Strike For The South]

Various Never-Trump pundits, such as Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot, concede that every Republican standing in November needs to be voted out for the sake of the country. That's probably the reliable differentiator of a genuine center-right personality from the mouth-honor Just-the-Tip Trumpers.

There are times, when I sit alone, and my mind wanders. Is this opposition to Trump or merely opposition to his sheer incompetence?

[Montmorency]

There are times, when I sit alone, and my mind wanders. Is this opposition to Trump or merely opposition to his sheer incompetence?

Most Republicans are satisfied with his level of competence. In Norquist's words,

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared."

Frankly they just like how he behaves, how his crudity and bluster reflect their deep aesthetic preferences, how he "triggers the libs"... The one thing a typical Republican can't abide is a politician smarter than they. By the obverse of the token, proper Never-Trump Republicans do realize this has gone to far and veered into civilizational threat. They on the other hand are disgusted by Trump and perceive to some extent the depth of the water we're in.

[Hooahguy]

There are times, when I sit alone, and my mind wanders. Is this opposition to Trump or merely opposition to his sheer incompetence?

I've wondered this a lot too. I think some are the former and some are the latter, though I think the ones who are in the latter category are the shadier folk, such as George Conway. I am fairly certain that he and his wife are doing a grift: no matter who wins in November they will be fine.

As for the others, I think it comes down to the individual. Some have sworn off the GOP in its current state, others claim they are done with it forever. So who knows honestly. Either way, if Trump loses, the second he leaves office all the never Trumpers are no longer reliable allies.

[Greyblades]

2020 isn't 2016.

Says increasingly nervous man.

That it will. And Fearless Leader will find more and more ways to look like a complete idiot, and piss off even more people. The death toll from COVID-19 in the US will be in excess of 150,000 by November; barring another stim package from Congress, all the perks for the unemployed will be gone; this country will be 4-6 weeks into a second wave of SARS-2 combined with the onset of the annual flu; the economy will still be in the shit-hole (and for many months to come) as the permanent closures of businesses that were shuttered during the first wave of the pandemic takes hold; there already are long lines at free food distribution sites, will be even worse 6 months from now as rent/mortgage amnesty expires and more people get evicted from their homes.....etc, etc, etc.

Guess who gets put in the cross-hairs for that? Yep....the incumbent whose watch this all happened under

Trump will be harmed the degree that the executive gets hit for everything that happens under him, regardless of actual culpability.

However I think the damage is largely countered by the way the democrats have inadvertantly taken ownership of the hole by publically going 180 on the quarentine upon the start of the protests. The party that a month ago was accusing those who wanted to reopen the economy of murdering grandma now considers grandma an acceptable sacrifice in the face of a good rage session.

Those millions of poor sods jobless because of the quarantine are going to be left wondering why the democrats considered their livelyhoods less important. Thats not even getting into the backlash the democrats are courting with their pussyfooting around the riots. Lot of true blue areas abandoned and left to burn by their elected officials, gonna be interesting to see how they attempt to blame that on the republicans. Cant even shift the blame of the cause; minneapolis hasnt been red since the 70's, not gonna stop them trying but I dont think people are that stupid.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Trump will be harmed the degree that the executive gets hit for everything that happens under him, regardless of actual culpability.

Kinda my point, no? That culpability for being the incumbent is on top of the things he IS responsible for.....which is considerable.

democrats have inadvertantly taken ownership of the hole by publically going 180 on the quarentine upon the start of the protests.

Everyone has gone quiet on the pandemic. Our Fearless Leader has essentially disbanded the Coronavirus Taskforce, and is now back on the campaign trail hoping the pandemic will be in the rearview mirror. The media, as always, shifts its' attention to the next big thing that has grabby headlines. All the states are in various stages of reopening their economies...you can't keep lock-downs in place indefinitely. Some states are doing it better than others irregardless of political leaning, so it's utter nonsense to fault the Dems over easing lock-downs.

The party that a month ago was accusing those who wanted to reopen the economy of murdering grandma now considers grandma an acceptable sacrifice in the face of a good rage session.

This statement is utter BS because:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ns-rise-315720

The Trump administration, eager for an economic reboot, has downplayed the recent spike in coronavirus cases and attributed it to an expansion of testing and virus tracing. However, public health experts say increasing hospitalizations and positivity rates for coronavirus tests are worrying signals the virus is spreading in some of the first areas to open up over a month ago.

Let's look at those states to open first...Texas---Republican; Florida---Republican; Utah---Republican; Oregon---Democratic; Tennessee---Republican; Alabama---Republican; Arizona---Republican; Arkansas---Republican; Iowa---Republican; Georgia---Republican. See a pattern? The GOP states following their Fearless Leaders demands to get the economy open again were the majority opening before they had met any kind of guidelines for doing so. So who is, by-and-large, telling grandma to f-off?

Those millions of poor sods jobless because of the quarantine are going to be left wondering why the democrats considered their livelyhoods less important. Thats not even getting into the backlash the democrats are courting with their pussyfooting around the riots. Lot of true blue areas abandoned and left to burn by their elected officials, gonna be interesting to see how they attempt to blame that on the republicans. Cant even shift the blame of the cause; minneapolis hasnt been red since the 70's, not gonna stop them trying but I dont think people are that stupid.

I'm only going to offer a reply to the highlighted portion of THAT nonsense:

You just don't get it, do you? You have absolutely no clue as to why the protests are happening. And your very terminology of 'riots' tells me which side of the barricades you are.....

[CrossLOPER]

You just don't get it, do you? You have absolutely no clue as to why the protests are happening. And your very terminology of 'riots' tells me which side of the barricades you are.....

He saw a photo of someone stealing a TV, and that tells him all that he needs to know.

[Tuuvi]

I'm only going to offer a reply to the highlighted portion of THAT nonsense:

You just don't get it, do you? You have absolutely no clue as to why the protests are happening. And your very terminology of 'riots' tells me which side of the barricades you are.....

I don't agree with Greyblades' viewpoint, but he is right that the Democrats share some blame for the riots, because if the Democrats would've listened to BLM and done something to reign in the police sooner George Floyd's murder could have been prevented and the riots wouldn't have happened. The Democrats in Democrat controlled cities have failed to address racist policing and police brutality.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The Democrats in Democrat controlled cities have failed to address racist policing and police brutality.

It goes well beyond politics. Republicans and Democrats alike have failed.....for decades and longer. It's a systemic failing of the American people. We use the cry of freedom as our calling card, yet we continually brutalize anyone who stands in the way of our perceived progress. Just ask the American Indian about our governmental policies. We've never honored a single treaty with Native Americans, and US colleges even today continue to receive huge endowment bonuses from land that we stole from them (see my earlier post on that topic).

Americans, as a group, are spoiled by the riches we've raped from our lands, and we've continually exploited those perceived as 'not American'----blacks, Native Americans, Latinos, etc. Even our own women do not escape exploitation.

It's not something that our political system, as it exists today, is capable of solving, IMHO. Certainly not solvable during one term of a presidency. It will only begin to be solved when the American people decide to alter their way of thinking, and the way that they live. Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in that happening

[Montmorency]

Good essay by Ezra Klein.
https://www.vox.com/2020/6/17/212799...s-george-floyd

Officers of the state conduct a public lynching. Cities erupt in protest, then in riots. And then the state demands of its critics what it refuses to ask of itself — nonviolence. This serves a dual purpose: It sets a bar for legitimate protest that few human beings can clear. And it discredits the revolutionary teachings of nonviolence by coating them in hypocrisy and cynicism.

In Between the World and Me, Ta-Nehisi Coates recalls that the school year “could not pass without a series of films dedicated to the glories of being beaten on camera.” But the stories rang hollow, because the teachings were hollow. “How could the schools valorize men and women whose values society actively scorned?” he asks.

Lodged within that question is the seed of a better world. What if our society did not scorn those values? What if nonviolence wasn’t an inhuman standard demanded of the powerless, but an ethic upon which we reimagined the state?

Nonviolence is a strange word: It describes itself as the absence of its opposite. It thus presents as a void where violence should be, a narcotized forgiveness that is fine for saints to practice but irresponsible for policymakers to attempt. It is too easy to imagine disorder, crime, and anarchy stepping into that void. That is what we are taught to imagine.

“Nonviolence is very often associated with passivity and failing to respond in an effective way to aggression or violence,” says Judith Butler, the Berkeley social theorist and author of The Force of Nonviolence. “It’s understood in the popular imagination to be a place of internal equanimity or harmony.”

But that is not what nonviolence is, nor what its theorists and practitioners teach. Gandhi was startlingly clear on this, in passages that defy our flattened excerpts of his teachings. He loathed passivity and thought violence preferable. “If an individual or group of people are unable or unwilling to follow” nonviolence, he wrote, “retaliation or resistance unto death is the second best, though a long way off from the first. Cowardice is impotence worse than violence.”

In the face of injustice, the absence of violence is not preferable to violence. It is only nonviolence that is preferable to violence. And it is only preferable because it is likelier to work. But like anything worth doing, it is hard — arguably much harder than violence.

“For King, the fundamental question of politics is how you go on in community with each other,” says Harvard’s Terry. “Destroying your enemy makes it impossible to go on in community together. But so does fear. You need forms of politics that allow you to avoid the emotions that make it impossible to go on together.”

The state puts tremendous resources and effort into developing the technologies of violence and training its agents in their use. It puts tremendous resources — both legal and political — into reducing the risk of violence to its own agents, even as it increases the risk of violence to those they meet. The tragic shooting of Rayshard Brooks is testament to the costs of this strategy: If the agents of the state who’d been called to respond to a man sleeping in a Wendy’s drive-through hadn’t been carrying tasers and guns, Brooks would be alive today.

The question nonviolence asks is what if the state put, at the least, equal energy and effort into developing tools of nonviolence and training agents in their use? What if it was more willing to absorb harm to itself than to inflict harm on others, precisely because that strategy would lead to more security, safety, and harmony for all? And what if it replaced its emphasis on punishment and reprisal with a courageous pursuit of forgiveness and change?

This question does not need to start with the hardest cases — say, when the police are called to intervene in a live shootout. The vast majority of police calls are to nonviolent incidents. What if the agents who responded to those calls were, themselves, trained in the tools of nonviolence: mediators, crisis counselors, accident report writers, or even police without guns, batons, or tear gas? We have successful pilots, like the Cahoots program in Eugene, Oregon, and other cities are beginning to follow suit. San Francisco Mayor London Breed, for instance, has announced a police reform road map in which police will no longer respond to non-criminal complaints.

And even in the cases where violence is ongoing, there may be space for nonviolent approaches. What if cities convened respected elders in the community who were prepared to answers calls for intervention — is it possible that deploying a beloved local priest, or teacher, might calm a violent situation that badges, guns, and shouted demands for compliance would escalate?

King understood this as both a form of violence unto itself and a spur to violence for those who are crushed beneath it. And he was right. We know, for instance, that Medicaid expansion leads to significant reductions in crime. We know that SNAP benefits reduce crime. We know that education reduces crime. There is evidence that restricting welfare benefits increased crime. A more compassionate state will create a less violent society. There is a reason King saw the struggle for racial equity as intimately intertwined with the struggle for economic equity. A state that sought to help its citizens flourish, to forgive and uplift them when they faltered, would build structures of economic support that were kindest to those who needed the most help, rather than treating them with suspicion, anger, and contempt, and looking for reasons to abandon them to hopelessness.

I will not pretend, in this piece, to be able to fully imagine the workings of a state that truly seeks to follow the ethos of nonviolence wherever it can. A state that practices forgiveness, that seeks change, that pursues the harmony of community rather than the false peace of incarceration. It is easy, of course, to imagine the difficulties and dangers of that path. But let us not sugarcoat the harms of the path we have chosen instead: We are a violent society surrounded by a violent state, a country that locks up more of its own than any country on earth, in which agents of the government slowly choke citizens to death while bystanders beg them to stop, leading to riots that the state then uses as an excuse to deploy yet more violence in the name of order. It is time to ask a different question, find different answers, pursue better goals.

I don't agree with Greyblades' viewpoint, but he is right that the Democrats share some blame for the riots, because if the Democrats would've listened to BLM and done something to reign in the police sooner George Floyd's murder could have been prevented and the riots wouldn't have happened. The Democrats in Democrat controlled cities have failed to address racist policing and police brutality.

Samurai is right, when you say "Democrats" have failed to reign in police you are somewhat misattributing agency. The more precise framing is that urban voters have refused to elect politicians who would confront police, in a context where doing so would tend to be punished by those same voters. If white people and people of color, or the urban electorates more broadly, have overlapping anxieties about law and order that mitigate against electing radicals, you can't really blame elected officials for not being radicals - or at least you shouldn't prioritize that blame.

(You can definitely blame Bill de Blasio though, who was elected almost especially on a police reform plank and has proceeded to act as a doormat for the rest of his mayoralty after the first time the NYPD put up a show of force. )

Meanwhile, Democrats are the only ones in power who will do anything at all to reform police as opposed to let them run wild. the Obama administration enforced over a dozen consent decrees against municipal PDs, a function Trump has effectively abolished.

Our beef is with the American people in the end. One of the most damaging precepts among much of the left is the notion that the electorate is secretly much further left of the politicians it habitually elects. Exceedingly few actually want to участки и тюрьмы сравнять с землёй (level precincts and prisons to the ground), but at the moment there may be scope to persuade swathes of the public across cities and states to support the pacification of the police power in the broad sense. There is some evidence that most communities, including black ones, want more government agents in their neighborhoods, probably because they implicitly value the legitimacy and problem-solving capacity of the state (if not necessarily as presently configured in their particular experience). The case for changing what we offer them in the first place is perhaps the space for generating consensus.

[Montmorency]

However I think the damage is largely countered by the way the democrats have inadvertantly taken ownership of the hole by publically going 180 on the quarentine upon the start of the protests.

Can you identify what positions have changed?

The party that a month ago was accusing those who wanted to reopen the economy of murdering grandma now considers grandma an acceptable sacrifice in the face of a good rage session.

The states have already largely abandoned restrictions, and were well along the process - akin to shutting off the water valve in a house with a leaking pipe, then turning it back a few months later without having fixed the leak - before the protests started 3 weeks ago. We can make a substantive submission that a generational moment to uproot corrosive institutions and change the national culture is more important than the opportunity to have a pedicure. Thankfully, we still have the consensus of wearing masks, not touching the face, maintaining social distance, and regularly washing hands in our corner.

Those millions of poor sods jobless because of the quarantine are going to be left wondering why the democrats considered their livelyhoods less important.

Granted that many voters do not realize that Democratic policies of relief checks and expanded unemployment insurance increased Americans' personal income by $2 trillion in April. But if Americans are not blaming Democrats for their economic troubles now, why would they do so in a few months amid Republicans continuing to vocally reject renewing any stimulus programs?

Thats not even getting into the backlash the democrats are courting with their pussyfooting around the riots.

What is the evidence for backlash - against Democrats that is?

Lot of true blue areas abandoned and left to burn by their elected officials, gonna be interesting to see how they attempt to blame that on the republicans.

The framing of course is deceptive. It's not surprising that a Trump supporter would consider a couple smashed storefronts "areas abandoned and left to burn," let alone blame elected officials rather than police, but those people were never going to stop being Trump supporters.


If you can take the time to troll, I hope, at least, the extreme aversion to facts is just a cover over a more sober private experience.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Can you identify what positions have changed?

He is probably doing the same kind of "selective listening" that Limbaugh is peddling on his program. To whit, 'The MSM is lauding the protester's courage and implicitly saying go protest despite the fact that it runs counter to social distancing guidelines, but the MSM are harshly critical of Trump's holding a legal political rally.' So the MSM is, according to this selective listening effort, being hypocritical with the sole real purpose being to attack Trump.

I myself note it as selective listening because I cannot recall a 30 minute stretch from CNN or the local news that did not note -- Sanjay Gupta almost pleadingly -- that this kind of gathering was NOT a good idea under COVID conditions however laudable otherwise. The Media Right Wing is hearing what they want to hear.

CNN has been saying 'Protests understandable given pent up rage on a decades old issue, but not a healthy idea with COVID, but at least most of them are wearing masks.' They are also saying that '60k people indoors, in two neighboring venues, many of whom will eschew masks as a mark of toughness/bravado/political intent is an even WORSE idea under COVID conditions.'

Sadly, we all tend to remember listening to that with which we agree/expect to hear and not necessarily the complete message.

[Montmorency]

He is probably doing the same kind of "selective listening" that Limbaugh is peddling on his program. To whit, 'The MSM is lauding the protester's courage and implicitly saying go protest despite the fact that it runs counter to social distancing guidelines, but the MSM are harshly critical of Trump's holding a legal political rally.' So the MSM is, according to this selective listening effort, being hypocritical with the sole real purpose being to attack Trump.

I myself note it as selective listening because I cannot recall a 30 minute stretch from CNN or the local news that did not note -- Sanjay Gupta almost pleadingly -- that this kind of gathering was NOT a good idea under COVID conditions however laudable otherwise. The Media Right Wing is hearing what they want to hear.

CNN has been saying 'Protests understandable given pent up rage on a decades old issue, but not a healthy idea with COVID, but at least most of them are wearing masks.' They are also saying that '60k people indoors, in two neighboring venues, many of whom will eschew masks as a mark of toughness/bravado/political intent is an even WORSE idea under COVID conditions.'

Sadly, we all tend to remember listening to that with which we agree/expect to hear and not necessarily the complete message.

Correct, and many sympathetic people decline to participate in the streets precisely because they fear the risk to themselves and others.

As the protests erupted they certainly created some level of risk, but liberatory mass demonstrations are not normal in American society. An exceptional circumstance can overcome risk thresholds, just as I would object to someone spontaneously attempting to perform CPR on me but would recognize the validity of the decision to intervene were I splayed out on pavement without circulation. A return to routine with respect to disease control remains undesirable, but so does a return to routine with respect to criminal justice and law enforcement.

I am gladdened by the absence, so far, of a second wave of CV19 caused by the protests, nearly three weeks since their onset being sufficient allowance for incubation of a generation or two (this could change depending on both macro behavior and patterns of movement by discrete spreaders!). New York, for example, has continued to see declines in its testing positivity rate down to 1% yesterday. To be fair, neither have I seen much evidence for an uptick in cases following from the anti-lockdown protests in late April and May, but I can still slam them for being substantively awful and for contributing to deleterious policy responses.


Bars? Some may disagree, but not important.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/16/florid...vid-19-at-bar/

A Mayo Clinic worker who stayed indoors for months in Florida to avoid getting the coronavirus says she finally broke quarantine to go to a bar with pals earlier this month — leaving her and 15 of her friends with the contagion.

“The first night we go out — Murphy’s Law, I guess,” Erika Crisp, a 40-year-old health care worker from Jacksonville, told local WJXT TV. “The only thing we have in common is that one night at that one bar,” Crisp said of herself and her sick pals. “I think we were careless, and we went out into a public place when we should not have,” she said of the group’s excursion to the popular Lynch’s Irish Pub in Jacksonville Beach on June 6 — a day after most of Florida entered Phase Two of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ start-up plan, which included the reopening of bars.

After several months of properly social distancing and “doing everything the right way,” Crisp said, the freedom of the moment may have gotten the better of her and her pals. “We were not wearing masks,” she said. “I think we had a whole ‘out of sight, out of mind’ mentality. “The state opens back up and said everybody was fine, so we took advantage of that.”

Crisp wrote on her Facebook page June 12, “My COVID Life: Day 5 since onset of symptoms. Since I first had a slight cough on Monday 6/8/20 that is considered my start of symptoms date. Tuesday evening is when I was hit full force with aches, chills, fever, vertigo on top of fatigue & awful cough that had progressed throughout the day. I also had/have no sense of smell & my sinuses are swollen.” Crisp, who says in her Facebook profile that she works at the Mayo Clinic, told the TV station she has learned her lesson. “We should be wearing masks. We should be social distancing,” she said. “It was too soon to open everything back up.”

The bar temporarily shut down for a deep cleaning after learning of sick patrons, the outlet said. Seven of its workers have tested positive for the contagion, the report said. Over the weekend, Florida reported more than 2,000 new COVID-19 cases a day, as the state continues to reopen its beaches. Florida hit a record-high number of new daily cases Saturday, with 2,581.

Church? More may disagree, but not important. (At least hold services outdoors.)
https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavir...time-high.html

The number of new daily cases of the novel coronavirus once again soared to a record level on Tuesday, with 278 new cases announced statewide. The previous record for new cases was set Monday, with 184 cases. Arizona, Texas and Florida also announced their highest totals so far of new COVID-19 cases in a single day -- joining a total of 20 states, including Oregon, that have seen climbing numbers in the past two weeks, according to The New York Times.
[...]
Officials from the Oregon Health Authority said 119 of the 278 new cases Tuesday are linked to an outbreak at the Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church in Union County. On top of that, 22 cases Sunday and 99 cases Monday were associated with the church in rural northeastern Oregon. Video that was published on the church’s Facebook page on May 24 but was later deleted showed hundreds of church attendees standing close together as they sang and swayed to the music.

Person-to-person spread is ultimately the primary COVID vector, so masking, avoiding physical contact (with others, with one's own face), and outdoor activities appear to be the keys to mitigating spread. But if the outdoors are much less risky than once feared, then the indoors continue to be a litany of woe.