All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

As had been noted quite a few times, AOC can't be on the ticket due to her age.

But even if it were possible, it would likely not go over well with the center. She won a primary in a progressive district. There's no indication she would do well with swing voters in Michigan, Arizona or Florida.

I don't think this would make Cuomo unique among presidential contenders.

He'll still be in the Senate in four years, as long as his health holds up.

It's Biden's third time running. And it is different to run as a former Vice President than as one of several senators.

There are a lot of voters looking for a return to normal, which is a good message to Biden.

Last time, he ran voters were looking for change, and that wasn't a great message for an old white guy who had been in the Senate for decades.

To the first quote of me, you are missing the point.

You don’t do things in politics for no reason. You have to ask what is the advantage to nominating a progressive as VP. The obvious is to create party unity and extend an olive branch to progressives who preferred Sanders and Warren who would otherwise consider sitting out or being obstacles for Biden the rest of the way.

To do that it’s precisely the same as Obama picking Biden who wasn’t preferred by his coalition at the time and McCain picking Palin who was counter to his coalition and sensibilities. It’s not about your supporters. It’s about conceding a space and voice in your admin for people who aren’t totally comfortable with you so they feel like they will be represented and have a place in that.

The point is it’s about a give and take on your end. If you are refraining from going to a progressive that will legitimately get people like Taz on your side because you are afraid of blowback from your base then .....

1. Nominating a progressive is achieving none of the intended goals.
2. You are wasting a VP slot for some non tangible showmanship.

Abrams quite frankly isn’t the person who is going to win you people who are going to otherwise be obstacles. She’s also not going to deliver the South to you because it’s the South. So there’s no real utility.

If you aren’t going to go all in on that, then pivot and do something strategic and don’t even nominate a progressive. It’s a waste of time. None of the people he’s trying to build unity with want a half assed effort and he’s wasting a strategic cabinet position for it. Either go for the unity in an actual effort it just don’t bother. It’s not something you can accomplish moderately. That’s why Taz is suggesting Turner.. Because the point is they’ll get someone who is fighting like hell everyday to pull turn left and won’t let a corporate moderate position go unchallenged. And that’s something those people would consider to stomach Biden and not be a pain in his ass all election.


To the second point, it’s semantics. Bernie ran twice late in his career. He was more successful in his first two attempts by a large margin compared to Biden who fell on his face in his initial runs. He also didn’t chase the Presidency his whole career. He waited until he was an established Senator. He waited for an election where he tried to get someone else to run and they didn’t. Then he finally went in and he caught fire. Then 4 years later he had a justifiable amount of support to merit a run before he became too old (he’s in the ballpark of every single top contender age wise Biden/Trump/Bloomberg/Warren).

So it’s just disengenous to paint him as someone who is compulsively going for the big office. Especially when the last few Democratic candidates were

Biden: who ran multiple times far less successfully over his career and clearly aspired to that office for nearly all of it.

-Hillary Clinton who the minute she became a Senator, everyone knew was going to go for the Presidency someday. Was expecting a coronation in 08 and three the party into chaos and threatened a super delegate take over where they had to have emergency meetings to get her to back down. Then who pretty much the entire Obama administration, was almost seen as a foregone conclusion to run again and be the favorite, and it was so obvious that nobody wanted to run against her in the party

-Obama who was a Jr Senator who got notoriety for a speech he gave in 06 and ran the very first chance he got.

I don’t know you say compared to any of them that the guy who had been in Congress since the HW Bush administration and didn’t run for a quarter of a century and only did so because the person they tried to get to run refused and it was a safe environment to push his platform is the person chasing glory. Even with him running a second time it was one cycle later at the peak of his popularity where he demonstrated that he did well in areas a Democrat’s struggled, polled well in favorables, showed the ability to raise huge amounts of money, and had high levels of enthusiasm. That’s a merited reason to run.

It’s just a smear that ignores any historical perspective. Not that the person posting it had any

[Tami]

[Tami]

Florida’s Republican governor blames Trump for not instituting stay-home order

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) appears to be blaming the president for the reason that he hasn’t issued a stay-at-home order.

According to Bay News 9 reporter Samantha-Jo Roth, DeSantis passed the buck to the feds when speaking about the coronavirus crisis, noting the White House task force has not told him that he should issue a statewide order.

“The task force is not recommending this. If they do, that’s something that would carry a lot of weight with me,” DeSantis said.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Florida’s Republican governor blames Trump for not instituting stay-home order

Not interested in defending Trump, but Desantis had to be shamed into closing beaches

[Iron Maiden]

A note about Target - my nephew works there and can verify this too. Also they are letting employees shop during a set aside time just for them. Let me know if this is true for you as well.

Another thing I like about Target even though it sounds minor is in my area they were one of the first stores to try and head off the hoarders by setting limits on products. Too many stores here waited too long.

[Mister Mets]

To the first quote of me, you are missing the point.

You don’t do things in politics for no reason. You have to ask what is the advantage to nominating a progressive as VP. The obvious is to create party unity and extend an olive branch to progressives who preferred Sanders and Warren who would otherwise consider sitting out or being obstacles for Biden the rest of the way.

To do that it’s precisely the same as Obama picking Biden who wasn’t preferred by his coalition at the time and McCain picking Palin who was counter to his coalition and sensibilities. It’s not about your supporters. It’s about conceding a space and voice in your admin for people who aren’t totally comfortable with you so they feel like they will be represented and have a place in that.

The point is it’s about a give and take on your end. If you are refraining from going to a progressive that will legitimately get people like Taz on your side because you are afraid of blowback from your base then .....

1. Nominating a progressive is achieving none of the intended goals.
2. You are wasting a VP slot for some non tangible showmanship.

Progressive seems to be used in multiple ways in this discussion.

Is a progressive a generally liberal candidate? Or "progressive" just code for someone who is obviously aligned with Bernie Sanders?

If progressive means Sanders ally, that's going to be difficult because so few elected officials endorsed him.

Palin and Biden were also different as running mate choices because they represented larger coalitions than a Sanders ally would.

McCain had a reputation as an outsider to the extent that he was seriously discussed as a potential running mate for John Kerry in 2004. So he would need to do more to get the conservative base on-board. Palin ended up being a disastrous choice, but she had a lot of advantages. She was a woman who seemed to have policy expertise on an important issue (energy) and was a popular Governor untouched by Washington controversies, with a reputation for independence that didn't piss off the establishment.

Biden has never really been an outsider, so he doesn't need to get the base on-board.

When Obama picked Biden, I don't recall many complaints. Obama went for a safe choice, rather than have arguments about two inexperienced candidates on the same ticket. A unity ticket is also different if the compromise running mate has a deep resume, like Biden did.

Abrams quite frankly isn’t the person who is going to win you people who are going to otherwise be obstacles. She’s also not going to deliver the South to you because it’s the South. So there’s no real utility.

Abrams doesn't need to help in the entire South, just Georgia, North Carolina and/or Florida.

If you aren’t going to go all in on that, then pivot and do something strategic and don’t even nominate a progressive. It’s a waste of time. None of the people he’s trying to build unity with want a half assed effort and he’s wasting a strategic cabinet position for it. Either go for the unity in an actual effort it just don’t bother. It’s not something you can accomplish moderately. That’s why Taz is suggesting Turner.. Because the point is they’ll get someone who is fighting like hell everyday to pull turn left and won’t let a corporate moderate position go unchallenged. And that’s something those people would consider to stomach Biden and not be a pain in his ass all election.

Promising to challenge the future President is typically not going to result in someone being a running mate.

To the second point, it’s semantics. Bernie ran twice late in his career. He was more successful in his first two attempts by a large margin compared to Biden who fell on his face in his initial runs. He also didn’t chase the Presidency his whole career. He waited until he was an established Senator. He waited for an election where he tried to get someone else to run and they didn’t. Then he finally went in and he caught fire. Then 4 years later he had a justifiable amount of support to merit a run before he became too old (he’s in the ballpark of every single top contender age wise Biden/Trump/Bloomberg/Warren).

So it’s just disengenous to paint him as someone who is compulsively going for the big office. Especially when the last few Democratic candidates were

Biden: who ran multiple times far less successfully over his career and clearly aspired to that office for nearly all of it.

-Hillary Clinton who the minute she became a Senator, everyone knew was going to go for the Presidency someday. Was expecting a coronation in 08 and three the party into chaos and threatened a super delegate take over where they had to have emergency meetings to get her to back down. Then who pretty much the entire Obama administration, was almost seen as a foregone conclusion to run again and be the favorite, and it was so obvious that nobody wanted to run against her in the party

-Obama who was a Jr Senator who got notoriety for a speech he gave in 06 and ran the very first chance he got.

I don’t know you say compared to any of them that the guy who had been in Congress since the HW Bush administration and didn’t run for a quarter of a century and only did so because the person they tried to get to run refused and it was a safe environment to push his platform is the person chasing glory. Even with him running a second time it was one cycle later at the peak of his popularity where he demonstrated that he did well in areas a Democrat’s struggled, polled well in favorables, showed the ability to raise huge amounts of money, and had high levels of enthusiasm. That’s a merited reason to run.

It’s just a smear that ignores any historical perspective. Not that the person posting it had any

The main argument with Sanders is that he should drop out because it's clear he's not going to be the nominee.

He did too poorly on Super Tuesday and subsequent elections. The math isn't there.

It's pretty much impossible for his message to become so popular that he sweeps Biden by strong enough numbers to force a contested convention.

His only shot would be if something terrible happens to Biden, but in this case it would seem to be a wiser move to swap Biden with someone from his wing of the party.

[TheDarman]

A note about Target - my nephew works there and can verify this too. Also they are letting employees shop during a set aside time just for them. Let me know if this is true for you as well.

Yeah. They let us shop a few days in the early hours before the store opens and they are allowing for Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s first hour of shopping to be set aside for vulnerable populations. They also have our stores closed at 9:00 to do clean-up like wiping down and disinfecting displays.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Progressive seems to be used in multiple ways in this discussion.

Is a progressive a generally liberal candidate? Or "progressive" just code for someone who is obviously aligned with Bernie Sanders?

If progressive means Sanders ally, that's going to be difficult because so few elected officials endorsed him.

Palin and Biden were also different as running mate choices because they represented larger coalitions than a Sanders ally would.

McCain had a reputation as an outsider to the extent that he was seriously discussed as a potential running mate for John Kerry in 2004. So he would need to do more to get the conservative base on-board. Palin ended up being a disastrous choice, but she had a lot of advantages. She was a woman who seemed to have policy expertise on an important issue (energy) and was a popular Governor untouched by Washington controversies, with a reputation for independence that didn't piss off the establishment.

Biden has never really been an outsider, so he doesn't need to get the base on-board.

When Obama picked Biden, I don't recall many complaints. Obama went for a safe choice, rather than have arguments about two inexperienced candidates on the same ticket. A unity ticket is also different if the compromise running mate has a deep resume, like Biden did.

Abrams doesn't need to help in the entire South, just Georgia, North Carolina and/or Florida.

Promising to challenge the future President is typically not going to result in someone being a running mate.

The main argument with Sanders is that he should drop out because it's clear he's not going to be the nominee.

He did too poorly on Super Tuesday and subsequent elections. The math isn't there.

It's pretty much impossible for his message to become so popular that he sweeps Biden by strong enough numbers to force a contested convention.

His only shot would be if something terrible happens to Biden, but in this case it would seem to be a wiser move to swap Biden with someone from his wing of the party.

For the purpose of this discussion let’s say it’s a mix of people who are aligned with Sanders (he has a floor of 20% of the party) and/or the Justice Democrat crowd. The mistake people make on it is that people don’t vote on ideology. Warren had support from some progressives but also a lot of Hillary voters who were more likely to jump to Biden.

So let’s call it the the left most 20% who are still out there not supporting Biden and actively pushing against him. That’s a significant demographic within the party that could make or break Dems in a general.

You might not need to do much to get them on board, if anything, but having them more amicable to the campaign in the general is better than fending them off as well.

——-

Abrams any going to give you Georgia. Even with shenanigans against her she still didn’t win it at the top of the ticket in a race where she was the star that was considered part of a wave. There’s not as much crossover with Florida. So possibly NC, but I don’t see it. VP’s don’t traditionally swing hard red states with long histories. Also why make that bet when the easier path is shoring up the Midwest which is more winnable. Go the path of least resistance. It’s liking getting Beto and praying for Texas.

——-

You’re right about it probably not resulting in a running mate. Which again misses the point. Taz and I are both making the argument that it would be a waste of time for Biden to use the VP spot to court progressives because he isn’t going to pick someone inconvenient enough to him to satisfy many of them. That’s why I’m advocating he not to that route.

——-

You’re being selective with how you frame this. The argument was that Bernie is compulsively running. He’s not mathematically out, it’s unlikely, but all doors aren’t closed. He’s also not actively attacking Biden right now. So that alone almost makes his existence in the race not really a big deal. He’s kind of just waiting and seeing and pushing his platform. Your argument would have more teeth if he was in a Tulsi position where he was out of it entirely and disrupting everyone.

And it really doesn’t address the argument I responded to which was that Bernie just compulsively chases the Presidency and refuses to drop out. He entered the race with the ability to raise the most money and extremely high favorables and a great ground campaign, that merited jumping in. He’s still in 4 weeks after Super Tuesday with him not completely being mathematically out and the actual election died down due to a crisis which he is using his campaign and current platform to respond to and isn’t going after Biden directly.

You’re changing the goal posts on this a bit.

It would be more compelling if he didn’t solid metrics to jump in and just did it because, or he was mathematically out and still attacking Biden and damaging his campaign. Right now he’s a long shot who had an unprecedented crisis crop up and is refocusing on that while there is lull

——-

[Tazirai]

Another thing I like about Target even though it sounds minor is in my area they were one of the first stores to try and head off the hoarders by setting limits on products. Too many stores here waited too long.

Target is also letting Employees with Chronic Illnesses like Diabetes either work from Home or Just take 30 days off paid at their average hours. I work for them and that's what I'm doing since I have diabetes.

[Tazirai]

To the first quote of me, you are missing the point.

You don’t do things in politics for no reason. You have to ask what is the advantage to nominating a progressive as VP. The obvious is to create party unity and extend an olive branch to progressives who preferred Sanders and Warren who would otherwise consider sitting out or being obstacles for Biden the rest of the way.

To do that it’s precisely the same as Obama picking Biden who wasn’t preferred by his coalition at the time and McCain picking Palin who was counter to his coalition and sensibilities. It’s not about your supporters. It’s about conceding a space and voice in your admin for people who aren’t totally comfortable with you so they feel like they will be represented and have a place in that.

The point is it’s about a give and take on your end. If you are refraining from going to a progressive that will legitimately get people like Taz on your side because you are afraid of blowback from your base then .....

1. Nominating a progressive is achieving none of the intended goals.
2. You are wasting a VP slot for some non tangible showmanship.

Abrams quite frankly isn’t the person who is going to win you people who are going to otherwise be obstacles. She’s also not going to deliver the South to you because it’s the South. So there’s no real utility.

If you aren’t going to go all in on that, then pivot and do something strategic and don’t even nominate a progressive. It’s a waste of time. None of the people he’s trying to build unity with want a half assed effort and he’s wasting a strategic cabinet position for it. Either go for the unity in an actual effort it just don’t bother. It’s not something you can accomplish moderately. That’s why Taz is suggesting Turner.. Because the point is they’ll get someone who is fighting like hell everyday to pull turn left and won’t let a corporate moderate position go unchallenged. And that’s something those people would consider to stomach Biden and not be a pain in his ass all election.


To the second point, it’s semantics. Bernie ran twice late in his career. He was more successful in his first two attempts by a large margin compared to Biden who fell on his face in his initial runs. He also didn’t chase the Presidency his whole career. He waited until he was an established Senator. He waited for an election where he tried to get someone else to run and they didn’t. Then he finally went in and he caught fire. Then 4 years later he had a justifiable amount of support to merit a run before he became too old (he’s in the ballpark of every single top contender age wise Biden/Trump/Bloomberg/Warren).

So it’s just disengenous to paint him as someone who is compulsively going for the big office. Especially when the last few Democratic candidates were

Biden: who ran multiple times far less successfully over his career and clearly aspired to that office for nearly all of it.

-Hillary Clinton who the minute she became a Senator, everyone knew was going to go for the Presidency someday. Was expecting a coronation in 08 and three the party into chaos and threatened a super delegate take over where they had to have emergency meetings to get her to back down. Then who pretty much the entire Obama administration, was almost seen as a foregone conclusion to run again and be the favorite, and it was so obvious that nobody wanted to run against her in the party

-Obama who was a Jr Senator who got notoriety for a speech he gave in 06 and ran the very first chance he got.

I don’t know you say compared to any of them that the guy who had been in Congress since the HW Bush administration and didn’t run for a quarter of a century and only did so because the person they tried to get to run refused and it was a safe environment to push his platform is the person chasing glory. Even with him running a second time it was one cycle later at the peak of his popularity where he demonstrated that he did well in areas a Democrat’s struggled, polled well in favorables, showed the ability to raise huge amounts of money, and had high levels of enthusiasm. That’s a merited reason to run.

It’s just a smear that ignores any historical perspective. Not that the person posting it had any

To a lot of these people Knight, Bernie is the Anti-christ. No matter what logic is used, they will call him an Ego-maniac and divisive to the party, even though it's his policies uniting the country.
But people are so terrified they get vote shamed for not supporting a centrist who literally promised to do nothing, but at least ain't Trump.


BUT New polling out right now better have them scared, Biden's enthusiasm gap is ridiculously large right now. He's still losing the 45 and under crowd by huge margins and Trump is beating him in enthusiasm.
People will say he's beating Trump in the Polls, so was Hillary, and her enthusiasm gap was much lower than Bidens.

So they can rest on their laurels, and tell people you better vote, cuz Trump bad. But what this pandemic is showing people is that Healthcare is more than Covid-19, because underlying health issues complicate Covid-19.
Even then you can get tested free, but not treated free.

People are sick of crumbs, they like Bernie, and his policy, but due to Stockholm and the media, they think Biden will somehow do better for their lives, and he won't.

[numberthirty]

...

Looking at who fits Biden's message is an interesting approach. I take it you don't see unity picks as particularly helpful.

...

As a few folks have pointed out, Biden is a pretty specific case.

When you are going to have to run a just about perfect game just to be in the running, focusing on trying to grab progressive voters when Biden has a notable enthusiasm gap is essentially a "No Win" situation.

If he can't come close to running the table with the voters he seems to have an enthusiasm gap with, progressive voters will probably wind up being a non-issue.

All that said, I think you would be kidding yourself if you weren't weighing a more "Business As Usual..." Dem who can make Biden's case if he winds up being more of an issue versus a more progressive one.

[Steel Inquisitor]

The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. Russia is not a Dictatorship simply because of their political sham of system. So on paper no, But an Authoritarian Government? Yes.
Cuba is a Dicatorship.

The Soviet Union is relevant since that's part of what hurts Sanders. Like I said, he honeymooned there. Stop trying to pretend it need to be ignored to win arguments, it's disingenuous. The context for this is that boosting dictatorships only hurts socialism, why bother doing that when you can get examples from countries which aren't controversial?

Stop protecting Obama, just admit he said the same ****. Full stop.

No. I'm not going to ignore the context which separates Obama and Sanders, when they aren't the same people and they didn't do the same things.

Biden actually hasn't won yet, please stop saying that. He's PRESUMPTIVE people haven't voted in other states yet. Let them speak.

I didn't ignore what YOU said.

The electorate has spoken, Biden is the nominee. There's no need to go further, dragging this out further does nothing except divide the Democrats and drain resources which should be saved for the general.

Sure you did.

I don't trust reporting by that guy sorry, nor Tommy the hat. There are links that would "satisfy" me. I post from the Politico at times. But Politico is on record slandering and shitting on Bernie cosistently.
But if you go and research Edward Isaac Dovere and is feelings on Sanders, he can slant anything he writes in a negative light.

Sanders isn't owed anything from the media, he's allowed to be scrutinised. He's running for president.

Here's an Example of his "Stellar" "reporting
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ts-2018-599331
Basically the person who writes the article matters, because Journalistic integrity isn't a thing anymore. It's about Tribes now. He's part of that Establishment Tribe.

You do know Our Revolution candidates weren't successful in '18? Even their brightest stars, like Abrams, couldn't overcome their opponents.

Also, Tezlyn was NOT a Trump supporter, You don't have to be a Trump supporter to have a shitty stance on Immigration, where did she say she supported Trump?
You want a more fair article. Here's one from Buzzfeed. Nina did not defend her, she made a bad call in retaining her. There's a difference.

She sure sounds like one when defending policies she agrees with him about. Turner "retaining" her is defending her, that's what caused the conflicts to escalate in Our Revolution. Which is explained in your link.

But are we supposed to never forgive people when they say something we don't like, or is Cancel Culture the way forward?

When have you forgiven Democrats on anything you dislike? All you do is tear the party and its members down.

An Our Revolution Staffer Fired For “Anti-Immigrant” Remarks Is Suing The Pro-Bernie Group For Racial Discrimination
Tezlyn Figaro, who worked on black outreach for the Sanders group, was fired last spring after a public rift with Latinx colleagues over her comments about immigrants.

Turner wasn't in the group who fired her.

Basically when it comes to Sanders, I don't trust Politico or the Washington post.

That's also the only thing they have on him He's a democratic Socialist. He's NOT a Communist sympathizer, where's your proof that he is?

What do you think Republicans see when they see Bernie Sanders? Their opinion is what we're talking about here.

[Scott Taylor]

Another thing I like about Target even though it sounds minor is in my area they were one of the first stores to try and head off the hoarders by setting limits on products. Too many stores here waited too long.

Almost all of the stores here are doing that now, and its really helped make certain items more available. Sad that it had to be done at all, but then that is what fear will do to people and why it so often gets used as a political tool.

[TheDarman]

To a lot of these people Knight, Bernie is the Anti-christ.

If this is meant as a dig at me, even generally: no, I don’t think he is the anti-Christ.

I think many posters here even like his ideas better than Biden’s—especially universal health care. I think a lot of the doubt comes in when Sanders has had difficultly getting along with the more moderate wing of the party. That is great during a campaign, but doesn’t make an excellent governing coalition. I think many of us are looking for a candidate who will be able to unite at least the governing forces. The fact that we can always count on Sanders to even vote “yes” on bills like the ACA is a testament to how much better he is than moderates in the party, whom often look out for themselves and their own political fortunes in a more Conservative state or district. That being said, those moderates and centrists still matter and we need someone who will be willing to speak to their concerns. Because we will need moderates to pass legislation. We all know neither President Sanders nor President Biden will receive a single Republican vote for their programs. It is essential to keep the party together.

No matter what logic is used, they will call him an Ego-maniac and divisive to the party, even though it's his policies uniting the country.

I think that 2016 is a bit of a different situation in all regards than 2020. I think there was very real animosity between Sanders and Clinton. It was clear they didn’t like each other very much and viewed the other as everything wrong with the party and, indeed, the country. I sincerely think that is difficult to come back from.

Sanders has never had a personal issue with Biden and vice versa. It seems Biden was one of the few folks who was nice to Sanders before he rose to national prominence. That means something. I think we are seeing something much less toxic from Sanders himself now. He isn’t attacking Biden personally. He is making it clear what he, and a sizable proportion of the party, think about issues. That’s still worth discussion and I think he might have a legitimate point about wanting to stay in. Otherwise, Biden and the Democrats might get the idea that no concessions are needed. Bernie wouldn’t agree and clearly his supporters don’t either. They want platform influence and I think Biden will be willing to give to them—even more so than Clinton.

In short, I think Bernie might be a polarizing force as a governing official, and a likely president, but I don’t think he is in the party. He is widely liked within the party. And he can make sure that there are real policy concessions to go along with his adamant endorsement of Biden. Sanders, I know, sees the writing on the wall. He doesn’t have personal grievances with Biden, just political ones, and I think those will be litigated and are a lot easier to overcome than what happened in 2016.

But people are so terrified they get vote shamed for not supporting a centrist who literally promised to do nothing, but at least ain't Trump.

I wouldn’t call it “vote shaming”. I call it adult decision-making. The primary was the chance to pick your favorite candidate. Many who now support Biden had plenty of other preferences (mine was Harris). Now, we have to try to push the nominee, likely Biden, in the direction we want to go. At the very least, he will listen more (no matter how much) than Trump will. Trump doesn’t owe progressives a thing. Biden will and it will be important to make him remember that.

[Tazirai]

I am extremely disgusted with so many of these religious zealots.
So many people out there are ignoring the orders in favor of their deities. It's so annoying.

Kenneth Copeland today "Destroyed Corona" with prayer.



Florida megachurch pastor arrested for breaching Covid-19 health order
Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne decries ‘discrimination against religion’ after refusing to restrict services


Copeland...

Scamvangelist Declares COVID-19 “Finished” After Commanding God to Destroy It


Hey! Your job’s not your source. If it is, you’re in trouble. Jesus is your source! Whatever you do right now, don’t you stop tithing! Don’t you stop sowing offerings.