Donald Trump
Donald Trump
Out of context: Reply #5195
- Started
- Last post
- 12,583 Responses
- Ramanisky22
- well do something then!********
- Honestly, I think it was obvious it was bad back in Feb looking at China, Iran, (italy too?). A panic could have been much worse. Probably the right move.monNom
- There's a nasty calculus is determining that some might die so that many others might not. IE: Its the least-bad choice given the options.monNom
- I'm not a fan of Trump, but I think it's disingenuous to think that a panic and total break-down of society isn't the much more dangerous situation.monNom
- ...or that another president wouldn't have made the exact same call.monNom
- Well then can you agree on a fixed date WHEN TO PANIC AND FIX THIS? LOL********
- Plenty of other presidents made the right calls man, lol what are you talking about?!********
- ^ He downplayed it said it was going from 15 cases to 0 ... said it would be gone by spring and summer ... said anyone who needs be tested will be.Ramanisky2
- You know he did not hide it for the 'panic' reason. We know this grifter.tank02
- Called it a DEM hoax ... GTFOHRamanisky2
- ^ how do you imagine they fix it? It's a force of nature - not going away. You either have the virus and an orderly society, or you have it with disorder.monNom
- and yes, probably other leaders in other countries had more tact. I don't think anyone was totally honest about how bad it is... probably still not.monNom
- I mean, pretty early on it was obvious to me that it was a strategic/existentia... threat. Countries (China, Iran) started falsifying data because showed weaknessmonNom
- I meant fix Trump! Impeach again, throw his ass in jail or something, how can you have this an incompetent president still in office after all this fuckery?!********
- and If I could put together that this was going to be bad back in January, it doesn't seem a stretch that other's could form their own opinion.monNom
- Like, what was the alternative?
@RealDonaldTrump:
"WE ESTIMATE 23M PEOPLE WILL DIE FROM THIS CHINA VIRUS, #MAGA"monNom - That's gonna go over well!monNom
- That probably would have been better than convincing his followers it was an overhyped conspiracy and wearing masks was bad.yuekit
- ugh, I hate that I'm taking this side of the argument. But it's just such a weak smear. Get him for something legitimate instead of drip drip nothing-burgers.monNom
- He knew it was serious, publicly acted like it wasn't AND also didn't do anything about it. How is that not a real issue?yuekit
- You think they weren't racing behind the scenes to find a treatment? Guaranteed there was a blank cheque to whoever could fix the problem.monNom
- All the reporting I read was that they were massively negligent in preparing. For instance waited until late March to even order masks and other PPE.yuekit
- And the testing in the US was a total disaster at first. That was a huge issue because it was impossible to tell how much the virus was spreading.yuekit
- ... and the USA's performance in fighting the virus is basically the worse of all industrialized countries.zarkonite
- Probably, likely. There's a just-in-time supply chain and usually that stuff is just there when you order it... But in January China bought up EVERYTHING.monNom
- They were re-importing masks from North-America. Smurfing them from retail stores. USA was negligent for sure, but not totally at fault.monNom
- as for testing, I think they're still working to get a good accurate test. First test wasn't working. Now tests have huge inaccuracies.monNom
- I heard a stat about why they don't just test everyone for AIDS: I guess the test is like 99.9% accurate. so 1 in 1000 is a false positive...monNom
- But they expect that 1 in 10,000 will be HIV positive... so if you tested everyone, you would have 10x as many false positives as real cases.monNom
- So given that the covid test isn't nearly 99.9% accurate, it makes sense that they don't just test everyone because it wouldn't tell them anything.monNom
- as for "Impeach again". Maybe they could just actually try to win election in a couple of months by selecting a candidate the people actually want to vote for?monNom
- Sure but the problem is they weren't even trying to stockpile equipment or fix the testing between January and March.yuekit
- But Trump said on tape early on in the Pandemic that “anyone who needs to be tested can tested” ... that was a LieRamanisky2
- too many actuallies, actually.monNom
- Also letting people continue to fly into the country without any testing or security long after it was clear the virus was spreading internationally.yuekit
- I get what you're saying, some criticisms may be uninformed but based on everything I've read they really did phone it in until it was much too late.yuekit
- Combine that with Trump doing his "it's just the flu bro" routine on TV during all of this and it paints a pretty damning picture.yuekit
- There is very surely a whole lot of incompetence and ass covering all the way down. I just think in this circumstance, he was right. you don't spook the heard.monNom
- 'you don't spook the herd*' By that logic, people shouldn't be warned whenever there's a category 5 hurricane coming their way. Don't wanna spook 'em, yeah?Continuity
- Also: the rest of us who live in civilised countries were all told of the very real dangers of this disease. Seems to me — other than a run on bog roll —Continuity
- there was no panic.Continuity
- ^ EXACTLYRamanisky2
- So agreeing with scientists and saying, "This is serious. We need to social distance and wear masks." Would have been irresponsible, monNom?mathinc
- Instead they leaned hard into the, "This will all go away soon, don't worry about it" narrative and more people died because of it. Not to mention not preparingmathinc
- in the slightest. Jeez, fuck off with this 'don't want to spook the herd' bullshit.mathinc
- whoa, touchy. I think you're caricaturing the situation. Trump was cheerleading for sure, but there was plenty of opposing viewpoints out there.monNom
- and to the point of 'social distance, wear masks' That's likely only going to slow things down... maybe not save ANY lives if we can't find a vaccine.monNom
- so the balance becomes: shut down the economy, everyone starves. or let the virus run it's course and many many more die if hospitals can't keep up...monNom
- or you take the middle path and draw it out bit by bit. A controlled_burn. Not crashing the economy, not overwhelming hospitals, hoping for a treatment...monNom
- but also progressing toward herd immunity as fast as possible because if you are 6mo behind China, you could be on the back-foot for the next 50 years.monNom
- all Trump ever cared about is his
re-election and the Stock Market.Ramanisky2 - it seems pretty obvious to me that's what they're doing... talking about a 'second wave' before the first one was even cresting. and I think it's correct.monNom
- Just to be clear, in that scenario, I think you need to get a critical-mass of people infected before adopting masks in order to build toward herd-immunity.monNom
- ...as fast as possible...but no faster.monNom
- and is probably why schools are reopening. If it goes through the schools, children are less-prone to bad reactions, you hit herd immunity faster. Maybe.monNom
- S Korea didn't shut down their economy. They wore masks and socially distanced. The herd immunity approach would kill millions very quickly - say scientists.mathinc
- Scientists still don't know for sure that herd immunity is a certain - so yeah, lets race into uncertainty and kill millions to get there. Or, you know, 'slowmathinc
- burn' until we understand it. Trump's equivocation on the entire thing is the issue. "Masks are bad, it'll go away, hey it's actually gone!"mathinc
- 99% of the reason why we've got fuckwits throwing fits over doing the easiest and most scientifically proven thing (masks) is because of his equivocation.mathinc
- well do something then!