Capco

By all means, feel free to contest any of the above examples. They are all common knowledge. It's not like we're writing a scholarly journal entry on this forum. Unless you think none of those things actually happened just because I used the wrong link. So far, all you've been able to do is name call and label. I wonder if that will change.

Here's a wiki article with over 320(!) citations making the case for Trump being a racist. Just from the summary (lol) we have: -Sued by DoJ for housing discrimination, 1973/78 -leading proponent of bitherism conspiracy -vilification of the wrongly accused Central Park 5 -speech about Mexicans being criminals and rapists -repeatedly linked African Americans and Hispanics with violent crime -implied a moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them at Charlottesville -referred to El Salvador, Haiti, and African countries as "sh|tholes" - Trump tweeted about Democratic congresswomen: "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done." This Go back to your country mentality is a common racial trope. Several studies and surveys have stated that racist attitudes and racial resentment have fueled Trump's political ascendance, and have become more significant than economic factors in determining the party allegiance of U.S. voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump The evidence is nothing short of overwhelming. And you've provided zero evidence to the contrary. Yet somehow I'm the one who is proven to not be operating with a fully functional brain. You have a special, rare kind of logic. I'll bet you think it's a gift, too.

I'm allowed to think he's a racist without discrediting everything else I say. What incontrovertible proof do you have that he doesn't have a racist bone in his body? I'm all ears.

Lol. Show me on the stuffed animal rhino doll where I touched you.

You're right. 3+ years isn't nearly enough time to fix a "broken system" under your direct control when you're the most powerful man in the world. How ridiculous of me to expect more.

He fired two of the very people who knew what to do best, Luciana Borio and Scott Gottlieb. They literally weren't available to provide that information in a formal setting because of his decision making. If he wasn't so damned petty he'd not have fired them, taken their advice into proper consideration, and acted as aggressively as South Korea (or more so). But instead we are left with 4-6 lost weeks because the man in the Oval Office has an ego problem. More people are going to die than would have otherwise. Do you understand?

Following orders from subordinates is not the same as taking their advice into consideration. That (which is expected of a leader) wasn't even done.

We're in the middle of a global crisis (the traditional time that Americans rally around their president) and he can't even crack a 50% approval rating. If that's indicative of his job performance then you must set a very low bar for what you call a "good job". Even though wages have been stagnant and underemployment rampant during his tenure, if we just focus on the stock market gains since January 2017, that will tell you the REAL success story of this presidency! Oh wait...

I still think he did it for petty and/or racist reasons and not because he was being Mr. Pandemic. He kinda stumbled into a victory on that one, but yes the Dems and MSM were wrong in hindsight. That ban did help and did save lives I believe.

Yes, it's a failure of leadership, not just Trump. That doesn't mean he doesn't hold the lion's share of the responsibility to protect the country as POTUS. The experts knew what to do best and knew it ahead of time. We know they knew. It's the leaders' jobs to listen to their pandemic experts, not fire them. And they were not listened to. In South Korea the politicians took the advice of their experts and acted aggressively and decisively. In America we dilly-dallied. The fact is that a better response from the Oval Office would mean a better current situation and outlook.

Western complacency is why two former Trump administration health officials rang the alarm bell one week after the first reported case on Jan 20, and why their advice wasn't put into practice until February 29? https://www.wsj.com/articles/act-now-to-prevent-an-american-epidemic-11580255335 No. "Western societies are much more complacent" isn't gonna cut it. This is a failure of leadership. “The US response will be studied for generations as a textbook example of a disastrous, failed effort,” Ron Klain, who spearheaded the fight against Ebola in 2014, told a Georgetown university panel recently. “What’s happened in Washington has been a fiasco of incredible proportions.” The White House had all the information it needed by the end of January to act decisively. Instead, Trump repeatedly played down the severity of the threat, blaming China for what he called the “Chinese virus” and insisting falsely that his partial travel bans on China and Europe were all it would take to contain the crisis. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/28/trump-coronavirus-politics-us-health-disaster

Oh it was just some back and forth posting between DR and I. Not a lesson to kiddos or anything. Have you had to do any homeschooling since this whole shebang?

I acknowledge this cultural difference in personal measures but that doesn't account for the differences in levels of testing and government responsiveness. Unless you're also referring to the American culture of government staying out of other people's business even if it's for those people's best interests. In that case then we're just reaping what we've sown.

Oh really? People don't wear masks in the US? They don't clean up after themselves in the US? The US has never experienced a pandemic in its history? That must explain why we don't have some kind of centralized agency for disease control, and why we never created a pandemic response team. Yes, you've nailed it!

There are fundamental principles of economics present in the Black Death example, and these fundamentals remain true regardless of time period. It happens to be the most stark and prominent example which is why I chose it, but there are other examples of the economic impacts of pandemics in the short and long term which exemplify the same fundamentals. Again I just happened to pick the most well-known example. You calling yourself a student of history, after the conversations we've had, is laughable at best. It's remarkable how highly you think of yourself.

Yes you can. They are both countries. Countries are compared to one another all the time regardless of size or background. You don't get to decide that lol.

Honestly that was my reaction too when I first read about it. But the analysis is very interesting.

It's a very simple comparison between South Korea and the United States. South Korea's response has been exemplary, while ours has fallen short in many areas. If we both had access to the same information (we did unless you think the South Koreans have a superior intelligence apparatus), and the same levels of resources, then our responses should have been comparable. Yes the US has far more people but we also have far, far more resources than South Korea does. This means our response, if anything, should have been superior to South Korea, and yet it was inferior. The reason for that discrepancy is the leadership at the federal level in a time of crisis, a responsibility which falls squarely upon the office of the President.

One good example of that is the Black Death. The economies of Europe and Asia boomed for decades afterwards because there were suddenly a lot of job openings and still a lot of aggregate demand despite the population loss.

I gave a history lesson yesterday on how republics have a long track record of taking extraordinary measures during extraordinary times. Naturally that fell on deaf ears here, cuz you know the gubment is bad.

Since my Articles of Confederation example was too much for you to digest, let's try another historical example. Do you know the origin of the term dictator? Of course you don't, so I'll tell you. Dictator was an actual political office in the Roman Republic. Although the Republic had an executive that inherited the imperium of the old Roman kings (a pair of them actually, known as consuls), the Romans would also appointed dictators in times of crises because the Senate didn't perform well in times of crises. They recognized that drastic times called for drastic measures. This has nothing to do with fears of Trump becoming what the Romans would refer to as rex or king, where one assumes the above level of dictatorial powers outside of drastic times. Equating the two is again showing an utter lack of general historical context.

The bolded is literally you in a nutshell. You've spent a considerable amount of your posting history perpetuating Deep State conspiracy theories where Trump is your knight in shining armor, coming to save the day. Idk why I even try convincing you that you're insane. Has that ever worked with anyone before?

This is an excellent example of where you find grains of truth and latch on to them in an effort to perpetuate your conspiracy theories. Has the trend of the legislative branch (the direct representation of the people in a federal republic) been to delegate their powers to the executive, since at least WWII and arguably before? Yes. That's a scholarly position to take and it's well supported with examples. Does that mean that there's a small group of men behind the curtain who have great control over our lives that tried to prevent/coup Trump before he could start reigning them in? It's nuts dude.

Good point! After all, I see you posting about your own state and local officials all the time! In fact it's miraculous how little attention you give to the national narrative or the POTUS. Simply astounding.