SectionC3

We had, what, a week to get ready for Katrina. We had about two months to steel ourselves for COVID. I expect a president to treat the threat seriously. I expect a president to prepare FEMA. I expect a president to be prepared to invoke the DPA. I expect a president to use the national emergency stockpile for good, not to have his son-in-law inexplicably claim that it's "ours" to support its withholding from the state. I expect the president to show leadership; to have enacted social distancing without prodding, and to have modeled social distancing instead of shaking hands at pressers. And I expect the president to have acknowledged the flaws in our capacity and worked immediately to correct them, such as in the case of testing. Bluffing the problem away won't work here. By your logic, it would have been OK to have wished Katrina to blow back to sea, or to have hoped that another earthquake would have put everything back everything back in its place in Northridge. That's not good enough here, and it's sad that you and others don't demand more from the leader of what was once and what hopefully still will be the greatest nation on earth once this mess is over. Nice try. You can't do it. I know it. And so do you. So I'll ask again? What's the hoax? If it's not the virus, then tell me what it is.

That's great, Doc. What the president of the United States says shouldn't be taken at face value because he's a barker. Unless it should be. I'm just lost by that. On deBlasio, I completely agree with you. He messed up, too. Badly. When the time comes to lay blame, he's going to bear a good amount of it. Just as Trump should and will. On the border closing, I agree with you to a point. I think Trump was late on that, but I suspect others would have been, too. What gets me about Trump is that he spent his time bloviating and trying to wish the virus away instead of enhancing testing capabilities, working on PPE supply chain issues, and recommending social distancing. That much is inarguable and inexcusable.

If it's so evident tell me what it is. Two wrongs make a right, eh? Somebody else made a mistake, therefore Trump is absolved of responsibility.

I think you're missing the point. It's not the fact that people died in H1N1 or in this pandemic that's the issue. It's the response that's the problem. I suspect you're old enough to grasp the distinction. And since we're moving into playing the semantics game today, I'll accept this as your admission that Trump called the virus a hoax in the first instance. I appreciate your comments, and I appreciate the fact that we disagree on things.

With respect, I think my track record, particularly in this thread, is to provide fact-based analysis. Take a look at my prior post and tell me where I'm wrong. I ask you kindly.

Doc, with respect, the only bias I have is for the truth. *** Just re-watched the clip, this time on You Tube. I stand by my characterization. This is a write-up from Politico, but it's an accurate summary: “The Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. They're politicizing it,” he said. “They don't have any clue. They can't even count their votes in Iowa. No, they can't. They can't count their votes. One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.’ That did not work out too well. They could not do it. They tried the impeachment hoax.” Then Trump called the coronavirus “their new hoax.” If Trump didn't refer to the virus as a hoax (I think the Politico article should have used the word referred, which might have been better in this instance), then I'm not sure what he was talking about. I say this kindly: enlighten me. I suspect you'll try to say that unspecified Democratic efforts to politicize the virus in an unspecified way are the hoax, not the virus itself. I see that approach as an exercise of gymnastics. I also see it as contradictory to the tone the president otherwise took w/r/t the issue during that time period, which essentially was to try wish the virus away. See this link: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trumps-statements-about-the-coronavirus/

Lots of "ifs" in this scenario. If our testing was better, our numbers outside of NYC likely would be higher. Our death rate likely would be lower. And we likely would be closer to being out of this than we are. You're right about the spreading of blame. There will be plenty of it to go around when this is done, as there should be. In the meantime, I return to the point that the "buck" stops at the desk of the President of the United States, whether he wants to admit it or not. His leadership during this pandemic has been an abject failure.

With respect, I don't think it requires bias. I'll draw an analogy to the question of intent in criminal law. Rare is it that a criminal explicitly announces his or her intent. Normally that mental state has to be established through circumstantial evidence, that is, implicitly. The determination whether that mental state has been established always is a question of fact. The concept is the same here. Did Trump come out and say, "I declare COVID-19 to be a hoax!!" Surely he did not. But I watched those clips. The gist of that evidence is that Trump talked about the virus, and characterized it as "their new hoax," or something very close to that. As far as I'm concerned . . . we're "there" in terms of this guy characterizing the issue as a "hoax." That said, your point is an interesting one, well-presented, and intellectually fair. Well done. Holy eff. More nonsense. Which "people" is Kambree (whoever that is) referring to?

Sorry but you're wrong. I back read. Doc said "The Dems called it a hoax too," or something very close to that. I asked for a link or evidence w/r/t to Doc's suggestion that Democrats, like Trump, called the virus a hoax. To this point no such evidence has been provided. And you've instead attempted to shift the conversation to a different issue that only you have have raised, namely, whether a Democrat failed to take the virus seriously. Bottom line: the question was not "can we link a Democrat not taking the virus seriously." You "gaslit" (again, I detest the term, but it's appropriate here) and subtly attempted to change the subject. Now that your attempt at distraction and distortion has failed, perhaps you can return to the main issue here: Trump's historically and epically inept response to the pandemic.

Time to post GIF images, but no time to support your position on the merits, I see.

Maybe all of that is true. But she's still not the chief executive. That's the point. With Harry S Truman, the "buck" stopped at the president's desk. With Donald J. Trump, it's always somebody else's fault when something goes wrong. And this situation . . . how anyone could say that it hasn't gone horribly, historically, obviously, and tragically wrong is simply beyond my comprehension.

The distinction on the "hoax" issue lies in the the difference between "express" and "implied." Did Trump expressly say, "COVID-19 is a hoax?" No. Definitely not. But did he characterize (or strongly imply) the virus as a hoax? Based on the video of the rally that I watched and posted earlier, absolutely. I don't see a semantical gymnastics exercise that permits a different conclusion, but I allowed for a contrary opinion based on the lack of an express statement.

Taiwan, South Korea, and Iceland. Arguably Germany. I suppose Singapore, too, but the different system of government there makes for an unfair analogy.

But you still won't bother to look it up. And your attempts at distraction by taking a prior statement completely out of context and name-calling still can't change the fact that you have failed to provide information with respect to how Trump didn't drop the ball with respect to important things like testing development, PPE acquisitions, and the timely implementation of adequate social distancing guidelines. Have a nice day!

Ahhh, more name calling. I'm too lazy to look for your product. But you're not too lazy to provide something that you've already generated. That. Makes. Perfect. Sense.

Sorry I'm not going to back read. Since you provided the information, it would be much easier for you to find and reproduce it that for me to look for it and guess at what you may or may not have intended to communicate. Once you locate those facts, a summary of your position would be appreciated. Any information on how Trump didn't drop the ball with respect to important things like testing development, PPE acquisitions, and the timely implementation of adequate social distancing guidelines also would be greatly appreciated. I'll understand your refusal to provide it as confirmation that it does not exist. Also, that's a cool picture or meme or whatever. It's a great way to communicate!

And PopGun, for what it's worth, I googled your point about Pelosi/Schumer and the "manufactured crisis." That statement appears to have been made on January 8, 2019, in response to the circumstances at the United States' southern border. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-schumer-accuse-trump-using-prime-time-address-manufacture-crisis-n956481; The COVID crisis arose in or about January 2020. I haven't (and likely won't) review the balance of your points, but the first one is, among other things, misleading, wrong, and patently "fake news." Have a nice day. The focus initially was on Trump. So let's get it back where it belongs. I detest the term gaslighting, but you're doing it here. Trump's job performance here sucks. Tremendously. And instead of defending it on the merits, you've elected to point to others in different positions with far less ability to address the crisis who may not have appreciated its gravity early enough. The fact that somebody else messed up, too, doesn't excuse the fact that Trump has failed --- tremendously so -- in his response to the pandemic. It's a point that you apparently can't contest on the merits, hence the references to usual boogeymen like Schumer, Pelosi, AOC, and Tom Perez.

I didn't see the word "hoax" in there. (Did a word search using ctrl F). I'll ask again: any evidence? Nice. Somebody else didn't take it seriously, so Trump's errors are excused. The focus here is on Trump and his "epically" (borrowing from the Boston Globe) poor performance with respect to the pandemic. So let's keep our eyes on the prize. My point is that Trump's numerous failings have coalesced in this situation and contributed to a presidential performance that has imperiled the economy, health, and way of life of our nation. Your response is to criticize others in positions of power who perhaps also reacted poorly to the pandemic, but who did not have the same capacity, ability to respond, or authority as did the president. So, now that we've got your deflection out of the way, let's turn the attention back to Trump. Instead of defending him by nothing possible flaws of others, let's focus on what he has or has not done with respect to this particular "hoax." The floor is yours.

Link? Evidence? Nice. Resort to name-calling when you've lost. Good work. Have a nice day! Nice line from this article (https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-nw-nyt-michael-savage-sean-hannity-coronavirus-20200416-yzmfj6ogz5gmnhqi63ojhejmnq-story.html) uttered by Michael Savage's wife: Savage’s wife, Janet Weiner, said in an interview that she had noticed more compassion in her husband since his heart attack. And she sees him taking on responsibility for waking people up to what parts of American conservatism, especially in the media, have become. “This culty hero worship of the uneducated, it’s very depressing,” she said. “It makes me ashamed to be a conservative,” she added, before stopping herself. “I don’t want to identify with the conservative movement anymore.”

Watch the video. It hasn’t. Link of sequential rally clips where the hoax comment was made was posted above. It’s trumps own words. We just disagree on that point. So let’s move on to the other ones.

How am I disingenuous? Please elaborate. And when you’re done with that, please explain how the president acted properly w/r/t his “hoax,” “warm weather,” and “testing” lies. Bottom line: other people made mistakes. So the grievous errors of the guy in charge are excusable. Makes. Perfect. Sense.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument. Enough of that already. You forgot to mention the obstructionist Democrats in the Senate who would have denied cloture. So it's all the fault of Schumer, and China, and maybe the fake news media, like the RINO Wall Street Journal. /end sarcasm

You say "admit," implying (without basis in fact) that the WHO had something to hide. I say "confirm," based on my view that the scientists at the WHO tried to reach an evidence-based conclusion. In any event, that semantical point aside, let's assume that the WHO dropped the ball on identifying human-to-human transmission of the virus in China, and didn't properly recognize that type of spread until 1/21/2020. At that point we can all acknowledge that there was evidence of human-to-human spread of the virus. The CDC reached a similar, perhaps more grounded conclusion about 10 days later, and Trump banned travel from China to the US at approximately the same time. Still, though, Trump took no other timely, significant measures to protect this country from the virus. In point of fact, the outbreak in the New York City area probably can be traced to spread from Europe, an area with respect to which Trump took only late protective measures. Indeed, the bottom line remains that the WHO indicated that human-to-human spread was possible on or about 1/20. And weeks later Trump still derided the danger posed by the virus, suggesting that it would "disappear"" in warmer weather and characterizing it as a "hoax." And it took approximately six weeks before Trump took meaningful domestic measures to combat the virus. That delay surely contributed to the limited availability of testing with which this country still struggles, in spite of the president's lie that "anyone who wants a test can get one." Today we know that it hasn't disappeared in warmer areas, and that it's not a hoax. So, if you're going to blame the WHO for not recognizing the danger of the virus quickly enough, what's your excuse for Trump's inaction even after the likelihood of human-to-human transmission was identified? Surely you'll deem this fake news, but I'll post the links anyhow. I welcome a fact-based response. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-response.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-who-funding.html Fake news. Not a lot of people know this, mostly because there are so many nasty, terrible reporters in the mainstream media, but we're doing a great job. The economy's in shambles, and we have near Depression-level unemployment numbers, but that's all the fault of the Democrats because the virus is a hoax or something like that. Anyhow, things would be a lot worse if Hillary or a Democrat or a RINO or somebody besides Trump was in charge. How come it's only COVID-19 that became a problem, when there were 18 other COVIDs that could have caused a pandemic? It's because Trump beat down all of the other COVIDs, and would have done the same with this one if it wasn't for the impeachment hoax, or golfing, or Twitter, that distracted him. /end sarcasm

Yeah I’m dumb. That’s it. Name calling your way out of losing an argument isn’t going to work. Try watching the video link I posted earlier.

Actually you asked what the WHO did w/r/t the virus. I responded that a warning was issued on 1/7, and that the genetic sequence was issued on 1/12. Then, among other things, you seized upon the fact that I did not refer to another action taken by the WHO on 1/21 as reflective of your pint that I had somehow “lied.” Even using your twisted logic, the president should have known, through the WHO, of the issue re: the virus no later than 1/21. And yet he proceeded to pass the issue off as a hoax and dream it away weeks later. Finally, you mentioned that I had made false statements (plural). I’m still curious what those are. I’ll take your inability to identify those statements as proof that there were no falsities. And I’ll take your parachute out of the conversation based on your lack of desire to respond to these invented “lies” as a reflection of your admission that you can’t hang intellectually, took your ball, and went home a sore loser rather than admit defeat. have a nice night and stay healthy. With respect on your statement on prosecutors, respectfully, you’re wrong. Prosecutors don’t exonerate; that much is true. But prosecutors can no bill based on the absence of legally sufficient evidence. Mueller easily could have done that. He consciously refused to do so. on the rest of the Russia issue, surely there was some flawed reporting. But there is something to the story as a whole. The gist of the mueller report was that team trump was to inept to collude. So the media might have had parts of the story wrong, but parts too were correct. On the anonymous sources issue, with respect that’s how reporting works. Look at watergate. That doesn’t happen without anonymous sources. Sometimes reporters get played. But that’s part of how it works.