Please say it ain't so.

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 hours ago, Texan4Auburn said:

No kidding. Some reason people got caught up in the Trump vs Cruz bit, and you had Kasich sitting there going this is how I handled this issue in Ohio vs tossing insults. Noone cared though it seemed.

I cannot imagine how much different and how much better off this country would be if the Republicans had nominated Kasich.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

I cannot imagine how much different and how much better off this country would be if the Republicans had nominated Kasich.

I voted for Kasich in the primary. He spoke reason and record while everyone else bickered like 5 year olds and ultimately was overshadowed and forgotten. 🤦‍♂️

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I voted for Kasich in the primary. He spoke reason and record while everyone else bickered like 5 year olds and ultimately was overshadowed and forgotten. 🤦‍♂️

Yup. This country loves its carnival barkers and snake oil salesmen. We don't want good. We want exciting. 

[homersapien 11,373]

11 hours ago, Texan4Auburn said:

No kidding. Some reason people got caught up in the Trump vs Cruz bit, and you had Kasich sitting there going this is how I handled this issue in Ohio vs tossing insults. Noone cared though it seemed.

You're right. 

But Trump is a reality show host and he is been maintaining that behavior ever since (see his tweets).

Apparently it plays well for a significant segment of the population, which is a sad statement on our culture.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Apparently it plays well for a significant segment of the population, which is a sad statement on our culture.

Yup.

I know there are a lot of folks who spend a lot of time here just for the back and forth, and they know better. At a minimum, they understand the problems, and are just willing to accept them for whatever reason. But there are an alarming number of people who still, somehow, genuinely don't see what the problem is. 

Too bad for Joe Exotic that he wasn't born a straight guy on Manhattan's Upper West Side. 

[homersapien 11,373]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/01/what-joe-biden-did-right-rebutting-tara-reades-claims/

What Joe Biden did right in rebutting Tara Reade’s claims

By

Jennifer Rubin 

Opinion writer

May 1, 2020

Political pundits will “grade” former vice president Joe Biden’s response to Tara Reade’s allegation that he digitally penetrated her more than 25 years ago. The campaign’s written statement was empathetic and respectful but definitive. Biden sat for a tough interview Friday without losing his cool. He was not angry or accusatory; he did not claim a conspiracy nor insult the accuser. He volunteered to open Senate papers (which he said are at the National Archives, not at the University of Delaware). In short, he did what an innocent person would do and say.

The lines “If you believe Christine Blasey Ford, you have to believe Reade” or “You didn’t believe President Trump, so you cannot believe Biden” (or other variations) are the worst examples of mindless “balance” and faux objectivity. It takes a minute to identify fundamental differences between situations that bear little resemblance to one another.

Trump never sat for a grueling interview to go through the facts of more than a dozen claims against him. Biden sat for an interrogation of a single claim of sexual assault. (And no, his penchant to ignore personal space and excessive hugginess were not sexual, although they were inappropriate.)

Unlike Republicans and now-Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who refused to allow a full investigation of charges, Biden has put no restrictions on media inquiries and has offered up relevant documents. (Republicans also refused to open up all documents relevant to Kavanaugh’s past White House work having nothing to do with Ford’s allegation.)

And let’s get real: Reade and Ford are not similar accusers. Ford’s story was consistent for years. Reade’s has not been. Ford did not claim to have complained contemporaneously; Reade did and was rebutted by Biden staff to whom she would have complained. In Kavanaugh’s case, there was another witness to an alleged, separate incident of sexual misconduct at Yale University involving Kavanaugh. In Reade’s case, no one else has accused Biden of anything like Reade’s claim.

Biden’s statements in writing and in the interview are hard to dispute: Women should be heard and believed, but facts and the truth matter like in every other crime. (In his written statement enumerating the fundamental concerns in these cases, Biden said, “One is that women deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and when they step forward they should be heard, not silenced. The second is that their stories should be subject to appropriate inquiry and scrutiny.”) If a witness changes her story (“Responsible news organizations should examine and evaluate the full and growing record of inconsistencies in her story, which has changed repeatedly in both small and big ways”), her credibility is seriously compromised.

Several points deserve emphasis.

First, the media do not question Trump about the serial allegations against him at his endless daily appearances. They’ve shrugged their shoulders and given up trying to pin him down on the numerous complaints of harassment and/or assault. They should continue to scrutinize his claims and ask questions whether he answers or not.

Second, people are entitled to believe Reade despite her inconsistencies, the denials from Biden and his staff and the (so far) dearth of written evidence of her complaint. The question is whether the American people decide the evidence is credible. Unless more evidence surfaces, I would wager they do not.

Third, Democrats perpetually worried that the Biden team is “blowing it” (Biden is hidden away! Not in the news!) might want to chill. This was a textbook example of effective campaign communication. The candidate is leading in the polls, and Trump is melting down (in the latest ABC/Ipsos poll, “his disapproval rating among Americans reached a numeric high of 57%, with only 42% approving.”) Maybe these people do know what they are doing.

-------------------------------------------

I don't want to sound as if I'm not "woke".  I totally think the issue - generally speaking - of our culture treating women disrespectfully in sexual ways is totally valid.

But considering our recent history - especially how Trump apparently gets a "pass" simply because he's Trump - I just want to see every accusation by a woman treated equally.

[homersapien 11,373]

16 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Great post.

Major disappointment with the DNC for not putting forth a better candidate. 

I just hate that you could scrape a better candidate than trump off the sole of Biden's shoe, but Trump's going to get reelected anyway. You're right. Trump isn't even the problem. He's a symptom.

You have said this a couple of times now. 

Emotionally, I understand your cynicism - what with Trump's behavior, his solid base of supporters, our electoral system and ongoing GOP efforts to manipulate it.

But the rational part of me just finds it hard to agree.  I am inclined to think a majority of the country has just had enough, especially with the ongoing economic impact of the coronavirus epidemic (and it's far from over). 

Certainly Trump didn't directly cause the pandemic, but he's got a damning record of mismanaging it - which continues.  People tend to focus on reasons for their misery, at least  when it comes from external causes.  I think that misery will serve as an excuse for them to make a change, any change, in the hope things will get better.

That may not be true for his "base", but they are in the minority.  If the Democrats don't fumble it (always a possibility) I think it's their election to lose.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I am inclined to think a majority of the country has just had enough, especially with the ongoing economic impact of the coronavirus epidemic (and it's far from over). 

Certainly Trump didn't directly cause the pandemic, but he's got a damning record of mismanaging it - which continues.  People tend to focus on reasons for their misery, at least  when it comes from external causes.  I think that misery will serve as an excuse for them to make a change, any change, in the hope things will get better.

That may not be true for his "base", but they are in the minority.  If the Democrats don't fumble it (always a possibility) I think it's their election to lose.

You're right, these are rational and logical assumptions. But I don't think rational or logical have carried the day in quite some time. 

You're 100% right that people want a villain to blame their problems on. Unfortunately for us, trump has applied the same nationalist tactics that won him the last election and has convinced his base that China is the cause of all our problems. And you know that undocumented Hispanics are going to be next. They would be one way or another, but we're about to have major problems with outbreaks in meat processing plants. China brought it here, and now the illegals are spreading it! And now I can't get my double fatburger! Never mind, of course, that those folks would much rather not be working but have been left no choice. A lot of speculation, I know, but the point is he'll have an easy enough time shepherding his flock. Like he said in the quote that @Grumps brought up, he could shoot somebody in the streets of New York and they wouldn't care. 

So far I haven't really disputed anything you've said. I think maybe where we differ is how we view his base, and who is in the majority and who is in the minority based on how each group views his management of the crisis. Again, logic and rational thought tell us one thing. But we are now a country that is less about right and wrong than it is about winning. For a LOT of people, the worst thing they could do is admit defeat and cross the aisle. Not everyone, of course, but a lot of people. That was true four years ago. But we hear every day that the Dems have made a mistake by going after trump in various ways because that has only galvanized the opposition. While I'll never call decency and keeping the country's best interests in mind a "mistake", and I fully support going after a guy who is obviously completely corrupt, it's true that a lot of those who no longer believe trump to be fit for office will still vote for him out of some sense of comeuppance. Sounds crazy, but hey, armed militia just stormed the capital of the nation's 10th-most populous state and it's barely raised an eyebrow. We live in incredibly stupid times.

Also, I'm of the opinion that even in times of trouble, a lot of people will still choose the devil they know. (I think that had a lot to do with Dubya's reelection.)  

And then, of course, there's the economy. House of cards that it obviously was, the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting more (extraordinarily low paying) jobs. Those things are a hell of a lot more popular than silly nonsense like regulations intended to prolong human existence on this planet or ensuring civil liberties for non-straight and non-white people. 

If Biden beats this rape rap and secures a strong VP candidate, then maybe he can get the right momentum at the right time. But I remain skeptical. 

Full disclosure: Part of my assessment is emotional. I've always preferred pessimism followed by the occasional pleasant surprise to optimism more frequently followed by disappointment. It's a self-management style that mostly works for me. But it's mostly based on information that I wish was different. 

I mean, this is the guy that middle America elected to "drain the swamp". It's ironic that his supporters say that Dems pay too much attention to what he says and not enough to what he does. 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

You're right, these are rational and logical assumptions. But I don't think rational or logical have carried the day in quite some time. 

You're 100% right that people want a villain to blame their problems on. Unfortunately for us, trump has applied the same nationalist tactics that won him the last election and has convinced his base that China is the cause of all our problems. And you know that undocumented Hispanics are going to be next. They would be one way or another, but we're about to have major problems with outbreaks in meat processing plants. China brought it here, and now the illegals are spreading it! And now I can't get my double fatburger! Never mind, of course, that those folks would much rather be working but have been left no choice. A lot of speculation, I know, but the point is he'll have an easy enough time shepherding his flock. Like he said in the quote that @Grumps brought up, he could shoot somebody in the streets of New York and they wouldn't care. 

So far I haven't really disputed anything you've said. I think maybe where we differ is how we view his base, and who is in the majority and who is in the minority based on how each group views his management of the crisis. Again, logic and rational thought tell us one thing. But we are now a country that is less about right and wrong than it is about winning. For a LOT of people, the worst thing they could do is admit defeat and cross the aisle. Not everyone, of course, but a lot of people. That was true 4 years ago. But we hear every day that the Dems have made a mistake by going after trump in various ways because that has only galvanized the opposition. While I'll never call decency and keeping the country's best interests in mind a "mistake", and I fully support going after a guy who is obviously completely corrupt, it's true that a lot of those who no longer believe trump to be fit for office will still vote for him out of some sense of comeuppance. Sounds crazy, but hey, armed militia just stormed the capital of the nation's 10th-most populous state and it's barely raised an eyebrow. We live in incredibly stupid times.

Also, I'm of the opinion that even in times of trouble, a lot of people will still choose the devil they know. (I think that had a lot to do with Dubya's reelection.)  

And then, of course, there's the economy. House of cards that it obviously was, the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting more (extraordinarily low paying) jobs. Those things are a hell of a lot more popular than silly nonsense like regulations intended to prolong human existence on this planet or ensuring civil liberties for non-straight and non-white people. 

If Biden beats this rape rap and secures a strong VP candidate, then maybe he can get the right momentum at the right time. But I remain skeptical. 

Full disclosure: Part of my assessment is emotional. I've always preferred pessimism followed by the occasional pleasant surprise to optimism more frequently followed by disappointment. It's a self-management style that mostly works for me. But it's mostly based on information that I wish was different. 

I mean, this is the guy that middle America elected to "drain the swamp". It's ironic that his supporters say that Dems pay too much attention to what he says and not enough to what he does. 

 

Also, remember most people vote with the pocket book. If the people that voted for him are still in at least the same situation or better financially will vote for him out of default (or known devil as you said). And it depends on how deeply financially impacted they are by the pandemic and if they were, are they going to feel like he did everything in his power to hold the economy together. I hate to say it, but people's personal financial situation usually trump (no pun intended) other issues even how disgraceful they may be. This is what history has shown.

[McLoofus 35,182]

59 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Also, remember most people vote with the pocket book. If the people that voted for him are still in at least the same situation or better financially will vote for him out of default (or known devil as you said). And it depends on how deeply financially impacted they are by the pandemic and if they were are they going to feel like he did everything in his power to hold the economy together. I hate to say it, but people's personal financial situation usually trump (no pun intended) other issues even how disgraceful they may be. This is what history has shown.

Totally agree.

We've seen it a lot in this forum. "My retirement fund looks great, keep up the great work Prez." Absolutely no other meaningful issue to vote on for them. They've been quiet lately so we'll see what happens. But I don't think they're going to hold it against him. And I actually get it, given the ridiculous and surreal parameters in which we now operate. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

10 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Totally agree.

We've seen it a lot in this forum. "My retirement fund looks great, keep up the great work Prez." Absolutely no other meaningful issue to vote on for them. They've been quiet lately so we'll see what happens. But I don't think they're going to hold it against him. And I actually get it, given the ridiculous and surreal parameters in which we now operate. 

They won't hold it against him. And frankly the collapse of everyone's retirement fund isn't so much on him. This was a global financial meltdown as the world came to a grinding halt. I am thinking in more of immediate financial impact such as lost jobs and how his response is perceived. Which could go either way I think. I have seen the "my retirement fund" looks great as well all over the place and I was like that's the best you can think of? LOL 

 

I also vote depending on how it personally benefits me financially, but I have always had personal integrity to maintain for myself. That is why in 2016 I still wrote in Kasich on my actual ticket. I wasn't going to vote for Trump or Hillary for obvious reasons. Personally my financial situation has improved under Trump mainly due to his economic policies and changes from things Obama did, but I can't use that as the reason to overlook his character. I also don't like Biden as well so I will most likely either refrain from voting at the presidential level and keep it local only or I will come up with a write in. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

10 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I am thinking in more of immediate financial impact such as lost jobs and how his response is perceived.

Yeah, I'm curious about that. I don't think it will hurt him very much. It should, but it won't. Teflon Don, indeed. 

[SaltyTiger 7,798]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

People tend to focus on reasons for their misery, at least  when it comes from external causes.  I think that misery will serve as an excuse for them to make a change, any change, in the hope things will get better.

You are an extremely negative person Brother Homer. You say people focus on misery. Yourself plus a short list of like thinkers around here have tried to convince us that we are miserable for 4 years now. Your word "mismanagement " is  over used and and tiresome. 

Do you think this thing would have toned down with another administration in control? 

[homersapien 11,373]

10 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

You are an extremely negative person Brother Homer. You say people focus on misery. Yourself plus a short list of like thinkers around here have tried to convince us that we are miserable for 4 years now. Your word "mismanagement " is  over used and and tiresome. 

Do you think this thing would have toned down with another administration in control? 

You are a useful fool brother Salty.

I am speaking of people in general, not me.  Like they say, it's the economy, stupid.  And if you think the economy is going to recover between now and November, you are an even bigger fool than I credit you for.  But I will do fine - at least economically - regardless.

And yes, with another administration we would have contained the pandemic much more effectively than we did.  Other countries have done so.  And other administrations did so. 

We would certainly be better off today with federally coordinated policies to address ongoing shortages in PEP and (especially) testing.  In fact, I predict we will have continuing outbreaks by prematurely opening the country with our current insufficient capacity for testing, both diagnostic and antibody. That's called mismanagement.

Intelligent people recognize that Trump has mismanaged this - hell he was slow to even admit it could be a problem. And he's still over-promising and mismanaging.  That's all a part of the actual record, that useful fools - like yourself - don't want to acknowledge.  You're too busy lapping up the propaganda that Dear Leader spews daily.

[homersapien 11,373]

21 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Totally agree.

We've seen it a lot in this forum. "My retirement fund looks great, keep up the great work Prez." Absolutely no other meaningful issue to vote on for them. They've been quiet lately so we'll see what happens. But I don't think they're going to hold it against him. And I actually get it, given the ridiculous and surreal parameters in which we now operate. 

But you are talking about people - such as myself who are older, can live off SS and have sizeable IRA's.  I can lose a half million in the market and still be assured I will die with a sizeable estate.  The MAGAs in that category probably will vote for Trump. (But all of us in that category are not MAGAs, at least, most of my friends and family in that category aren't.)

I am thinking of pretty much everyone else who have been absolutely devastated financially by this.  I know that if I were unlucky enough to be one of them, I'd be mad as hell. 

And the economy not going to rebound between now and November. Even if it does get better, it's not going to restore the financial status of most people.  However, it's more likely we will see a rebound in infections before November due to our inadequate testing capability.  At least that's what most epidemiologists predict.  And more and more people are going to be aware that Trump's failure in organizing a federal program for testing will be a factor in that:

 

Like you, I am very cynical about the number of people in this country who are so stupid as to embrace Trump.  And most of them will be eager to accept Trump's efforts to avoid responsibility while blaming others. 

But I can't help but consider his history of mismanagement of this pandemic - and the economic pain it has produced - will be enough to have is sorry ass voted out of office. 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

16 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

They won't hold it against him. And frankly the collapse of everyone's retirement fund isn't so much on him. This was a global financial meltdown as the world came to a grinding halt. I am thinking in more of immediate financial impact such as lost jobs and how his response is perceived. Which could go either way I think. I have seen the "my retirement fund" looks great as well all over the place and I was like that's the best you can think of? LOL 

 

 

And let's not forget that most of those people - who are most affected - really don't have much in the way of retirement funds to begin with.

The economic impact of this pandemic will last for a generations. It's going to exacerbate already existing problems with wealth and income disparity.

It will be interesting to see how this affects politics over the next few decades.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

43 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But you are talking about people - such as myself who are older, can live off SS and have sizeable IRA's.  I can lose a half million in the market and still be assured I will die with a sizeable estate.  The MAGAs in that category probably will vote for Trump. (But all of us in that category are not MAGAs, at least, most of my friends and family in that category aren't.)

I am thinking of pretty much everyone else who have been absolutely devastated financially by this.  I know that if I were unlucky enough to be one of them, I'd be mad as hell. 

And the economy not going to rebound between now and November. Even if it does get better, it's not going to restore the financial status of most people.  However, it's more likely we will see a rebound in infections before November due to our inadequate testing capability.  At least that's what most epidemiologists predict.  And more and more people are going to be aware that Trump's failure in organizing a federal program for testing will be a factor in that:

 

Like you, I am very cynical about the number of people in this country who are so stupid as to embrace Trump.  And most of them will be eager to accept Trump's efforts to avoid responsibility while blaming others. 

But I can't help but think his history of mismanagement of this pandemic - and the economic pain it has produced - will be enough to have is sorry ass voted out of office. 

 

All very good points. I do want to clarify, likely unnecessarily, that 1) I don't mean to suggest that the wealthy/able-to-retire-comfortably represent a significant portion of Trump's base or that 2) all or even most people in that category are Trump supporters. Again, probably unnecessary, I know.

I suppose there's another angle to discuss which is campaign funding and how much that can sway the millions who *are* severely impacted financially, as you point out, but I'm (even further) out of my depth there.

[homersapien 11,373]

5 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

All very good points. I do want to clarify, likely unnecessarily, that 1) I don't mean to suggest that the wealthy/able-to-retire-comfortably represent a significant portion of Trump's base or that 2) all or even most people in that category are Trump supporters. Again, probably unnecessary, I know.

I suppose there's another angle to discuss which is campaign funding and how much that can sway the millions who *are* severely impacted financially, as you point out, but I'm (even further) out of my depth there.

I understand your position.  For the most part, I share it. 

I just think you are (hopefully) underestimating the political effect of this pandemic. It's caused a huge amount of personal misery to some and a huge amount of financial misery to most everyone else.  It's just hard for me to actually believe he will win anyway.  I fear it, but I just can't believe it. 2016 was about Hillary vs. Trump.  2020 will be about Trump, period. 

Considering our current national status in testing,  I believe Trump's obsession with opening the economy will backfire.  If so, that will be the nail in the coffin.

You're certainly right in their are other "angles" worth considering, such as money and voter suppression (just look what happened in the last Georgia governors race if you discount the latter).  I am also concerned about Republican efforts to thwart or rig the voting process, especially if we have another surge in infections in Oct./Nov.  But I think the (pandemic) economy will work against Trump's GOP to the extent it overrides everything else.

If it doesn't, then it will serve us right.  It will prove that the 20th century was the only "American century" that will ever be.

[SaltyTiger 7,798]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You are a useful fool brother Salty.

I am speaking of people in general, not me.  Like they say, it's the economy, stupid.  And if you think the economy is going to recover between now and November, you are an even bigger fool than I credit you for.  But I will do fine - at least economically - regardless.

And yes, with another administration we would have contained the pandemic much more effectively than we did.  Other countries have done so.  And other administrations did so. 

We would certainly be better off today with federally coordinated policies to address ongoing shortages in PEP and (especially) testing.  In fact, I predict we will have continuing outbreaks by prematurely opening the country with our current insufficient capacity for testing, both diagnostic and antibody. That's called mismanagement.

Intelligent people recognize that Trump has mismanaged this - hell he was slow to even admit it could be a problem. And he's still over-promising and mismanaging.  That's all a part of the actual record, that useful fools - like yourself - don't want to acknowledge.  You're too busy lapping up the propaganda that Dear Leader spews daily.

No doubt, the economy will not recover by November. We are glad to hear that you will do fine. Many people with differing views than yourself will be fine likewise. Everyone that disagrees with you or supports Trump is not a stumbling, bumbling idiot Brother Homer. Been great if Trump had taken steps as early as say January to slow this spread. Been interesting to count the opinion articles  you and others would have posted regarding "impeachment distraction". 

[TexasTiger 12,865]

41 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

No doubt, the economy will not recover by November. We are glad to hear that you will do fine. Many people with differing views than yourself will be fine likewise. Everyone that disagrees with you or supports Trump is not a stumbling, bumbling idiot Brother Homer. Been great if Trump had taken steps as early as say January to slow this spread. Been interesting to count the opinion articles  you and others would have posted regarding "impeachment distraction". 

Are you saying Trump’s ineffective management was due to impeachment distraction?

[SaltyTiger 7,798]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Are you saying Trump’s ineffective management was due to impeachment distraction?

No I am not Tex. Do not know how well this thing could have been managed by any administration and neither to you. Do know if Obama where in office you guys would be crowing about his genius for turning F150 manufacturers into face shield and ventilator distributors in a few short weeks.  

[TexasTiger 12,865]

17 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

No I am not Tex. Do not know how well this thing could have been managed by any administration and neither to you. Do know if Obama where in office you guys would be crowing about his genius for turning F150 manufacturers into face shield and ventilator distributors in a few short weeks.  

I don’t think any American President would have stopped this from spreading. I do think a much better job could be done with obtaining/distributing PPE to health care workers and coordinating/assisting states with equipment. I also doubt any other President would encourage angry crowds to rise up against states for implementing federal guidelines. I don’t think there was any magic bullet Trump failed to find— I’d just like the President to not respond like an irrational, lying idiot. My expectations aren’t really that high.

[SaltyTiger 7,798]

19 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t think any American President would have stopped this from spreading. I do think a much better job could be done with obtaining/distributing PPE to health care workers and coordinating/assisting states with equipment. I also doubt any other President would encourage angry crowds to rise up against states for implementing federal guidelines. I don’t think there was any magic bullet Trump failed to find— I’d just like the President to not respond like an irrational, lying idiot. My expectations aren’t really that high.

That is a fair assessment and appreciate you responding without calling me a moron, idiot or Trumpbot. Speaks volumes of your outstanding character and could perhaps positively influence a few others.

I was rather unimpressed with the daily briefings that were not briefings.    

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

But I can't help but think his history of mismanagement of this pandemic

I really don’t think Trump has mismanaged this pandemic at all.  It was something that no one, with any authority, knew about until January 30th when the WHO finally called it an medical emergency.  If you compare Trump’s response by what he could have done with 20/20 hindsight you are reciting the media narrative and that is not objective.

If you compare his response by other countries, it appears more in line with the world’s view.  Germany has done a decent job in their response and America is higher in the % of infected and deaths, but if you take NY out of the data, we are very close to Germany.  Of course, you can’t take NY out of the data, but realize the Cuomo has managed this pandemic as about as bad as someone could.  His slow start was a key factor in how NY became the epicenter in this country.  Listen to his remarks to CNN’s Jake Tapper on March 17th:

Even da Blasio wanted to shut down the schools and Cuomo was slow on the uptake.  He was saying, in this clip, that stay at home order is not going to work and he feels the health care system would be overwhelmed in 45 days. Neither were true because of the mitigations suggested by the CDC.  If it wasn’t for the Trump administration, NY would be a lot worse off, because they provided the ventilators and hospital beds needed.

It’s interesting to me that a lot of the media is in NY and have been panicked while reporting the news from there, disregarding what was actually happening in the rest of the country.  The media also held Cuomo as the leader the country needed and nothing could be further than the truth.

I mentioned earlier that Cuomo was panicking by negotiating in the NY press what he needed and cooler heads knew that he didn’t need 30,000 ventilators or the amount of hospital beds he was screaming about.  In March, he also made it a requirement to send “stable Coronavirus patients” to nursing homes and accompanied them with body bags.  He has mentioned several times that we need to protect the most vulnerable, WTF.  That is panic, when you just do things just to do things.  NY has handled this worse than any other state and will be proven when this thing is over.

Your claim of mismanagement by the Trump Administration is misguided.  The bad thing is, if people listen to most of the MSM, they won’t know it until it is too late.

[TexasTiger 12,865]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I really don’t think Trump has mismanaged this pandemic at all.  It was something that no one, with any authority, knew about until January 30th when the WHO finally called it an medical emergency.  If you compare Trump’s response by what he could have done with 20/20 hindsight you are reciting the media narrative and that is not objective.

If you compare his response by other countries, it appears more in line with the world’s view.  Germany has done a decent job in their response and America is higher in the % of infected and deaths, but if you take NY out of the data, we are very close to Germany.  Of course, you can’t take NY out of the data, but realize the Cuomo has managed this pandemic as about as bad as someone could.  His slow start was a key factor in how NY became the epicenter in this country.  Listen to his remarks to CNN’s Jake Tapper on March 17th:

Even da Blasio wanted to shut down the schools and Cuomo was slow on the uptake.  He was saying, in this clip, that stay at home order is not going to work and he feels the health care system would be overwhelmed in 45 days. Neither were true because of the mitigations suggested by the CDC.  If it wasn’t for the Trump administration, NY would be a lot worse off, because they provided the ventilators and hospital beds needed.

It’s interesting to me that a lot of the media is in NY and have been panicked while reporting the news from there, disregarding what was actually happening in the rest of the country.  The media also held Cuomo as the leader the country needed and nothing could be further than the truth.

I mentioned earlier that Cuomo was panicking by negotiating in the NY press what he needed and cooler heads knew that he didn’t need 30,000 ventilators or the amount of hospital beds he was screaming about.  In March, he also made it a requirement to send “stable Coronavirus patients” to nursing homes and accompanied them with body bags.  He has mentioned several times that we need to protect the most vulnerable, WTF.  That is panic, when you just do things just to do things.  NY has handled this worse than any other state and will be proven when this thing is over.

Your claim of mismanagement by the Trump Administration is misguided.  The bad thing is, if people listen to most of the MSM, they won’t know it until it is too late.

My grocery chain was on it before our government was. We were sending tons of PPE to China with no plans for it spreading here. There have been ample reasons to be better prepared than we were. We wouldn’t have stopped it. We would have underestimated it. But we had zero preparation despite intel to at least have minimal prep for the possibility. We should have least been as in tune as a regional grocery chain.

”

On January 15, Wuhan’s Municipal Health Commission announced that the novel coronavirus was spreading via human-to-human transmission. 

Justen Noakes: So when did we start looking at the coronavirus? Probably the second week in January, when it started popping up in China as an issue. We’ve got interests in the global sourcing world, and we started getting reports on how it was impacting things in China, so we started watching it closely at that point. We decided to take a harder look at how to implement the plan we developed in 2009 into a tabletop exercise. On February 2, we dusted it off and compared the plan we had versus what we were seeing in China, and started working on step one pretty heavily.

Craig Boyan: Starting in January, we’ve been in close contact with several retailers and suppliers around the world. As this has started to emerge, we’ve been in close contact with retailers in China, starting with what happened in Wuhan in the early couple of months, and what kind of lessons they learned. Over the last couple of months, [we’ve been] in close contact with some of our Italian retailers and suppliers, understanding how things have evolved in Italy and now in Spain, talking to those countries that are ahead of us in the curve. We’ve been in daily contact, understanding the pace and the change and the need for product, and how things have progressed in each of those countries.

Justen Noakes: We modeled what had been taking place in China from a transmission perspective, as well as impact. As the number of illnesses and the number of deaths were increasing, obviously the Chinese government was taking some steps to protect their citizens, so we basically mirrored what that might look like. We also took an approach to what we saw during H1N1 in 2009, and later got on top of it. Our example was if we were to get an outbreak, specifically in the Houston area, how would we manage that, and how would we respond with our current resources, as well as what resource opportunities would we have.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.texasmonthly.com/food/heb-prepared-coronavirus-pandemic/amp/