Will COVID change the US
- Thread starter Ewooc
- Start date
- Status
You’re right we don’t know how she would have handled this Pandemic, but the economy and market would have never reached the highest it did under Trump..
I think you're saying, well, the stock market got really high for a while there. It did, that's true. It's also true that all of those gains have now been entirely wiped out. We also have bungled how we're handling a global pandemic under this guy, so...kind of meaningless, at this point?
Wiped out because of the virus and uncertainty of it same with the economy..
Hillary would have been sitting in the same boat but not above water...
I'm not even going to bother with the Hillary stuff, I'll just assume "not-Trump" in my explanation.
So, to start with, reports show that on its way out, the Obama administration briefed the incoming administration about the threat of a global pandemic. This is standard procedure when one administration is leaving and another one is coming in, it's not abnormal or "above and beyond" or anything, it's quite literally standard operating procedure. This was not taken seriously, and the group that reported to the president about global pandemics was disbanded. That is unlikely to have happened under a different administration, Republican or Democrat. So we would have had that.
Second, it is unlikely that any other politician in America would have downplayed this, called it a hoax, lied about its spread, and generally spread as much untruth about it as has already occurred (and is still actively occurring).
Third, it wasn't immigration that caused this, it was global travel. So, your point there is also moot.
Fourth, any other administration, provided they were taking this seriously, would have acted sooner and with greater severity in order to try to prevent what is now occurring and is going to occur.
So, just by assuming that things would have continued on as they had from Clinton, to Bush, to Obama, to XXXXXXX administration, our response would have certainly been...different.
That's kind of a weird, speculative answer. It doesn't make any sense, honestly. There are way, way too many unknowns that would have popped up over the last 3.5 years with a different administration to ever believe any point like that.
How so? Based on assumptions and what the media is force feeding you? We are very early on in this thing. The only way to tell if what Trump has done or didn't do worked is when this is all over. Then comparing the death rate, infection rate, longevity, ect to other countries.
Actually, I didn't like either of them 3 1/2 years ago. Out of 330 million people, these are the best two we came up with?? But at this point Trump's actions over the last 3 1/2 years have me longing for anyone other than him. Even Hillary.
still spouting the "hoax" hoax I see.
Hillary would have let travel continue unfettered.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/
What's True
During a Feb. 28, 2020, campaign rally in South Carolina, President Donald Trump likened the Democrats' criticism of his administration's response to the new coronavirus outbreak to their efforts to impeach him, saying "this is their new hoax." During the speech he also seemed to downplay the severity of the outbreak, comparing it to the common flu.
What’s True is if China would have been on the up and up with this and not tried to hide it, the world would have been more prepared..
Don’t need to tell you the story on this because I can tell you already have a clue on what unfolded by one of their doctors that found the virus..
Bravo! Now only one of us will have to worry about getting banned, other than both of us. Winking
I don’t think much of anything could change the minds of Trump’s base, the Republicans aren’t going to vote for a democrat. The question is can the Democratic nominee draw in minority and young voters to actually go vote, I don’t think Biden will, but Bernie hasn’t mobilized the young voters to even beat Biden in the primaries, so I don’t think that’s the answer either. The path in 2020 is simple, win Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The remaining states are pretty solid, minus Florida which is always thought to be ready to go blue, but doesn’t ever actually seem to. The side that takes 3 of those 5 states wins the office.
I believe there are very few independents. People say they are to sound open minded, but in reality general elections are about rallying your base.
Oops...you forgot the last part of the Snopes summation. I've noticed you're good at that.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/
Mixture
What's True
During a Feb. 28, 2020, campaign rally in South Carolina, President Donald Trump likened the Democrats' criticism of his administration's response to the new coronavirus outbreak to their efforts to impeach him, saying "this is their new hoax." During the speech he also seemed to downplay the severity of the outbreak, comparing it to the common flu.
What's False
Despite creating some confusion with his remarks, Trump did not call the coronavirus itself a hoax.
What's True
During a Feb. 28, 2020, campaign rally in South Carolina, President Donald Trump likened the Democrats' criticism of his administration's response to the new coronavirus outbreak to their efforts to impeach him, saying "this is their new hoax." During the speech he also seemed to downplay the severity of the outbreak, comparing it to the common flu.
What's False
Despite creating some confusion with his remarks, Trump did not call the coronavirus itself a hoax.
"This is standard procedure when one administration is leaving and another one is coming in, it's not abnormal or "above and beyond" or anything, it's quite literally standard operating procedure."
Kind of a do as I say not as I do, right?
https://ncdp.columbia.edu/news/disaster-funding-cuts/ - I'll let you read the whole piece but here are some highlights (notice the date):
Domestic Preparedness Cuts in the Current Federal Budget Threaten Infrastructure Gains and Public Health Preparedness
July 3, 2011
Recent cuts in the federal budget have serious implications for the country’s preparedness and response standing. In mid-May, federal agencies released their final FY11 budgets. Much of the country’s funding for homeland security and public health preparedness resides in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) budgets. Preparedness and response funding within DHHS and DHS dropped by nearly $900 million, from $5.3 billion in FY10 to $4.4 billion in FY11, a 17% overall reduction.
Isn't this last paragraph damning, especially about the New York area being of greater risk:July 3, 2011
Recent cuts in the federal budget have serious implications for the country’s preparedness and response standing. In mid-May, federal agencies released their final FY11 budgets. Much of the country’s funding for homeland security and public health preparedness resides in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) budgets. Preparedness and response funding within DHHS and DHS dropped by nearly $900 million, from $5.3 billion in FY10 to $4.4 billion in FY11, a 17% overall reduction.
More broadly, the preparedness budget cuts may make it particularly difficult for the nation – and the country’s public health agencies and workforce, in particular – to achieve the goals established in the Presidential Policy Directive on National Preparedness (PPD-8) and the National Health Security Strategy, as well as the national performance standards on public health capabilities released by the CDC two months ago. The New York metropolitan area, in particular, is at greater risk for large-scale catastrophic events, and cannot afford to be less than maximally prepared.
Just so you know this is what administrations do when producing a budget - they cut the fat. Now the Lyin' Hawaiian is good at telling people what they should do - just not good at doing those things himself. Truly a feckless POS.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...p-administration-cut-pandemic-response-office
In an op-ed published in the Washington Post on Monday, the former senior director for counterproliferation and biodefense at the NSC, Tim Morrison, objected to an argument made by another former NSC director, Beth Cameron. Cameron asserted that the president unnecessarily closed the office under her watch, but Morrison said the claim is merely a political narrative crafted by Democrats.
"This is Washington. It’s an election year. Officials out of power want back into power after November. But the middle of a worldwide health emergency is not the time to be making tendentious accusations," Morrison wrote.
"It is true that the Trump administration has seen fit to shrink the NSC staff. But the bloat that occurred under the previous administration clearly needed a correction," he continued.
In other words, Trump had made the same type of reductions that the Obama administration had completed during his first term."This is Washington. It’s an election year. Officials out of power want back into power after November. But the middle of a worldwide health emergency is not the time to be making tendentious accusations," Morrison wrote.
"It is true that the Trump administration has seen fit to shrink the NSC staff. But the bloat that occurred under the previous administration clearly needed a correction," he continued.
Morrison explained that "one such move at the NSC was to create the counterproliferation and biodefense directorate, which was the result of consolidating three directorates into one, given the obvious overlap between arms control and nonproliferation, weapons of mass destruction terrorism, and global health and biodefense."
He added, "It is this reorganization that critics have misconstrued or intentionally misrepresented. If anything, the combined directorate was stronger because related expertise could be commingled."
That's hilarious. I know I left that out, because...I mean, can you read? All that is saying is he specifically did not call coronavirus itself a hoax. He called news of its impending outbreak the hoax. Please tell me how that in ANY way matters.
DudznStud, I can agree that Trump took this Corona virus lightly.But can you agree that Hillary wouldn’t have boosted the economy and stock market that Trump did accomplish till the corona virus hit the country..
I think it's fair to say Clinton would have promoted different policies and passed different budgets that wouldn't have had the same effect on the economy as this guy did. What would that have meant in reality? No one can be sure. We know that under this president, the stock market climbed, and then was ready for a correction at some point (meaning, a significant but stable decrease in value followed by more growth of some degree). There is nothing else to say about it, and again, I don't think this matters at all right now.
The correction your talking about wouldn’t have dropped like it has or about too because of the virus..
It must matter to you because it’s the only thing you can discredit Trump on his handling of the corona crisis, other than his arrogant tweets..
Last edited:
No, it doesn't. You are right, a correction without an outbreak would have been nothing like this. And I am saying, it is fairly universally understood that this administration did not respond much and did not take this threat seriously until way, way later than they should have. Again, this is all moot now; the questions we should be asking are, what happens next, when will tests be available, how long must social distancing last, what economic aid packages are going to happen, when will the vaccine be ready, what can we work towards to make us better prepared, etc.
The guy literally gets on tv and says things that are wrong, and has to be corrected by Anthony Fauci RIGHT AFTER HE TALKS.
IF she handled it like she did Benghazi she would just be finding out about COVID-19 after sleeping through it. Not that there's anything wrong with a nap.Winking
Last edited:
This administration could, and should have responded more quickly. That has nothing to do with any prior candidate, we can armchair quarterback all we want. Regardless of what one feels about our President, we all should hope this is handled well for the health of our countries citizens and economy.
I've said many times that our country is in a sad state when the best candidates we can get are the ones we have currently. I said the same thing the last election. I think the Democrats screwed up big time when they ran off Tulsi Gabbard. She would have drawn a lot of Republican crossover and would have won independants. Instead we'll get Crazy Joe against Daffy Donald.
Hindsight is 20/20. At first I thought this might burn itself out in China like SARS did. Once it was apparent that it wasn't going to Trump started with the travel ban then it escalated from there. You will recall that the "progressive" media was calling him a racist for the China travel ban. It's easy to say now that they should have done more.
Last edited:
- Status