Trump's failed leadership

[Lacewing]

I believe you are very ignorant of the critical elements at play on this issue.

Based on what?

I have written.

You are ignorant and had not taken into account of the primal tribalistic instincts at play within politics and the heavy emotional impulses involved.

You don't know all of my views and what I take into account.

Based on what you've written, you are clearly toxic and delusional, and distort things (you don't know) to fit your preferred beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Based on what?

I have written.

You are ignorant and had not taken into account of the primal tribalistic instincts at play within politics and the heavy emotional impulses involved.

You don't know all of my views and what I take into account.

Based on what you've written, you are clearly toxic and delusional, and distort things (you don't know) to fit your preferred beliefs.

Then present what you have taken into account.
You are just babbling emotionally and subjectively.

My preferred beliefs is expecting you to provide rational arguments instead of verbal insults.

[Lacewing]

You don't know all of my views and what I take into account.

Then present what you have taken into account.

Why would I have any interest in spending my energy telling someone who I think is foolish and delusional about all of my considerations and reasoning for anything at all? You've arrogantly and absurdly made claims about what I do or don't consider, when you clearly cannot know such a thing -- so broader truth doesn't seem to have a chance in a discussion with you. I don't see any point in participating in that.

[Sculptor]

As in ancient Rome, which could easily survive a succession of incompetent half-insane emperors, but once the rot set in nothing could stop it from degenerating. America is undergoing its own long period of decline as is the West itself though the two may not be precisely synchronized.

Rome went up and down.
Caligula and Commodus were low spots, as was Nero, yet they were eventually succeeded by great and successful emperors, neither insane nor incompetent.
Over 100 years after the first successful emperor Augustus we get Hadrian.
Diocletian in 250c AD.
The entire period is peppered with greats and slated with low spot.
Your idea of inevitable decline is just based on a bad understanding of history.
You chose the wrong guy to tell.

You are truly one incredible idiot. For one thing I didn't mention any guys. Tell me which "guy" I mentioned. As for Rome going up and down, how bloody insightful! In history everything goes up and down. Even going down may have its ups though the trend is down. As for Augustus and Hadrian we're talking about the end, not the beginning and the middle. It was already in the 4th century when the rot set in and in the 5th when the collapse finally took place. During those periods name one outstanding ruler - with the possible exception of Constantine - in that entire list! Of course that wasn't the sole cause of Rome's degeneration but it sure added to it. And you accuse me of a bad understanding of history! This from a brain which regards intelligence as a virus to be exterminated.

Moron.
The entire history of imperial Rome is characterised by what you like to call "incompetent half-insane emperors".
When it finally collapsed it had almost nothing to do with that fact. Rome ran despite its emperors.
You remain ignorant of history.

[Sculptor]

Trump having so much experiences as a CEO of a large organization would have understood the need for a team or teams of advisers to advise him on things he is not an expert in. I believe Trump would also have a team of advisers in the White House.

Well you can be forgiven for thinking so.
But how do you explain, Kayleigh McEnany ?
Trump's presidency is characterised by him sacking anyone that disagrees with him.

Kayleigh McEnany is the Press Secretary, i.e. in laison with the Press.
She is merely the communicator of what represent the team and is really NOT an adviser in the expert sense.

Sacking people who do not disagree [depend on how serious] with the boss is a very common thing within teams, organizations, gangs and groups, everywhere in the world.

I believe a player [NBA, AFL, EPL, etc.] who disagrees with the manager and want to play his way, would be out of the team would be sidelined and kick out of the team.
It is the same within organizations, political and others.

Except that running a country is NOTHING lick playing a game of football. FFS

[commonsense]

Despite some earlier failures, Trump has been very successful as a businessman as evident. There had not been terrible condemnation of Trump in his business practice otherwise he would have gone out of businesses.

Each bankruptcy Trump declared was a monumental business failure, not simply a mediocre lack of success but an utter failure.

[commonsense]

Take the HydroxyChloguine example.
Since then many doctors all over the world had been prescribing this protocol with great success despite no clear except anecdotal evidence.

LA doctor seeing success with hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVs_EWVCVPc

Dr. Ban's success story in using HydroxyChloguine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ay3tb2xld8

Surely Trump was definitely ignorant of HydroxyChloguine until some experts had told him about it of its effectiveness for Covid19 subject to limited direct scientific backing.

Point is during a pandemic - a matter of life and death, one has to make hard balanced decisions to save life.
In the case of HydroxyChloguine there is a potential BUT the risk are not great since it has already be used by billions of people to deal with Malaria and some for lupus and arthritis.
I believe it is very irresponsible to wait for actual data and proper scientific tests to confirm HydroxyChloguine is safe, by then, many could have been killed.

The control is; if HydroxyChloguine plus others had not worked and showed terrible side effects and death during the 10 days it is prescribed, doctors will rationally stop it.
Those who take HydroxyChloguine for lupus and arthritis - take it for years and the side effects has been recognized and managed effectively.

Doctors who prescribed the HydroxyChloguine always ensure they take extra precautions and not simply prescribing to everyone.

So far the evidence is in favor of HydroxyChloguine in treating and preventing Covid19 from getting worse.

At present, many world leaders are 'begging' President Modi of India to sell them HydroxyChloguine.

As for HydroxyChloguine Trump took the risk and made the right balanced decision and there are results. Thus how can you insist Trump was an insane baboon in this case.
Note if HydroxyChloguine did not work and proven to be a scam, it is likely Trump will not be elected in November and will have this stigma attached to him forever.

There’s now a global run on Hydroxy. Alas, what’s a patient to do when he wants to get his medicine for severe arthritis or Lupus? Of course Covid can be lethal but so can Lupus. Those who take Chloroquine for arthritis are the most severe cases who, without it, will surely return to a life restricted by exquisite pain. Was it prudent to create an acute shortage before more could be produced?

[FlashDangerpants]

Considering Trump's ignorance and denial throughout the Covid-19 crisis, only mindless people who have allegiance to a superficial political party identity rather than to SANITY and intelligence would vote for Trump AGAIN.

This reaction seems a little over the top. So far the USA doesn't have an outsized casualty rate from this disease compared to European nations, once you take population factors into account their trajectory seems to be the same as ours. So I see no real evidence that Trump has had an awfully large influence either way in the matter.

We'd be imbuing Hillary with semi-magical powers if we assumed she would have done anything that would have a material influence at this stage had she won the election. Maybe she would have had the amazing forsight to spend a couple of years building a huge federal stockpile of PPE, but it's not very likely. Even addressing the shortfall in medical ventilators wouldn't have saved a lot of lives given that 80% of the people put on them die.

I mean yes, as president, Trump has an outsized influence over the credulous chumps who believe in miracle cures like drinking bleach, and necking hydroxychloroquine, but those people are there to be scammed whoever occupies the Oval Office, and fleeced they shall be either way.

Trump didn't want to shutdown anything, but his advisors warned him he'd be fucked with half a million body bags and so the shutdowns happened, pretty much exactly as they would had he lost the election. And the same advisers obviously won out the debate about when to unshutter stuff, because Trump publicly wanted it all opened up again this weekend and all the shops are shut still. So the actual effect of having Hillary or Trump in office right now is the same either way.

Everything else is optics for the time being. It's true that there is a looming possiblity that one of his appointees may be about to do something for political ends that could cause a meltdown in the mortgage market under current conditions. But Trump presumably wants to win re-election, so the party political objective would usually be put on hold for such matters.

[Lacewing]

Considering Trump's ignorance and denial throughout the Covid-19 crisis, only mindless people who have allegiance to a superficial political party identity rather than to SANITY and intelligence would vote for Trump AGAIN.

This reaction seems a little over the top.

Really?

If it weren't for the medical advisors who somehow managed to help steer the Covid-19 effort, Trump would have ushered in a much greater disaster -- as he continually announces wanting to do the "wrong thing", based on his own notions of absurd denial and foolish willfulness, against the advice of those who actually know better. I hold him accountable for being such a constant potential danger and disaster -- just as I would hold anybody who acted in such a way. I'm thankful to the people who have somehow managed to momentarily get him to step back from the insane brink he often teeters on. Maybe they've medicated him. He's being a good boy and reading the papers he is handed with simple words. But there's the ever-present sense that at any moment he could throw a tantrum (and throw out the experts) and we'll all suffer further because of it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Considering Trump's ignorance and denial throughout the Covid-19 crisis, only mindless people who have allegiance to a superficial political party identity rather than to SANITY and intelligence would vote for Trump AGAIN.

This reaction seems a little over the top.

Really?

If it weren't for the medical advisors who somehow managed to help steer the Covid-19 effort, Trump would have ushered in a much greater disaster -- as he continually announces wanting to do the "wrong thing", based on his own notions of absurd denial and foolish willfulness, against the advice of those who actually know better. I hold him accountable for being such a constant potential danger and disaster -- just as I would hold anybody who acted in such a way. I'm thankful to the people who have somehow managed to momentarily get him to step back from the insane brink he often teeters on. Maybe they've medicated him. He's being a good boy and reading the papers he is handed with simple words. But there's the ever-present sense that at any moment he could throw a tantrum (and throw out the experts) and we'll all suffer further because of it.

As I said, and as you seem to secretly agree... the end result measured in infections, fatalities, and all other harms thus far has been pretty much the same as it would have been had he lost the election.

I'm not convinced it makes any sense to hold somebody accountable for being a potential thing if they are not actually being that thing.

Perhaps you should take some comfort in the observation that presidential power in these matters is really very limited. Trump can say stupid shit all day long - and he will excercise that option - but when it comes to actually doing stuff he is constrained by what is possible.

[Lacewing]

As I said, and as you seem to secretly agree... the end result measured in infections, fatalities, and all other harms thus far has been pretty much the same as it would have been had he lost the election.

I don't really know. I think his early denial of the warnings (which resulted in a delayed response) must have had a cost. There are probably some dead people who could attest to that.

I'm not convinced it makes any sense to hold somebody accountable for being a potential thing if they are not actually being that thing.

Well, it's like holding a raging drunk with a gun accountable for waving it around and threatening people. It is already disruptive, and has likely cost and destroyed lives that have been discounted. Naturally we shouldn't have to wait until he pushes a button that undeniably blows us all up before we can feel justified to hold him accountable for being foolish and dangerous.

Perhaps you should take some comfort in the observation that presidential power in these matters is really very limited. Trump can say stupid shit all day long - and he will excercise that option - but when it comes to actually doing stuff he is constrained by what is possible.

I wish I could take comfort in that idea. I'm just not sure it's true. The rules seem changed with Trump. Outrageously dangerous behavior such as his widespread public stoking of hate and divisiveness, and dishonest demeaning of people and groups, would have never been allowed with other modern U.S. presidents -- yet, now it seems accepted as a "new toxic normal". He has fired anyone who disagreed with him or got in his way. He has the corrupt backing of a government party that does not want to lose power at ANY COST. He constantly lies and disregards almost all advice. So I don't feel as confident as you do that he is constrained.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

As I said, and as you seem to secretly agree... the end result measured in infections, fatalities, and all other harms thus far has been pretty much the same as it would have been had he lost the election.

I don't really know. I think his early denial of the warnings (which resulted in a delayed response) must have had a cost. There are probably some dead people who could attest to that.

I'm not convinced it makes any sense to hold somebody accountable for being a potential thing if they are not actually being that thing.

Well, it's like holding a raging drunk with a gun accountable for waving it around and threatening people. It is already disruptive, and has likely cost and destroyed lives that have been discounted. Naturally we shouldn't have to wait until he pushes a button that undeniably blows us all up before we can feel justified to hold him accountable for being foolish and dangerous.

Perhaps you should take some comfort in the observation that presidential power in these matters is really very limited. Trump can say stupid shit all day long - and he will excercise that option - but when it comes to actually doing stuff he is constrained by what is possible.

I wish I could take comfort in that idea. I'm just not sure it's true. The rules seem changed with Trump. Outrageously dangerous behavior such as his widespread public stoking of hate and divisiveness, and dishonest demeaning of people and groups, would have never been allowed with other modern U.S. presidents -- yet, now it seems accepted as a "new toxic normal". He has fired anyone who disagreed with him or got in his way. He has the corrupt backing of a government party that does not want to lose power at ANY COST. He constantly lies and disregards almost all advice. So I don't feel as confident as you do that he is constrained.

In other words you don't mind how many children and innocents your presidents murder, you are fine with them as long as they say all the right 'warm fuzzy' things, and behave in a way that you consider CORRECT in a political sense.
The PC truly are the most loathesome hypocrites on the face of planet earth.

[Lacewing]

In other words you don't mind how many children and innocents your presidents murder, you are fine with them as long as they say all the right 'warm fuzzy' things, and behave in a way that you consider CORRECT in a political sense.
The PC truly are the most loathesome hypocrites on the face of planet earth.

Wtf Veggie? Of course I care about such things. Why are you projecting your stupid misguided rage at me?

Mr. Dangerpants and I are having a reasonable back-and-forth discussion. Go rage somewhere else or get a fucking grip.

[FlashDangerpants]

As I said, and as you seem to secretly agree... the end result measured in infections, fatalities, and all other harms thus far has been pretty much the same as it would have been had he lost the election.

I don't really know. I think his early denial of the warnings (which resulted in a delayed response) must have had a cost. There are probably some dead people who could attest to that.

Must have had a cost? Sure, he initially said some stupid shit about how the cases would soon be close to zero when everyone knew that wasn't true. But he couldn't realistically have implemented a nationwide lockdown at that point, and no other country has done so either. None of them has locked down until there is a serious caseload endagering their ICU capacity - exactly as the USA has done. Look past the words, and the actions have been largely orthodox.

None of his big talk about not needing to do stuff at all turned into inaction. None of his talk about ending the shutdown at Easter came true either. And nobody really expects him to talk sense or say what he means - even his fans tacitly recognise him as a complete bullshit artist. I have no idea why they like it so much, but there you are.

I'm not convinced it makes any sense to hold somebody accountable for being a potential thing if they are not actually being that thing.

Well, it's like holding a raging drunk with a gun accountable for waving it around and threatening people. It is already disruptive, and has likely cost and destroyed lives that have been discounted. Naturally we shouldn't have to wait until he pushes a button that undeniably blows us all up before we can feel justified to hold him accountable for being foolish and dangerous.

Your incendiary language about his mishandling of Covid-19 meaning peopel are insane to consider voting again for him is more like holding the drunk responsible for a murder spree he hasn't comitted rather than being intoxicated in posesion of a firearm.

Perhaps you should take some comfort in the observation that presidential power in these matters is really very limited. Trump can say stupid shit all day long - and he will excercise that option - but when it comes to actually doing stuff he is constrained by what is possible.

I wish I could take comfort in that idea. I'm just not sure it's true. The rules seem changed with Trump. Outrageously dangerous behavior such as his widespread public stoking of hate and divisiveness, and dishonest demeaning of people and groups, would have never been allowed with other modern U.S. presidents -- yet, now it seems accepted as a "new toxic normal". He has fired anyone who disagreed with him or got in his way. He has the corrupt backing of a government party that does not want to lose power at ANY COST. He constantly lies and disregards almost all advice. So I don't feel as confident as you do that he is constrained.

I'm not really disputing that stuff, it's a fairly valid description of all his failings on most issues. But it doesn't apply very well to this situation where he has - reluctantly for sure - deferred to experts in the end very much against his own dangerous instincts. He hasn't blamed as many foreigners as usual this time, and the criticism of China's secretive government in this instance is frankly something I am ok with.

I'm not expecting him to become all presidential all of a sudden, or to make one of those attempts to unify the nation, or do any of the decent things for the decent reasons that Obama would have. But his party relies very heavily on the votes of the elderly, so I am just going to assume he will prevent them from all dying even if the reasons aren't terribly excellent.

[Dubious]

Rome went up and down.
Caligula and Commodus were low spots, as was Nero, yet they were eventually succeeded by great and successful emperors, neither insane nor incompetent.
Over 100 years after the first successful emperor Augustus we get Hadrian.
Diocletian in 250c AD.
The entire period is peppered with greats and slated with low spot.
Your idea of inevitable decline is just based on a bad understanding of history.
You chose the wrong guy to tell.

You are truly one incredible idiot. For one thing I didn't mention any guys. Tell me which "guy" I mentioned. As for Rome going up and down, how bloody insightful! In history everything goes up and down. Even going down may have its ups though the trend is down. As for Augustus and Hadrian we're talking about the end, not the beginning and the middle. It was already in the 4th century when the rot set in and in the 5th when the collapse finally took place. During those periods name one outstanding ruler - with the possible exception of Constantine - in that entire list! Of course that wasn't the sole cause of Rome's degeneration but it sure added to it. And you accuse me of a bad understanding of history! This from a brain which regards intelligence as a virus to be exterminated.

Moron.
The entire history of imperial Rome is characterised by what you like to call "incompetent half-insane emperors".
When it finally collapsed it had almost nothing to do with that fact. Rome ran despite its emperors.
You remain ignorant of history.

No, I was NOT referring to the entire history of Rome, as was made clear, but to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire as generally described. Believe it or not there were actually a lot of volumes written on the subject especially concentrating on the forth century as the period when Rome's infrastructures started to crumble. Instead, because you were looking for trouble - or not mentally capable of digesting a simple paragraph - referred to the beginning and middle of the Roman Empire when it was at its max...a completely different story!

This is what I wrote...

As in ancient Rome, which could easily survive a succession of incompetent half-insane emperors, but once the rot set in nothing could stop it from degenerating.

...which has been described by historians innumerable times. I didn't make it up.

Also, I'll never forget when you claimed that Mozart was a "chintzy composer" making comparisons to periods in which he wasn't alive to composers with radically different styles then claiming others are ignorant of history, as you so often do. What a masterpiece of irony!

Though one forgets allot of the stupid things people say this one was unforgettable proving, as proven so often, how much you REALLY know of history.

Stay away from my posts. As far as I'm concerned, the world is made filthy by an abundance of loathsome little turds like you.