"You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine."
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@Larry said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
Trump has been putting in 14-16 hour days 7 days a week trying to manage this mess
Well when you’re still saying it’s not as bad as the seasonal flu in mid-March, yeah you might have let the mess build up quite a bit. Any long hours he’s putting in now is partially self-inflicted.
@Larry said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
It can be said that Trump could have done a few things better. But hindsight is 20/20 and no one, looking back on things, ever gets things 100% correct. But making mistakes means you're doing something.
LOL what if the mistake is NOT doing something?
Hindsight is 20/20. Based on the proven information at the time, what were Trump's mistakes?
No, don't give me the media narrative, give me the actual mistakes.
-
As I’ve said a number of times, he waited far too long to take the pandemic seriously, and then to advocate changes such as social distancing, and this delay in acceptance of the seriousness of the virus and the advocacy of social distancing had a profound impact on the height of the exponential curve of cases and deaths.
I agree hindsight is 20/20 and what I said above is objectively true. This is purely my analysis, I don’t even know what the MSM is saying (I don’t watch it). I also don’t care who the president is or their party, this is purely my analysis of the delays and their impact exponentially.
Folks like Larry make this political, I’m not. There were many even here in TNCR who were taking this seriously a few weeks before Trump eventually did. Now he’s working 14-16 hours a day to deal with the mess.
-
What I have heard no one mention thus far is the limitations the federal government has in dealing with situations like this. The question is not what should he have done, but what COULD he have done.
The stockpile existed but was limited. He had limited if any powers to mandate closures and social distancing. If he had declared martial law he would have been pilloried for that. He did put into motion the nation's business community to manufacture tests, vents, PPE, etc. as much as possible. that sort of switchover doesn't happen overnight. He got the FDA and CDC to hustle the hell up, a miracle in itself.
Yeah, it would have been better had we started a little earlier. But once it was clear the virus was spreading worldwide he acted, as did the governors. No one wanted to shut down until it was clear we had to.
His communications lacked finesse, that's for sure. But they were not nearly as bad as the press and Dems made out. I'd give him a C+ or B- on handling overall.
-
The timeline: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/timeline-trump-administration-s-response-coronavirus-n1162206
Note: This timeline in the "politics" section of NBC is heavy on 'what he said' in addition to what actually was done.
What, specifically, should have been earlier?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
As I’ve said a number of times, he waited far too long to take the pandemic seriously, and then to advocate changes such as social distancing, and this delay in acceptance of the seriousness of the virus and the advocacy of social distancing had a profound impact on the height of the exponential curve of cases and deaths.
I agree hindsight is 20/20 and what I said above is objectively true. This is purely my analysis, I don’t even know what the MSM is saying (I don’t watch it). I also don’t care who the president is or their party, this is purely my analysis of the delays and their impact exponentially.
Folks like Larry make this political, I’m not. There were many even here in TNCR who were taking this seriously a few weeks before Trump eventually did. Now he’s working 14-16 hours a day to deal with the mess.
So who should Trump believe? Dr. Fauci has been one of the lead advisors and Trump was shutting things down while Fauci was still telling people to get on cruise ships.
You sit in that Oval Office lad, and you make the decision to shut down the American economy, wrecking portions of it for perhaps a decade or more. You make that decision, trying to save lives from a virus, while you know you are ruining millions of lives when you do.
You sit in that office, taking in what your CDC and your FDA are telling you, and you try to make decisions on what is important and what may have to wait, or maybe what information might even be wrong. You're scrambling to allocate scarce medical supplies (some, like vents, haven't been needed at forecast levels), trying to get American industry to ramp up production and trying to keep the China pipeline open, knowing the Chinese are screwing you over.
You do it. You do it with 100% accuracy and efficacy. The fact is, no man but Jesus could do it, and he ain't interested in the job.
I don't know exactly what you do, but I know it involves some contract work from the government. I ask you, how easy is it to get the government to change basic policies and procedures, and then fully implement them? Even in times of war, it takes America years to effect massive change. A lot of changes have been made in the last few months that I would have told you were impossible to accomplish in that time frame.
Yes, Trump has made some mistakes. He needs to keep his mouth shut more. He needs to think before he tweets, a lot of the time. But in his basic approach to try to deal with a global pandemic on the limited information he had, trying not to totally wreck the nation's economy while operating in the fog of a medical war, he made a lot of right choices, also.
-
89th, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it won't change the fact that you are incorrect. I know you're convinced you're the smartest person in the room, but you're not. And there's nothing more frustrating than dealing with invincible ignorance. Ax has a long history of invincible ignorance. His main thrust was "Trump is incompetent". You agreed with him. Trump is not incompetent, that's is just a cold hard fact. You agreed with Taiwan Girl's post, even though she was attributing Democrat positions to republicans and Republican positions to democrats.
You're just plain wrong.
-
@Jolly you make some great points in there.
It isn’t an easy job, and the impacts of shutting things down will have ripple effects for many years. I actually prefer Trump’s alpha dog leadership in many respects. I just wish he got to where he landed at the end of March, a few weeks earlier (using his alpha dog style) when it could’ve had a yuge impact on the exponential curve we now see.
-
@George-K said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
The timeline: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/timeline-trump-administration-s-response-coronavirus-n1162206
Note: This timeline in the "politics" section of NBC is heavy on 'what he said' in addition to what actually was done.
What, specifically, should have been earlier?
Before moving off of what was said, just having a President publicly take the outbreak seriously and erring on the side of caution and prudence instead of erring on the side of downplaying and saying it’ll “go away”, would’ve been a great example.
-
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@Larry said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
89th, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it won't change the fact that you are incorrect.
You have yet to tell me what I’m incorrect about, after asking you many times.
EVERYTHING!!!! You start out on a false narrative and then build your entire position from it.
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@George-K said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
The timeline: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/timeline-trump-administration-s-response-coronavirus-n1162206
Note: This timeline in the "politics" section of NBC is heavy on 'what he said' in addition to what actually was done.
What, specifically, should have been earlier?
Before moving off of what was said, just having a President publicly take the outbreak seriously and erring on the side of caution and prudence instead of erring on the side of downplaying and saying it’ll “go away”, would’ve been a great example.
There, 89th. That's a good example of how you are wrong. You state a flat out falsehood as if it were fact, and then complain about it.
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@George-K said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
The timeline: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/timeline-trump-administration-s-response-coronavirus-n1162206
Note: This timeline in the "politics" section of NBC is heavy on 'what he said' in addition to what actually was done.
What, specifically, should have been earlier?
Before moving off of what was said, just having a President publicly take the outbreak seriously and erring on the side of caution and prudence instead of erring on the side of downplaying and saying it’ll “go away”, would’ve been a great example.
I asked you to be specific about what should have been done earlier. If you look at the timeline from NBC there were lots of things in the works early on.
So, what, specifically, should he have done earlier? Which advisors (both in and outside the White House) did he ignore?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@Larry said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@Larry said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
89th, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it won't change the fact that you are incorrect.
You have yet to tell me what I’m incorrect about, after asking you many times.
EVERYTHING!!!! You start out on a false narrative and then build your entire position from it.
So the part I’m incorrect about is the false part. Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying
-
My statement was that there is a alternate reality out there, where the positions are completely opposite from what we see here. In other words, in this different universe with a Democrat president, each party has taken a position opposite what they have done in our reality, simply because they are against the other party/
-
@89th - I am no Trump fan. Neither am I a badger. There’s been a lot that he’s done that I’ve disliked and there has been a lot that he has done that I have been very pleasantly surprised. I think that he is much smarter than people give him credit for, and I suspect his talking in overly simplistic ways is actually a fairly intelligent manipulation of the public.
Now let me put this out there, and please hear me out before jumping all over me.
Trump was right. It’s not that bad. And he was right to try to tamp down the panic. Remember what early - Mid March was like. The phrase “bodies on the streets” was tossed around a lot. The stock market had dropped to 18000 and many were saying it had a lot farther to go. New York was screaming that they needed 30K ventilators, their hospital system was overwhelmed, and this was what everybody else in the country had coming. Florida and Louisiana were going to be a living hell, and people were panic buying toilet paper and supplies at unbelievable levels. It was panic.
Trump said that it was serious, but not THAT bad. He was right.
-
@LuFins-Dad yes and traffic deaths go down when folks wear seat belts.
Many predicted that, once the curve is flattened, there will be those that say "See? It wasn't that bad" while ignoring the reason why the curve flattened. <Insert pictures of empty NYC streets at noon>
Also, Trump initially said it wasn't serious. Only once the deaths started stacking up did he admit it was.
-
@Larry
Maybe not in a true sense (but who knows).There are plenty of examples of politic parties changing their positions because the opposite party changed their position.
My understanding (which may be of course incorrect) is that in the recent past, Democrats were more for protection of the US market and Republics were more for open trade. That seems to have changed.
But before then (100 years ago), the Republic Party was more for protection of American workers,
I understand that party positions change, but I do not think that President Trumps policy positions today would fit in with the Republic party of (for example) 30 years ago.
Things change - I get that. And some of that change is because the other party wants to be different.
The Republic party of today wants more protection for American markets. The Democrats cannot agree with that, so they have to move to a different viewpoint.
Here are a couple of conservative think tanks that have the same view
