Hatred clouds judgment. I am not burning with hatred. I want to live through this and have an orderly society and prosperous economy when it is over. I have not engaged in hyperbole or hysteria like others have. I have been very measured throughout this in the face of hysteria from others. You have also been measured and not hysterical and even though your political viewpoint is very different from mine, I have not dismissed you as not being objective.
I'm not trying to say that you are any less "objective" than anyone else one here. Everyone on here is showing their political leanings somehow. Me, you, notin, jung, bellhorn, everyone. It's next to impossible to be 100% objective when you're talking about this pandemic and the government's response to it.
No. I do think “idiot” applies. If he would focus more on the pandemic and quit pretending the economy is the priority, I might feel otherwise.
And please quit pretending “anti-Trump” is the only bias that exists. It strikes me that anyone who defends his actions is teeming with bias as well...
Here’s what does conflict me.
If Trump has gotten out in front of this thing and encouraged proper testing and proper travel bans and proper quarantining, and if all this fell into play and the US was spared the overwhelming brunt of this pandemic, it is possible that entire safety net could have been executed so smoothly and flawlessly that we never knew the extent of the catastrophe we avoided. And had it happened that way, I honestly do not know what level of credit I would have given to Trump. It would clearly have been a praiseworthy effort, but if it went smoothly, I might not have noticed. Certainly the news about the rest of the world is still out there, so would I still have been so biased as to ignore this type of effort?
I honestly don’t know...
Most of the time in any situation like this, the more objective someone claims to be, the less objective they really are. The necessity to point out objectivity by name is usually predicated it being impossible for any listener to reach that conclusion independently. It’s like how used car dealers refer to themselves by name as “Honest” or Fox News used to use the slogan “Fair and Balanced.”
My decision to not label myself as objective, however, is because I clearly am not in this case. And that’s not meant to create some sort of objectivity paradox where one can only conclude I truly am objective; I’m not. I am blatantly anti-Trump, and for many good reasons.. But being blatantly pro-Trump is not the position of objectivity either. That’s still the same level of bias...
Like any President, Trump has done some good things IMO (such as overseeing policies that had, up until now, promoted an unprecedented economic expansion, fought for reducing the number of people in this country illegally, made our borders less porous to people trying to enter here illegally, called out China for taking advantage of our country for many many years economically etc) and some very bad things, including incessant lying to the public and totally mishandling the response to the coronavirus pandemic. He was apparently warned in November that this could happen and failed to adequately protect the citizens of this country from its effects, and that is his primary job as President. He wants credit for closing the border to China, but he will get none from me. He should have closed the border to EVERY country (like New Zealand, which has I believe had ONE death from the plague) and mandated a nationwide stay at home order in January or February. I saw this coming in early January and bought some N95 masks and Purell. Why couldn't the President of this country also see this coming and protect the citizens that live here? He WAS warned; he failed to act. History will not judge him kindly because of that IMO. However, this is not a political issue right now, not primarily anyway. Its a public health issue. There will be time to get to the bottom of who is at fault when it passes, which it will do.
Who is getting "technical"? He never held back on assistance, because someone wasn't "nice". For you to suggest otherwise was misleading.
In other words, A700 was right and that it has been used in the treatment of other viruses. I never said it was an anti-viral or why it was used, just that it has been used, and that is where the positive andecdotal information originated. And where is this rule you site that "Presidents .. [don't] tout medications" in a time of national emergency? His touting it pushed drug companies to gear up the production, and this medication is being used widely and you know it.
The side effects are well known. That is for the physician to manage, and if there was much anecdotal negative evidence about side effects and toxicity, it would be page 1 of the New York Times. Let's be honest Doc. Oh for 2 Jacko
In short, A700 was right. Oh fer 3
There is no evidence that Trump created a shortage of the drug for non-virus patients. None. In fact, he lit a fire to get it manufactured. Oh fer 4
You have gone down a path of a political focus. You can't deny that. You haven't used your expertise here to help us or give us useful information. Instead, you have chosen a path focused on assigning blame. Oh fer 5. You are hitting worse than the '68 Pinstripers.