Trump's response to the Covid-19
https://twitter.com/slangwise/status/1240010395022053377?s=19
also
https://twitter.com/JoeConchaTV/status/1240012143178797057?s=19
Not saying I endorse the second view so much. But still, interesting takes, the kind you’re unlikely to find on MOL.
p.s. I gotta learn how to embed tweets the right way.
Using phrases like "outside the MOL bubble" is a very lame way to insult people here.
nohero said:
About Trump's press conference yesterday.
Official transcript: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-3/
When he was asked about how it was taking the Covid-19 test, his answer was so vague and non-specific, that he's obviously lying about being swabbed for the test.
Maybe they gave him a colonoscopy and told him it was a corona test
BG9 said:
Are they setting up precedent for the November's elections?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/politics/virus-primary-2020-ohio.html
Judge said delaying the election would set a terrible precedent.
On Monday night in Ohio, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge
Richard Frye rejected a temporary restraining order supported by Ohio
Gov. Mike DeWine (R) to postpone the state’s primary until June. He warned that rescheduling the election would “set a terrible precedent.”
Even when the nation was severely threatened elections were not postponed:
Abraham Lincoln rejected calls to postpone the 1864 election amid the
Civil War, even though his reelection remained very much in doubt until
the capture of Atlanta that September. “If the rebellion could force us
to forgo or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have
already conquered and ruined us,” the 16th president reasoned.
Don't be surprised the need to postpone will found should this continue.
nohero said:
What a difference a week makes.
Someone told him he can be a hero if likens fighting the coronavirus to fighting a war. Maybe he's the one who thought of it. By doing a complete 180, and making people think he knew it would be a pandemic, he can now be a hero when it's defeated.
"The world is at war with a hidden enemy. WE WILL WIN!"
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1239997820242923521
the problem we have is that our response was too slow, and we're still not getting enough people tested. Looking tough and "presidential" now isn't going to change the trajectory of this infection very much. Thanks to Trump and right wing media, millions and millions of their followers weren't concerned about the spread of the virus. It's too late to do anything about anyone who has contracted it already and may have spread it.
It's absurd to act like some of us are rooting for Trump to fail (we're not). But he also doesn't get a pass just because all these weeks into a pandemic, he starts to say some of the right things, and act like less of a buffoon at press conferences. There are undoubtedly going to be people who get sick and people who die because of the slowness of this response. And that doesn't even get into the economic hardship that is going to befall millions of people. Maybe the outcome would have been the same regardless of what the federal government had done. But the slowness of the response, and the messaging to millions of people that it wasn't anything to be concerned about have likely made whatever is coming worse than it would have been. And saying that is not partisanship. It's the painful truth.
So tragic that everything is politicized, even a pandemic!
Less than one month ago, Fortune Magazine published this report...
mtierney said:
So tragic that everything is politicized, even a pandemic!
Less than one month ago, Fortune Magazine published this report...
You know, it’s either you derive some sadistic pleasure from trolling people here or you’re just that brainwashed. Wasn’t it your fearless leader who claimed this virus was a hoax perpetrated by the Democrats to make him look bad?
speaking of partisanship, the right wing is NEVER to be outdone.
Right-wing pundits' shameless pivot: It was a "hoax," but now it's an "emergency"
meanwhile, the issue of not enough ventilators is going to loom large, as will questions about why Trump has not put the ventilator manufacturers on a wartime footing to ramp up production.
The last I heard from Trump is that ventilators are "up to the states".
basil said:
Maybe they gave him a colonoscopy and told him it was a corona test
A colonoscopy is a little bit more complicated for Trump because they are also looking at (for) his brain.
mtierney said:
So tragic that everything is politicized, even a pandemic!
Less than one month ago, Fortune Magazine published this report...
That report from Fortune Magazine has this as its first paragraph, in your picture: "The number of new coronavirus cases reported by Hubei province dropped sharply after China changed the way it officially reports the number of infections for the second time in a month, raising questions over the reliability of data from the epicenter of the outbreak." And a few paragraphs down: "There is growing mistrust over official data emerging from China, which has the vast majority of coronavirus cases and deaths globally, and suspicion that the country’s officials are prematurely promoting a narrative that the outbreak is coming under control."
In other words, the article is about skepticism that the figures from China, while bad, were wrong and that things were even worse.
It doesn't absolve Trump, it makes him look even more foolish.
mtierney
So tragic that everything is politicized, even a pandemic!
Feel better now?
Focus on hate will accomplish what exactly?
Won’t find a cure.
May get Trump re-elected though. Remember the campaigns? Everyone’s attention will be on not getting sick. Unseating a president after what could be months of fear, illnesses, employment, and business losses — the list of ramifications from COVID-19 grows by the day — be careful what you wish for.
A new president and an entirely new panel of experts and the scramble to get up to speed won’t be easy and will mean serious set-backs.
After 9/11, America worked together and we all got through the darkness and fear for a common goal: survival.
mtierney said:
mtierney
So tragic that everything is politicized, even a pandemic!
Feel better now?Focus on hate will accomplish what exactly?
Won’t find a cure.
May get Trump re-elected though. Remember the campaigns? Everyone’s attention will be on not getting sick. Unseating a president after what could be months of fear, illnesses, employment, and business losses — the list of ramifications from COVID-19 grows by the day — be careful what you wish for.A new president and an entirely new panel of experts and the scramble to get up to speed won’t be easy and will mean serious set-backs.
After 9/11, America worked together and we all got through the darkness and fear for a common goal: survival.
If that new president is Biden, he'll bring back all the Obama-era experts Trump got rid of. So yes, sign me up for that, please very much.
ml1 said:
the problem we have is that our response was too slow, and we're still not getting enough people tested. Looking tough and "presidential" now isn't going to change the trajectory of this infection very much. Thanks to Trump and right wing media, millions and millions of their followers weren't concerned about the spread of the virus. It's too late to do anything about anyone who has contracted it already and may have spread it.
It's absurd to act like some of us are rooting for Trump to fail (we're not). But he also doesn't get a pass just because all these weeks into a pandemic, he starts to say some of the right things, and act like less of a buffoon at press conferences. There are undoubtedly going to be people who get sick and people who die because of the slowness of this response. And that doesn't even get into the economic hardship that is going to befall millions of people. Maybe the outcome would have been the same regardless of what the federal government had done. But the slowness of the response, and the messaging to millions of people that it wasn't anything to be concerned about have likely made whatever is coming worse than it would have been. And saying that is not partisanship. It's the painful truth.
I’ve said multiple times that trumps response on this, overall, has been substandard. Bad early, better recently. But at the same time, I just don’t believe we’d be in a much better spot on this thing than we are now with a Democrat in office.
Or how about this. I looked back at the Dem debates, and unless I missed something,
-Coronavirus was mentioned zero (0) times Feb 7 in NH.
-Coronavirus was mentioned zero (0) times feb 19 in Las Vegas.
-On Feb 25 in SC, the moderator asked a coronavirus question in the second hour of the debate, about 1:15 in. No candidate had brought it up before that, though there were lots of opportunities, in the context of healthcare and just general trump-sux. Klobuchar gave a decent answer, Joe’s was OK. The question kind of faded — when Warren spoke next, she pivoted to Bloomberg’s taxes! So she had zero (0) to say on coronavirus on the debate stage, just 3 weeks ago.
So let me ask you, does the de minimis amount of coronavirus discussion over six (6) hours of democratic debates last month support the notion that a democrat’s response would have been meaningfully better than trump’s, ie not “too slow”?
mtierney said:
mtierney
So tragic that everything is politicized, even a pandemic!
Feel better now?Focus on hate will accomplish what exactly?
Won’t find a cure.
May get Trump re-elected though. Remember the campaigns? Everyone’s attention will be on not getting sick. Unseating a president after what could be months of fear, illnesses, employment, and business losses — the list of ramifications from COVID-19 grows by the day — be careful what you wish for.A new president and an entirely new panel of experts and the scramble to get up to speed won’t be easy and will mean serious set-backs.
After 9/11, America worked together and we all got through the darkness and fear for a common goal: survival.
How hard is it to address the questions and points posed? You remain a smart woman. Give it a shot rather than deflecting and avoiding.
Or your general go-tos, ignoring or posting an idiotic cat meme.
Smedley said:
I’ve said multiple times that trumps response on this, overall, has been substandard. Bad early, better recently. But at the same time, I just don’t believe we’d be in a much better spot on this thing than we are now with a Democrat in office.
Or how about this. I looked back at the Dem debates, and unless I missed something,
-Coronavirus was mentioned zero (0) times Feb 7 in NH.
-Coronavirus was mentioned zero (0) times feb 19 in Las Vegas.
-On Feb 25 in SC, the moderator asked a coronavirus question in the second hour of the debate, about 1:15 in. No candidate had brought it up before that, though there were lots of opportunities, in the context of healthcare and just general trump-sux. Klobuchar gave a decent answer, Joe’s was OK. The question kind of faded — when Warren spoke next, she pivoted to Bloomberg’s taxes! So she had zero (0) to say on coronavirus on the debate stage, just 3 weeks ago.So let me ask you, does the de minimis amount of coronavirus discussion over six (6) hours of democratic debates last month support the notion that a democrat’s response would have been meaningfully better than trump’s, ie not “too slow”?
ridiculous. At the very least, if a Dem were in office, the office devoted to fighting a pandemic would not have been disbanded. Ergo, our response would have undoubtedly started earlier and would have been science based. And not called a hoax. Nor would we have a nothing like Pence leading the effort.
I mean, are you kidding?
And what questions were asked at a debate have nothing to do with this.
ridiculous.
Nor would it have taken weeks to get the President to actually get on board with the program.
Smedley said:
I’ve said multiple times that trumps response on this, overall, has been substandard. Bad early, better recently. But at the same time, I just don’t believe we’d be in a much better spot on this thing than we are now with a Democrat in office.
Or how about this. I looked back at the Dem debates, and unless I missed something,
-Coronavirus was mentioned zero (0) times Feb 7 in NH.
-Coronavirus was mentioned zero (0) times feb 19 in Las Vegas.
-On Feb 25 in SC, the moderator asked a coronavirus question in the second hour of the debate, about 1:15 in. No candidate had brought it up before that, though there were lots of opportunities, in the context of healthcare and just general trump-sux. Klobuchar gave a decent answer, Joe’s was OK. The question kind of faded — when Warren spoke next, she pivoted to Bloomberg’s taxes! So she had zero (0) to say on coronavirus on the debate stage, just 3 weeks ago.So let me ask you, does the de minimis amount of coronavirus discussion over six (6) hours of democratic debates last month support the notion that a democrat’s response would have been meaningfully better than trump’s, ie not “too slow”?
It was the president who spent weeks lying to the country. And it was millions of Republican voters who believed him, many of whom are still not modifying their behavior because they believe the pandemic is a hoax. Trump's behavior hasn't been merely negligent, it's actually exacerbated the situation. And recent "excellent pressers" won't reverse that. You seem to be in pretty serious denial as to how much Trump has personally made this situation more difficult due to his thorough dishonesty that influenced the behavior of millions of his followers.
smedley,
Watch this short video. Every one one of the little clips of Trump slowed down our response. Do you honestly think that any Dem would have behaved this way?
Today, @realdonaldtrump said: “I’ve always known this is a pandemic. I’ve felt that it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic ... I’ve always viewed it as serious.” Really??? Let’s roll the tape. pic.twitter.com/NpUTzGiokW
PVW said:
ridski said:
Anyway. Hope this is the thread for gallows humor, because other than gin, it's all I got.
We're all just screennames, so I've just kind of been assuming that's how all of you dress in real life. Was I mistaken?
Not I, sir. I dress in the manner of the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
Smedley said:
So let me ask you, does the de minimis amount of coronavirus discussion over six (6) hours of democratic debates last month support the notion that a democrat’s response would have been meaningfully better than trump’s, ie not “too slow”?
It's irrelevant to discussing whether "a democrat's response would have been meaningfully better than Trump's".
And it's not just "a democrat's response", but the response of another President, other than Trump (who, for example) wouldn't have relied on his son-in-law for advice based on what Jared's friends and relatives thought).
A video has emerged of Donald Trump talking about cutting the US pandemic response team in 2018 – days after claiming that he knew nothing about the disbanded White House unit.
Mr Trump said of the pandemic team that “some of the people we’ve cut they haven’t been used for many, many years and if we ever need them we can get them very quickly and rather then spending the money”.
“I’m a business person, I don’t like having thousands of people around when you don’t need them,” he added.
Shorter version - it was a uniquely Trumpy thing to do.
nohero said:
Shorter version - it was a uniquely Trumpy thing to do.
Yes, the man is a liar and uniquely unqualified for the presidency. And he also has blood on his hands. But we knew all of that already.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
I’ve said multiple times that trumps response on this, overall, has been substandard. Bad early, better recently. But at the same time, I just don’t believe we’d be in a much better spot on this thing than we are now with a Democrat in office.
Or how about this. I looked back at the Dem debates, and unless I missed something,
-Coronavirus was mentioned zero (0) times Feb 7 in NH.
-Coronavirus was mentioned zero (0) times feb 19 in Las Vegas.
-On Feb 25 in SC, the moderator asked a coronavirus question in the second hour of the debate, about 1:15 in. No candidate had brought it up before that, though there were lots of opportunities, in the context of healthcare and just general trump-sux. Klobuchar gave a decent answer, Joe’s was OK. The question kind of faded — when Warren spoke next, she pivoted to Bloomberg’s taxes! So she had zero (0) to say on coronavirus on the debate stage, just 3 weeks ago.So let me ask you, does the de minimis amount of coronavirus discussion over six (6) hours of democratic debates last month support the notion that a democrat’s response would have been meaningfully better than trump’s, ie not “too slow”?
It was the president who spent weeks lying to the country. And it was millions of Republican voters who believed him, many of whom are still not modifying their behavior because they believe the pandemic is a hoax. Trump's behavior hasn't been merely negligent, it's actually exacerbated the situation. And recent "excellent pressers" won't reverse that. You seem to be in pretty serious denial as to how much Trump has personally made this situation more difficult due to his thorough dishonesty that influenced the behavior of millions of his followers.
Ive said multiple times that Trump's response overall has been substandard.If you're looking to debate someone who thinks his response has been excellent, perhaps try mtierney.
I have been able to say that certain aspects of the response are excellent (I know how you're hung up on that word), in terms of having us in a better situation versus the previous day. Such as certain press conferences recently. And I also think the proposed $1T stimulus, including $1K to everyone is a good thing. I'm sure you think that policy is bollocks, because, well, Trump.
I also am skeptical that we would be in a much different/better place than with a Democrat in office, because in a way I think the severity of where we are right now has blindsided most people. As evidence of that I noted the almost complete lack of coronavirus discussions through 6 hours of Dem debates last month, including Elizabeth Warren not saying a single word about it. I asked you about that but apparently you declined to answer.
Smedley said:
As evidence of that I noted the almost complete lack of coronavirus discussions through 6 hours of Dem debates last month, including Elizabeth Warren not saying a single word about it. I asked you about that but apparently you declined to answer.
Maybe he also thinks that's irrelevant, and means absolutely nothing.
And, Trump this morning. "Closing the border" to keep out the "Chinese virus" is what he wants you to think was an excellent job. I always treated the Chinese Virus very seriously, and have done a very good job from the beginning, including my very early decision to close the “borders” from China - against the wishes of almost all. Many lives were saved. The Fake News new narrative is disgraceful & false!
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
GL2