[2006alum]

 I would also be very, very slow to go to the bank on quotes from Trump cited in the New York Times, Washington Post, and others. It's unfortunately that kind of world.

Am I allowed to bank on quotes from watching his press conferences firsthand? Reading the White House's transcripts? Citing to his own tweets? Because most everything folks are quoting at you are directly from those sources:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1241367239900778501?s=20[/tweet]

Trump as quoted from the White House's own press conference transcript from Feb. 27:

But we’re very, very ready for this, for anything — whether it’s going to be a breakout of larger proportions or whether or not we’re — you know, we’re at that very low level, and we want to keep it that way.

So we’re at the low level.  As they get better, we take them off the list, so that we’re going to be pretty soon at only five people.  And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time.  So we’ve had very good luck.

And from yesterday's press conference transcript:

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting.  So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it.  And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too.  It sounds interesting.
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN:  We’ll get to the right folks who could.
THE PRESIDENT:  Right.  And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning.  Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs.  So it would be interesting to check that.  So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with.  But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.

And here's video of the same bizarre exchange:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1253673829454483457?s=20[/tweet]

If you really are a genuine realist, it seems like it's time to acknowledge there's no comparison between our leadership and the leadership of just about any other western developed country.

[2006alum]

 I would also be very, very slow to go to the bank on quotes from Trump cited in the New York Times, Washington Post, and others. It's unfortunately that kind of world.

Am I allowed to bank on quotes from watching his press conferences firsthand? Reading the White House's transcripts? Citing to his own tweets? Because most everything folks are quoting at you are directly from those sources:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1241367239900778501?s=20[/tweet]

Trump as quoted from the White House's own press conference transcript from Feb. 27:

But we’re very, very ready for this, for anything — whether it’s going to be a breakout of larger proportions or whether or not we’re — you know, we’re at that very low level, and we want to keep it that way.

So we’re at the low level.  As they get better, we take them off the list, so that we’re going to be pretty soon at only five people.  And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time.  So we’ve had very good luck.

And from yesterday's press conference transcript:

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting.  So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it.  And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too.  It sounds interesting.
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN:  We’ll get to the right folks who could.
THE PRESIDENT:  Right.  And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning.  Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs.  So it would be interesting to check that.  So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with.  But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.

And here's video of the same bizarre exchange:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1253673829454483457?s=20[/tweet]

If you really are a genuine realist, it seems like it's time to acknowledge there's no comparison between our leadership and the leadership of just about any other western developed country.

[burger]

I'm actually focused on eliminating domestic villains, or, more accurately, domestic demons. Whether you regard the Chinese response as good, bad, or indifferent, the information coming out through the WHO from China was the gating factor for every health service in the world. The US response was not scandalously negligent or nonchalant. With small variations for national culture and government structure, the pattern of just about every nation in the world followed the same pattern with nearly identical 



It's important because a great many of the commentators are playing a game Eric Berne, in a 1960's best seller entitled 'Games People Play' famously described as 'Now I've Got You, You Sonuvabitch'. Three years ago, the normal political opposition that Trump richly deserves morphed into a hysterical, morbid hatred all out of proportion to the actual magnitude of the cause. The apoplectic rage George Bush George Bush endured between 2003 and 2008 is tame stuff indeed. If you check out Amazon for books about Trump written in 2017, you'll find an embarrassing number of otherwise respectable intellectuals who disgraced themselves predicting or speculating on a Fascist takeover of the government in the near future. (HOW???? Trump didn't have a private army, and he was not particularly respected by the regular armed forces. But those sort of details didn't matter.)



For three years, the faction has been frustrated because the nation ran on normally, and in some ways rather well. The cause that would justify that effect never arose. Now comes Covid-19 and  . . .  'NOW we've got you, you sonuvabitch!' You disbanded the /Pandemic Task Force. (Only he didn't.) You defanged the CDC. (Nope.) You fiddled while Rome burned. (Trump's public statements were too positive, but it's the walk that matters, not the talk, and the actions taken were identical in substance with those in other countries. None of it checks out.



It's important, because the critical decisions coming up - opening up the economy, balancing the economic risk versus the health risk, etc. - are ultra important. It's impossible to make them perfectly - we can only hope they are made as well as fallible human beings can make them.



I for sure don't want to hand any one a blank check. But I also would urge trust in good faith, because that does exist. 



In any case, ending the demonization and the sonuvabitch game is the point of the exercise.

Honest question: do you think this response has been handled well? Not "about the same as comparable countries", but genuinely well?

This is close to violating terry's rule and I can remove if people want, but do you think the response to Hurricane Maria was handled well? (Because that was, in my media circles anyway, a giant red flag for how well the response to a bigger, nationwide threat would go, and I think indicative of the poor response to covid.)

Please remove.  Attacking democrats as crazy people has nothing to do with covid-19.

[burger]

I'm actually focused on eliminating domestic villains, or, more accurately, domestic demons. Whether you regard the Chinese response as good, bad, or indifferent, the information coming out through the WHO from China was the gating factor for every health service in the world. The US response was not scandalously negligent or nonchalant. With small variations for national culture and government structure, the pattern of just about every nation in the world followed the same pattern with nearly identical 



It's important because a great many of the commentators are playing a game Eric Berne, in a 1960's best seller entitled 'Games People Play' famously described as 'Now I've Got You, You Sonuvabitch'. Three years ago, the normal political opposition that Trump richly deserves morphed into a hysterical, morbid hatred all out of proportion to the actual magnitude of the cause. The apoplectic rage George Bush George Bush endured between 2003 and 2008 is tame stuff indeed. If you check out Amazon for books about Trump written in 2017, you'll find an embarrassing number of otherwise respectable intellectuals who disgraced themselves predicting or speculating on a Fascist takeover of the government in the near future. (HOW???? Trump didn't have a private army, and he was not particularly respected by the regular armed forces. But those sort of details didn't matter.)



For three years, the faction has been frustrated because the nation ran on normally, and in some ways rather well. The cause that would justify that effect never arose. Now comes Covid-19 and  . . .  'NOW we've got you, you sonuvabitch!' You disbanded the /Pandemic Task Force. (Only he didn't.) You defanged the CDC. (Nope.) You fiddled while Rome burned. (Trump's public statements were too positive, but it's the walk that matters, not the talk, and the actions taken were identical in substance with those in other countries. None of it checks out.



It's important, because the critical decisions coming up - opening up the economy, balancing the economic risk versus the health risk, etc. - are ultra important. It's impossible to make them perfectly - we can only hope they are made as well as fallible human beings can make them.



I for sure don't want to hand any one a blank check. But I also would urge trust in good faith, because that does exist. 



In any case, ending the demonization and the sonuvabitch game is the point of the exercise.

Honest question: do you think this response has been handled well? Not "about the same as comparable countries", but genuinely well?

This is close to violating terry's rule and I can remove if people want, but do you think the response to Hurricane Maria was handled well? (Because that was, in my media circles anyway, a giant red flag for how well the response to a bigger, nationwide threat would go, and I think indicative of the poor response to covid.)

Please remove.  Attacking democrats as crazy people has nothing to do with covid-19.

[Genuine Realist]

I'm actually focused on eliminating domestic villains, or, more accurately, domestic demons. Whether you regard the Chinese response as good, bad, or indifferent, the information coming out through the WHO from China was the gating factor for every health service in the world. The US response was not scandalously negligent or nonchalant. With small variations for national culture and government structure, the pattern of just about every nation in the world followed the same pattern with nearly identical 



It's important because a great many of the commentators are playing a game Eric Berne, in a 1960's best seller entitled 'Games People Play' famously described as 'Now I've Got You, You Sonuvabitch'. Three years ago, the normal political opposition that Trump richly deserves morphed into a hysterical, morbid hatred all out of proportion to the actual magnitude of the cause. The apoplectic rage George Bush George Bush endured between 2003 and 2008 is tame stuff indeed. If you check out Amazon for books about Trump written in 2017, you'll find an embarrassing number of otherwise respectable intellectuals who disgraced themselves predicting or speculating on a Fascist takeover of the government in the near future. (HOW???? Trump didn't have a private army, and he was not particularly respected by the regular armed forces. But those sort of details didn't matter.)



For three years, the faction has been frustrated because the nation ran on normally, and in some ways rather well. The cause that would justify that effect never arose. Now comes Covid-19 and  . . .  'NOW we've got you, you sonuvabitch!' You disbanded the /Pandemic Task Force. (Only he didn't.) You defanged the CDC. (Nope.) You fiddled while Rome burned. (Trump's public statements were too positive, but it's the walk that matters, not the talk, and the actions taken were identical in substance with those in other countries. None of it checks out.



It's important, because the critical decisions coming up - opening up the economy, balancing the economic risk versus the health risk, etc. - are ultra important. It's impossible to make them perfectly - we can only hope they are made as well as fallible human beings can make them.



I for sure don't want to hand any one a blank check. But I also would urge trust in good faith, because that does exist. 



In any case, ending the demonization and the sonuvabitch game is the point of the exercise.

Honest question: do you think this response has been handled well? Not "about the same as comparable countries", but genuinely well?

This is close to violating terry's rule and I can remove if people want, but do you think the response to Hurricane Maria was handled well? (Because that was, in my media circles anyway, a giant red flag for how well the response to a bigger, nationwide threat would go, and I think indicative of the poor response to covid.)

Please remove.  Attacking democrats as crazy people has nothing to do with covid-19.

That's not an attack on Democrats. It's an attempt to categorize the state of the national dialog. And I think it's accurate.

[Genuine Realist]

I'm actually focused on eliminating domestic villains, or, more accurately, domestic demons. Whether you regard the Chinese response as good, bad, or indifferent, the information coming out through the WHO from China was the gating factor for every health service in the world. The US response was not scandalously negligent or nonchalant. With small variations for national culture and government structure, the pattern of just about every nation in the world followed the same pattern with nearly identical 



It's important because a great many of the commentators are playing a game Eric Berne, in a 1960's best seller entitled 'Games People Play' famously described as 'Now I've Got You, You Sonuvabitch'. Three years ago, the normal political opposition that Trump richly deserves morphed into a hysterical, morbid hatred all out of proportion to the actual magnitude of the cause. The apoplectic rage George Bush George Bush endured between 2003 and 2008 is tame stuff indeed. If you check out Amazon for books about Trump written in 2017, you'll find an embarrassing number of otherwise respectable intellectuals who disgraced themselves predicting or speculating on a Fascist takeover of the government in the near future. (HOW???? Trump didn't have a private army, and he was not particularly respected by the regular armed forces. But those sort of details didn't matter.)



For three years, the faction has been frustrated because the nation ran on normally, and in some ways rather well. The cause that would justify that effect never arose. Now comes Covid-19 and  . . .  'NOW we've got you, you sonuvabitch!' You disbanded the /Pandemic Task Force. (Only he didn't.) You defanged the CDC. (Nope.) You fiddled while Rome burned. (Trump's public statements were too positive, but it's the walk that matters, not the talk, and the actions taken were identical in substance with those in other countries. None of it checks out.



It's important, because the critical decisions coming up - opening up the economy, balancing the economic risk versus the health risk, etc. - are ultra important. It's impossible to make them perfectly - we can only hope they are made as well as fallible human beings can make them.



I for sure don't want to hand any one a blank check. But I also would urge trust in good faith, because that does exist. 



In any case, ending the demonization and the sonuvabitch game is the point of the exercise.

Honest question: do you think this response has been handled well? Not "about the same as comparable countries", but genuinely well?

This is close to violating terry's rule and I can remove if people want, but do you think the response to Hurricane Maria was handled well? (Because that was, in my media circles anyway, a giant red flag for how well the response to a bigger, nationwide threat would go, and I think indicative of the poor response to covid.)

Please remove.  Attacking democrats as crazy people has nothing to do with covid-19.

That's not an attack on Democrats. It's an attempt to categorize the state of the national dialog. And I think it's accurate.

[BostonCard]

Well, based on their respective perfomences:

At the next Italian election, I will certainly not vote for the M5S or the PD (the Italian governing coalition)
At the next German election, I will not vote for Angela Merkel's CSU party
At the next Spanish election, I will not vote for Pedro Sanchez' PSOE party
At the next UK election, I will not vote for Boris Johnson's Torries

Unfortunately, not being a citizen of those countries, I will not have an opportunity to hold them to account for their missteps.  The one leader who I will have an opportunity to hold to account is Donald Trump.

There is no doubt that facing a global pandemic is a much harder task as a leader than, say, jawboning Canada and Mexico into updating their trade agreement with the US or getting a corporate tax cut passed through a congress controlled by your own party (two pick two things that the President accomplished).  Maybe 90% of leaders would or are failing at that task.  Unfortunately, we only get to evaluate our leaders based on the job they do against the challenges they face; we don't get to see the alternative universe where we have a different President in office.  We don't get to find out if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or John Kasich or one of the dozen other Republican candidates running for office would have done better under the circumstances.  All we know is that facing the biggest and most important challenge of his Presidency, the response by this administration was, well, you know my opinion of it.

Now, maybe you believe that under the difficult circumstances presented that this administration did as well as it could have and was more proactive, responsive, and effective than any other leader would have been.  Since there is no way to prove the alternative scenario, it is not an invalid point of view.   I think it betrays the tyranny of low expectations in leadership, but it is not a disprovable hypothesis.  But I would at least like to see the affirmative case for what the administration has done well.  And from my point of view, I am largely left with, "well he instituted a travel ban at the end of January", and at least as far as I can see, not much else.  What am I missing?  What part of the response has been executed well so far?  Because otherwise the defense of the President looks a lot like excuse making (China is a vile regime and lied [duh], lots of other countries had bad responses, previous presidents have also underinvested in pandemic preparedness, etc.) Do you honestly think there is nothing else the administration could have done differently that might have put us in a better position now?

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, based on their respective perfomences:

At the next Italian election, I will certainly not vote for the M5S or the PD (the Italian governing coalition)
At the next German election, I will not vote for Angela Merkel's CSU party
At the next Spanish election, I will not vote for Pedro Sanchez' PSOE party
At the next UK election, I will not vote for Boris Johnson's Torries

Unfortunately, not being a citizen of those countries, I will not have an opportunity to hold them to account for their missteps.  The one leader who I will have an opportunity to hold to account is Donald Trump.

There is no doubt that facing a global pandemic is a much harder task as a leader than, say, jawboning Canada and Mexico into updating their trade agreement with the US or getting a corporate tax cut passed through a congress controlled by your own party (two pick two things that the President accomplished).  Maybe 90% of leaders would or are failing at that task.  Unfortunately, we only get to evaluate our leaders based on the job they do against the challenges they face; we don't get to see the alternative universe where we have a different President in office.  We don't get to find out if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or John Kasich or one of the dozen other Republican candidates running for office would have done better under the circumstances.  All we know is that facing the biggest and most important challenge of his Presidency, the response by this administration was, well, you know my opinion of it.

Now, maybe you believe that under the difficult circumstances presented that this administration did as well as it could have and was more proactive, responsive, and effective than any other leader would have been.  Since there is no way to prove the alternative scenario, it is not an invalid point of view.   I think it betrays the tyranny of low expectations in leadership, but it is not a disprovable hypothesis.  But I would at least like to see the affirmative case for what the administration has done well.  And from my point of view, I am largely left with, "well he instituted a travel ban at the end of January", and at least as far as I can see, not much else.  What am I missing?  What part of the response has been executed well so far?  Because otherwise the defense of the President looks a lot like excuse making (China is a vile regime and lied [duh], lots of other countries had bad responses, previous presidents have also underinvested in pandemic preparedness, etc.) Do you honestly think there is nothing else the administration could have done differently that might have put us in a better position now?

BC

[Genuine Realist]

 I would also be very, very slow to go to the bank on quotes from Trump cited in the New York Times, Washington Post, and others. It's unfortunately that kind of world.

Am I allowed to bank on quotes from watching his press conferences firsthand? Reading the White House's transcripts? Citing to his own tweets? Because most everything folks are quoting at you are directly from those sources:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1241367239900778501?s=20[/tweet]

Trump as quoted from the White House's own press conference transcript from Feb. 27:

But we’re very, very ready for this, for anything — whether it’s going to be a breakout of larger proportions or whether or not we’re — you know, we’re at that very low level, and we want to keep it that way.

So we’re at the low level.  As they get better, we take them off the list, so that we’re going to be pretty soon at only five people.  And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time.  So we’ve had very good luck.

And from yesterday's press conference transcript:

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting.  So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it.  And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too.  It sounds interesting.
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN:  We’ll get to the right folks who could.
THE PRESIDENT:  Right.  And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning.  Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs.  So it would be interesting to check that.  So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with.  But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.

And here's video of the same bizarre exchange:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1253673829454483457?s=20[/tweet]

If you really are a genuine realist, it seems like it's time to acknowledge there's no comparison between our leadership and the leadership of just about any other western developed country.

Since I provided actual comparisons to real Western leaders, and their actions were pretty much the same as Trump's, I don't think I have to say anything more.

Also, reacting to Stupac2, I don't think we decide whether  matter was handled 'well' in comparison to some absolute utopian standard, but in terms of real world knowledge, alternatives, and so on. When no one in the world has handled something 'well' by that standard, reasonable minds can conclude that the standard is otherworldy.

Finally, anyone who interprets that quote as Trump seriously suggesting the injection of disinfectants into the lungs has a serious eye-of-the-beholder problem. I'll leave it at that.

[Genuine Realist]

 I would also be very, very slow to go to the bank on quotes from Trump cited in the New York Times, Washington Post, and others. It's unfortunately that kind of world.

Am I allowed to bank on quotes from watching his press conferences firsthand? Reading the White House's transcripts? Citing to his own tweets? Because most everything folks are quoting at you are directly from those sources:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1241367239900778501?s=20[/tweet]

Trump as quoted from the White House's own press conference transcript from Feb. 27:

But we’re very, very ready for this, for anything — whether it’s going to be a breakout of larger proportions or whether or not we’re — you know, we’re at that very low level, and we want to keep it that way.

So we’re at the low level.  As they get better, we take them off the list, so that we’re going to be pretty soon at only five people.  And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time.  So we’ve had very good luck.

And from yesterday's press conference transcript:

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting.  So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it.  And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too.  It sounds interesting.
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN:  We’ll get to the right folks who could.
THE PRESIDENT:  Right.  And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning.  Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs.  So it would be interesting to check that.  So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with.  But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.

And here's video of the same bizarre exchange:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1253673829454483457?s=20[/tweet]

If you really are a genuine realist, it seems like it's time to acknowledge there's no comparison between our leadership and the leadership of just about any other western developed country.

Since I provided actual comparisons to real Western leaders, and their actions were pretty much the same as Trump's, I don't think I have to say anything more.

Also, reacting to Stupac2, I don't think we decide whether  matter was handled 'well' in comparison to some absolute utopian standard, but in terms of real world knowledge, alternatives, and so on. When no one in the world has handled something 'well' by that standard, reasonable minds can conclude that the standard is otherworldy.

Finally, anyone who interprets that quote as Trump seriously suggesting the injection of disinfectants into the lungs has a serious eye-of-the-beholder problem. I'll leave it at that.

[2006alum]

Finally, anyone who interprets that quote as Trump seriously suggesting the injection of disinfectants into the lungs has a serious eye-of-the-beholder problem. I'll leave it at that.

What do you think he was saying, then? Genuinely:

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. 

Please, give me your best guess.

[2006alum]

Finally, anyone who interprets that quote as Trump seriously suggesting the injection of disinfectants into the lungs has a serious eye-of-the-beholder problem. I'll leave it at that.

What do you think he was saying, then? Genuinely:

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. 

Please, give me your best guess.

[Genuine Realist]

Well, based on their respective perfomences:

At the next Italian election, I will certainly not vote for the M5S or the PD (the Italian governing coalition)
At the next German election, I will not vote for Angela Merkel's CSU party
At the next Spanish election, I will not vote for Pedro Sanchez' PSOE party
At the next UK election, I will not vote for Boris Johnson's Torries

Unfortunately, not being a citizen of those countries, I will not have an opportunity to hold them to account for their missteps.  The one leader who I will have an opportunity to hold to account is Donald Trump.

There is no doubt that facing a global pandemic is a much harder task as a leader than, say, jawboning Canada and Mexico into updating their trade agreement with the US or getting a corporate tax cut passed through a congress controlled by your own party (two pick two things that the President accomplished).  Maybe 90% of leaders would or are failing at that task.  Unfortunately, we only get to evaluate our leaders based on the job they do against the challenges they face; we don't get to see the alternative universe where we have a different President in office.  We don't get to find out if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or John Kasich or one of the dozen other Republican candidates running for office would have done better under the circumstances.  All we know is that facing the biggest and most important challenge of his Presidency, the response by this administration was, well, you know my opinion of it.

Now, maybe you believe that under the difficult circumstances presented that this administration did as well as it could have and was more proactive, responsive, and effective than any other leader would have been.  Since there is no way to prove the alternative scenario, it is not an invalid point of view.   I think it betrays the tyrany of low expectations in leadership,

The problem is that I don't think you are voting for anyone anywhere in the world.

I intend to vote for Biden, but not because I believe he'd have managed this one jot better than Trump. It's because he's more decent.

And no matter how you vote, you might roll your eyes at columnists and pundits who suggest that somewhere, somehow someone actually implemented better solutions to this mess. That does not appear to be the case.

That was the point of the post.

[Genuine Realist]

Well, based on their respective perfomences:

At the next Italian election, I will certainly not vote for the M5S or the PD (the Italian governing coalition)
At the next German election, I will not vote for Angela Merkel's CSU party
At the next Spanish election, I will not vote for Pedro Sanchez' PSOE party
At the next UK election, I will not vote for Boris Johnson's Torries

Unfortunately, not being a citizen of those countries, I will not have an opportunity to hold them to account for their missteps.  The one leader who I will have an opportunity to hold to account is Donald Trump.

There is no doubt that facing a global pandemic is a much harder task as a leader than, say, jawboning Canada and Mexico into updating their trade agreement with the US or getting a corporate tax cut passed through a congress controlled by your own party (two pick two things that the President accomplished).  Maybe 90% of leaders would or are failing at that task.  Unfortunately, we only get to evaluate our leaders based on the job they do against the challenges they face; we don't get to see the alternative universe where we have a different President in office.  We don't get to find out if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or John Kasich or one of the dozen other Republican candidates running for office would have done better under the circumstances.  All we know is that facing the biggest and most important challenge of his Presidency, the response by this administration was, well, you know my opinion of it.

Now, maybe you believe that under the difficult circumstances presented that this administration did as well as it could have and was more proactive, responsive, and effective than any other leader would have been.  Since there is no way to prove the alternative scenario, it is not an invalid point of view.   I think it betrays the tyrany of low expectations in leadership,

The problem is that I don't think you are voting for anyone anywhere in the world.

I intend to vote for Biden, but not because I believe he'd have managed this one jot better than Trump. It's because he's more decent.

And no matter how you vote, you might roll your eyes at columnists and pundits who suggest that somewhere, somehow someone actually implemented better solutions to this mess. That does not appear to be the case.

That was the point of the post.

[2006alum]

Realist, the makers of Lysol must be among those who you think view the world through a strange lens:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1253703509565898752?s=20[/tweet]

[2006alum]

Realist, the makers of Lysol must be among those who you think view the world through a strange lens:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1253703509565898752?s=20[/tweet]

[BostonCard]

South Korea actually held elections a little over a week ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_South...e_election

It tells you something about their response that they were able to hold elections in the first place.  It also tells you something that the ruling party (the Democratic Party), won in a landslide (180 out of 300 seats in parliament), the best result of any party since 1960 (a net gain of 60 seats from before the election).

Not a Korean citizen, but were I to have been, I would have voted for the ruling party, certainly, as its response contrasts to the response in Italy, Spain, or the US.

BC

[BostonCard]

South Korea actually held elections a little over a week ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_South...e_election

It tells you something about their response that they were able to hold elections in the first place.  It also tells you something that the ruling party (the Democratic Party), won in a landslide (180 out of 300 seats in parliament), the best result of any party since 1960 (a net gain of 60 seats from before the election).

Not a Korean citizen, but were I to have been, I would have voted for the ruling party, certainly, as its response contrasts to the response in Italy, Spain, or the US.

BC

[stupac2]

Please remove.  Attacking democrats as crazy people has nothing to do with covid-19.

I was referring to the second half of my post, not GR's. I'm not going to ask in public if I should moderate someone else's post! For the record, I thought GR's was toeing the line pretty hard too, but it was definitely in the context of covid so I opted not to bring it up for moderator discussion (no one else has either, nor has anyone reported it).

[stupac2]

Please remove.  Attacking democrats as crazy people has nothing to do with covid-19.

I was referring to the second half of my post, not GR's. I'm not going to ask in public if I should moderate someone else's post! For the record, I thought GR's was toeing the line pretty hard too, but it was definitely in the context of covid so I opted not to bring it up for moderator discussion (no one else has either, nor has anyone reported it).

[Genuine Realist]

South Korea actually held elections a little over a week ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_South...e_election

It tells you something about their response that they were able to hold elections in the first place.  It also tells you something that the ruling party (the Democratic Party), won in a landslide (180 out of 300 seats in parliament), the best result of any party since 1960 (a net gain of 60 seats from before the election).

Not a Korean citizen, but were I to have been, I would have voted for the ruling party, certainly, as its response contrasts to the response in Italy, Spain, or the US.

BC

South Korea is an outlier for a lot of reasons. I'm sick of comparisons, so here's the Wikipedia link that you can read for yourself. The circumstances of that nation were radically different than any nation in the West.

My last post on the thread. I've made my point.

[Genuine Realist]

South Korea actually held elections a little over a week ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_South...e_election

It tells you something about their response that they were able to hold elections in the first place.  It also tells you something that the ruling party (the Democratic Party), won in a landslide (180 out of 300 seats in parliament), the best result of any party since 1960 (a net gain of 60 seats from before the election).

Not a Korean citizen, but were I to have been, I would have voted for the ruling party, certainly, as its response contrasts to the response in Italy, Spain, or the US.

BC

South Korea is an outlier for a lot of reasons. I'm sick of comparisons, so here's the Wikipedia link that you can read for yourself. The circumstances of that nation were radically different than any nation in the West.

My last post on the thread. I've made my point.

[2006alum]

My last post on the thread. I've made my point.

I'm still waiting for your best guess about what Trump meant when he said this:

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. 

[2006alum]

My last post on the thread. I've made my point.

I'm still waiting for your best guess about what Trump meant when he said this:

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. 

[oldalum]

Do you honestly think there is nothing else the administration could have done differently that might have put us in a better position now?

I know you're not asking me, but one thing I would identify (among others) is this: SiP was (and still is) the most effective tool we had/have to reduce transmission of the virus in the population. It took a lot of analysis, confidence, consultation with epidemiology experts, etc. for the SF Bay Area health officers to institute it on March 16, followed soon by Newsom for all of California. It also took a receptive populace and political support and courage. If the Trump administration had right away vigorously endorsed and encouraged this step nationwide, particularly by Trump himself, I suspect other health officers and politicians around the country might have acted similarly sooner, and each day of delay represented a significant increase in cases. To me that was (and is) a significant failure that likely caused significant harm, and that is on Trump and his fellow minimizing inner circle of advisors whom he is responsible for. In this respect and others, what Trump says is important. It's not just that we can ignore his often-ridiculous babble and focus on how he and his administration walks (although there are significant problems with that too).

[oldalum]

Do you honestly think there is nothing else the administration could have done differently that might have put us in a better position now?

I know you're not asking me, but one thing I would identify (among others) is this: SiP was (and still is) the most effective tool we had/have to reduce transmission of the virus in the population. It took a lot of analysis, confidence, consultation with epidemiology experts, etc. for the SF Bay Area health officers to institute it on March 16, followed soon by Newsom for all of California. It also took a receptive populace and political support and courage. If the Trump administration had right away vigorously endorsed and encouraged this step nationwide, particularly by Trump himself, I suspect other health officers and politicians around the country might have acted similarly sooner, and each day of delay represented a significant increase in cases. To me that was (and is) a significant failure that likely caused significant harm, and that is on Trump and his fellow minimizing inner circle of advisors whom he is responsible for. In this respect and others, what Trump says is important. It's not just that we can ignore his often-ridiculous babble and focus on how he and his administration walks (although there are significant problems with that too).

[ChicagoCard]

I deleted my own tweet. I had tweeted what I think the real answer to be but that involves politics so I went my second thought.

[ChicagoCard]

I deleted my own tweet. I had tweeted what I think the real answer to be but that involves politics so I went my second thought.

[Genuine Realist]

[quote="Genuine Realist" pid='278459' dateline='1587746665']
My last post on the thread. I've made my point.

I'm still waiting for your best guess about what Trump meant when he said this:

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. 

Faced with the challenge, I will post one more.

He's comparing the action of a potential medicine to a disinfectant, probably naively. He's not suggesting anyone inject disinfectant directly into their lungs.

In general, when you have a major public figure, with an Ivy League degree, multibillionaire with seven decades of life experience, being quoted or intrpreted in a manner that suggests he knows less than a ten year old, you'd better check your source or interpreter. Mitt Romney and Bush were subject to the same silliness. Fox will do it to Biden.

[Genuine Realist]

[quote="Genuine Realist" pid='278459' dateline='1587746665']
My last post on the thread. I've made my point.

I'm still waiting for your best guess about what Trump meant when he said this:

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. 

Faced with the challenge, I will post one more.

He's comparing the action of a potential medicine to a disinfectant, probably naively. He's not suggesting anyone inject disinfectant directly into their lungs.

In general, when you have a major public figure, with an Ivy League degree, multibillionaire with seven decades of life experience, being quoted or intrpreted in a manner that suggests he knows less than a ten year old, you'd better check your source or interpreter. Mitt Romney and Bush were subject to the same silliness. Fox will do it to Biden.

[2006alum]

[quote="Genuine Realist" pid='278459' dateline='1587746665']
My last post on the thread. I've made my point.

I'm still waiting for your best guess about what Trump meant when he said this:

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. 

Faced with the challenge, I will post one more.

He's comparing the action of a potential medicine to a disinfectant, probably naively. He's not suggesting anyone inject disinfectant directly into their lungs.

What medicine is going to go in and coat the surface of the lung and clean them like a disinfectant? If that is your best guess, I'm afraid I'm not any more comforted than I was by everyone else's interpretation.

[2006alum]

[quote="Genuine Realist" pid='278459' dateline='1587746665']
My last post on the thread. I've made my point.

I'm still waiting for your best guess about what Trump meant when he said this:

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. 

Faced with the challenge, I will post one more.

He's comparing the action of a potential medicine to a disinfectant, probably naively. He's not suggesting anyone inject disinfectant directly into their lungs.

What medicine is going to go in and coat the surface of the lung and clean them like a disinfectant? If that is your best guess, I'm afraid I'm not any more comforted than I was by everyone else's interpretation.

[stupac2]

[quote="Genuine Realist" pid='278459' dateline='1587746665']
My last post on the thread. I've made my point.

I'm still waiting for your best guess about what Trump meant when he said this:

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. 

Faced with the challenge, I will post one more.

He's comparing the action of a potential medicine to a disinfectant, probably naively. He's not suggesting anyone inject disinfectant directly into their lungs.

What medicine is going to go in and coat the surface of the lung and clean them like a disinfectant? If that is your best guess, I'm afraid I'm not any more comforted than I was by everyone else's interpretation.

It also doesn't make any sense. No medicine taken internally neutralizes the virus in any amount of time, let alone a minute. If there were one we wouldn't be in this whole mess!

[stupac2]

[quote="Genuine Realist" pid='278459' dateline='1587746665']
My last post on the thread. I've made my point.

I'm still waiting for your best guess about what Trump meant when he said this:

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. 

Faced with the challenge, I will post one more.

He's comparing the action of a potential medicine to a disinfectant, probably naively. He's not suggesting anyone inject disinfectant directly into their lungs.

What medicine is going to go in and coat the surface of the lung and clean them like a disinfectant? If that is your best guess, I'm afraid I'm not any more comforted than I was by everyone else's interpretation.

It also doesn't make any sense. No medicine taken internally neutralizes the virus in any amount of time, let alone a minute. If there were one we wouldn't be in this whole mess!

[burger]

People, arguing with Genuine Realist is not going to change their mind.  I have a better idea: if you click through to their user page, there's a button on the lower right that will allow you to hide their posts.  I've just done it, and I am enjoying the board more already.

[burger]

People, arguing with Genuine Realist is not going to change their mind.  I have a better idea: if you click through to their user page, there's a button on the lower right that will allow you to hide their posts.  I've just done it, and I am enjoying the board more already.

[magnus]

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. 

Faced with the challenge, I will post one more.

He's comparing the action of a potential medicine to a disinfectant, probably naively. He's not suggesting anyone inject disinfectant directly into their lungs.

The problem with the above quote is that there are a non-trivial amount of Americans that will follow up on _anything_ the President (any President) says (this can be stated for all political affiliations).  That's why it's extra important that the President chooses their words carefully when speaking.

[magnus]

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. 

Faced with the challenge, I will post one more.

He's comparing the action of a potential medicine to a disinfectant, probably naively. He's not suggesting anyone inject disinfectant directly into their lungs.

The problem with the above quote is that there are a non-trivial amount of Americans that will follow up on _anything_ the President (any President) says (this can be stated for all political affiliations).  That's why it's extra important that the President chooses their words carefully when speaking.

[2006alum]

Incidentally, here's a nice top-level explanation for why even those who are competent are disabled from acting appropriately in this Administration, inspired by watching Dr. Birx listen to Trump talking about disinfectant-like treatments for the lungs:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/brett_mcgurk/status/1253534417852575745?s=20[/tweet]

[2006alum]

Incidentally, here's a nice top-level explanation for why even those who are competent are disabled from acting appropriately in this Administration, inspired by watching Dr. Birx listen to Trump talking about disinfectant-like treatments for the lungs:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/brett_mcgurk/status/1253534417852575745?s=20[/tweet]