you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Feather 25 insightful - 3 fun25 insightful - 2 fun26 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

No. His behaviors have inflicted a 200k+ death toll in the course of months, and I don't trust him with the nuclear codes. There are things (many things) that matter more than what TRAs are up to.

[–]CheesyPeas 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

'and I don't trust him with the nuclear codes. '

And with this statement you have just outed yourself as a reactionary. Imagine thinking this.

'His behaviors have inflicted a 200k+ death toll in the course of months'

How exactly? By what exact specific mechanism.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah I find the outrage about the death toll really silly. The death toll projections back in March were in the millions, so if anything, it's a miracle the numbers are as low as they are. And it's the state-level that is in charge of the covid response (and all the states with the worst numbers are Democrat-run).

There also weren't any hospitals that got overrun and nobody was denied a ventilator (i.e. triage) like what happened in Italy.

So I really don't know why people keep blaming Trump for covid.

[–]Feather 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The death tolls in the millions were projections for if nobody did anything. They were the, "If everyone behaved just like normal indefinitely, this is how many people would die," numbers. And they were true. If we'd all behaved exactly like normal, it would have been millions. Instead, we've had a coronavirus season that's 4x as deadly as a bad flu season even while we have mostly shut down our economy. "200k dead when most people don't even go out" = "Millions dead if we had behaved like normal."

It's wrong when people say, "We shouldn't have protected ourselves; things aren't as bad as people said they could be," because the truth is, "Things aren't as bad as people said they could be, because many of us protected ourselves."

There were some overrun hospitals. You do not live in NYC or certain cities in Texas, correct?

State-level responses were hindered by the federal government confiscating masks that states had paid for and ordered in order to resell those masks at a profit. Northeastern states then had to get masks for their medical workers in rather creative and/or shady ways after the federal government took the masks the states had already paid for.

I don't blame Trump for the existence of Covid. Obviously not. The guy has nothing to do with a virus coming into existence and being dangerous and contagious, nor is he at fault for how badly China handled it at the start. He also isn't at fault for the stupid media storm in the U.S. near the beginning, where the liberal-leaning media AND the CDC AND the WHO claimed masks were useless and silly and unscientific and "BUT THE FLU." (I believe they claimed these things in a fruitless attempt to avoid a mask shortage for medical workers. They didn't think far ahead enough to realize, "Medical workers actually won't need as many masks if all our citizens cover their faces and therefore inhibit spread and, if we lie about masks now, people might not wear masks later.")

But now we've got a whole bunch of morons who think it's a hate crime against both Trump and God if they cover their mouth and nose with a thin, breathable piece of fabric. If he only put a mask on his face and said, "If you love me, you'll wear a mask like I do," this pandemic would have been under control months ago.

If all of us - the liberal-leaning media, the WHO, Trump, everyone - had behaved better, we wouldn't have anything close to a two-hundred-thousand death toll.

If we'd all worn masks - and, again, our lack of doing that is the shameful responsibility of so many people other than Trump - it could have been 20k instead of 200k.

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I seem to recall their original projection was 150k for the first "flatten the curve" wave.

[–]Feather 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't enjoy political debates and so I won't get into one, but I'll give you a response and then won't respond again.

Why?

I don't enjoy or gain any emotional validation from political debates because political debates happen for only four reasons:

  1. To understand each other and communicate. This reason is non-aggressive and kind and usually occurs between people who already feel affection for each other.

  2. To convince the other person they are wrong. (This pretty much never works unless you are kind towards the other person AND already have a trusting relationship with them AND are listening to them to such a degree that you are willing to be convinced that you are wrong.)

  3. To convince bystanders that the other person is wrong and "win" and then feel good about how right you were and how bad you wrecked the other person.

  4. To ruin family parties since what's the point of gathering together and eating a turkey if you aren't all screaming by the end?

I typically only enjoy and find value in Point 1, so generally I don't debate unless Point 1 is an option.

Anyway:

  • When it comes to the nuclear codes, I do not trust his temperament. I think he is a mentally and psychologically unstable human being. It's not actually a Republican vs. Democrat thing for me. I hate Pence's politics and beliefs, but I would trust him with the nuclear codes because I believe he is a stable human being with consistent values (even if I disagree with those values). Whereas I believe Trump is a volatile, amoral, value-less creature.

  • When it comes to the death toll of two-hundred-thousand U.S. citizens, I admit that it did not start out as his fault. It's very much the fault of the WHO and the CDC and the "smart, science-loving" liberal-leaning media, which insisted early on that masks are silly and useless and "BUT THE FLU." I lost friendships early on in the because my "smart" "liberal" friends thought I was an insane right-wing conspiracy theorist for saying, "Hey, how about masks? It seems like the countries where people wear masks are doing well." They thought I was a right-wing-fucking-racist who hated East Asians and didn't understand "SCIENCE" for insisting that everyone should cover their mouths and noses. It was absolutely infuriating and I will never forget what it was like to be Cassandra among supposedly intelligent people who I thought cared about me.

  • But. Trump. The dude dismantled so much infrastructure related to potential pandemics and now the guy can't just cover his fucking face and so we've got all these dipshits who think masks are liberal Democrat attempts to keep them from breathing, or something, and the pandemic is a hoax. For some reason only God knows, his fundraising team got my email address and I got an email saying how Obama is the one who took apart the pandemic team and how Sleepy Joe and Phony Kamala are anti-vaxxers. I. Just. Can't. Even. We have recordings of this ass saying to Woodward, who took down Nixon, that the pandemic is a big deal, way worse than the flu, and that he likes to downplay it.

It's not right. Pandemics shouldn't be political. The left made it political back when they said he was a racist for blocking flights from China. The right has made it political by saying it's a hoax from "the Libs." It's not political. it's a little viral particle that, if it were sentient, would have loved the left back when the left said it was racist to block flights from China and dumb to wear masks, and would now love the right for suggesting that masks are an infringement on Freedom(tm).

Hmm. This turned into a rant about the coronavirus. Anyway, I respect your point of view - good people can disagree for honorable reasons - and will not respond further for reasons I already explained above.

[–]CheesyPeas 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Makes a deeply politically charged statement.

Then

'I don't enjoy political debates and so I won't get into one, but I'll give you a response and then won't respond again.'

How conveinient for you.

Only likes to mention anything political on their own terms. Mentions liking debate. Yet won't allow any. Self awareness not your bag is it cupcake.

You assumed I was coming from a 'Republican' position. Nothing could be further from the truth. You just made an absolute hooter of a nonsense claim and got called out on it.

And now you continue politically ranting and even catch yourself doing it. Yet you don't do political debate.

Here is a word to describe you perfectly.

Weasel.

You are as reactionary as the people you accuse of being such. And you are dishonest about it in the process.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So the fact that we have had no new wars since he took office doesn't resonate with you at all?

[–]Feather 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm really glad that we haven't had any new wars since he took office. So far, he's done some very bad things and also some good things. He's also neglected to do some good things while avoiding doing some bad things. Overall, though - and I know this is personal - I don't trust his temperament.

I don't enjoy or gain any emotional validation from political debates though, so I won't debate it. I mean, you and I both know that political debates happen for only four reasons:

  1. To understand each other and communicate. (You asked a loaded question and so I assume that's not your purpose in engaging with me. You asked a "question" which assumed bad faith on my part by suggesting that I am uninterested in lack of war, and which had the rhetorical sound of the cock of a gun just waiting for me to answer the wrong way.)

  2. To convince the other person they are wrong. (This pretty much never works unless you are kind towards the other person AND already have a trusting relationship with them AND are listening to them to such a degree that you are willing to be convinced that you are wrong.)

  3. To convince bystanders that the other person is wrong and "win" and then feel good about how right you were and how bad you wrecked the other person.

  4. To ruin family parties since what's the point of gathering together and eating a turkey if you aren't all screaming by the end?

I only enjoy and find value in Point 1, so I don't debate unless Point 1 is an option.

I respect the fact that you have assessed the facts differently than I have, though. Good people can disagree for honorable reasons.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'll debate any way I want to. I didn't ask a loaded question or in bad faith. You think he killed thousands of people due to covid and can't be trusted with nuclear codes and considering the very minor fact we haven't been in a nuclear war in 4 years that makes you look like a fool. You must also think that every other world leader is a mass murderer for every death they had right?

That's as far as I'm going to take this with you. Cheers.