2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Quin_Dub

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It’s not in Trump’s nature to ever clarify a mistake, clarifying a mistake means admitting the mistake exists. Although his subordinates did clarify the “more than all countries combined” thing in that White House tweet.

Basically Trump’s administration is Trump saying a lot of stuff and then his subordinates running around behind him trying to adapt the PR to fit whatever he’s just said.

It’s also one of generic Republican policies which are quite decent marked by the worst possible presentation and that’s Trump’s fault. If Trump had more personal discipline he’d be at least 50% in the polls.

Wow.. Such an aspirational goal - If only he wasn't such an incompetent buffoon he could maybe get half the people to like him.

Oh and "Republican Policies that are quite decent" ??

There's an oxymoron if ever there was one.

• Gut Healthcare
• Give lots of Money to the one percent by cutting taxes
• Eviscerate Environmental protection in pursuit of the mighty dollar
• Marginalise Minorities and Women

Yep.. They sound like "decent policies" to me.

Sean.3516

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Wow.. Such an aspirational goal - If only he wasn't such an incompetent buffoon he could maybe get half the people to like him.

Competence and buffoonery are not mutually exclusive.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Oh and "Republican Policies that are quite decent" ??

There's an oxymoron if ever there was one.

• Gut Healthcare
• Give lots of Money to the one percent by cutting taxes
• Eviscerate Environmental protection in pursuit of the mighty dollar
• Marginalise Minorities and Women

Yes, I’m sure if you read the manifesto of any Republican candidate they’ll describe their policies in those exact terms.

Or perhaps it’s a bit more complicated than that. They simply disagree with you on the best way to promote economic growth and make good quality healthcare affordable and the feasibility of different ways to deal with climate change.

Or maybe you’re right and they’re all basically fascists.

Quin_Dub

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Competence and buffoonery are not mutually exclusive.


Yes, I’m sure if you read the manifesto of any Republican candidate they’ll describe their policies in those exact terms.

Or perhaps it’s a bit more complicated than that. They simply disagree with you on the best way to promote economic growth and make good quality healthcare affordable and the feasibility of different ways to deal with climate change.

Or maybe you’re right and they’re all basically fascists.

So - Given the available evidence regarding income inequality , availability of affordable healthcare , The state of the environment and the general status of women and minorities in the US today , which viewpoint seems more likely to be accurate?

Sean.3516

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So - Given the available evidence regarding income inequality , availability of affordable healthcare , The state of the environment and the general status of women and minorities in the US today , which viewpoint seems more likely to be accurate?

My response wasn’t really intended to start a discussion on each of the issues you mentioned but rather to say that it’s more likely that the Republicans have a particular perspective on economic and social issues than it is that they have genuine hatred for poor people, women and minorities.

But since you asked I’ll answer to the issues you brought up although I can only speak for myself.

Income inequality: I don’t give a fig about income inequality. Every society on Earth has economic inequality. It’s a sociological axiom that resources will always be distributed unequally in any country. No political system has been able to mitigate this. What matters a lot more to me is not whether some people have more than others but are some people suffering unnecessarily. I care a lot more about annihilating poverty than annihilating income inequality. One of the most efficient ways to do this is through economic growth. Therefore the question become how to encourage economic growth? A free market system, with as much economic freedom as possible that incentivises the creation of new products and services that improve lives and provide more economic opportunity. The argument for low taxes is that allowing more people to keep more of their money rich and poor alike incentives this sort of growth. Rich people are the only ones who have the disposable income necessary to invest in those new products and services. The reason Bill Gates was able to get his business off the ground was that he had rich people willing to invest in him. Guess what his bright idea was worth without their support. Gunk. And now he has contributed to creating millions of jobs both directly and indirectly and his technology has saved countless hours of human life and made life a bit easier for everyone on Earth. To distill the argument in favour of making markets as free as possible down to disregard for the poor as opposed to sympathy for the poor is low resolution thinking.

Healthcare: I don’t view healthcare as a right. I view it as a commodity because that’s what it is. Healthcare only exists as the product of labour. Rights are about you having the freedom to do as you wish to the extent that you don’t interfere with anybody else’s freedom to do the same. A right to healthcare creates an responsibility on the government to provide a commodity and on healthcare providers to provide that commodity at a price dictated to them by the government. Now that’s fair enough, some countries have chosen to do that, many countries have chosen to half do that, under the misguided notion that universality of coverage must be pursued at all costs. Some people cannot get healthcare and therefore the government must step in to fill the gap. Well as you get closer to universality, those costs pile up. Now let’s get one thing clear: the private industry will inevitably beat the government in quality. The profit incentive is what is responsible for the creation of new drugs and procedures. Nationalise healthcare and you get rid of that. There’s a reason so many Europeans will travel to the United States to get care unavailable in other parts of the world. Another way nationalisation impacts quality of care is that it disincentivizes people who are capable of becoming doctors from becoming doctors. Doctoring is hard. It takes about 1000 years to become one and you work extreme hours you’re entire life. Some people will want to do that no matter what but many will not do it if the compensation is not good enough which it isn’t in a fully public system. Doctors of less quality then must be imported from abroad. When it comes to affordability, what leads the private sector to fail is government interference. Whenever the public healthcare system is expanded to cover more people, private insurance premiums increase because the market has been artificially shrunk and the price of medical care must rise in order to make it profitable. That’s why every minor incursion by the government into the free market in healthcare supposedly intended to “pick up those left behind” is actually designed to gradually further the goal driving private healthcare out of the market entirely. A more private system would increase affordability as more buyers in the market means that companies have to compete more with each other in order to gain customers. The main way they do this is by lowering price. Yes inevitably a small minority of people may be left without access to healthcare but the best option to help these people is private charity or private co-ops such as exist across America in various churches and communities designed to help people who are impoverished.

Environment: I believe that climate change exists and that it is most certainly human caused. It’s caused by carbon emissions mostly from developing nations. I don’t believe that the benefits to the environment of dismantling entire industries (that in many cases are the only way to develop poor countries) and switching to renewable energy the world over is worth the cost, both economic and human. Rather I’d prefer to focus on mitigating the effects of climate change. Geo-engineering, sea walls, carbon recapture technology and yes natural gas and nuclear energy both of which are responsible for the biggest reductions in carbon emissions we have seen. Also one of these days, some genius is going to figure out how to do nuclear fusion at which point we will have plentiful and affordable and clean energy from here to eternity.

General status of women and minorities: You’ll have to specify what specific grievances you’re talking about. If you’re talking about black people supposedly being shot for no reason and put in jail for no reason, multiple studies have shown that this is a myth. Black people are policed in precisely the proportions that are committing crimes which happens to be much more than white people. That’s not the fault of the police. Neither are they more likely to be shot. Some studies have shown a black man is less likely to be shot than a white person because police officers are actually afraid of the inevitable blow back of being a police officer who kills a black person. Cases of racist policing have occurred but they are the exception rather than the rule. With women if you’re talking about the gender pay gap, I don’t give a fig about it. It is true that men on average make more money than women on average. Many factors go into considering how much a person will be paid such as job choice, hours worked, age. Sex is generally not of these. But there is a causal relationship between sex and those other factors that results in the gap in income. Men on average have elected to enter fields that are more scalable, more profitable and are more dangerous all of which lead to increased income. They also work more hours. The gender pay gap isn’t a result of sexism.

I hope I’ve covered it all.

MadYaker

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Fair enough, the thing about "more tests than the world combined" is obviously untrue.

It's still not clear if it's a lie though. A lie is when you intentionally speak a falsehood. The thing about Trump is that he routinely speaks in superlatives and exaggerated bombastic language in such an instinctive routine way that it's not always easy to tell when he's lying with malicious intent or just going overboard with the sales pitch that he sees every public speech as.

I agree he shouldn't say things that aren't true. I don't agree that it counts as a "lie" every time he does so.

These are exactly the same thing. The lengths people will go to to defend this worthless scumbag knows no bounds and it blows my mind. What did Trump ever do to deserve this special treatment?

Sean.3516

MadYaker wrote: »

These are exactly the same thing. The lengths people will go to to defend this worthless scumbag knows no bounds and it blows my mind. What did Trump ever do to deserve this special treatment?

It’s not about giving the man special treatment. It’s about treating what he says with the correct level of seriousness given the context. Everybody understands that when Trump speaks off the cuff like this, dude talks a lot of crap. None of us like it but it’s the reality. The general rule with Trump should be to take his actual policies seriously and his speeches seriously but when he’s just riffing in the press conference, we know what’s going on because we’ve been watching it for four years.

And to those that say “but we can’t NOOOORMALISE this sort of behaviour in a US president by not taking him seriously”, you’re whistling past the graveyard.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Sadly, those on the Left only hear what they want to hear, and disregard the rest, when it comes to Trump.

In a way you're right. What I want to hear is nothing, so I've stopped listening to him.

I've never heard him say something that was actually worth listening to. I'd much prefer if they people who fed him the policy ideas would come out and talk.

I feel Trump is an empty vessel that people put their own prejudices into. To quote the man himself "on both sides, great people on both sides".

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

Let’s be real. We need to make room for the verbal slip-ups by candidates who are dealing with trying to safeguard the country both medically and economically from a global pandemic that threatens the nation, giving daily briefings, dealing with a relentless biased media, or running the nation and dealing with international affairs, or barnstorming around the country giving public speeches. But Joe Biden clearly is not well. He obviously is suffering from visibly diminished mental capacities. Anyone not wearing rose colored glasses can see that.

I understand politics and the need to never show any level of weakness. But the democrats and their media handmaidens are doing the nation and its citizens a disservice by running Biden at the top of their ticket. We need a strong leader and commander-in-chief. Biden has become a hostage of the unfortunate consequences involved with advancing age. If, god forbid, Joe would win the presidency we know our country would actually be run by others in the background. Trump recently said if Biden is elected, “They are going to put him in a home and other people are going to be running the country.” Crass and crude but pointedly on target.

Let’s be truthful here… If republicans ran someone with the diminished capacity level of Biden he would be savaged, non-stop, by the media.

This is laughable, if Biden said about 10% of things Trump has said you would be calling to commit him. The latest genius comment from your great leader, lets inject people with disinfectant and it will clean out the lungs. This is something a 5 year old would say and you would have correct them and tell them you cant do that and yet you attack Biden. Have a look at your own dear leader and tell us he is not a dumbass

Wanderer78

Brian? wrote:

In a way you're right. Want I want to hear is nothing, so I've stopped listening to him.

Why would anyone want to listen to him, he has nothing intelligent to say, never has, can't understand why people do listen to him

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

Sadly, those on the Left only hear what they want to hear, and disregard the rest, when it comes to Trump.

I am sure the irony of this post will be lost on this particular poster

randomname2005

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why be so dramatic? He's surrounded by experts in the relevant stats and speaking to millions of people who are a Google search away from the stats too. Yet you believe he's gonna try and lie and see if nobody notices.

Yes, he is the equivalent of a con artist salesman, who will say anything to make a sale/convince you of something.

As an example:

He and his staff were surrounded by experts in weather systems and forecasting, and a Google search away from weather details and an accurate and complete map. However, he tweeted that Alabama was going to get hit harder than expected, and when corrected, he doubled down on it. And then a weather map he was holding had a sharpie extension added to a weather front[1]. And when it was confirmed that it was a black sharpie, the media were criticized for wondering why a black sharpie was used to amend a weather map[1].

So yes, I believe he will try and lie and see if nobody notices, hoping that many of his supporters only look at what he says, and not at any actual facts, statistics or science.

Didn't he also claim that his inauguration numbers were the biggest (which he later admitted were wrong, for once admitting a mistake), but hoping that nobody would notice.

I believe he has also claimed that he had the best performing stock market of any president, but comparing the first 36 months of his term against Obama's (impact of COVID), his relative performance was rarely better than Obama's on a month-to-month comparison [2]. Granted the values were higher, following the upward trend Obama started, but the relative performance was worse.

There are records going back many many years, examples listed in [3] where he made false claims and lied, probably in the hope that nobody would check.

Given his wonderful business acumen, and how he built a fortune after Wharton, I am sure he would be surrounded by experts in tax and finance, and a Google search away from checking. However, he continued to state that he couldn't release his tax returns as they were under audit, hoping people would notice (They did and he was lying again).

See a pattern here about lying and hoping nobody notices? Or were they just mistakes because he was under pressure in front of the press? Or was he just being optimistic like when he said that the 15 cases would go to zero? And if it is a mistake why does he keep doubling down and not admit it? Most likely he just makes up crap and hopes that nobody notices.

Oh and let me preempt my feigned shock here when people start complaining that my sources are left liberal fake news.

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/map-flap-trump-displays-altered-weather-map-showing/story?id=65384094
[2] https://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Business_career

Timberrrrrrrr

kilns wrote: »

I am sure the irony of this post will be lost on this particular poster

I wonder does he watch Trumps presser and think to himself "ah shìte, how the hell am I supposed to put a positive spin on that?"

Silentcorner

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Competence and buffoonery are not mutually exclusive.


Yes, I’m sure if you read the manifesto of any Republican candidate they’ll describe their policies in those exact terms.

Or perhaps it’s a bit more complicated than that. They simply disagree with you on the best way to promote economic growth and make good quality healthcare affordable and the feasibility of different ways to deal with climate change.

Or maybe you’re right and they’re all basically fascists.

You must remember, articulating any kind of conservative position these days immediately renders you a homophobe, or transphobe, or sexist/misogynist, racist, fascist or a memeber of the basket of deplorables....and if you were elected to that position, probably a Russian agent.

It's like the old days where you could be stoned for blasphemy.....

Calling Conservative Americans as fascists is ridiculous....they are the least fascist people on this planet.

amdublin

Silentcorner wrote: »

You must remember, articulating any kind of conservative position these days immediately renders you a homophobe, or transphobe, or sexist/misogynist, racist, fascist or a memeber of the basket of deplorables....and if you were elected to that position, probably a Russian agent.

It's like the old days where you could be stoned for blasphemy.....

Calling Conservative Americans as fascists is ridiculous....they are the least fascist people on this planet.

I disagree. A conservative position is one thing. A homophobic position (as an example) is another.

Unfortunately some people who actually are saying something racist or xenophobic or homophobic dress it up as "What, I'm not allowed have a conservative view now?"

MeMen2_MoRi_

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-coronavirus-disinfectant-injection-dettol-response-uk-a9481786.html

Disinfectant companies tell people not to listen to the POTUS.

Silentcorner

amdublin wrote: »

I disagree. A conservative position is one thing. A homophobic position (as an example) is another.

Unfortunately some people who actually are saying something racist or xenophobic or homophobic dress it up as "What, I'm not allowed have a conservative view now?"

But who gets to decide that...

If a person objects to gay marriage is that homophobic?

If a person even mentions that there are clear gender differences does that make him a misogynist?

If a person says that immigration can be problematic unless tightly regulated does that make him racist.

If a person states they do not believe there are 100 genders and our children should be given the opportunity of choosing whatever they fancy, does that make them transphobic?

Wanderer78

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-coronavirus-disinfectant-injection-dettol-response-uk-a9481786.html

Disinfectant companies tell people not to listen to the POTUS.

he really is as thick as anything

Sean.3516

amdublin wrote: »

Unfortunately some people who actually are saying something racist or xenophobic or homophobic dress it up as "What, I'm not allowed have a conservative view now?"

Could you give an example?

kilns

Don’t expect to hear from notobuse today as yesterday’s comments are probably the dumbest and most irresponsible to come from the White House ever. They can’t be defended because some of his followers are that stupid they will try anything he suggests

MeMen2_MoRi_

Wanderer78 wrote: »

he really is as thick as anything

I'm sure there'll be a few along to tell us he didn't mean what he said..

notobtuse

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-coronavirus-disinfectant-injection-dettol-response-uk-a9481786.html

Disinfectant companies tell people not to listen to the POTUS.

So Trump suggested it would be “interesting to check” whether a disinfectant injection could help combat coronavirus, and said researchers were looking at the effects of disinfectants on Covid-19.

And the headline from the Independent is…
‘Under no circumstances administer into human body’: Dettol tells people not to follow Trump’s ‘dangerous’ recommendation.

Huh?

The job of the president is to report and provide optimism. If something might show potential promise, and is being researched, why not pass that information on? So this media entity thinks the president saying something would be interesting to check on and that researchers were already looking at it, is the same as a recommendation? I DON’T THINK SO! Perhaps Dettol should come up with some type of disinfectant to eliminate Trump Derangement Syndrome that this news site could use.

notobtuse

Silentcorner wrote: »

But who gets to decide that...

If a person objects to gay marriage is that homophobic?

If a person even mentions that there are clear gender differences does that make him a misogynist?

If a person says that immigration can be problematic unless tightly regulated does that make him racist.

If a person states they do not believe there are 100 genders and our children should be given the opportunity of choosing whatever they fancy, does that make them transphobic?

Didn't you know ANYTHING not fitting into the Leftist lexicon is classified as either racist, homophobic or xenophobic.

MeMen2_MoRi_

notobtuse wrote: »

So Trump suggested it would be “interesting to check” whether a disinfectant injection could help combat coronavirus, and said researchers were looking at the effects of disinfectants on Covid-19.

And the headline from the Independent is…
‘Under no circumstances administer into human body’: Dettol tells people not to follow Trump’s ‘dangerous’ recommendation.

Huh?

The job of the president is to report and provide optimism. If something might show potential promise, and is being researched, why not pass that information on? So this media entity thinks the president saying something would be interesting to check on and that researchers were already looking at it, is the same as a recommendation? I DON’T THINK SO! Perhaps Dettol should come up with some type of disinfectant to eliminate Trump Derangement Syndrome that this news site could use.

The guy from the intelligence science Division clarified what was meant, poor Donny took the whole thing up wrong and talked out his backside, yet again.

Watch the video, Donny boy is looking for reassurance from the guy, he keeps his mouth shut around injecting that into the body.. when he gets up to the podium he clears things up by saying the disinfectant is for SURFACES and NOT INJECTING IT INTO THE BODY.

Edit https://www.c-span.org/video/?471458-1/president-trump-coronavirus-task-force-briefing&live&vod&start=1608

20:26 and 30:56..

30:56... "We don't do that in our labs" translation.. they ain't injecting disinfectant into anything for "testing"..

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

So Trump suggested it would be “interesting to check” whether a disinfectant injection could help combat coronavirus, and said researchers were looking at the effects of disinfectants on Covid-19.

And the headline from the Independent is…
‘Under no circumstances administer into human body’: Dettol tells people not to follow Trump’s ‘dangerous’ recommendation.

Huh?

The job of the president is to report and provide optimism. If something might show potential promise, and is being researched, why not pass that information on? So this media entity thinks the president saying something would be interesting to check on and that researchers were already looking at it, is the same as a recommendation? I DON’T THINK SO! Perhaps Dettol should come up with some type of disinfectant to eliminate Trump Derangement Syndrome that this news site could use.

The job of the president is to report and provide realism

Ftfy

MeMen2_MoRi_

duploelabs wrote: »

The job of the president is to report and provide realism

Ftfy

Optimism is good, but giving out information that'll kill people.. uhmmm yeah I'm lost.

notobtuse

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

The guy from the intelligence science Division clarified what was meant, poor Donny took the whole thing up wrong and talked out his backside, yet again.

Watch the video, Donny boy is looking for reassurance from the guy, he keeps his mouth shut around injecting that into the body.. when he gets up to the podium he clears things up by saying the disinfectant is for SURFACES and NOT INJECTING IT INTO THE BODY.

Edit https://www.c-span.org/video/?471458-1/president-trump-coronavirus-task-force-briefing&live&vod&start=1608

20:26 and 30:56..

30:56... "We don't do that in our labs" translation.. they ain't injecting disinfectant into anything for "testing"..

I saw the briefing. Trump, many times, kept asking the science team if he was right in what he was saying on a number of things. If he was speaking incorrectly on a subject you think the team would tell him when he asked, and not have to correct it later.

notobtuse

Seems democrat party leaders behind the scene are finally figuring out Joe Biden is unfit to serve by any and every measure. So in the meantime, until they can figure out what the hell they're going to do, they’ve come up with a brilliant strategy to deal with his disastrous national media appearances – AVOID THEM!

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

I saw the briefing. Trump, many times, kept asking the science team if he was right in what he was saying on a number of things. If he was speaking incorrectly on a subject you think the team would tell him when he asked, and not have to correct it later.

why is he even saying such nonsense without running it by his science advisors first? The reason is that trump thinks he is smarter than everyone else. he continually proves he has the mental capacity of a child.

Carfacemandog

notobtuse wrote: »

I saw the briefing. Trump, many times, kept asking the science team if he was right in what he was saying on a number of things. If he was speaking incorrectly on a subject you think the team would tell him when he asked, and not have to correct it later.

Why would Trump surround himself with such dangerously incompetent people? Wasn't he only going to hire 'the best people'?

ohnonotgmail

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Why would Trump surround himself with such dangerously incompetent people? Wasn't he only going to hire 'the best people'?

sycophants are rarely the best people. Trump only hires sycophants