|
|
Post by jsquare on May 22, 2024 20:43:43 GMT -5
How would you know that? What Trump economic policies are you talking about? Are you saying that the economy wasn’t solid or better than before during he first three years of Trump in office? I'm saying you can't come up with a single Trump policy that improved the US economy. All that he did was to provide big tax cuts to the rich and add massively to the debt. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 23, 2024 5:22:37 GMT -5
FWIW, the outcome from COVID under a Hilary Clinton presidency probably would have been about the same. Maybe less buffoonish and offensive but still probably a million plus dead, give or take a couple hundred thousand. Maybe worse, because I could easily see red state governors outright refuse to take any measures in March and April 2020, not to mention what would likely have been a GOP-controlled house and Senate. I think the US would have been hit hard by COVID no matter who was President. Having said that, Trump's reaction to COVID was poor and he did make things worse, especially long-term. T Gap's post in this thread was inflammatory, but did contain numerous details that should be remembered when evaluating Trump's performance on this subject. You have no basis for saying Hillary would have done about the same. In fact, given that she has always been a policy wonk, there is substantial reason to believe she would have reacted in a more forceful manner to contain the pandemic. It is especially outrageous that you claim she might have done worse because of the expected opposition of red state governors to her. Wouldn't such a development be on them and not her? It's like saying "We can't have Hillary in charge, because the flat-Earthers will never get along with her." |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 23, 2024 5:29:34 GMT -5
That is entirely your opinion. You can't deny that Trump's response to COVID was disastrous. Trump’s (and other government official’s) response to covid is not the point. I get that you have a need to decry Trump at every turn (there should be a name for that), but there was no dip in the economy, as far as I remember, pre-covid. That’s thought for you and others to admit so you hastily point to the economy under Biden or protest that he inherited a solid economy from Obama. Fact is the economy continued to excel when Trump was in office, for the first three years. The point? You mean "my point". You opened that door for jsquare's commentary by using COVID as an excuse for the economic picture being poor at the end of Trump's term. All Presidents have to deal with external events that are unfortunate. How those events are handled say a lot about how worthy that person is to hold the job. Trying to give an evaluation of Trump by only considering the good stuff is simply not logical. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 23, 2024 5:50:21 GMT -5
Well that was quite the diatribe of 'vark's, is it Festivus already? I do wonder which "Red States" have more violent crime than Illinois, California, or even Minnesota. I also wonder if the crime in those "Red States" happen in "Blue cities" And I do wonder which "airwaves" the GOP dominate. I do appreciate 'vark supporting some of the points that I made though. (s)he should probably talk directly to his choir (square/gaps) rather than his imaginary unconverted on those points. Diatribe? It is defined as a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something. I don't think my tone matched that. Wikipedia has a "List of U.S. states and territories by violent crime rate". It shows a chart based on FBI statistics from 2022. Among states, the top ten worst ones were: 1) New Mexico, 2) Alaska, 3) Arkansas, 4) Louisiana, 5) Tennessee, 6) California, 7) Colorado, 8) South Carolina, 9) Missouri, 10) Michigan. Illinois checks in at at #30 and Minnesota at #33. I can't help you with your wonder about blue cities in red states, other than to point out that there is often significant conflict between red state level government with blue city level government that certainly impedes results. Don't get stuck on the word airwaves. In lengthy posts, I try to vary my wordage to avoid sounding repetitive. The rightwing echo chamber is a lot of interconnected websites (example: Uncle Sam's Misguided Children), local station networks (example: Sinclair), and a few main media outlets (example: Faux News). In many areas of the country, they have a virtual monopoly with their messaging. (EDIT) Oops!. I was working my way down this thread and posted that, and then next read Volleyguy's posting of the exact same source. My bad. (EDIT #2): This duplication just proves how easy it is to Google up the story on something. People should try it more often. Now I'm going to go back to moping that Volleyguy beat me to the punch. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 23, 2024 5:50:23 GMT -5
FWIW, the outcome from COVID under a Hilary Clinton presidency probably would have been about the same. Maybe less buffoonish and offensive but still probably a million plus dead, give or take a couple hundred thousand. Maybe worse, because I could easily see red state governors outright refuse to take any measures in March and April 2020, not to mention what would likely have been a GOP-controlled house and Senate. I think the US would have been hit hard by COVID no matter who was President. Yes that's my point. The in outcome would have been bad under HRC, too. Sure I do. She's unpopular and an incompetent politician. Albeit in different ways that Trump. It's not outrageous at all. Republican governors were actually pretty good for the first month or two of COVID (certainly compared to summer 2020 onward). They followed the CDC's lead on closing businesses, limiting travel, etc. It's very easy to imagine a scenario where they flat out refuse to cooperate because not only a Democrat would there be a dem in the white house, it would have been *Hilary Clinton.* Same goes for Congress. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 23, 2024 6:10:56 GMT -5
I think the US would have been hit hard by COVID no matter who was President. Yes that's my point. The in outcome would have been bad under HRC, too. Sure I do. She's unpopular and an incompetent politician. Albeit in different ways that Trump. It's not outrageous at all. Republican governors were actually pretty good for the first month or two of COVID (certainly compared to summer 2020 onward). They followed the CDC's lead on closing businesses, limiting travel, etc. It's very easy to imagine a scenario where they flat out refuse to cooperate because not only a Democrat would there be a dem in the white house, it would have been *Hilary Clinton.* Same goes for Congress. Hillary was very competent in regards to policy. Most of her unpopularity stemmed from the misogyny of the long-term rightwing whisper campaign against her. Read Wikipedia's fact-based bio and compare to your opinion. Your easy to imagine scenario should not be used to say Hillary would have done worse, because such a poor reaction to her leadership by conservatives should be entirely placed on their shoulders. Instead, you could say "Republican reaction under Hillary might well have been worse". That puts the onus for the poor performance where it belongs - on the people doing it. |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on May 23, 2024 6:24:10 GMT -5
Yes that's my point. The in outcome would have been bad under HRC, too. Sure I do. She's unpopular and an incompetent politician. Albeit in different ways that Trump. It's not outrageous at all. Republican governors were actually pretty good for the first month or two of COVID (certainly compared to summer 2020 onward). They followed the CDC's lead on closing businesses, limiting travel, etc. It's very easy to imagine a scenario where they flat out refuse to cooperate because not only a Democrat would there be a dem in the white house, it would have been *Hilary Clinton.* Same goes for Congress. Hillary was very competent in regards to policy. Policy isn't governing and it certainly isn't politics. Taken together, these two statements put the blame for Clinton's (actual) unpopularity and her (hypothetical) worse performance than Trump during COVID on people not named Hillary Clinton. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 23, 2024 6:51:09 GMT -5
Politics. The activities associated with governance, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties seeking to achieve power.
Policy. A course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.
So policy is coming up with a plan to address some problem, as part of governance. This is in Hillary's alley. Trump is more of a playing politics guy. But in the end, when problems happen, you either have to fix them (Hillary) or let them fester while you hug the spotlight making excuses (Trump).
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 23, 2024 7:00:47 GMT -5
I think the US would have been hit hard by COVID no matter who was President. Yes that's my point. The in outcome would have been bad under HRC, too. Sure I do. She's unpopular and an incompetent politician. Albeit in different ways that Trump. It's not outrageous at all. Republican governors were actually pretty good for the first month or two of COVID (certainly compared to summer 2020 onward). They followed the CDC's lead on closing businesses, limiting travel, etc. It's very easy to imagine a scenario where they flat out refuse to cooperate because not only a Democrat would there be a dem in the white house, it would have been *Hilary Clinton.* Same goes for Congress. We get it. You don’t like Hillary. But otherwise, your argument about how different or the same the approaches would have been (as opposed to the outcomes) is pretty weak and speculatively biased. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on May 23, 2024 8:03:47 GMT -5
Well that was quite the diatribe of 'vark's, is it Festivus already? I do wonder which "Red States" have more violent crime than Illinois, California, or even Minnesota. I also wonder if the crime in those "Red States" happen in "Blue cities" And I do wonder which "airwaves" the GOP dominate. I do appreciate 'vark supporting some of the points that I made though. (s)he should probably talk directly to his choir (square/gaps) rather than his imaginary unconverted on those points. You should get out more, bro. List of United States cities by crime rate en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rateThanks for the data. |
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on May 23, 2024 8:26:34 GMT -5
You should use it to educate yourself. I doubt you will. |
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on May 23, 2024 8:29:18 GMT -5
I believe it was in this thread that Murican't refused to answer my question because he felt it was "off-topic." Just sayin. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on May 23, 2024 8:40:14 GMT -5
Well that was quite the diatribe of 'vark's, is it Festivus already? I do wonder which "Red States" have more violent crime than Illinois, California, or even Minnesota. I also wonder if the crime in those "Red States" happen in "Blue cities" And I do wonder which "airwaves" the GOP dominate. I do appreciate 'vark supporting some of the points that I made though. (s)he should probably talk directly to his choir (square/gaps) rather than his imaginary unconverted on those points. Diatribe? It is defined as a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something. I don't think my tone matched that. Wikipedia has a "List of U.S. states and territories by violent crime rate". It shows a chart based on FBI statistics from 2022. Among states, the top ten worst ones were: 1) New Mexico, 2) Alaska, 3) Arkansas, 4) Louisiana, 5) Tennessee, 6) California, 7) Colorado, 8) South Carolina, 9) Missouri, 10) Michigan. Illinois checks in at at #30 and Minnesota at #33. I can't help you with your wonder about blue cities in red states, other than to point out that there is often significant conflict between red state level government with blue city level government that certainly impedes results. Don't get stuck on the word airwaves. In lengthy posts, I try to vary my wordage to avoid sounding repetitive. The rightwing echo chamber is a lot of interconnected websites (example: Uncle Sam's Misguided Children), local station networks (example: Sinclair), and a few main media outlets (example: Faux News). In many areas of the country, they have a virtual monopoly with their messaging. (EDIT) Oops!. I was working my way down this thread and posted that, and then next read Volleyguy's posting of the exact same source. My bad. Again I appreciate you sharing the information even if it was a repeat. I'm not that stuck on the word "airwaves" but the notion that the Republicans have a "virtual monopoly" with their messaging still seems dubious to me. They have maybe two or three stations on television that regurgitate their message while the rest seem to lean in the opposite direction. Not sure how many of the main demographic of Republicans are on interconnected websites, but it could be more than I think. Your attempt to make them seem like The First Order squashing the Rebel Alliance doesn't ring true. imo |
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on May 23, 2024 8:42:14 GMT -5
Diatribe? It is defined as a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something. I don't think my tone matched that. Wikipedia has a "List of U.S. states and territories by violent crime rate". It shows a chart based on FBI statistics from 2022. Among states, the top ten worst ones were: 1) New Mexico, 2) Alaska, 3) Arkansas, 4) Louisiana, 5) Tennessee, 6) California, 7) Colorado, 8) South Carolina, 9) Missouri, 10) Michigan. Illinois checks in at at #30 and Minnesota at #33. I can't help you with your wonder about blue cities in red states, other than to point out that there is often significant conflict between red state level government with blue city level government that certainly impedes results. Don't get stuck on the word airwaves. In lengthy posts, I try to vary my wordage to avoid sounding repetitive. The rightwing echo chamber is a lot of interconnected websites (example: Uncle Sam's Misguided Children), local station networks (example: Sinclair), and a few main media outlets (example: Faux News). In many areas of the country, they have a virtual monopoly with their messaging. (EDIT) Oops!. I was working my way down this thread and posted that, and then next read Volleyguy's posting of the exact same source. My bad. Again I appreciate you sharing the information even if it was a repeat. I'm not that stuck on the word "airwaves" but the notion that the Republicans have a "virtual monopoly" with their messaging still seems dubious to me. They have maybe two or three stations on television that regurgitate their message while the rest seem to lean in the opposite direction. Not sure how many of the main demographic of Republicans are on interconnected websites, but it could be more than I think. Your attempt to make them seem like The First Order squashing the Rebel Alliance doesn't ring true. imo Tell us again which media outlet just paid close to a billion dollars for lying. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on May 23, 2024 8:50:59 GMT -5
Trump’s (and other government official’s) response to covid is not the point. I get that you have a need to decry Trump at every turn (there should be a name for that), but there was no dip in the economy, as far as I remember, pre-covid. That’s thought for you and others to admit so you hastily point to the economy under Biden or protest that he inherited a solid economy from Obama. Fact is the economy continued to excel when Trump was in office, for the first three years. The point? You mean "my point". You opened that door for jsquare's commentary by using COVID as an excuse for the economic picture being poor at the end of Trump's term. All Presidents have to deal with external events that are unfortunate. How those events are handled say a lot about how worthy that person is to hold the job. Trying to give an evaluation of Trump by only considering the good stuff is simply not logical. Excuse? Governments didn't shut businesses and schools down while locking us in our rooms because they thought we had the sniffles. The fear being peddled (not the best word to use but I'll use it ) was palpable and lead to decisions that affected economies worldwide. I'm not sure you could understate a worldwide pandemic more than you just did here. You may not remember but we experienced "unprecedented times" that no one was quite sure how to manage. Who's giving an evaluation of Trump (except for you, square gap and a couple of others on here)? A lot of people here are bending over backwards to disqualify any positives that might have happened during the Trump administration. Worse than being illogical, it seems to be some sort of derangement. |
|
