US Presidential Election 2020

Stormington wrote: »

It is an observation. Based on a number of interviews and media activity over a number of months. Others have suggested it to me, based on his patterns of speech and behaviour that is similar to their family members that have or had dementia. And one swallow does not a summer make.

Trump supporters don't seem to care about anything he says or does. Seals, camera, reporter, grabbing women, covfefe, the prejudices, his Obama complex, the reaction to the race riots, questions over his mental faculties. It appears as if they don't care. Just like in the last election. That too is an observation based on patterns of behaviour.

I think Biden was not the best choice available to the Dems but that is irrelevant. As of now, I am more confident of Trump winning that I am of Biden winning.

What do you think of this article

I’m a brain specialist. I think Trump should be tested for a degenerative brain disease.

..............

In turning my attention to the president, I see worrisome symptoms that fall into three main categories: problems with language and executive function; problems with social cognition and behavior; and problems with memory, attention, and concentration.

moon2 wrote: »

At least your biases are clear Biden is so clearly operating at an intellectual level far above Trumps, yet you dismiss him with fake medical claims. Why is that?

I don't have a bias to either candidate. I think they're both racist, Trump is sexist to boot, neither will be as healthy physically or mentally as they were 20 years ago and both have contributed to rob the middle and lower classes in the US and people around the world. Whichever septuagenarian wins will have to manage an absolute mess.

I'm not sure Biden is that far above Trump intellectually. I thought Biden was initially until I read about his academic past. I suspect Trump is more cunning (using the virus to deter voters) and a smarter wheeler-dealer overall.

I think you'll find that despite being hit badly weeks before America, Europe has done, and continues to do, significantly better than the US why are you misrepresenting Europe's response?

Europe's response was better than the US. Eventually. Initially it was haphazard as countries were caught completely unprepared. The Czechs contributions have been under-rated so far.
The ongoing response has not been helped by the rush to generate money to keep economies going. Compare our government response and the recent Croatian responses to spikes in numbers reported.

Also - Obama would not have been unprepared. He was preparing for exactly this eventuality. So why are you misrepresenting the work previous American presidents did to protect the US from a global pandemic?

Reread the totality of what was said to understand the context. Dismantling what Obama built up as a exercise in ego was a bad move. Based on the European complacency, any other US president may have been caught flat-footed. The follow up approach would likely have been different.

No, they wont. Any attempt to colonise another planet will require massive support from earth for centuries. The fact that we cant maintain our own biosphere, which is perfectly tailored to our needs, suggests that the likelihood of survival in a far more hostile environment is slim.

If Bezos and Musk were serious theyd be spending that money on stabilising the environment at home and building a foundation for future expansion rather than indulging in fantasies.

Bezos may be able to afford it on his own. Was it Oxfam that said if you saved 10k per day since the pyramids were built you're wealth wouldn't touch the top 5 richest people alive now?

The biosphere collapse can also be used as an argument to hasten space exploration before it becomes too late (if it already isn't). The rush for mineral wealth will be used to justify it.

There was an author met a small group of billionaires asking what the future held. Their plans revolved around how to hide away and keep their stuff safe. His advise was to fix things so they didn't need to leave. Hopefully that will get more support.

Tell me how wrote: »

What do you think of this article

He makes salient observations. Trump's health should be tested. Any candidate should have their mental and physical faculties tested. They need to be able to handle the constant stresses of the job when the job they are seeking has the possibility to annihilate life on the planet.

Stormington wrote: »

Europe's response was better than the US. Eventually. Initially it was haphazard as countries were caught completely unprepared. The Czechs contributions have been under-rated so far.
The ongoing response has not been helped by the rush to generate money to keep economies going. Compare our government response and the recent Croatian responses to spikes in numbers reported.


Reread the totality of what was said to understand the context. Dismantling what Obama built up as a exercise in ego was a bad move. Based on the European complacency, any other US president may have been caught flat-footed. The follow up approach would likely have been different

This is where you've lost me.

You're agreeing that even though the EU had an initially haphazard approach (for many reasons - most notably because it had to be handled on a per-government basis and also Europe was hit before the US) it still had a better response to the US.

You agree that despite the recent surges it continues to be better than the US.

You agree that Obama made the correct precautionary moves to protect against this, and they Trump exacerbated the situation by dismantling that.

And yet you disagree and say Trump did as good a job as anyone could be expected to?

I'm also a little confused about how Europe, with it's better overall handling of the virus, somehow made the US response *worse*. If you review the totality of the US response to covid I think you'll draw a radically different conclusion on those last two points. Trump spent months denying the severity of covid and had battled against most measures to prevent the spread - including trying to *reduce* testing.

Stormington wrote: »

He has something to hide. It is hypocritical that he's hiding that and his taxes but demanded Obama's birth cert. That is one of the signs he is more cunning than Biden.

Cunning?

Really?

You're going with "cunning"?

He's a coward, a bully and a hypocrite.

More of the same BS. " I don't like Trump but Biden...." blah blah blah

Nothing but false equivalency.

Stormington wrote: »

He has something to hide. It is hypocritical that he's hiding that and his taxes but demanded Obama's birth cert. That is one of the signs he is more cunning than Biden.

Is cunning a euphemism for being a liar?

moon2 wrote: »

This is where you've lost me.

You're agreeing that even though the EU had an initially haphazard approach (for many reasons - most notably because it had to be handled on a per-government basis and also Europe was hit before the US) it still had a better response to the US.

You agree that despite the recent surges it continues to be better than the US.

You agree that Obama made the correct precautionary moves to protect against this, and they Trump exacerbated the situation by dismantling that.

And yet you disagree and say Trump did as good a job as anyone could be expected to?

I'm also a little confused about how Europe, with it's better overall handling of the virus, somehow made the US response *worse*. If you review the totality of the US response to covid I think you'll draw a radically different conclusion on those last two points. Trump spent months denying the severity of covid and had battled against most measures to prevent the spread - including trying to *reduce* testing.

Yes, yes and yes.

Allow me to clarify: even if he had let the disease centre be, Trump's reaction would have been the same. I suspect that anyone else as President would have been caught out initially by how fast it spread and how dangerous it is. I think there was no way to stop it reaching the US. The slow initial reaction by Europe to the seriousness of the outbreaks lulled a number of countries into complacency - we allowed flights from the epicenter in Northern Italy to fly into Dublin for an abandoned rugby game. The US followed suit.

The subsequent reaction to the virus would have been different (reduced infection/mortality rate) but with vastly different economic consequences (greater job losses and business collapses along with greater supply chain/food insecurity). Trump chose to reduce the economic impact. He preserved the economy and his ego at the expense of allowing the virus to spread and kill 175k people. He might even see it as a tool to reduce the number of Biden voters.

Thankfully some state governors have stepped up to the plate to reduce the impact. Wisconsin's was one that eventually locked the state down after a court ruling ordered him not to. Co-ordination with a different president would likely have been better.

Europe's response has not been good overall. Like the US free movement was allowed for too long and there was inadequate medical supplies despite pre-pandemic reports suggesting Europe was ready for an outbreak (Ireland's influenza pandemic plans are dated 2007). Eastern Europe was spared the worst of it due to its lower levels of airline connectivity and its NATO members biological warfare training, making Europe's response appear better overall.

Ireland's haphazard lockdowns, reopening of borders and green lists are not helpful. Turkey has been more successful in reducing the spread of covid but is not on the green list while Spain, Italy and Greece are. And we are allowing flights from Texas while New York does not. Our government are just less blatant about making money and throwing people under the bus than the US.

Comparing the reactions is like comparing the Chinese and US responses to aid requests. The Chinese sent sub-par equipment at extortionate prices made in factories repurposed thanks to tax breaks by unqualified workers that been churning out plastic toys days before while the US told everyone to fend for themselves while requisitioning a plane full of medicine at gunpoint from an airstrip in Thailand that was already paid for by Germany.

Stormington wrote: »

Yes, yes and yes.

Allow me to clarify: even if he had let the disease centre be, Trump's reaction would have been the same. I suspect that anyone else as President would have been caught out initially by how fast it spread and how dangerous it is. I think there was no way to stop it reaching the US. The slow initial reaction by Europe to the seriousness of the outbreaks lulled a number of countries into complacency - we allowed flights from the epicenter in Northern Italy to fly into Dublin for an abandoned rugby game. The US followed suit.

The subsequent reaction to the virus would have been different (reduced infection/mortality rate) but with vastly different economic consequences (greater job losses and business collapses along with greater supply chain/food insecurity). Trump chose to reduce the economic impact. He preserved the economy and his ego at the expense of allowing the virus to spread and kill 175k people. He might even see it as a tool to reduce the number of Biden voters.

Thankfully some state governors have stepped up to the plate to reduce the impact. Wisconsin's was one that eventually locked the state down after a court ruling ordered him not to. Co-ordination with a different president would likely have been better.

Europe's response has not been good overall. Like the US free movement was allowed for too long and there was inadequate medical supplies despite pre-pandemic reports suggesting Europe was ready for an outbreak (Ireland's influenza pandemic plans are dated 2007). Eastern Europe was spared the worst of it due to its lower levels of airline connectivity and its NATO members biological warfare training, making Europe's response appear better overall.

Ireland's haphazard lockdowns, reopening of borders and green lists are not helpful. Turkey has been more successful in reducing the spread of covid but is not on the green list while Spain, Italy and Greece are. And we are allowing flights from Texas while New York does not. Our government are just less blatant about making money and throwing people under the bus than the US.

Comparing the reactions is like comparing the Chinese and US responses to aid requests. The Chinese sent sub-par equipment at extortionate prices made in factories repurposed thanks to tax breaks by unqualified workers that been churning out plastic toys days before while the US told everyone to fend for themselves while requisitioning a plane full of medicine at gunpoint from an airstrip in Thailand that was already paid for by Germany.

All due respect, this is nonsense.

A democratic president would not have asked people to inject bleach.

A democratic president would not have sidelined scientists.

A democratic president would not downplayed the seriousness.

A democratic president would not have made it a political issue.

A democratic president would not have put the economy over people's health.

It's the same pro-Trump strategy of debating.

Say Trump's actions were bad, as if to admit Trump's flaws adds credibility, but then go on to say that other people would be as bad or worse.

It's transparent, monotonous and it's ineffective.

It's the same pro-Trump strategy of debating.

I like how you insinuate I'm pro-Trump.
I think he will win against Biden.
That doesn't mean I like him or want him to win.

A democratic president would not have asked people to inject bleach.

A democratic president would not have sidelined scientists.

A democratic president would not downplayed the seriousness.

A democratic president would not have made it a political issue.

It's the same pro-Trump strategy of debating.

A democratic president would have reacted just as slowly initially.
After that, the above would not have been issues.

A democratic president would not have put the economy over people's health

Ultimately if pressed a democratic president would have placed the economy over people's lives. But they would have been less blase about exposing people to danger.

Stormington wrote: »

I like how you insinuate I'm pro-Trump.
I think he will win against Biden.
That doesn't mean I like him or want him to win.


A democratic president would have reacted just as slowly initially.
After that, the above would not have been issues.


Ultimately if pressed a democratic president would have placed the economy over people's lives. But they would have been less blase about exposing people to danger.

Well it’s hardly an unreasonable opinion. You take issue with trump while saying that other countries were as bad with COVID-19. Yes, many countries were caught on the hop but the difference between the vast majority of countries is they pivoted and got a handle on it.

You take issue with trump while saying that other countries were as bad with COVID-19.

Someone brought up the US handling of Covid and I wanted to point Europe was not as bad as Trump's handing of it. Not good by any means, but not as bad. And we're not out of the woods yet. I suspect there will be another large lockdown later in the year.

It's quite easy to be dismissive of him, and I thought he would not survive the first term. I think that is dangerous - he's smarter than I gave him credit for initially and it would be wise not to underestimate him and the tricks he'll pull (postal votes, gerrymandering, felony non-voters, voting booths in small buildings).

I also started my contribution it by saying the odds on Trump were quite high. My thinking is if you don't like the result, you can soften the blow by betting on the outcome and making a few quid.

Rjd2 wrote: »

Recorded isn't he?

Bush the war criminal not been their does Trump no harm whatsoever tbf, I assume he will endorse a few GOP people he likes until November and stay quiet on Trump.

Well he has travel plans in Kentucky apparently so won’t be a part of it. To me that sounds like he won’t be involved at all, recorded or otherwise. Well for better or worse bush 43 is from the old school GOP and them not being anywhere near it does show the divide between the GOP and trumps party(its different imo) which isn’t good.

everlast75 wrote: »

*This* is the line up for Trump's convention.

Think I may give it a miss.

At least Melania has new material to plagiarize, Michelle Obama gave a nice speech.

As for the attendees, I'm liking "If you ain't indicted, you ain't invited. RNC 2020"