President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Jarid in Cedar]

Come on. The most important thing a president can do is show some leadership. Maybe not promote stupid anti-scientific nonsense and definitely not politicize or ridicule something as important as wearing masks. Trump is the worst kind of leader to have in a pandemic.

Yep. The anti - leader.

[Commando]

Come on. The most important thing a president can do is show some leadership. Maybe not promote stupid anti-scientific nonsense and definitely not politicize or ridicule something as important as wearing masks. Trump is the worst kind of leader to have in a pandemic.

Exactly. Does anybody believe it's just a wild coincidence that conservatives generally make up the bulk of anti-maskers? I know there are smatterings of anti-maskers in other countries like Germany, but absolutely nothing like what we have here. Why is that? Americans just dumber? It's almost as though he used a national crisis to galvanize his supporters in an 'us vs. them' scenario. He talks out of both sides of his mouth on the issue while never wearing a mask in public as though to wink to the anti-maskers, and pretty boldly STILL indicates that the pandemic is part of a scheme to make him look bad and there's nothing anybody could have done. If that were true I'd find it quite amazing how the virus can detect nationality before deciding to strike. Do we need to look at how the U.S. is doing compared to other countries, or are all countries so wildly different that there's no comparing any two countries' responses?

[cowboy]

But most of that is dependent on what governors do, not the President.

Yes and no. A pro-regulation platform stifles growth because so many industries and businesses are federally regulated on some level.

Come on. The most important thing a president can do is show some leadership. Maybe not promote stupid anti-scientific nonsense and definitely not politicize or ridicule something as important as wearing masks. Trump is the worst kind of leader to have in a pandemic.

I agree.

But while he's not shown good leadership, I don't think anyone would have prevented the pandemic or even saved many lives. I've been unimpressed with the leadership of most of our politicians.

[cowboy]

Exactly. Does anybody believe it's just a wild coincidence that conservatives generally make up the bulk of anti-maskers? I know there are smatterings of anti-maskers in other countries like Germany, but absolutely nothing like what we have here. Why is that? Americans just dumber? It's almost as though he used a national crisis to galvanize his supporters in an 'us vs. them' scenario. He talks out of both sides of his mouth on the issue while never wearing a mask in public as though to wink to the anti-maskers, and pretty boldly STILL indicates that the pandemic is part of a scheme to make him look bad and there's nothing anybody could have done. If that were true I'd find it quite amazing how the virus can detect nationality before deciding to strike. Do we need to look at how the U.S. is doing compared to other countries, or are all countries so wildly different that there's no comparing any two countries' responses?

You're giving Trump too much credit.

1) Most people are anti-mask because they either don't like wearing them or don't want to be told what to do. Those types of personalities break for Trump in the polls because they perceive him as being least likely to restrict their freedom (debatable, but I think that's their perception.) I doubt many people are anti-mask because they see Trump without one, but I could be wrong.

2) I don't know how the data break out, but I suspect infection rates and severity are much more a function of cultural behavior than political leanings. Adjusting for age, the hardest hit demographic in Montana and Wyoming is the Native American population, which is overwhelmingly Democrat. They are also very social, and generally paid little attention to mask-wearing until COVID started hitting the reservations pretty hard. From my anecdotal conversations with a close friend who sold me the place I own on the Crow Reservation, they're even now less likely to wear masks than most.

[Now who’s the dean?]

How has political discourse degenerated to this?

Says the Trump voter [emoji849]

[cowboy]

Says the Trump voter [emoji849]

Annnd just like that, you prove my point.

I've stated my voting record a number of times, and you are wrong.

[Northwestcoug]

Yes and no. A pro-regulation platform stifles growth because so many industries and businesses are federally regulated on some level.


I agree.

But while he's not shown good leadership, I don't think anyone would have prevented the pandemic or even saved many lives. I've been unimpressed with the leadership of most of our politicians.

We'll see what the trajectory shows in other nations this year and next. No doubt a lot of the pandemic wasn't preventable. But it isn't even close to being a stretch that Trump's inability to even resemble a competent leader has cost American lives. He minimized the pandemic at every opportunity until it was too late. He couldn't even stay on message for more than 2 weeks when he started floating the idea of returning to normal on Easter. He hyped (and still does!) an ineffective medicine, while continuously mocking proven social habits that decrease transmission by refusing mask wearing and promoting rallies. He has given less educated voters permission to believe and act as he does, and the virus has spread and killed people as a result. A proportion of those deaths were needless. And I'm no economist, but surely a competent leader could have minimized the economic pain of this country by just being somewhat competent.

Like someone said above, the best way to nurse the economy back to health is to aggressively fight the one thing that brought it to its heels in the first place; the pandemic. The implicit threat of 'more regulations' on the horizon if democrats win really is a red herring in the current state of abysmal federal leadership dealing with the virus.

[Now who’s the dean?]

Annnd just like that, you prove my point.

I've stated my voting record a number of times, and you are wrong.

You’re right. I reread your initial post and it didn’t say what I thought it did. Apologies.

[falafel]

You're giving Trump too much credit.

1) Most people are anti-mask because they either don't like wearing them or don't want to be told what to do. Those types of personalities break for Trump in the polls because they perceive him as being least likely to restrict their freedom (debatable, but I think that's their perception.) I doubt many people are anti-mask because they see Trump without one, but I could be wrong.

I agree with this.

[cowboy]

...And I'm no economist, but surely a competent leader could have minimized the economic pain of this country by just being somewhat competent.

Like someone said above, the best way to nurse the economy back to health is to aggressively fight the one thing that brought it to its heels in the first place; the pandemic...

It doesn't take an economist to see that what brought the economy "to its heels" is plunging personal consumption due to forced business closures and the layoffs from downstream effects. From a cost-benefit perspective, we would have been far better off economically if we'd taken Sweden's approach. Their GDP took a nosedive, but primarily because they are an export-oriented economy. Sweden's personal consumption comprises only 44% of their GDP and dropped less than 2% in Q2, while ours comprises 68% of our economy and dropped nearly 15% in Q2.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have shut things down for a while, or that shutdowns aren't still justified in areas where hospitals are nearing capacity, but extended mandatory business closures were unwarranted, and caused a lot of economic damage.

The implicit threat of 'more regulations' on the horizon if democrats win really is a red herring in the current state of abysmal federal leadership dealing with the virus.

No, it is not a red herring. The primary negative economic effect of the virus is a function of extended shutdowns. Getting businesses back online is a huge factor in recovering from the shock of the pandemic. The faster and easier businesses can reopen, the faster our economy will recover. We're not going to 'stop' the spread of the virus, and everyone will be exposed eventually, so "aggressively fighting" it with more regulations designed to stop its spread is like trying to hold back the tide.

[Commando]

You're giving Trump too much credit.

1) Most people are anti-mask because they either don't like wearing them or don't want to be told what to do. Those types of personalities break for Trump in the polls because they perceive him as being least likely to restrict their freedom (debatable, but I think that's their perception.) I doubt many people are anti-mask because they see Trump without one, but I could be wrong.

I guess there could be some coincidental overlap between Trump supporters and anti-maskers, but that's way too lopsided of a Venn diagram to attribute to happenstance. It's not just seeing Trump without one and then drawing their own conclusions. It's the constant reinforcement of 'they say masks help but that's for non-special people.' It's the idea he puts out there that (which he weakly tried to walk back a few weeks ago) masks are not masculine. It's the message that covid is overblown to make him look bad and therefore the safety measures are all quite unnecessary. It's him scheduling full on pep rallies in crowded venues with no mask requirement and no social distancing. Dude killed Herman Cain and he couldn't be less bothered about it. He's sending a message loud and clear and his zombies have received that message.

[Northwestcoug]

It doesn't take an economist to see that what brought the economy "to its heels" is plunging personal consumption due to forced business closures and the layoffs from downstream effects. From a cost-benefit perspective, we would have been far better off economically if we'd taken Sweden's approach. Their GDP took a nosedive, but primarily because they are an export-oriented economy. Sweden's personal consumption comprises only 44% of their GDP and dropped less than 2% in Q2, while ours comprises 68% of our economy and dropped nearly 15% in Q2.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have shut things down for a while, or that shutdowns aren't still justified in areas where hospitals are nearing capacity, but extended mandatory business closures were unwarranted, and caused a lot of economic damage.


No, it is not a red herring. The primary negative economic effect of the virus is a function of extended shutdowns. Getting businesses back online is a huge factor in recovering from the shock of the pandemic. The faster and easier businesses can reopen, the faster our economy will recover. We're not going to 'stop' the spread of the virus, and everyone will be exposed eventually, so "aggressively fighting" it with more regulations designed to stop its spread is like trying to hold back the tide.

Lost in all this discussion is the willingness of americans to go on living and spending like they were before the pandemic, irrespective of any mandates or forced shutdowns. Governments are not forcing new behavior in all cases. There's a significant proportion of people who are curtailing normal behavior, modifying work habits, and not sending kids to school, no matter what government leaders are doing. They realize the pandemic poses very real threats to their way of life. They're not waiting for the government to tell them when it's safe to go back to business. So IMHO, the economy is not hobbled just because of the shutdowns. The continued presence of the virus (with really no change in the prevalence for months now) is a significant factor in the depressed economy. Do a better job dealing with the virus, and more people will be willing to participate in the economy like they did before.

[smokymountainrain]

I havent ruled out voting for Trump and I absolutely loath him. My vote is Biden's to lose, but I am really afraid that he has lost his mind. If his job is taken over by Kamala Harris, as the constitution provides, then I just need to know what her positions are, not too hard to find out. But if he is propped up like a puppet with the decisions coming from some shadowy cabal, then I want to know more. He wouldn't be the first or even the second US president to govern in name only.

you know, you have more options than just trump or biden.

[Now who’s the dean?]

you know, you have more options than just trump or biden.

Nope. Not for president at least.

[Goatnapper'96]

Yes and no. A pro-regulation platform stifles growth because so many industries and businesses are federally regulated on some level.


I agree.

But while he's not shown good leadership, I don't think anyone would have prevented the pandemic or even saved many lives. I've been unimpressed with the leadership of most of our politicians.

I agree with this. A pandemic is one of the few times where the bullshit Trump says was a problem. In an emergency, which I think this pandemic qualifies as, a leader needs to be able to communicate far more specifically and rationally than Trump is able. This highlighted his biggest shortcoming and his discomfort and lack of familiarity on the subject seemed to facilitate even more irrational bullshit flowing from him.

But the response to this pandemic includes so many organizations and entities in both the public and private sector that I am skeptical anybody would do anything different materially- but the non tangible elements of power really matter. Trump is the worst President I have witnessed in my lifetime when it comes to unifying folks around some type of common goal. With better leadership I am not convinced we would be dealing with Covid any differently, but we would be much better off. Lets hope we never have to find out of President Biden could provide that better leadership cuz my suspicion is our inability to coalesce around common goals is more a reflection of our lack of common goals than it is our lack of Presidential leadership.