Trump Is Just A Terrible President, Totally Unfit For The Job

[SectionC3]

And PopGun, for what it's worth, I googled your point about Pelosi/Schumer and the "manufactured crisis."  That statement appears to have been made on January 8, 2019, in response to the circumstances at the United States' southern border.  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-schumer-accuse-trump-using-prime-time-address-manufacture-crisis-n956481; 

 

The COVID crisis arose in or about January 2020.  I haven't (and likely won't) review the balance of your points, but the first one is, among other things, misleading, wrong, and patently "fake news." 

 

Have a nice day.  

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

Don't shift the focus here. You asked for a link of a democrat doing what you are accusing Trump of. I did that. 

 

You have an agenda. Period.

 

The focus initially was on Trump.  So let's get it back where it belongs.  

 

I detest the term gaslighting, but you're doing it here.  Trump's job performance here sucks.  Tremendously.  And instead of defending it on the merits, you've elected to point to others in different positions with far less ability to address the crisis who may not have appreciated its gravity early enough.  The fact that somebody else messed up, too, doesn't excuse the fact that Trump has failed --- tremendously so -- in his response to the pandemic.  It's a point that you apparently can't contest on the merits, hence the references to usual boogeymen like Schumer, Pelosi, AOC, and Tom Perez. 

 

[billsfan1959]

9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

The focus initially was on Trump.  So let's get it back where it belongs.  

 

I detest the term gaslighting, but you're doing it here.  Trump's job performance here sucks.  Tremendously.  And instead of defending it on the merits, you've elected to point to others in different positions with far less ability to address the crisis who may not have appreciated its gravity early enough.  The fact that somebody else messed up, too, doesn't excuse the fact that Trump has failed --- tremendously so -- in his response to the pandemic.  It's a point that you apparently can't contest on the merits, hence the references to usual boogeymen like Schumer, Pelosi, AOC, and Tom Perez. 

 

 

I have debated this in great detail in the COVID-19 thread. I provided a detailed timeline and an overwhelming amount of information and evidence to show that any "reasonable person" would arrive at the conclusion that Trump had no reason to take any action no other leader in the world had taken during the timeframe you are talking about. I am not going to rehash it here. pull up the thread and read it.

 

I highly doubt it would make any difference to you. People in this thread had proven you wrong on several points; however, irrefutable evidence doesn't really mean anything to you if it counters what you would like.

 

[SectionC3]

Sorry I'm not going to back read.  Since you provided the information, it would be much easier for you to find and reproduce it that for me to look for it and guess at what you may or may not have intended to communicate. 

 

Once you locate those facts, a summary of your position would be appreciated.   Any information on how Trump didn't drop the ball with respect to important things like testing development, PPE acquisitions, and the timely implementation of adequate social distancing guidelines also would be greatly appreciated.  I'll understand your refusal to provide it as confirmation that it does not exist. 

 

Also, that's a cool picture or meme or whatever.  It's a great way to communicate!

Edited April 17, 2020 by SectionC3

[billsfan1959]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

Sorry I'm not going to back read.  Could you provide a summary?  Any information on how Trump didn't drop the ball with respect to important things like testing development, PPE acquisitions, and the timely implementation of adequate social distancing guidelines would be greatly appreciated. 

 

No. I'm not going to summarize what I already wrote. Move your mouse, click on the COVID-19 thread, and read through the pages.

 

I thought you were just intellecually lazy. Apparently, you are just lazy, period.

[SectionC3]

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

No. I'm not going to summarize what I already wrote. Move your mouse, click on the COVID-19 thread, and read through the pages.

 

I thought you were just intellecually lazy. Apparently, you are just lazy, period.

 

Ahhh, more name calling.  I'm too lazy to look for your product.  But you're not too lazy to provide something that you've already generated.  That. Makes. Perfect. Sense. 

[billsfan1959]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I'm too lazy to look for your product.  

 

Finally, something we can agree on.

 

Cheers 

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Finally, something we can agree on.

 

Cheers 

 

But you still won't bother to look it up. And your attempts at distraction by taking a prior statement completely out of context and name-calling still can't change the fact that you have failed to provide information with respect to how Trump didn't drop the ball with respect to important things like testing development, PPE acquisitions, and the timely implementation of adequate social distancing guidelines.

 

Have a nice day!

Edited April 17, 2020 by SectionC3

[Foxx]

46 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

...Trump's job performance here sucks.  Tremendously.  And instead of defending it on the merits, you've elected to point to others in different positions with far less ability to address the crisis who may not have appreciated its gravity early enough.  ...

 

question... has a leader of any country done a good job? if so, who would that be.

 

 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

 

 

Hard to believe she is taking it seriously, don't you think?

 

No shut down orders were in effect anywhere at that time. Trump's travel restriction was still letting in thousands from China, that's not proof 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

18 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I don't know.  I find it hard to believe that the media is lying when I look at clips of TRUMP'S OWN WORDS.  Perhaps we can politely disagree on the context of those words.  But viewing the "hoax" comment in context, I stand on my position.  

I've been reading your posts.  Well laid out, it's pretty obvious how you feel, but this seems like an odd place to concede.  You indicated that Trump said the virus was a hoax, cite his own words in bold print--how could there be a difference in context? 

 

On the other hand, maybe context is everything, so we should politely disagree on everything else?

 

 

[billsfan1959]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No shut down orders were in effect anywhere at that time. Trump's travel restriction was still letting in thousands from China, that's not proof 

it is absolutely proof of a Democrat not taking the virus seriously, which was what was asked and I responded to. Nancy Pelosi was aware of all of the information that Trump was on 24 February and she was encouraging people to come out and congregate.

 

He asked for proof of a Democrat not taking it seriously. That was the sole point I was responding to. I think this qualifies. 

[Chef Jim]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Damn, that’s funny.  I was doing some math in my head.

 

jim + Cali + money dude + age = stimulus check?? 

Yeah. My at home “stand desk” (I stand all day at the office) is a makeshift thing. My “desk” is on top of my files that had my tax return in it so it’s hard to access. So I finally did and noticed the dollar amount of my refund. Yeah no stimulus for me. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

49 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No shut down orders were in effect anywhere at that time. Trump's travel restriction was still letting in thousands from China, that's not proof 

Tibs, don't be disingenuous, or maybe more disingenuous(er).

 

She's in the top 5 power players in the world.  She's got extensive ties to China, she has access to virtually every piece of information at the governmental level, and for that which she is shut out of, she has people on the inside.

 

Trash Trump all you want, but you don't improve performance by taking a stand like this.  

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

question... has a leader of any country done a good job? if so, who would that be.

 

 

 

Taiwan, South Korea, and Iceland.  Arguably Germany.  I suppose Singapore, too, but the different system of government there makes for an unfair analogy. 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:

it is absolutely proof of a Democrat not taking the virus seriously, which was what was asked and I responded to. Nancy Pelosi was aware of all of the information that Trump was on 24 February and she was encouraging people to come out and congregate.

 

He asked for proof of a Democrat not taking it seriously. That was the sole point I was responding to. I think this qualifies. 

That was before there was any shut downs, stay at home orders or anything. Things changed quickly after that, at least with Democrats. Trump was still like, "farts are far more dangerous" 

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I've been reading your posts.  Well laid out, it's pretty obvious how you feel, but this seems like an odd place to concede.  You indicated that Trump said the virus was a hoax, cite his own words in bold print--how could there be a difference in context? 

 

On the other hand, maybe context is everything, so we should politely disagree on everything else?

 

 

 

The distinction on the "hoax" issue lies in the the difference between "express" and "implied."  Did Trump expressly say, "COVID-19 is a hoax?"  No.  Definitely not.  But did he characterize (or strongly imply) the virus as a hoax?  Based on the video of the rally that I watched and posted earlier, absolutely.  I don't see a semantical gymnastics exercise that permits a different conclusion, but I allowed for a contrary opinion based on the lack of an express statement. 

Edited April 17, 2020 by SectionC3

[Tiberius]

11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Tibs, don't be disingenuous, or maybe more disingenuous(er).

 

She's in the top 5 power players in the world.  She's got extensive ties to China, she has access to virtually every piece of information at the governmental level, and for that which she is shut out of, she has people on the inside.

 

Trash Trump all you want, but you don't improve performance by taking a stand like this.  

No, Nancy is fine. You are just saying nonsense 

[TH3]

1 hour ago, billsfan1959 said:

it is absolutely proof of a Democrat not taking the virus seriously, which was what was asked and I responded to. Nancy Pelosi was aware of all of the information that Trump was on 24 February and she was encouraging people to come out and congregate.

 

He asked for proof of a Democrat not taking it seriously. That was the sole point I was responding to. I think this qualifies. 

Pretty sure is is the POTUS and the Feds job to identify, prepare for and defend the US from foreign dangers....not the minority party of the US Senate and WH....

[SectionC3]

14 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Tibs, don't be disingenuous, or maybe more disingenuous(er).

 

She's in the top 5 power players in the world.  She's got extensive ties to China, she has access to virtually every piece of information at the governmental level, and for that which she is shut out of, she has people on the inside.

 

Trash Trump all you want, but you don't improve performance by taking a stand like this.  

 

Maybe all of that is true.  But she's still not the chief executive.  That's the point.  

 

With Harry S Truman, the "buck" stopped at the president's desk.  With Donald J. Trump, it's always somebody else's fault when something goes wrong.  And this situation . . . how anyone could say that it hasn't gone horribly, historically, obviously, and tragically wrong is simply beyond my comprehension.  

[billsfan1959]

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

The distinction on the "hoax" issue lies in the the difference between "express" and "implied."  Did Trump expressly say, "COVID-19 is a hoax?"  No.  Definitely not.  But did he characterize (or strongly imply) the virus as a hoax?  Based on the video of the rally that I watched and posted earlier, absolutely.  I don't see a semantical gymnastics exercise that permits a different conclusion, but I allowed for a contrary opinion based on the lack of an express statement. 

 

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Maybe all of that is true.  But she's still not the chief executive.  That's the point.  

 

With Harry S Truman, the "buck" stopped at the president's desk.  With Donald J. Trump, it's always somebody else's fault when something goes wrong.  And this situation . . . how anyone could say that it hasn't gone horribly, historically, obviously, and tragically wrong is simply beyond my comprehension.