"When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected."
Fauci
Although Trump did many things that I agreed with. His decision to believe Fauci and ignore any other voices could possibly have been the worst.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Fauci was indeed one of Trump's biggest mistakes among the few he made (in comparison to his predecessor and successor). I've often wonder if his keeping him around was to deflect the criticism he would certainly have gotten. Taking on Dr. Atlas for a while, I think, was to provide another point of view, and he should have dropped Fauci and Birx and kept Atlas, whose positions proved true.
Honestly, in hindsight, I could argue that Trump's attachment to Fauci could be enough to disqualify him. He ran on the premise of hiring the absolute best people, and he clearly failed to do so. Fauci being a prime example. How much damage was done by following Fauci's recommendations, we'll probably never know.
Oh, I think we have a pretty good idea of just how much damage there was.
I wouldn't question your willingness and ability to argue most any reason to disqualify Trump 😅.
My problem is pointing to "flaws" which aren't particularly relevant or significant. I'm well aware he's a flawed man, and I'd wouldn't argue against him possibly being more flawed than most. One of his flaws is that his flaws aren't hidden because of another flaw that he, more than most, believes himself to be a good man. Or perhaps he just doesn't care that he's somewhat easy to read. What you see is really what you get with this guy and my problem is I'm not as concerned about that which doesn't really matter when the state of the nation is on the line.
That aside, I would suggest that the drugs developed remain a laudable move, until we see how the goal was perverted. It became clear rather early that the elderly were most at risk, and the risk/reward calculation was denied everyone soon thereafter. Had the drugs been encouraged mostly for those most at risk of serious repercussions, instead of forcing them on absolutely everybody, it would be hard to regard the speedy development and use of the drugs as a mistake.
Fauci was indeed a huge mistake...arguably the worst Trump made during his time in office, never mind just with regard to covid.
But this goes to the notion that he somehow broke his promise to hire the best. It's not a broken promise, it's another flaw in which with regard to running the government, he wasn't all that good at identifying the best to hire. To call it a broken promise suggests intention to hire less than the best. That is, despite knowing they were substandard or inferior, he chose to hire them nonetheless. Why would anyone do that? Why would he?
My problem is trying to ignore or minimize the flaws which are significant.
I agree that the accelerated development of the "vaccine" was a laudable move at the time. Unfortunately we have much more information now and can understand that the blind adherence to Fauci, the pushing of the "vaccine", and other decisions have proven to be much less laudable with more information.
Trump promised to hire the best, and Fauci is just one example of him failing to do so, the fact that you and he can come up with excuses for this broken promise doesn't mean that the promise wasn't broken. This is an excellent example though. Who Trump hired was the one campaign promise that was 100% within his control, and he just couldn't live up to it. Why, who knows. Political payback, poor judge of character/competence. naive, pressure from others, lack of care, I could go on with plenty of possibilities.
No one in a position to hire...no one not a box-checking moron lefty or a true bigot...would seek to hire less than the best available. It's a promise of sorts which is a given. It's an unspoken guarantee of purpose. But it's a subjective thing and many factors might not be easily determined to insure the hire is the best available after all, including one's own ability to be effective in finding and securing the best. A choice may seem a certainty, only to find after hiring that the choice was a bust. How many Heisman Trophy winners, 1st round draft picks and the like turned out to be total failures? Does each constitute another broken promise? With all the variables involved in finding and securing "the best", it then is clearly not 100% within his control. Only the effort to find what appears to be the best available is.
It's not a f**king excuse, Craig, as if Trump needs one in this case because he did what he promised...what all who hire promise to do. What "the best" turned out to be doesn't mean at the time of hiring the perception wasn't sincere on the part of Trump or anyone who hires.
So I don't need to come up with excuses and I don't when I respond to your attacks on the guy. You just seem to like collecting points you can use to justify your dislike...to an extent that I must demand all whom you support are perfect. It's quite enough to recognize Trump is not perfect, that as incredibly good as he was as president, he wasn't perfect in the job. Why anyone feels the need to go beyond that to disparage him makes no sense.
As to hiring Fauci, given the circumstances, I don't know how much pressure there was to get someone in to lead that charge, how much time he was able to take to make the decision, to vet the choices and all that crap. How many presidents thought, "What if there's a pandemic during my time in office? Who should I tap for that gig?" For the next half-dozen presidents, it'll probably now be a more prominent thought. One thing's for sure, Fauci was a wasted draft pick. But that failure isn't nearly as bad as the failure to jettison his sorry ass.
So just call it a failure and leave it at that, because that is indeed the accurate assessment of the situation.
It was a failure, and Trump did make the choice to rely on Fauci. I'm not quite sure why you have such a problem with a balanced look at Trump's presidency. The reality is that, despite your excuses, Trump clearly hired people who were not the best. There may be reasons for that, or there may be excuses, but it's simply reality. My objections to Trump haven't changed since 2015, and his behavior has only reinforced my previous concerns. Given the reality that we haven't even gotten into the primaries, that Trump's polling numbers are getting worse, and the fact that several of his large donors have pulled out, it seems to be the height of idiocy to make a commitment to Trump as the best option at this time. I understand that you disagree, and that you haven't offered any compelling reasons for me to change my mind at this time. But if you want to keep up this tactic and think it'll be effective, I can't tell you not to.
There are no "compelling" reasons that could possibly change your mind on this issue, because you simply don't like the guy and don't want him winning again. I have no desire for his success which comes anywhere close to this level of hard-headedness.
As to a balanced look at his presidency, I don't see yours being balanced at all, given you have this tendency to latch so firmly onto anything which validates your dislike for him. I simply respond to that and you view it as "having a problem". My objectivity is not a problem at all, but a proper quality for assessing such things.
Here, the issue is the Trump's hiring of less than the best as evidence of a broken promise. It's not a broken promise because as I said, it's common for all sorts of people in all sorts of contexts, fields and such to find the "best" which was hired was not the best at all. Each sought to succeed in that endeavor and the seeking stands as a promise which should not be held against him as a broken one. And by the way, can you link to anything where he said, "I promise to hire only the best", or are you simply suggesting that because he stated he intended to do so then we can regard that as a promise?
"Given the reality that we haven't even gotten into the primaries, that Trump's polling numbers are getting worse, and the fact that several of his large donors have pulled out, it seems to be the height of idiocy to..." insist that any of that proves he's NOT "the best option at this time." You just want it to be so because the thought he might be worries you. I've not made a claim one way or another beyond simply saying he's got a proven track record, despite you list of failings which do little to negate the successes. The reality is that he did a great job and it would have been even better were it not for his failings. I would go so far as to say one could argue that with a larger list of failings, he's done more good in four years than have those with far fewer failings with twice as much time in office. But that's a reality-based reason you'll choose to regard as less than compelling.
Based on the evidence, I see no compelling reason why I would support Trump to the exclusion of any other candidate at this early date. He has done nothing that suggests that the reasons I didn't support him in 2106, have been resolved.
My position has nothing to do with liking him, and everything to do with advancing a conservative worldview. My disagreement with you on this topic doesn't mean that you are correct.
Yes, a balanced look at any presidency includes examining what was done poorly, as well as what was done well. Yes, I will pay attention to the failures of a president that I theoretically agree with, because I have high expectations. I expect Biden to do stupid things, so when he meets my expectations, it's not worth getting too worked up about. When Trump sets expectations high, then doesn't deliver it's a bigger deal.
Again. your Dan-like attempts to tell me what I think, want, or believe are even more tiresome coming from you.
If you think that this is a good way to persuade, I can't help you.
I might have accidentally deleted one of your comments while I was flushing the crap out of my moderation folder.
Post a Comment