Will Joe Biden Drop Out of the Presidential Race

[Saelune]

There were (are?) Republican "never Trump"(ers) . I don't know how their numbers compare to those that want Biden to step down. At this point though, I think anyone that believes there's a good chance Biden will step down are kidding themselves. Do you think that still a strong possibility? Would you want it?

Biden has no reason to step down. Stepping down would achieve nothing, and despite what Bernie or Bust people want to believe, Biden is more popular among Democrat voters.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that although Trump's handling of this disaster has been its own disaster, I don't think the US would have been culturally prepared even if Hillary was president. Regardless of any other policy differences, this has not only been a federal administration failure. It is a failure of government of every level across the country, and a failure of many of our citizens who refuse to do what they can to work together as a community. And the issues at the root of this failure go back decades, on both sides of the aisle, and to American culture itself.

Trump is responsible for death, but death was coming no matter how well the affair was handled.

Alot of people were going to die. Alot less if we had competent leadership. Trump has actively worked to worsen the situation, from dismantling systems and agencies that were literally designed to handle this very scenario, to dismissing science, to encouraging dangerous behavior.

Trump added kerosene to the fire.

 

[lil devils x]

Just saw a post from an anti-Trumper state something to the effect that Joe Biden could take a dump on the doorstep of an orphanage and she'll support him if it means getting rid of Trump. I've linked an article earlier in this thread of a woman supporting Biden even though she believes Tara Reade, if it means getting rid of Trump. With such enthusiastic support, I don't think Biden short of pulling an Epstein, is going anywhere. So, now I'm thinking about what will the US looks like if/when either win? And what the general election is going to look like. (With this Coronavirus, hard to tell: this is supposed to be more or less over. Lockdown is supposed to be tapering off. And it has. I think you can go to a golf course now. But just today, the law now requires face masks for entering stores. What will the conventions look like!?!?)

We already know what will happen if Biden or Trump wins. Trumps tendency to go unhinged will be far worse than it has ever been because he will having nothing to lose. He will continue to surround himself with yes men to inflate hie ego, abuse his power and wield it against anyone and everyone who opposes him regardless of if they are in his own party or not as he already has been, pull further away from science and facts, and move to further suppress all science and facts that disagree with him and promote conspiracy and unfounded accusations instead. He will continue to do whatever it takes to to secure his own interests and personal financial gain at the expense of the people. Trump will be free to continue his attack on the poor, and move to remove their food, ability to obtain housing, remove their access to healthcare and other resources as his cases and policies that are currently on hold until after the election will be free to move forward. These are not " hypothetical" they are things Trump has already put into motion that just require him a win to implement. Trumps actions will directly result in the deaths of many Americans and great suffering for millions more. Trump has made his intentions clear through his current actions leaving little guesswork, we already know what to expect..

If Biden is elected, we can expect there to be more funding, not less, for government programs to help with food, housing, childcare, student loan debt forgiveness, unemployment, and healthcare increasing the number of lives saved rather than causing more to die as would under Trump's polices. Biden would veto any attempt by either Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham to cut programs to the sick and poor ( who, mind you are currently forming coalitions to cut funding to the poor already). Biden has already stated he would restrict Saudi Arabia due to their actions in Yemen and their murder of the Washington post reporter and will work to not only not make any new contracts with them, he will work to cancel the current weapons contracts that were made under Trump.

We can expect Biden to increase funding for scientific research in all areas including both in medicine and climate science and rejoin the Paris accord, allowing the US to try and catch up to what was lost and destroyed under Trump. Under Biden we can expect him to let the scientists do their job and allow the exerts int heir fields design his policy rather than casting them aside and allowing " his genius brain" to create everything based on his " hunches and urges" as Trump has done. If not for anything else that Biden does, Biden allowing experts in their fields help create the policy rather than Trumps insane idea that his "genius brain" gives him "hunches" that know better and making that national policy that costs the tax payers millions, if not billions of dollars and lives, will make Biden the better President even if he does nothing else. Though luckily for us, Biden's plans do go further, since you know the experts designed his policy, so we have a good deal to look forward to that those experts have already come up with, including the medicare, medicaid and ACA expansion, the shifting from harmful to helpful policies that help both the environment and the economy, the increased funding in medical and research will help not only reduce the impact of the current pandemic, but also have us prepared for the next one that could hit, keeping in mind, it is even possible for the next one to hit while this one is still going on btw. I do not give Biden credit for coming up with his plans, he didn't, but him allowing experts in those fields to design the plans is what he should be given credit for, as that is actually doing his job in a competent manner rather than telling people to inject disinfectant because his genius brain came up with that and putting people further in danger and firing anyone who tells the people the truth because it makes him look bad.

I do not think Biden is that bright of a guy, but him being at least smart enough to allow the experts to make policy and influence important decisions makes him so much more intelligent, safer and competent than the moron we currently have sitting in the white house. Trump puts the lives of everyone in danger, at least Biden is smart enough not to try and make all these decisions by himself or think that his " genius brain" knows better than facts and data.

 

[Agema]

Neither conservative nor liberal is an ideology. Maybe, if you slap an "ism" to them.

Let's not play semantics here. Conservatives adhere to conservatism.

* * *

Liberalism is not to "aspire after newer [solutions]". Liberalism is a core belief in freedom of the individual which grew largely in the 18-19th centuries and has developed into several different strands. Libertarians and classical liberals usually found on the modern right are sub-divisions of liberalism, as are the social liberals usually found on the left-leaning centre. Liberalism is pro-individualism, egalitarian (at least in the concept of equal rights), pro-democratic and in favour of private property.

The Communists who rose up in 1917 against the tsar of Russia are inherently not liberals, because they patently had no respect whatsoever for the freedom and autonomy of individuals. Individual freedom was to be suppressed for the collective good (a collective good as decided by a de facto dictatorship).

Liberalism is not the "opposite" of conservatism. The USA tends to have specific definition of "liberal" to represent a certain type of egalitarian-leaning, mixed-economy social liberal that very distinctively tends to vote for the Democratic party. However, the basic tenets of liberalism run through virtually all the mainstream parties in the West.

 

[Agema]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that although Trump's handling of this disaster has been its own disaster, I don't think the US would have been culturally prepared even if Hillary was president. Regardless of any other policy differences, this has not only been a federal administration failure. It is a failure of government of every level across the country, and a failure of many of our citizens who refuse to do what they can to work together as a community. And the issues at the root of this failure go back decades, on both sides of the aisle, and to American culture itself.

Trump is responsible for death, but death was coming no matter how well the affair was handled.

True, people were going to die and the economy was going to take a hit no matter what. But how many, and how big a hit, is another matter.

Trying to deal with something like a major viral outbreak at a state level was a recipe for failure, and relevant federal departments and agencies (like the CDC) knew that full well. That's why the federal government had been looking for years at co-ordination plans at a federal level, to ensure a smooth, nationwide response. Unfortunately as the virus is building, the federal government was nowhere to be seen, contrary even to what outbreak plans it had produced. The administration was idle for weeks rather than preparing. There are rumours of various officials (including the health secretary, Azar), going round trying to metaphorically shake people into action in February and getting nowhere. It responds finally because the stock market collapsed. That mattered because Trump uses the stock market as a "rating" on his presidency such that when it takes a dive, so implicitly does he. This is Trump all round: it's all about him. Coronavirus just didn't matter until it made him look bad, and he didn't even have the foresight to see how it might. Thus the Trump administration isn't caught with its pants around its ankles, it leaves its pants around its ankles even despite being repeatedly warned to get itself ready.

What then occurs is a bewildering combination of bombast and chaos. The administration suddenly leaps into action, and pours resources into doing just something to be seen to be doing something, even when that something is in ways counterproductive (like sequestering PPE for federal stockpiles that the states need to use now). All throughout, it fires out totally inconsistent messaging: on what the public should do, or telling the states to look after themselves and take responsibility, whilst congratulating itself for all the support it's giving the states. It creates multiple lines of confused authority, with a coronavirus task force under Pence, and then apparently another taskforce under Kushner, and no clear coordination with the states. Even just recently, the utter chaos is evident that Pence says the task force is to be closed, and Trump promptly says it isn't.

Ultimately, the administration goes back to telling states to sort themselves out. The Trump administration has gone in late, flapped around frantically in total disorder and largely failed - badly. The only thing left for it do, politically, is preserve what reputation it can by abandoning nearly all responsibility and pushing it all back onto the states, hoping the state governors take the heat rather than president. That's why Trump is constantly interfering and commenting: dodging responsibility but trying to look good by judging the people he's left to make the difficult decisions.

 

[tstorm823]

Well, that makes most ideologies not ideologies. Progressives used to be about male sufferage. Now, they don’t care about it, unless someone takes it away. Some were pro-Eugenics or putting heaps of people in mental hospitals to “benefit society and those who need help’.

I see Conservative as an ideology based around maintaining tradition. Progressives are about Freedom from x. Libertarians are about Freedom to do x. And, of course, these are generalisations. For example, at a point in time, in Soviet Russia, the Conservatives would have been Communist. And the Progressives would have been Capitalists.

Right with that example, those two aren't ideologies, they are philosophies. Conservative and progressive are more perspectives than prescription. An anarchist has a prescribed system. As does a monarchist, a communist, a socialist, a fascist, a corporatist, a theocrat, etc. Most political descriptors tell you in the name what governmental system they think is best. Conservative and progressive don't do that.

Conservative and progressive are, in fact, logically identical. Conservative doesn't mean traditionalist. It's not "we do this because our parents did that so it would be wrong to do it any other way". It's "we like the good things in our country, and we know that in most cases that continuing current practices will preserve those good aspects into the future." Progressivism isn't the opposite of that, but the complement of it. "There are things we could do better, so lets try something different and see if conditions improve." Any progressive policy that proves beneficial inherently becomes a conservative policy. That is how those two relate. As Teddy Roosevelt described, wise conservatism and wise progressivism go hand in hand.

What's wrong about what you said is suggesting capitalists in communism are progressive and vice versa. Progress is about continually building up what exists into something better. Think of how people use the word progress. If you ask someone how a project is going, and they say "we're making progress", that tells you 2 things: a) they think they're in a better position than before and c) they aren't done yet. That's what progress is. It's not just better, it's also in a perpetual state of "not done yet". It always builds on what is there already. If someone wants to tear down the political establishment and replace it with something fundamentally different, they aren't progressive, they're revolutionary.

Long story short, communists in America are the furthest thing from progressive, and I wish they would stop abusing the word to hide their intentions.

 

[Saelune]

Right with that example, those two aren't ideologies, they are philosophies. Conservative and progressive are more perspectives than prescription. An anarchist has a prescribed system. As does a monarchist, a communist, a socialist, a fascist, a corporatist, a theocrat, etc. Most political descriptors tell you in the name what governmental system they think is best. Conservative and progressive don't do that.

Conservative and progressive are, in fact, logically identical. Conservative doesn't mean traditionalist. It's not "we do this because our parents did that so it would be wrong to do it any other way". It's "we like the good things in our country, and we know that in most cases that continuing current practices will preserve those good aspects into the future." Progressivism isn't the opposite of that, but the complement of it. "There are things we could do better, so lets try something different and see if conditions improve." Any progressive policy that proves beneficial inherently becomes a conservative policy. That is how those two relate. As Teddy Roosevelt described, wise conservatism and wise progressivism go hand in hand.

What's wrong about what you said is suggesting capitalists in communism are progressive and vice versa. Progress is about continually building up what exists into something better. Think of how people use the word progress. If you ask someone how a project is going, and they say "we're making progress", that tells you 2 things: a) they think they're in a better position than before and c) they aren't done yet. That's what progress is. It's not just better, it's also in a perpetual state of "not done yet". It always builds on what is there already. If someone wants to tear down the political establishment and replace it with something fundamentally different, they aren't progressive, they're revolutionary.

Long story short, communists in America are the furthest thing from progressive, and I wish they would stop abusing the word to hide their intentions.

I wish right-wingers would stop calling everyone they disagree with a Communist.

 

[tstorm823]

Liberalism is not to "aspire after newer [solutions]". Liberalism is a core belief in freedom of the individual which grew largely in the 18-19th centuries and has developed into several different strands. Libertarians and classical liberals usually found on the modern right are sub-divisions of liberalism, as are the social liberals usually found on the left-leaning centre. Liberalism is pro-individualism, egalitarian (at least in the concept of equal rights), pro-democratic and in favour of private property.

The Communists who rose up in 1917 against the tsar of Russia are inherently not liberals, because they patently had no respect whatsoever for the freedom and autonomy of individuals. Individual freedom was to be suppressed for the collective good (a collective good as decided by a de facto dictatorship).

Liberalism is not the "opposite" of conservatism. The USA tends to have specific definition of "liberal" to represent a certain type of egalitarian-leaning, mixed-economy social liberal that very distinctively tends to vote for the Democratic party. However, the basic tenets of liberalism run through virtually all the mainstream parties in the West.

All of this is correct, your assessment of conservatism as an ideology still isn't.

What's the opposite of conservatism is an interesting question. Liberal isn't it, liberal is exactly as you say. Progressive isn't it, they're complementary, not opposite. The best word I've got for it is trangressive, but that's not a word people use to describe a political stance. Which is not to say nobody behaves that way. It's a stuck point in conservative media, what to call the people on the left who aren't really liberal and aren't really progressive and aren't really communist, etc. The people whose only consistent pattern is doing the opposite of what conservatives do. I think transgressives would be the right word for that.

 

[tstorm823]

I wish right-wingers would stop calling everyone they disagree with a Communist.

I disagree with you. You're a progressive.

I don't think everyone I disagree with is a communist. But I know that the communists are trying to deceive everyone I disagree with into supporting them. What do you want? Rights for LGBT individuals that are the same as everyone else. You can work with me on that as someone who thinks those rights are good. Communists want to destroy my portion of everything you want for yourself. Don't trust them.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

Communists were the liberals against the tsar back then. But maintaining whatever tradition there is, is not an ideology. It is not specific enough to be ideology.

No? No they weren't? Not even the mensheviks of the RCP were liberals?

Constitutional Democratic Party - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Saelune]

I disagree with you. You're a progressive.

I don't think everyone I disagree with is a communist. But I know that the communists are trying to deceive everyone I disagree with into supporting them. What do you want? Rights for LGBT individuals that are the same as everyone else. You can work with me on that as someone who thinks those rights are good. Communists want to destroy my portion of everything you want for yourself. Don't trust them.

I don't trust the party that makes opposing gay marriage one of its primary political stances. You know, Republicans.

 

[Kuplung]

No? No they weren't? Not even the mensheviks of the RCP were liberals?

Constitutional Democratic Party - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We are here to expand each others perspective.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

We are here to expand each others perspective.

Sure but at the same time, please consider the fact that historically and currently, communists are very much opposed to liberals, despite what people in this forum may have you think. Hell, communists themselves have their own 'rightist' and 'leftist' tendencies (though they differ in approach, theory and praxis so much that they form their own separate movements) within that space.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I haven't read through the whole thread yet, but it looks like this should be old news by now if OP is from Monday? It's going to be a thing until she's either paid off or otherwise silenced somehow.

Gotta love politics and the fact that most power seeking human beings are insufferable and will abuse that power whenever they feel they can get away with it (until election time at least).

 

[Kuplung]

As to tradition, I find it pretty infuriating that some Conservatives claim that since something has worked well up to this point, it will suit society in the future. So, I agree. Maintaining tradition shouldn’t be an ideology. But it is. The amount of times a I’ve heard judeo-Christian tradtion as a justification for an idea is ridiculous. As a generalisation, Conservative see it as a trial and error process that leads to the best ideas coming to the top. Scientifically, the existence of a tradition proves its validity. Anyone you talks about ‘when I was young, it was better when ....’ falls in this category. Which can be a lot of Liberals

It is not a useless -let's call it- ideology. It is part of the defensive mechanism, which made us successful as a species. We are programmed to withhold every ounce of energy we have unless it is necessary.

A change in social structure, lifestyle, or even habits requires energy. Learning playing the piano costs huge amounts of energy until it becomes properly ingrained into your brain.

What I want to point at is, that we wouldn't have a considerable advance in anything, if there wouldn't be a steadfast force in society clinging to the bitter end to solutions which work. I am sorry, but I do agree with the notion that liberals fight for the new rules, conservatives will maintain and make them efficient.

This is perfect as it is. Every solution proposed by liberals has to be sound/ powerful enough to "convince" the conservative safety lock. Otherwise, we would spin around our own heels to every notion of novelty, in every few years, achieving the total amount of zero efficiency.


Thus, as you put it :

your idea for reform has a negative point already against it, as it doesn’t not exist and hasn’t proven its worth.

It is completely normal. We have a finite amount of Earth under us, we don't have all the resources and time to give a chance to every half-baked idea 2 generations to prove itself. Until every new idea has the potential to throw us back for decades/centuries or could be a waste of time for that matter, they must start with default minus one point.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Now if this was Trump or any republican candidate, their mental state would be getting a lot more mainstream coverage and criticism.

My biggest problem with politics has always been agendas and far from equal representation and media bias, let alone lack of honesty. Integrity has to start with reporting if the people are expected to listen let alone believe anything they say.

Otherwise we end up with people making videos like this


LMAO

 

[Agema]

All of this is correct, your assessment of conservatism as an ideology still isn't.

What's the opposite of conservatism is an interesting question. Liberal isn't it, liberal is exactly as you say. Progressive isn't it, they're complementary, not opposite. The best word I've got for it is trangressive, but that's not a word people use to describe a political stance. Which is not to say nobody behaves that way. It's a stuck point in conservative media, what to call the people on the left who aren't really liberal and aren't really progressive and aren't really communist, etc. The people whose only consistent pattern is doing the opposite of what conservatives do. I think transgressives would be the right word for that.

Conservatism operates usually with two definitions.

One basically means the modern American right wing and represents individualism, private enterprise and social conservatism. The opposite of this would be liberalism, because that's the equally sloppy generalisation for the American left. I don't find these meanings of either conservative or liberal useful or interesting outside the narrow remit of US politics.

Conservatism more generally represents a belief in natural hierarchy, social order, and belief in the traditional ideas, ways of doing things, moral and social values, and institutions of a country, where change should be carried out slowly and with great consideration. There's a whole stream of conservative thinking and philosophy: for instance the classic British conservative thinker, still much referred to today, would be Edmund Burke. Conservatives from different times and places may necessarily vary heavily on policy: a Soviet conservative in the 1960s clearly had some very different ideas about how a country should be run than a 1960s American conservative. However in terms of their beliefs in preserving the existing processes, values and institutions of their respective countries, and the attitudes and philosophies that shaped that belief, they had a lot in common, too. The most appropriate opposite of this form of conservatism would be radicalism.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't trust the party that makes opposing gay marriage one of its primary political stances. You know, Republicans.

Opposition to homosexuality is not some pillar of the Republican Party, it's just a reflection of the era. It can change, and certainly will. I'm not suggesting you should be a Republican right now if Republicans don't represent your interests best. But communists don't represent your interests at all.

The most appropriate opposite of this form of conservatism would be radicalism.

The problem with that though is it's the wrong connotation. People see radical and they think extreme change. What I want to describe is the person whose political philosophy doesn't actually make sense, the person who just wants change for change's sake. It doesn't have to be extreme change, they just reflexively blame the status quo for every bad thing in the world. The "if things were different, they would be better" crowd. It's not a good philosophy worth dissecting, but it is so prominent a mindset that it deserves a name. A progressive is someone trying to make the world a better place through reasoned policy changes. That doesn't properly describe the people who call themselves progressives, but their policy suggestion is "tear down the establishment and everything will work itself out".

 

[Saelune]

Opposition to homosexuality is not some pillar of the Republican Party, it's just a reflection of the era. It can change, and certainly will. I'm not suggesting you should be a Republican right now if Republicans don't represent your interests best. But communists don't represent your interests at all.

I am not a Communist and Republicans hate LGBT people. You know this and are intentionally lying about it.

 

[lil devils x]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that although Trump's handling of this disaster has been its own disaster, I don't think the US would have been culturally prepared even if Hillary was president. Regardless of any other policy differences, this has not only been a federal administration failure. It is a failure of government of every level across the country, and a failure of many of our citizens who refuse to do what they can to work together as a community. And the issues at the root of this failure go back decades, on both sides of the aisle, and to American culture itself.

Trump is responsible for death, but death was coming no matter how well the affair was handled.

Had to break this up into two posts due to character limits:
Adding to What Agema has stated above, How the Federal government handles this determines the outcome on every level. We have failures on every level because of the failure in leadership and action from the beginning. Everything has a cause and effect and we are dealing with the effect of Trump's decisions now on every level. Let me break it down here by what should have been done and how that would have changed what we are dealing with now:
Pre 2019:
*What should have been done: They should have listened to the experts and not only allocated more resources and funding to the National stockpile, they should have also expanded funding into viral and antibody research due to the well known threat of incoming new viruses expected to be greatly increased due to climate change and the ever pressing issue of antibiotic resistance. This would have had the US in a better position to respond immediately buying the US time to make further preparations while they could draw from the national stockpile to address any threat when they first become aware of it.
* In order to maintain a large National Stockpile, the US should already have a system in place that they have a constant flow of equipment in and out in order to maintain a well stocked, safe supply.
Instead of individual Nursing homes, hospital systems and clinics buying in small quantities from retail suppliers of medical equipment and supplies, the US should buy at a quantity discount from wholesalers, and then provide at cost to the nursing homes, hospitals and clinics. If all the hospitals are getting their equipment directly from the National stockpile and the National Stockpile is constantly getting more in from suppliers, they would not have the " expiration" and safety issues they do by not doing so. This is an issue easily resolved to help bring down healthcare equipment costs in the US while also maintaining what is needed in an emergency. This should have been done long ago, not an afterthought when they ignored the problem and then fail to have what they need when they need it.
*Healthcare access should have been expanded, so that everyone can afford to have the necessary tests needed that would determine whether or not a new virus is present earlier, rather than wait for us to be notified from elsewhere. A Pandemic such as this could have started anywhere, it could have started in the US, but it takes much longer to detect if we do not fund the physicians and scientists doing so and allow access to them by the general public.
This way the US would have been more prepared and in a better position overall to act quickly in the event of a Pandemic.
In December of 2019- January 2020:
*Federal officials should have been examining what was happening in China and elsewhere and expanding their stockpiles as Germany and other nations did. The US government should have been working with other governments hashing out an international response to the problem instead of isolating and ignoring what the other nations were working to do together. We should have had numerous plans already in place and ready to go depending on what course the virus took. The government should always be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. In the event it fizzled out early, they could use the increased supplies in other underdeveloped nations as a form of international aid if they were unable to be used in the US.
* The US should have taken the tests WHO offered and used them until they could get a better test made if they were not satisfied with it. The WHO test should have served as a stop gap measure so that they would not lose time in being able to act.
*The federal government should have taken control over the response immediately and when they realized that there were global shortages of much needed PPE and equipment, they should have implemented the Defense production act to make PPE and supplied it first to the cities being hit the hardest and then also to the States to distribute to the general public in addition to the front line healthcare, police and paramedics. Just as China had their first responders and street cleaners in hazmat, the US should have been providing these things this entire time as well.
*At the time Trump called for the US to "ban" travel from China, he should have actually implemented a federal lockdown and restricted all travel from all countries, not just China. Instead of banning it all together, there should have had quarantine procedures and testing in place for those coming in, not just from China, but all other nations including the UK, which for some strange reason he initially left out because it hurt his business to do so.
*The national lockdown should have applied to all US states and expressed that it was only temporary while the US federal government works to get the needed PPE made and distributed to communities across the US. That we would be able to start easing restrictions as soon as we could get the PPE to the people and could have safety measures in place to help keep people safe. It should have been made clear from the beginning that this was serious, and not a hoax and that this is necessary to save American lives.
*The federal government should have called on the National guard to help get supplies created via the defense production act and distributed to the hardest hit areas first and then distributed supplies by risk assessment to each region.
* The federal government then should have called upon Governors, mayors and all city and state officials to help organize groups on the local level to help distribute supplies in each neighborhood.
When these guys came out to protest, they should have been met by their city officials and the national guard asking them to stop standing around making things worse, to put a mask on and help distribute supplies needed to where they need to go. The BEST way to put a stop to this sort of nonsense is give them something to do to help make it end faster. Chances are, they will take you up on it and get to work to end it if they are involved rather than out stirring up trouble. Whether they are unloading trains and trucks or driving around and leaving them on doorsteps, they can make a difference between helping and hurting just by giving them a better option than their previous idea. This results much less distrust and improves understanding when they feel they are a part of the solution.
*The worst part of the Pandemic would fizzle out faster due to everyone having protection they need when they are forced to go into public, allowing us to open up more faster and not having the unnecessary deaths in the process.
ALL of these actions would have ensured that we save many more American lives than we have lost. Yes, we will all die eventually, it is a matter of how, why and when. There is no reason why we have to lose so many due to this when if we actually make the right decisions to keep it from happening like this. We can even have MORE open, not less if the federal government just provided the necessary PPE to help prevent the spread instead of looking at the Pandemic as a way to make a buck and spreading unfounded conspiracies and promoting madness instead of doing what was actually needed here.

 

[lil devils x]

Continued: ( there is a spoiler below but for some reason you have to highlight it to be visible?)

Spoiler: What Trump did wrong since we already know this

From 2016-2019 Prior to Pandemic:
*What Trump did: Trump cut funding and resources for medical and scientific research, leading to having less programs and researchers dedicated for viral research being able to predict and counter new viruses, such as COVID-19. Trump fired the guy on his National security counsel that told him that Pandemic preparation needed more resources allocated. Instead of allocating the resources his own experts told him were needed, his administration cut them, disbanded his pandemic response team and mixed in some of their members with another team that had them focus their efforts on bio weapons instead of pandemics. He made no new preparations to be able to handle a pandemic, at all.
* Trump worked to reduce healthcare funding, rather than increasing it so that less people had access to healthcare needed to be able to detect new viruses earlier.
* Trump did not allocate the resources necessary to maintain their pandemic response stockpiles, and ignored calls to do so.
*Trump ignored early warnings of a new virus breaking out in China calling it a hoax, saying it would go away and not to worry about the "Chinese virus", promoting an irresponsible xenophobic response and an increased attacks on Asian Americans regardless of if they were born her or not or whether they were even related to anyone in China.
*Trump belatedly put together a " Pandemic response team" after the fact, then put unqualified people on the team that had no business being there, like his son in law who then matters worse rather than better. Luckily, Trump started to partially listen to Fauci after he put up a fight to make him listen, but was also making it more difficult for everyone involved to do their jobs at every level while overriding all their decisions with his " hunches".
* Trump's son in law hired an unqualified team whose primary focus was to make allocate contracts to Trump allies and supporters to source the resources needed to the states and hospitals and ignored what the seasoned experts in the field were telling him causing further delay and bunk contracts that were never fulfilled. This team was found to be lacking on every level and were even responsible for the failed $69 million NY contract that tied up state money while they were needing these supplies on the front lines. They were referring people for contracts based on their praise of Trump on twitter rather than their actual capabilities to come through or legitimacy.
*When Trump was criticized for his failings on the National Stockpile, he lied, made excuses, told the states to fend for themselves, had his son in law come out and tell people that the Federal stockpile was for them to use, not for the states ( who happen to be the actual people here, including first responders). Then he directed FEMA to get stockpiles by any means necessary, so they then took it from first responders on the front lines instead of get their own. Yes the Federal government told the states to get their own, when they did, Trump's people then stole it from them instead and put it in the warehouse to be used later leaving hospitals, clinics, care and veteran's homes without when they needed it most. Leaving many those who already paid for these things in limbo with their money tied up until they could get it back and then worse than square one because of the time lost in the process.
* From the beginning, healthcare workers pleaded for more PPE to protect themselves, instead of acknowledging this, he said that the Federal government was not a "shipping service" and claimed it was up to the states to figure out. When even his own supporters called on him to act, he finally implemented the defense production act to work on ventilators, but was extremely slow going in regards to PPE. Trump didn't even understand the difference between Respirators and Ventilators and thought they were talking about the same thing he already did and became angry and belligerent when they tried to discuss it with him. He then accused Healthcare workers of stealing PPE to avoid trying to supply them what they needed. He tries to silence anyone who disagreed with him on this no matter how desperate the need for PPE became on the ground. He then moved to fire the inspector General for reporting that they failed to meet the mass shortages of PPE because Trump was afraid of it making him look bad.
*Trump's encouraging of conspiracies and division is making it more difficult for first responders to do their job and putting lives in danger. People are confused about what is and isn't due to his constant mixed messages and failed leadership. Trump calling it a hoax is giving legitimacy to those spreading misinformation and putting more lives at risks. This combined with his poor decisions, inaction and little action combined is leading to far more deaths than would be otherwise be expected.