https://news.yahoo.com/trump-pennsylvan … 47736.html
This article stirred me up a bit. He says Democratic Governors are moving too slowly to reopen their economies? Governors have an obligation to consider health and safety of their state's residents as part of any reopening plan. Trump: sounds like he is more anxious to reopen to save his own political fortunes and have others bear the risk that he himself won't take; he being checked for infection on a daily basis.
As head of state, he was responsible for a coordinated plan to deal with this crisis, which certainly did not come.
Open first, safety second? With that attitude, he deserves to lose next fall and he will bring it upon himself, as always.
Once again a self-centered, petty, cowardly and generally despicable example of humanity.
I guess you all can say that I am just venting.......
Every move that Trump makes is for his own benefit, in his mind. That is his primary motivation for everything. It is the most defining characteristic of his being and it will never change.
"Governors have an obligation to consider health and safety of their state's residents as part of any reopening plan."
Do they also have an obligation to consider the wealth of their state's residents as part of any reopening plan? As in "Do I have enough wealth to feed myself and my children tonight? Can I keep a roof over their head?"
Personally I see that as big a concern as the health and safety. Along with the wealth to maintain police, fire, education, power, water and sewer services, food supplies, etc. Health and safety is one facet, but there are others that are pretty darned important and will, at some point, take top priority.
And who is Trump to imply that these Governors need to be tutored by him on that aspect of their obligation?
Trump is not in a position and is the last to be trying to assess the intent of the people that are on the front line relative to the respective states that they govern and the methods and their thoughtful consideration of all aspect of reopening plans.
It is that stable genius again, who seems to know things without knowing them? How do the rest of us poor mortals hope to compete?
And who is Trump to imply that these Governors need to be tutored by him on that aspect of their obligation?
I see many governors begging for government guidance. Don't you?
"How do the rest of us poor mortals hope to compete?"
Perhaps you need to get off the Trash Trump bandwagon and put on your thinking cap. How much can the economy stand without a near complete collapse? What will happen when trillions of dollars are injected into the economy? What will happen when states and cities run out of money to keep water/sewer treatment plants repaired and running? All valid questions, IMO, but questions that you don't seem to want to consider in your opinion that Trump knows nothing and the people (that wish to continue the lockdown) know everything. It may simply be another case of liberal socialism, where there is always an unlimited amount of resources, or it may just be dislike of Trump. You tell me.
Wilderness, Trump is notorious for dissing the experts in favor of his intuition. That intuition has no support data as for any source of origin
Death trumps when considering any future economic activity.
Trump's attacks were purely partisan and self oriented and hardly in the vein of "what is good for the country".
I don't like people who claim to be expert without experience, nor credentials, I don't like the concept of intuition, I want proof that you know what you are talking about. Why should I listen to them over people who possess these qualities? My wife plays on intuition all of the time and it infuriates the hell out of me.
What do the experts say? Their opinions are the only ones I am interested in.
Trump is not Govenor of Michigan, do you think that this Governor is going to have a better understanding of this crisis relative to her state over Trumps' ideas and accusations?
Trump is not qualified and is more interested in his political fortunes than having the states and their governors strike the proper balance between a rampaging virus and the need to get the economy back on track.
And, yes, distrust and dislike of Trump based on a great deal of evidence does have something to do with my opinion. Just being honest.
Then I would have a strong suggestion for the governors asking for federal help: quit asking and figure it out on your own.
Do you think they will listen and act, or just keep asking for help? If they DO listen, will we have 50 different plans all operating at once (meaning one or more will not go nearly far enough and crank it all back up again? Would it be better to generally follow Trump's plan (put together with the help of experts), adjusting for local conditions?
"Would it be better to generally follow Trump's plan (put together with the help of experts), adjusting for local conditions?"
This is a thought I have had. I think that, generally speaking, it is the governors that should make the call about reopening because they know their situations better than any Federal bureaucrat could.
Why not follow the president's plan, but on a locality-based agenda? For instance; if a state has high population density/high virus case locales vs. low-population/low virus case locales why not open them differently?
Relax the restrictions in those low-number locales and maintain stricter standards in their high-density area?
New York City is an epicenter and probably needs stricter controls, upstate NY isn't. So why one standard for the entire state?
I think this thought applies to all states, and even more so in the less populous states.
I think that's exactly what needs to be done. Take the basic plan, modify it to fit local conditions, perhaps right down to counties or cities, and implement it.
It won't be perfect (far from it) and will face problems from some, particularly smaller, localities that cave to demands to simply open everything, but it still seems the best way to go.
Not far from me is a small tourist town that is letting it be known that it is re-opening for business...in a limited way. Check, they say, before travelling to visit, for not everything is open - they are well aware what a large influx from a more infected area would do and are trying to give the people there, people that absolutely depend on summer tourism, a fighting chance to survive.
The President already had a pandemic team in place at the time of his inauguration that he himself summarily dismissed as unessential.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor … 064881002/
Trump says that this is the equivalent of a war. What war have we ever waged that occured without leadership and proper coordination in regards to obtaining the needed resources from Washington?
But, that is past tense. I support the idea that you suggest for the way forward. BUT, I expect Trump to CLING to the idea that his suggestions and guidance to the states are in tight coordination with experts in the field sparing me his hunches, intuition, etc, that have no scientific or otherwise. factual foundation.
"What war have we ever waged that occured without leadership..."
Might start with those in the middle east, where the President basically gave an overall direction and stepped back to let the military do its job. Thinking primarily of Desert Storm.
Trump has set basic guidelines he (and the experts) find reasonable and left the details to those with "boots on the ground". Just as was done with Desert Storm.
Wilderness, the President is commander and chief of the armed forces. He can subordinate levels of tactical and strategic planning activity to the Joint Chiefs of Staff's etc. but he is ultimately responsible for any deployment of our armed forces around the world. DOD is part of the Executive Branch.
There is no such thing as "standing back", it is "the buck stops here". I think of Desert Storm as well, I don't see a military that operated independently of the desire and direction set by the President.
Unlike the military under the direct control of the President, the Constitution give the states a certain amount of autonomy. Here, the President may be more effective in encouraging the support of his approach through leading by example rather than through explicit direction applicable to DOD.
You're right - he gave the military his desire and direction. Exactly as Trump has done with the COVID crises. Or did you not see his plan of attack on re-opening? That was desire and direction - it is up to the governors of individual states to set the details, just as it was up to the military to set the details in Desert Storm
There is a time and place to nitpick every detail; our recovery is neither the time nor place. Not with the extreme variables throughout the country; locals must make the final determination, albeit with guidance from the feds. Which it has.
As far as a "certain amount of autonomy" to the states, the Constitution is far more concerned with limiting federal power than listing what states can or can't do. Trump appears to understand that (though he seldom likes it) better than you do.
From the article:
"A recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll found 59 percent of Americans believe states such as Georgia, Florida, Minnesota and Texas are “moving too fast” to reopen, while only 33 percent say the pace is “about right.” Just 8 percent say it’s “too slow.”
I'll speak to Florida, I highly doubt there is a majority that feel things are moving too fast... I think the majority of the state feels fine with how things are opening up. The county where I live, people have been living as if there was no stay-at-home in effect ever put in place. Locals are out and about everywhere, all the time, until 8pm.
"“These folks are choosing to desert in the face of the enemy, in the middle of a war we Pennsylvanians are winning,” Wolf said. “They need to understand the consequences of their cowardly act.”
Comes across as an idiot to me, I know I wouldn't be voting for him.
Ken, it does depend which county where it is you reside. In my county, here in Florida, it is "mixed". But, I don't live in either Dade or Orange, Tampa/St. Pete or Jacksonville. There is a correlation between large population centers and rates of infection.
I know that we have had more reported cases than Texas which is more heavily populated than Florida. Who knows, because Texas is so large an area people are not in as close proximity over larger spaces, that may account for the difference.
Do we really have this thing under control? Death and dying seem inevitable as part of the course, but is there really value in opening gyms, restaurants, bowling alleys, etc?
Restaurants have made arrangements for take out or delivery. That is a wise compromise and start. I stand with Dr. Fauci that a rush to open without taking account of rates of infection and danger of a backslide in reduction of infections and deaths is a fool's errand.
First, his tweets were uncalled for, and I can see where it made many angry. It is clear the governors are responsible for the well being and safety of their citizens and were left to device their own plans to reopen their state.
" As head of state, he was responsible for a coordinated plan to deal with this crisis, which certainly did not come."
I must disagree that he didn't offer a plan to the governors, a guide with suggestions from Dr. Fuaci and Dr, Birx on what to consider when opening up their states. He actually did. I have added a link that provides the phase three plan that provides a clear tutorial where Dr. Birx laid out at a press conference. The plan is comprehensive and very detailed. So perhaps not fair to say his administration did not offer a plan. The plan was put together by Fauci and Birx. Hopefully, you will take the time to listen to the three-phase plan.
The plan clearly puts safety first open second.
I can see your frustration and need to vent, But, be fair and realize the task force did their job providing a good plan.
It is clear Trump has a two edge problem. Keeping the economy closed could be devastating to many. It seems some can't wrap their heads around that. The cure could be much worse than the diseases. In my view, the president must think of all the people, not just the ones that can afford to stay at home.
I wish the Gov in my state (Michigan) would have used the three-phase plan from the task force, it was well thought out, and I trust the Doc more than I do this Gov. She through a blanket plan down that makes little sense in many parts of the state. She has inflamed our population and caused dissension.
"The President already had a pandemic team in place at the time of his inauguration that he himself summarily dismissed as unessential."
Tsk, task. Did you look into this Cred?
Even your link speaks to the streamlining effort being John Bolten's initiative, and that the "disbanded" unit was simply streamlined and merged with two other biodefense units.
"“It is true that the Trump administration has seen fit to shrink the NSC staff. But the bloat that occurred under the previous administration clearly needed a correction. … One such move at the NSC was to create the counterproliferation and biodefense directorate, which was the result of consolidating three directorates into one, given the obvious overlap between arms control and nonproliferation, weapons of mass destruction terrorism, and global health and biodefense. It is this reorganization that critics have misconstrued or intentionally misrepresented. If anything, the combined directorate was stronger because related expertise could be commingled”
. . .
There is disagreement over how to describe the changes at the NSC’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense in 2018. The departure of some members due to “streamlining” efforts under John Bolton is documented. The “pandemic response team” as a unit was largely disbanded."
"As we’ve written before, in 2018, the administration did eliminate a key position that would have been involved in such a response — the senior director of the NSC’s Office of Global Health Security and Biodefense. But that doesn’t mean the responsibilities of that office were eliminated."
. . .
"Parkinson also said the claim that the NSC team was eliminated is “false,” saying, “former and current National Security Council officials have repeatedly said the team working on biodefense is still at the NSC.”"
. . .
"The Washington Post reported in May 2018 that then-National Security Adviser John Bolton dissolved the NSC’s Office of Global Health Security and Biodefense in a reorganization effort. Rear Adm. R. Timothy Ziemer left his post as senior director of that office and wasn’t replaced."
. . .
"The Post said this was part of a “reorganization” by Bolton and quoted an NSC spokesman as saying “global health, global health security and biodefense” would be addressed “under the new structure.” The Atlantic also reported at the time that some team members were shifted to other groups, and others took over some of Ziemer’s duties. "
Bolton, Bolton, Bolton. Streamlined, consolidated, reorganized . . .
Do you really want to stand on your statement that Pres. Trump "himself summarily dismissed' the unit as "non-essential"?
You are beating a dead horse, I fear. This story has been repeated enough times that those that want to believe it do so without any doubts and anything to the contrary is simply dismissed, unheard and without consideration.
Well, Ga, are you really going to believe John Bolton and the administration who everyone acknowledges botched the preparation and appropriate response to this pandemic for 2 months? Bolton in his defensiveness decides to stick a barb at the left.
Perhaps, Bolton's reassigning had in fact weakened the response that was previously provided for and expected during critical moments.
Instead of cutting out the "bloat" maybe they, instead, destroyed vital components previously put in place for a reason. Lack of foresight, poor judgement, you tell me which one?
So, how strong was the reorganization under Bolton? Not strong enough, obviously.
President Trump has never belonged to this league composed of Presidential timber, with just another example of poor judgement and shortsightedness and this is not the first time.
Diluting this original pandemic team could well have been responsible for the ineffectual results and "catch up" tactics we now apply to this pandemic.
No, he did not disband it on his own, but he certaintly presided over it to his continued discredit. So, my answer to your last question is "mixed".
As just another loathsome rightwing chicken hawk, I have never been terribly impressed with Bolton.
Trump did not care about this matter as he had clearly dismissed this threat pandemic initially over several weeks, never really taking the time to carefully consider the ramifications of anything in its regard.
"maybe they, instead, destroyed vital components previously put in place for a reason."
What "vital components" and what reason that could not be satisfied with what was created? You are the one saying that, not GA - it is up to you to explain.
"Diluting this original pandemic team could well have been responsible for the ineffectual results and "catch up" tactics we now apply to this pandemic."
Or the opposite could equally be true - again, it is up to you to explain why it is responsible for not getting done what needed to be done.
I have repeatedly ask, over these and other platforms, just what YOU (general "you", not specifically Credence "you") would have done differently in the same circumstances. So far the only answer I've received is "I don't know but Trump did wrong". Can you give a better one? Had Credence been president with the same circumstances and knowledge, what would Credence have done differently?
That is a fair question, Wilderness, what would President Credence II have done differently regarding U.S. response to the pandemic?
Excerpt from a CNN article:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/22/politics … index.html
'Control' of the coronavirus- Trump says:
"This is a very contagious -- this is a very contagious virus. It's incredible. But it's something that we have tremendous control of." -- March 15 coronavirus press conference.
Facts First: Experts said the US did not have the virus even close to under control. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said at this same briefing after Trump left the room: "The worst is, yes, ahead for us. It is how we respond to that challenge that's going to determine what the ultimate end point is going to be. We have a very, very critical point now."
Trump claimed the next day that he had not meant the virus was under control -- that he had meant "we are doing a very good job within the confines of what we're dealing with." But he had repeatedly made clear on previous occasions that he was talking about the virus when he spoke of "control." He said in late January, soon after the US announced its first confirmed case, that "we have it totally under control." He said in late February, when the number of confirmed US cases was in the low dozens, that "we have it very much under control in this country."
Being cautious rather than rash and reckless. I would have put my existing pandemic team on the job to assess the situation to allow me and my administration to get ahead of the curve, rather than be caught with our britches down, so to speak. That is the reason they are there. I certainly would not tell the public that things were "under control" not having any basis for making that statement nor giving the public such assurances.
Expectations of the pandemic Trump says:
"...but we're having to fix a problem that, four weeks ago, nobody ever thought would be a problem." -- March 11 exchange with reporters at coronavirus meeting with bankers
Facts First: The US intelligence community, public health experts and officials in Trump's own administration had warned for years that the country was at risk from a pandemic. Some of the warnings specifically mentioned the possibility of a coronavirus pandemic. And when this particular coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was identified in China in early January, health experts quickly cautioned it could be a major problem around the world.
"This was foreseeable, and foreseen, weeks and months ago, and only now is the White House coming out of denial and heading straight into saying it could not have been foreseen," Harvard University epidemiology professor Marc Lipsitch, director of Harvard's Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, said on Sunday.
"Almost two months ago, experts were saying that the new virus in Wuhan was potentially a global threat," Lipsitch said in an email. "One month ago, experts were saying that it was likely to be pandemic, and the White House's response was that this was under control, despite the fact that the US's lack of testing was demonstrably giving a false picture of the extent of infection."
Again, President Credence would have listened and take the warnings of those trained to know of such things seriously, confer with them and take action on their recommendations, early and quickly. President Credence respects scholarship and experienced expertise as he himself is not an immunologist.
Obama and coronavirus testing
Trump claimed twice that he had reversed an Obama-era decision that had impeded testing for the coronavirus. On the first occasion, Trump said, "The Obama administration made a decision on testing that turned out to be very detrimental to what we're doing. And we undid that decision a few days ago so that the testing can take place in a much more accurate and rapid fashion. That was a decision we disagreed with."
Facts First: There is no regulation from President Barack Obama that impeded coronavirus testing. The Obama administration did put forward a draft proposal related to lab testing, but it was never implemented. When asked what Obama administration decision Trump might be referring to, Peter Kyriacopoulos, chief policy officer at the Association of Public Health Laboratories, said: "We aren't sure what rule is being referenced."
Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, who was principal deputy commissioner of the FDA under Obama and is now professor of the practice at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said, "There wasn't a policy that was put into place that inhibited them. There was no Obama policy they were reversing."
President Credence knows that the people want results, not excuses. Where is the plan, a plan crat d between the President and immunological experts? Blaming a predecessor is not reassuring to a public that is instead asking what are YOU doing since you are now in charge?
Just a few examples of what I would do.
Also, I would use a little common sense and listen to my professional staff regarding snake oil nostrums, imbibing disenfectants or suggesting that children return to school this fall in defiance of the medical professionals that say that the vector of infection increases with children, their infecting more vulnerable parents and seniors. I think that reasoning is easy to understand.
President Credence in coordination with economists and immunologists would craft an 3rd alternative to shutting down all economic activity vs. letting the virus spread spiral out of control.
"I would have put my existing pandemic team on the job to assess the situation to allow me and my administration to get ahead of the curve, rather than be caught with our britches down, so to speak."
Which Trump did <get an assessment from the CDC, who told him not to ban any travel>.
"Again, President Credence would have listened and take the warnings of those trained to know of such things seriously, confer with them and take action on their recommendations, early and quickly."
Would you really? Knowing that the recommendation would cost millions of Americans everything they had built in a lifetime, that Americans would go hungry, that we would go deeply in debt, that inflation is very likely to increase, that people would die for fear of visiting a doctor/hospital, that people would go hungry, that children would not get the education so necessary in today's world, would you have taken all those recommendations without regard to consequences? Or would you, as President responsible for the whole picture tried to put something together from dozens or hundreds of experts in a wide variety of fields?
But bottom line is that you would have listened to people other than what Trump did, and taken whatever action they recommended without regard to any consequences other than that of controlling any potential (and it was only potential at the time) viral outbreak. This isn't what I was actually asking for; I asked for what actions you would have taken that Trump did not, and vice versa. All you have provided is the insinuation that the "pandemic team" was not overly bureaucratic, that you would not have pared it down, and that it would have, without a question, provided advice advantageous in the entire picture (although you do not know how it would have differed), from controlling a possible pandemic to maintaining the maximum number of jobs, to maintaining a food supply to controlling inflation to keeping people pleased to go to a hospital to keeping hospitals in good fiscal condition...and so on and so on. That was NOT the task of the pandemic team, yet you would have taken any recommendations they gave.
Not a reasonable answer, IMO, for it is not what a President is for. If it were, we would have separate "presidents" in the form of various committees, with total control in different situations.
Your PS is more in line with what I asked...except that it says nothing except you would have done better without giving any specifics. You have all the data Trump did - what would the specifics have been? What is the alternative? (Besides just what was done in partially shutting down economic activity what partially controlling the virus spread.)
Overall I am satisfied with Trumps, and my states, response. There were errors - of course there were errors - but overall I'm satisfied at this point. You're not, but have been unable to specify anything but "I would have listened to other people and done other things". Not what the question was.
"No, he did not disband it on his own, but he certaintly presided over it to his continued discredit. So, my answer to your last question is "mixed".
Well, it seems that at least we stuck a fork in this one:
". . . that he himself summarily dismissed as unessential."
The rest of your comment can be left as an opinion which may or may not be right.
by Credence2 14 months ago
see this Market watch article for background:https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump … 2020-04-13I think that Trump again is out of bounds, making demands that State Governors "open" the economies of their respective states regardless of each Governor's responsibility for the...
by Scott Belford 8 months ago
This forum is to catalogue the many lies, distortions, deceptions, and misinformation Donald Trump has made about his administration's effort to combat the coronavirus. He is doing his damnedest to make you think is doing a 10 out of 10 job when, in fact, it is more like 3 or 4 out of 10...
by Credence2 15 months ago
Why would he suggest this?While younger people are generally more resilient to the ill effects of the virus, they are not completely safe nor immune.How do you get kids to maintain 6 feet distance from one another?People seem to forget that asymtomatic children can still pass the virus to...
by crankalicious 15 months ago
After basically admitting that state governors had the authority about when to reopen their states and backing off his claim of having the authority to make them open at the will of the President, President Trump issued the above tweets.Given that protests in Michigan pitted people wanting the...
by Sharlee 11 months ago
Sept 2, 2020 --- President Donald Trump issued a five-page memo to direct federal officials to search for ways to cut funding from several Democrat-run cities, that are experiencing ongoing violence and protests.In the memo, sent to AG William Barr and the Director of the Office of...
by Sharlee 12 months ago
Please Joe say it ain't so...The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse to...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|